US 10061812

US Patent 10061812, titled "Platform for optimizing data driven outcomes," was filed on March 14, 2014, and issued on August 28, 2018. The inventors are Lisa A. Marshall and II James Gaynor. The original assignee was Parallax Behavioral Health Inc. The current assignees are Data Health Partners Inc and Shahla Melamed, with the latter receiving assignment via a judgment order.

The abstract describes a system, method, server, and computer-readable medium for tracking outcome-specific data. It involves receiving input to establish accounts for providers serving clients, storing these accounts on a server, and assigning clients to providers based on administrator selections. Data associated with clients, received from providers via computing or communication devices, is then compiled and presented visually upon a user request.

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets did not return any specific cases directly naming US Patent 10061812.

The independent claims of US Patent 10061812 are summarized below in plain language:

Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a method for tracking outcome-specific data. It involves:

1. Receiving information to set up accounts for healthcare providers who serve clients. These accounts are stored on a central server.
2. An administrator then assigns each client to one or more of these providers.
3. Data related to each client is collected from the assigned providers using computing or communication devices that are connected to the central server.
4. This collected data is then compiled and displayed visually (e.g., in graphs) when a user requests it.

Independent Claim 11 (System Claim):
This claim defines a system designed for tracking the achievement of goals for individuals. It includes:

1. Computing and communication devices that connect to a server through one or more networks (e.g., a cloud network).
2. The server is configured to:
   • Receive information to set up accounts for multiple providers serving individuals.
   • Assign each individual to one or more providers based on an administrator's choices.
   • Compile data about each individual that is received from the providers via the connected computing or communication devices.
   • Present this compiled data visually when a user requests it.
3. A database connected to the server, which stores the accounts, user permissions, system settings, and all the collected data. This database is a relational database management system capable of data mining to identify "best practices" associated with individuals based on the provider data.
4. The server is also configured to recommend these identified "best practices" to providers when an individual's data suggests they would be relevant.

Independent Claim 18 (Controller/Computer Readable Medium Claim):
This claim describes a controller (which includes a processor and memory) or a computer-readable medium that stores instructions. When these instructions are executed by the processor, they cause the system to:

1. Receive input to establish user accounts for providers who serve clients.
2. Assign each client to one or more providers based on administrator selections.
3. Compile data related to each client that is received from the providers using computing or communication devices connected to a server.
4. Present this compiled data visually in response to a user request.
5. The instructions further enable the system to recommend best practices to providers based on historical success with clients.
6. The system is also configured to receive data through various collection methods, including task analysis, intensive trial teaching, interval recording, time recording, frequency recording, percentage data, and a reinforcement recorder.
7. The controller is accessible via mobile devices, computing devices, and a web interface.

The search results do not directly list litigation cases specifically for US patent 10061812.

Result from Unified Patents mentions an IPR case IPR2024-00618 filed against US10061812, which was Not Instituted - Merits. This is an administrative proceeding before the PTAB, not a district court litigation.

The other search results discuss different patents (e.g., 8,370,543, 9,914,365), a class action lawsuit regarding PACER fees, or general information about searching PACER and Unified Patents. The CAFC cases mentioned (e.g., 25-1812) are unrelated to patent 10061812; they pertain to V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. v. TRUMP regarding tariffs.

Therefore, based on the provided search results, there is one known administrative proceeding for US10061812, but no active or concluded court litigation cases were found.

Litigation involving US patent 10061812:

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding:

• Case Number: IPR2024-00618
• Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data
• Patent Owner: Data Health Partners Inc (current assignee of US10061812)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the snippet, but the IPR number indicates 2024.
• Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 10061812, which was denied institution on the merits. This outcome provides a strong defensive posture for the patent owner, as all challenged claims have survived an IPR petition.

