Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc.

Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc. is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The plaintiff, Data Health Partners, Inc., describes itself as a digital therapeutics company founded in early 2022, which develops and markets technology aimed at improving behavioral outcomes and goal mastery, such as its CompassCoach GPT platform, powered by its "REBOOT" technology. Data Health Partners asserts that it owns the patents-in-suit by assignment and actively seeks to enforce its "extraordinarily valuable family of patents." The defendant, Teladoc Health, Inc., is a prominent American telemedicine and virtual healthcare company, offering a wide range of services including general medical care, mental health support, and chronic condition management. The core of the dispute centers on Teladoc's Livongo Blood Glucose Meter and its associated diabetes management platform, which Data Health Partners alleges directly, indirectly, and willfully infringe its asserted patents.

The case involves four U.S. patents: US11675791, US10061812, US11144554, and US11151142. Patent US'791, titled "System and Method for Tracking Progression Toward a Customized Goal," describes a system for monitoring progress against tailored objectives, collecting user data, and issuing alerts based on goal attainment. Patent US'812, titled "Platform for Optimizing Data Driven Outcomes," focuses on a system that establishes provider and client accounts, defines desired outcomes, compiles performance data, and automatically triggers alerts when data deviates significantly from set thresholds. Patents US'554 and US'142, both titled "Platform for Optimizing Goal Progression," relate to networked platforms designed to track goal achievement, particularly for individuals with special or behavioral needs, by enabling providers to establish treatment plans, monitor data, and adjust interventions.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:23-cv-00160-JCG), initially assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews, but now presided over by Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, sitting by designation. Delaware has become a favored venue for patent litigation following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, largely because many corporations are incorporated there, and the district boasts significant judicial expertise in patent law. A notable aspect of this case is the court's denial of Teladoc's motion to dismiss based on Section 101 (abstract idea) in May 2024. Judge Choe-Groves ruled that a representative claim was directed to the non-abstract idea of improving patient goal monitoring and outcomes, a significant win for the patentee given the challenges in asserting software-related patents. The litigation also gains prominence due to the accused product's connection to Teladoc's substantial $18.5 billion acquisition of Livongo in 2020, highlighting the strategic importance of this technology within the digital health sector. As of the current date, there is no public information readily available regarding any parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO involving these patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc.

Case Number: 1:23-cv-00160-JCG
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Filed: 2023-02-13
Status: Active

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Data Health Partners, Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit against Teladoc Health, Inc. on February 13, 2023.
• The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,675,791, 10,061,812, and 11,144,554 by Teladoc's Livongo Blood Glucose Meter and diabetes management platform. While the prompt lists four patents, the court documents available refer to three patents being at issue at this stage.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to Dismiss (12(b)(6) for patent eligibility under Alice/pre-suit willful infringement): Teladoc Health filed a motion to dismiss Data Health's amended complaint. Teladoc argued that the asserted patents recited an "abstract idea" and were therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and also sought to dismiss pre-suit willful infringement claims.
• Motion to Dismiss Outcome: On May 20, 2024, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court denied in part Teladoc's motion to dismiss the direct infringement claims, finding that a representative claim was "directed to the non-abstract idea of improving the monitoring of patient goals and outcomes," satisfying Alice step one. The Court granted in part Teladoc's motion, dismissing Data Health's pre-suit willful infringement claims for the asserted patents.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• The case summary indicates that a Claim Construction Hearing was held in February 2024. However, the specific Markman order defining the claim terms does not appear in the readily available search results at this time.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No specific strategic discovery milestones are readily apparent from the public search results beyond the general progression of an active case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• The case is still active and has not yet reached trial.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The May 20, 2024, ruling on the motion to dismiss partially narrowed the claims but allowed the direct infringement claims to proceed.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) using the provided patent numbers (11675791, 10061812, 11144554, 11151142) did not immediately yield any active or completed IPR or PGR proceedings. Therefore, no parallel PTAB proceedings with a direct effect on this litigation are identified at this time.The patent infringement litigation Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc. (Case No. 1:23-cv-00160-JCG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on February 13, 2023, and remains active. The case concerns allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,675,791, 10,061,812, and 11,144,554 by Teladoc's Livongo Blood Glucose Meter and diabetes management platform.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2023-02-13): Data Health Partners, Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint against Teladoc Health, Inc. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,675,791, 10,061,812, and 11,144,554.
• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (2024-05-20): Teladoc Health filed a motion to dismiss Data Health's amended complaint, arguing that the asserted patents claimed an unpatentable abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and also sought to dismiss claims of pre-suit willful infringement.
  • On May 20, 2024, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court denied in part Teladoc's motion regarding the direct infringement claims, concluding that a representative claim was directed to the non-abstract idea of improving the monitoring of patient goals and outcomes, thus satisfying the first step of the Alice test for patent eligibility. The Court granted in part Teladoc's motion, dismissing Data Health's pre-suit willful infringement claims related to the asserted patents.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing (February 2024): A Claim Construction Hearing was held in February 2024. However, the specific Markman order detailing the court's construction of claim terms is not readily available in the public search results.
• Present Posture: The case is currently active, with direct infringement claims proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following the partial denial of Teladoc's motion to dismiss.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: A search for parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings related to the asserted patents (11675791, 10061812, 11144554, 11151142) did not yield any active or completed proceedings. Therefore, no such parallel proceedings are currently impacting this litigation.

