IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Teladoc must face patent owner’s infringement lawsuit over diabetes management platform, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The complaint plausibly alleged that Teladoc's diabetes management platform practices patented patient-monitoring technology and adequately stated post-suit induced infringement claims.

A federal district court in Delaware has denied Teladoc Health, Inc.'s third motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit accusing its Livongo diabetes management platform of infringing four patents directed to computerized patient monitoring and goal-tracking technology. The court held that Data Health Partners, Inc. plausibly alleged direct infringement by identifying the accused products, explaining how they perform the same functions as the patented systems, and mapping claim limitations to publicly available information. It also concluded that the complaint adequately pled post-suit induced infringement because Teladoc received notice of the asserted patents through the litigation and allegedly continued the accused conduct thereafter (Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00160-JCG (D. Del. Jul. 23, 2026)).

Dispute. Data Health Partners, Inc. develops and owns patents relating to computerized systems for monitoring patients, tracking individualized treatment goals, collecting health data from multiple sources, and automatically generating alerts based on patient progress. Teladoc Health, Inc. provides virtual healthcare services and, following its 2020 merger with Livongo Health, offers Livongo's diabetes management platform and connected blood glucose monitoring products.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent Nos. 11,144,554 (the ’554 patent), 11,151,142 (the ’142 patent), 11,675,791 (the ’791 patent), and 11,809,431 (the ’431 patent). The patents generally describe systems that collect patient data, establish individualized goals, evaluate progress toward those goals, and automatically communicate alerts when intervention is warranted. Data Health alleges that Teladoc's Livongo diabetes management platform and Livongo Blood Glucose Meter perform these same functions and therefore infringe the asserted patents.

The litigation has already undergone several rounds of pleading challenges. Data Health originally asserted two patents in February 2023. After Teladoc twice moved to dismiss, the court rejected challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to the eligibility of the asserted patents but dismissed pre-suit willful infringement claims in May 2024. Data Health subsequently filed a second amended complaint, adding the ’791 and ’431 patents while continuing to assert infringement of the ’554 and ’142 patents. Teladoc then filed its third motion to dismiss, arguing that the amended complaint still failed to plausibly allege direct and indirect infringement.

Rule 12 waiver. As a threshold matter, Data Health argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) barred Teladoc from raising infringement pleading challenges that could have been asserted in its earlier dismissal motions.

The court disagreed. It found that the second amended complaint contained new factual allegations not present in the earlier pleadings, including expanded infringement claim charts and additional explanations mapping the accused products to the asserted patent claims. Those additions constituted new factual allegations concerning infringement and, therefore, permitted Teladoc to challenge the amended complaint notwithstanding its earlier Rule 12 motions.

Direct infringement. Teladoc argued that Data Health merely repeated claim language, grouped multiple limitations, and relied on conclusory assertions without explaining how the Livongo platform satisfied the patent claims.

The court concluded that the complaint satisfied the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards and the Federal Circuit's decision in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, 4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Although detailed proof is unnecessary at the pleading stage, a complaint must plausibly explain why the accused product infringes.

According to the court, Data Health met that burden by specifically identifying the Livongo diabetes management platform and Blood Glucose Meter as the accused products and alleging that they perform the same essential functions as the patented systems. The complaint alleged that the platform collects real-time patient data, evaluates that data using individualized patient profiles, tracks progress toward customized goals, and automatically generates alerts when patient conditions warrant intervention. It also attached claim charts comparing publicly available information about the Livongo platform with representative claims of each asserted patent. Accepting those allegations as true, the court concluded that the complaint provided fair notice of the infringement claims and plausibly connected the accused products to the asserted claim limitations.

Indirect infringement. Teladoc also sought dismissal of Data Health's induced infringement claims, arguing that the complaint failed to identify any direct infringement by customers, failed to explain how Teladoc's instructional materials encouraged infringement, and merely recited the legal elements of inducement.

The court rejected those arguments as well. Having already determined that the complaint adequately alleged direct infringement, it held that the prerequisite for pleading inducement had been satisfied.

The court further concluded that the pleadings adequately alleged post-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. Data Health alleged that Teladoc had knowledge of the ’554 and ’142 patents at least since service of the original complaint and knowledge of the later-issued ’791 and ’431 patents through the filing of the second amended complaint. The complaint further alleged that, despite that knowledge, Teladoc continued encouraging customers to use the accused products through manuals, instructions, and marketing materials.

Relying on prior District of Delaware decisions recognizing that a complaint may provide the requisite notice for post-suit induced infringement when followed by an amended complaint, the court held that the allegations were sufficient to support claims based on Teladoc's continued conduct after acquiring knowledge of the patents. Whether Data Health ultimately can prove those allegations is a question for later stages of the litigation, the court explained, but dismissal at the pleading stage was unwarranted.

Outcome. Concluding that the second amended complaint plausibly alleged both direct infringement and post-suit induced infringement and that Teladoc's procedural arguments lacked merit, the court denied Teladoc's third motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the patent infringement action to proceed.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-00160-JCG.

Judge: Choe-Groves, J.

Attorneys: Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) for Data Health Partners, Inc. Cameron Paul Clark (Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Teladoc Health, Inc.

Companies: Data Health Partners, Inc.; Teladoc Health, Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews