Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Optum, Inc.

There is a significant discrepancy between the case metadata provided in the prompt and the information found through web searches for the specified case number, 1:23-cv-00160. The prompt states the case is "Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Optum, Inc." and involves US patent 11809431. However, web searches for case 1:23-cv-00160 consistently identify the parties as Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc., involving patents 10,061,812, 11,144,554, and 11,151,142, with Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves presiding.

Per the operating rules, the case metadata in the prompt is authoritative. Therefore, the following overview is based on the authoritative metadata provided:

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement litigation, Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Optum, Inc., centers on alleged infringement of US patent 11809431. The plaintiff, Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc., is a subsidiary of Parallax Health Sciences, Inc., an innovative biomedical healthcare company. Parallax Behavioral Health focuses on proprietary solutions in behavioral health, including digital health and remote patient monitoring, and has developed "patent pending technology (R.E.B.O.O.T)" which reportedly includes predictive, progressive behavior analytics and goal optimization software. The defendant, Optum, Inc., is a major American healthcare company and a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. Optum provides a wide range of services, including technology services, pharmacy care services, and direct healthcare services across three main business segments: Optum Health (care delivery), Optum Insight (data, analytics, and technology), and Optum Rx (pharmacy benefit management).

The sole patent asserted in this case is US Patent 11809431. A direct technical sketch of this specific patent in the context of this lawsuit or related to behavioral health could not be found, as search results for this patent number generally refer to "Process and system for depolymerizing plastic." This further highlights the discrepancy with the prompt's provided patent number. Assuming the patent is related to Parallax Behavioral Health's stated business, it would likely pertain to behavioral health technology, predictive analytics, or remote patient monitoring, but specific details linked to 11809431 in this context are not available. The accused product, service, or technology of Optum, Inc. that is allegedly infringing upon this specific patent is not publicly identified in available information for a case matching the prompt's parties and patent number.

The case is active in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely because many major U.S. technology and pharmaceutical companies are incorporated there, making it a mandatory venue for suits against them after the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision. The court is known for its experienced patent bench, with judges conversant in claim construction and complex technical litigation, contributing to docket reliability and a mature body of patent-specific precedent. The procedural posture indicates that Optum's motion to stay discovery pending IPR was denied on May 17, 2024. The notability of this case would stem from its focus on behavioral health technology within the vast healthcare market, potentially involving the intersection of digital health solutions and large-scale healthcare service providers. However, due to the discrepancies in the provided case number and associated details in public records, specific notable aspects beyond the parties' general industry involvement could not be definitively identified.

It appears there is a discrepancy in the provided case information. The case number 1:23-cv-00160 in the District of Delaware corresponds to the lawsuit Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc., which involves U.S. Patents Nos. 10,061,812, 11,144,554, and 11,151,142. This case was filed on February 13, 2023, and a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint was denied in part and granted in part on May 20, 2024.

The provided prompt identifies the case as Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Optum, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent 11809431. With the current information, it is not possible to accurately detail the legal developments for Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Optum, Inc. using the case number 1:23-cv-00160, as that case number refers to a different patent infringement litigation. Therefore, I cannot provide the requested chronological list of legal developments for the specified Parallax v. Optum case.

My apologies, but without direct access to the PACER docket for case 1:23-cv-00160, I cannot definitively identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc., nor can I state their specific roles based on public web searches alone. While several prominent Delaware law firms and their patent litigation attorneys, such as Stephen B. Brauerman and Ronald P. Golden III of Bayard, P.A., are known for their work as local counsel in patent cases in the District of Delaware, the web search results do not explicitly link these individuals or their firm to the plaintiff in this specific case.

To provide the requested information with certainty, access to the official court docket is required to review the appearances filed by counsel for Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. Therefore, I cannot provide a list of the plaintiff's attorneys, their roles, firms, or specific experience relevant to this exact case without fabricating or inferring beyond what is verifiable through the provided search capabilities.

As of June 6, 2026, public web searches, including those targeting legal news outlets and general firm profiles, did not definitively identify the specific counsel of record representing Optum, Inc. in Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Optum, Inc., case number 1:23-cv-00160, in the Delaware District Court.

Identifying specific attorneys and their roles (lead counsel, local counsel, etc.) for an active patent infringement case generally requires direct access to the court's electronic filing system (PACER) to review the docket entries, particularly notices of appearance. Without direct PACER access, this information cannot be reliably sourced and cited.

It is common practice for defendants in the District of Delaware, especially those with out-of-state lead counsel, to retain local Delaware counsel. However, without access to the official docket, the names and affiliations of these specific attorneys for Optum in this particular case cannot be provided.