Data Health Partners, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from several law firms, including local Delaware counsel and lead counsel specializing in patent litigation.

Plaintiff's Counsel:

• Stamatios Stamoulis (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Butsika (formerly Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC)
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience: Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial law matters. He previously worked at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C., focusing on intellectual property litigation. He has litigated patent infringement cases extensively in the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Texas. Mr. Stamoulis is recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.

• Richard C. Weinblatt (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Butsika (formerly Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC)
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience: Mr. Weinblatt is also listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in District of Delaware patent cases, indicating his involvement in intellectual property litigation.

• Rodger D. Smith II (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP is a prominent intellectual property litigation firm in Delaware, often serving as local counsel in complex patent disputes. The firm is known for its deep knowledge of the Delaware federal judiciary and its significant experience in patent litigation.

• Allan A. Joseph (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL
  • Office Location: Miami, Florida
  • Experience: Mr. Joseph is a partner at Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, a firm that handles intellectual property litigation, among other complex litigation matters. The firm is noted for its experience in complex, high-stakes litigation in various areas, including intellectual property.

Based on available information, these attorneys have appeared on the docket representing Data Health Partners, Inc..

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Let me dig deeper into the docket entries and firm confirmations.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Teladoc Health, Inc.

Bottom line: Teladoc is represented by Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as Delaware counsel (Rodger D. Smith II and Cameron P. Clark) working with Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP as its out-of-state/lead counsel, which entered the case in April 2023 via four pro hac vice admissions (Michael V. Solomita, Stephanie DeBrow, Stephen Guzzi, Gabriel Culver). No Teladoc in-house attorney is identified in any publicly available filing I could retrieve.

Delaware counsel (counsel of record / local)

Pro hac vice counsel (non-Delaware / lead)

Admitted by order of Judge Andrews on April 3, 2023 (D.I. 8, "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael V. Solomita, Stephanie DeBrow, Stephen Guzzi, and Gabriel Culver," filed by Rodger Smith for Teladoc); Solomita's PHV status was docketed for electronic noticing on April 20, 2023.

Sourcing and evidentiary caveats

• The clearest primary-docket support for the current defense lineup is D.I. 8 (Apr. 3, 2023) and its so-order (reproduced on Dockets.Justia and in the Patexia docket excerpt), which names all four PHV attorneys for Teladoc and identifies Rodger Smith as the Delaware filer.
• The May 21, 2024 IP Law Daily (Westlaw VitalLaw) report on Judge Choe-Groves's opinion lists "Rodger Dallery Smith, II (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Teladoc Health, Inc." The July 28, 2026 IP Law Daily report on the denial of Teladoc's third motion to dismiss lists "Cameron Paul Clark (Arsht & Tunnell LLP) for Teladoc Health, Inc." (the "Arsht & Tunnell" shorthand for Morris Nichols). Both are secondary-source attributions, but they are consistent with the docket.
• Sealed / unretrieved material: I could not pull a current PACER docket sheet directly (Docket Alarm/Justia snapshots stop in 2024 and Patexia's extract ends with mid-2024 entries). Accordingly, I cannot rule out that additional PHV counsel (or a change of lead trial counsel) appeared between mid-2024 and the January 2026 Second Amended Complaint / July 2026 opinion; the 2026 press coverage names only Delaware counsel. No in-house Teladoc attorney (e.g., Teladoc Legal/IP department) appears in any filing I retrieved — Teladoc's in-house team, if involved, has not entered an appearance.

Contradictions with the prior sections (flagged)

1. Rodger D. Smith II was misattributed. The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Rodger D. Smith II (Morris, Nichols) as plaintiff's local counsel. The docket shows the opposite: Smith filed the April 3, 2023 PHV motion on behalf of Teladoc Health, Inc. (D.I. 8), and Westlaw's report attributes him to Teladoc. Morris Nichols is defense-side local counsel in this case.
2. Plaintiff's counsel has changed, and the prior section is stale. The earlier section lists Stamatios Stamoulis and Richard C. Weinblatt (Stamoulis & Butsika) and Allan A. Joseph (Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph) for the plaintiff. The 2024 and 2026 docket/press records instead show Brian E. Farnan and Michael Farnan (Farnan LLP) as Data Health's Delaware counsel, with Barry Barnett and Monica Daegele admitted pro hac vice in November 2023 (D.I. 23–24). The Stamoulis/Weinblatt and Fuerst Ittleman entries appear to be a case of misattribution or an earlier/incorrect record.
3. Patent set has changed. The previously generated sections describe three patents ('812, '554, '142). As of the operative Second Amended Complaint (filed Jan. 6, 2026), Data Health asserts '554, '142, '791, and '431 (U.S. 11,809,431) — the '812 patent is no longer asserted and the '431 patent has been added. The prompt's metadata list ('791, '812, '554, '142) therefore no longer matches the live pleadings. Teladoc's third motion to dismiss was denied by Judge Choe-Groves on July 23, 2026 (No. 1:23-cv-00160-JCG), which is a materially later development than the May 20, 2024 ruling described in the existing sections.