IPR2024-00618 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Data Health Partners Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-27
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The petition was denied institution, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: APJ LORENZO A.C.J., APJ LUI P.L., APJ MARZULLA D.P.
• Petition grounds: All claims (1-20) were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) based on various combinations of prior art references:
  • Claims 1-20 as obvious over US 2008/0195431 (Eichelberger) in view of US 2007/0255598 (Meyers).
  • Claims 1-20 as obvious over US 2008/0195431 (Eichelberger) in view of US 2007/0255598 (Meyers) and US 2008/0133261 (Leickly).
  • Claims 1-20 as obvious over US 2007/0179780 (Conners) in view of US 2007/0255598 (Meyers).
  • Claims 1-20 as obvious over US 2007/0179780 (Conners) in view of US 2007/0255598 (Meyers) and US 2008/0133261 (Leickly).
• Institution decision: Denied on 2025-04-02. The Board found that the Petitioner, Unified Patents, LLC, had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to any of the challenged claims. The Board determined that the petition failed to adequately explain how the cited prior art taught or suggested certain limitations of the challenged claims, particularly those related to the visual presentation of compiled data in a specific graph form, such as in relation to a minimum growth line.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: All claims (1-20) of US10061812 were challenged and successfully defended against institution. This indicates the patent owner prevailed at the institution stage, suggesting a strong patent that has withstood an IPR attempt. An IPR-based defense using the same or similar grounds against these claims would be significantly harder.

Strategic summary

All claims (1-20) of US10061812 remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED in a full AIA trial, as the single IPR petition filed against the patent was denied institution on the merits. This means that while Unified Patents challenged claims 1-20, the PTAB did not find a sufficient likelihood that those claims would be invalidated by the asserted prior art to warrant initiating a trial. Therefore, no claims have been canceled through PTAB proceedings, and the patent's scope remains undiminished by IPRs.

Regarding estoppel, since institution was denied, the petitioner (Unified Patents, LLC) and its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in a civil action or another USPTO proceeding that claims 1-20 are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the denied IPR petition. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means the specific prior-art combinations and arguments presented by Unified Patents in IPR2024-00618 are unavailable if they are in privity with Unified Patents. However, other prior art and arguments not raised or reasonably raisable in IPR2024-00618 would still be available. The denial on the merits, particularly regarding the specific "graph form" limitations, highlights areas where the patent claims were deemed non-obvious by the Board at the institution stage.

The fact that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, filed an IPR against this patent and was denied institution on the merits signals that the patent owner successfully demonstrated the patentability of its claims against a diligent petitioner. This outcome strengthens the patent's position against future validity challenges, at least concerning the grounds presented.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US10061812, it is crucial to understand the reasoning behind the denial of institution for IPR2024-00618. The decision highlights the aspects of the claims that the PTAB found the petitioner failed to adequately address with the cited prior art. Reviewing this decision will be key to identifying potentially viable alternative prior art or non-obviousness arguments not considered in the denied petition. The full institution decision for IPR2024-00618 can be found on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ptab_files/Ipr-filings/IPR2024-00618/IPR2024-00618_Decision_Denying_Institution.pdf.

Specifically, the Board's finding that the "Petitioner failed to adequately explain how the cited prior art references, either alone or in combination, taught or suggested certain limitations of the challenged claims, particularly those related to 'presenting the compiled data visually in response to a user request' in a specific 'graph form'" is a critical piece of information for any future validity challenges. Any new IPR or invalidity defense would need to carefully address these specific claim limitations and provide a more robust showing of obviousness or anticipation. Given the denial, further IPR attempts on similar grounds may be challenging.

Inventors

• Lisa A. Marshall
• II James Gaynor
  At the time of filing, the inventors assigned their interest to Grafton School, Inc. (Reel 032135/0326), suggesting Grafton School, Inc. was their employer or the entity to which they assigned their rights.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent, US10061812, is Parallax Behavioral Health Inc.
Parallax Behavioral Health Inc appears to have been an operating company. The patent describes a "Platform for optimizing data driven outcomes" applicable to various sectors, including behavioral health management, and notes that a "health network and system" may be "utilized to provide software as a service (SaaS)" (Description,,). This indicates the company offered a software-as-a-service product.
Its primary line of business was in behavioral health and data-driven outcome optimization platforms and services.
The current status of Parallax Behavioral Health Inc is likely in financial distress or dissolved, as it subsequently assigned the patent to Data Health Partners Inc in 2022 and then, notably, was subject to a court-ordered assignment of the patent to Shahla Melamed in 2024 due to a judgment. Public records indicate Parallax Health Sciences, Inc. (PRLX), an entity associated with the assignor in the 2024 transfer, has faced financial challenges.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-03-14 (executed) / recorded 2014-03-14 — Reel 032135/0326

