IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Md.: Healthcare technology companies’ patent and unfair-competition claims largely survive former licensees’ dismissal challenge, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

Plausible assignor-estoppel and deceptive-marketing allegations preserved most claims, but a patient-readmission notification patent covered abstract information processing without an inventive concept.

A federal district court in Maryland has allowed two healthcare technology companies to pursue infringement claims involving two patents and a Maryland common-law unfair-competition claim against former licensees, based on plausible assignor-estoppel and deceptive-marketing allegations. However, the court dismissed with prejudice a third infringement count because the readmission-notification patent claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Audacious Inquiry LLC v. Chesapeake Regional Information System For Our Patients, No. 1:25-cv-02264-JRR (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2026)).

Former collaborators. Audacious Inquiry LLC began as an information-technology consulting firm. Collective Medical Technologies, Inc. (CMT) is its sole member. Chesapeake Regional Information System for Our Patients, Inc. (CRISP) and CRISP Shared Services Inc. (CSS) are nonprofit corporations involved in exchanging healthcare information.

Under a 2009 services agreement, Audacious helped CRISP develop products including the Encounter Notification Service (ENS), which supported the exchange of patient-encounter information. The complaint alleged that CRISP initially owned the technology and discoveries developed under that agreement.

Audacious acquired the ENS technology and associated intellectual property in 2014, including rights in three pending patent applications and patents deriving from them. CRISP received licensed rights to continue using the technology. A CRISP officer who was also a named inventor separately assigned application rights to Audacious in 2014 and 2018. The 2018 assignments included commitments not to challenge validity and to assist in obtaining and enforcing patent protection.

The lawsuit concerned three patents assigned to CMT. U.S. Patent No. 10,938,962 (the ’962 patent) covered combining healthcare data from different sources into a single, dynamically updated display. U.S. Patent No. 11,114,194 (the ’194 patent) covered processing patient information and notifying providers about readmissions. U.S. Patent No. 12,047,475 (the ’475 patent) covered filtering and routing healthcare information according to users’ requirements.

In 2022, Audacious and CRISP amended their acquisition agreement to license the technology to CSS for renewable one-year terms. CSS gave notice in May 2024 that it would not renew, and the license expired in September 2024.

The complaint alleged that, shortly after giving notice, the nonprofits launched CRISP Event Notification Delivery (CEND), a competing product, and sought to move ENS users to it. Audacious and CMT contended that CEND infringed their patents and that the nonprofits used their former licensing relationship to establish a competing market presence.

The dispute also involved a Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration contract previously served through ENS. After the agency sought new proposals in May 2024, CSS submitted a competing bid based on CEND. The agency announced its intended award to CSS in January 2025, and Audacious’ administrative protest did not prevent the award. Audacious and CMT alleged that misrepresentations about CEND’s capabilities and development history caused the loss of that business.

The companies sued in July 2025, alleging patent infringement and unfair competition. The nonprofits moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Assignor estoppel. Before considering eligibility, the court addressed whether CRISP and CSS could challenge the ’962 and ’475 patents after participating in the earlier assignments. Assignor estoppel can prevent someone who transfers patent rights for value from later contradicting the assurance of validity implicit in that transfer.

Under Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 594 U.S. 559, 576–77 (2021), the doctrine applies only when inconsistent representations implicate fair dealing. It may not apply to assignments of future inventions, materially broadened claims, or challenges based on an intervening change in law.

The nonprofits argued that Audacious had been an equally situated joint owner. But that position depended on disputed facts and documents that did not conclusively contradict the allegation that CRISP originally owned the discoveries. The court could not resolve that disagreement on a dismissal motion.

Nor were the assignments adequately characterized as promises covering inventions not yet developed. The complaint traced existing applications through later assignments and alleged that the issued claims were narrower than the assigned claims. That distinction mattered because assigning an existing invention could imply an assurance of validity, unlike an advance promise to assign inventions not yet conceived.

The nonprofits’ reliance on a subsequent change in eligibility law also failed at this stage because the 2018 assignments postdated the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice decision.

These allegations justified declining to reach eligibility for the ’962 and ’475 patents. The court expressly reserved whether assignor estoppel actually applied and permitted renewed challenges on a fuller summary-judgment record.

Abstract information processing. The court separately evaluated the ’194 patent under the Alice framework, which asks whether a claim concerns an abstract idea and, if so, whether additional features supply an inventive concept.

Representative claim 1 received healthcare information in different formats, extracted and standardized patient information from admission-discharge-transfer messages, compared messages to calculate readmission timing, and sent notifications when specified conditions were met.

The court found these steps abstract. They described collecting, organizing, analyzing, and transmitting information using computers as tools. Restricting the information to healthcare encounters did not change that conclusion. Nor did the promise of more timely or accurate notifications explain how the claimed system improved computer functionality.

The distinction was between improving a computer’s operation and using an ordinary computer to perform a useful task. The claim described the latter: it identified the information to process and the desired notification, without specifying a sufficiently concrete technological improvement.

No inventive concept. Audacious and CMT argued that the method addressed inaccurate information and excessive notifications through an unconventional technological solution. The court found that the claim still described desired results through ordinary processor and memory operations.

It distinguished Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300–02 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where a particular distributed arrangement made conventional components operate unconventionally. The ’194 patent’s claim lacked a comparable structural limitation or explanation of changed computer operation.

The examiner’s earlier withdrawal of an eligibility rejection did not shield the patent from judicial review. The court found expert testimony unnecessary to resolve the claim-language issue and concluded that amendment would not cure the identified invalidity. It dismissed the ’194 infringement count with prejudice.

Unfair competition. The remaining claim alleged more than unauthorized use of patented technology. Audacious and CMT accused CSS of misrepresenting CEND’s capabilities, notification volume, and development history to obtain the Florida healthcare-agency contract.

Under Real Time Medical Systems, Inc. v. PointClickCare Technologies, Inc., 131 F.4th 205, 225 (4th Cir. 2025), Maryland unfair-competition law protects businesses against unfair methods while preserving legitimate competition. The alleged deception of a major customer plausibly crossed that line.

Although some allegations rested on information and belief, the complaint supplied supporting details about the bidding timeline, competing product, and Audacious’ second-place score. The court also declined to treat disputed statements from the administrative proceedings as facts defeating the complaint.

Federal patent law did not preempt the claim because it alleged additional deceptive conduct, not infringement alone. The court therefore allowed both remaining patent counts and unfair competition to proceed, without deciding whether infringement or deception had actually occurred.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-02264-JRR.

Judge: Rubin, J.

Attorneys: Brian Burgess (Goodwin Procter LLP) for Audacious Inquiry LLC. Jarren Neil Ginsburg (Foley & Lardner LLP) for Chesapeake Regional Information System For Our Patients.

Companies: Audacious Inquiry LLC

Cases: Patent MarylandNews