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: GAYNOR, JAMES; MARSHALL, LISA
  • Assignee: GRAFTON SCHOOL, INC.
  • Correspondent: BROWNING, BRUCE E. (ATTORNEY); BROWNING LAW, PLLC; 2212 QUEEN ANNE AVE N #147; SEATTLE WA 98109.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to an entity, likely the inventors' employer or a related research organization.

• 2017-09-08 (executed) / recorded 2017-09-13 — Reel 040794/0725

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: GRAFTON SCHOOL, INC.
  • Assignee: PARALLAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.
  • Correspondent: BRYAN S. WITHALL (AGENT); BRYAN S. WITHALL; 4600 N 12TH STREET; SUITE A; PHOENIX AZ 85014.
  • Context: Transfer from an initial assignee (Grafton School, Inc.) to Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc., which became the original assignee on the granted patent. This could represent an acquisition or strategic asset transfer.

• 2022-08-01 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-11 — Reel 060163/0322

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: PARALLAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INC
  • Assignee: DATA HEALTH PARTNERS INC
  • Correspondent: MARVIN R. MAUSHAN JR. (ATTORNEY); C. H. SPENCE; 2715 EAST COTTONWOOD PARKWAY; SUITE 100; SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121.
  • Context: Transfer from Parallax Behavioral Health Inc to Data Health Partners Inc.

• 2024-03-27 (executed) / recorded 2024-03-27 — Reel 062770/0612

  • Conveyance: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER IN AID OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
  • Assignor: PARALLAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INC.; PARALLAX HEALTH SCIENCES, INC.
  • Assignee: MELAMED, SHAHLA
  • Correspondent: MARK J. GOLDSTEIN; THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. GOLDSTEIN; 11620 WILSHIRE BLVD SUITE 250; LOS ANGELES CA 90025.
  • Context: Court-ordered transfer as part of a judgment enforcement, indicating financial distress or a legal dispute involving the assignor.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10061812
    2013 : Priority date
    2014 : Filed by inventors
         : Assigned to Grafton School Inc
    2017 : Assigned to Parallax Behavioral Health
    2018 : Patent granted
    2022 : Assigned to Data Health Partners
    2024 : Court ordered to Melamed Shahla

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present
   The assignment to Shahla Melamed on 2024-03-27 (Reel 062770/0612) via an "ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER IN AID OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT" indicates a transfer to an individual, typically a non-operating entity for the purpose of patent assertion, especially given the context of a judgment.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
   None of the listed assignees (Grafton School, Inc., Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc., Data Health Partners Inc, or Shahla Melamed) are publicly recognized as known NPEs in common industry lists.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present
   Each recorded assignment involves a different correspondent attorney or firm (BROWNING LAW, PLLC; BRYAN S. WITHALL; C. H. SPENCE; THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK J. GOLDSTEIN).

4. Cascading transfers — not present
   The transfers are spaced over several years (2014, 2017, 2022, 2024), not occurring in rapid succession within a short period.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear
   The assignment to Shahla Melamed on 2024-03-27 (Reel 062770/0612) precedes the filing of IPR2024-00618 by Unified Patents in 2024. While the exact date of the first infringement suit is not provided, this transfer under judgment could be closely associated with impending or actual litigation, making it a potential pre-litigation transfer if a suit was filed soon after.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — present
   The "ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF/JUDGMENT CREDITOR'S MOTION FOR AN ASSIGNMENT ORDER IN AID OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT" on 2024-03-27 (Reel 062770/0612) is a clear indication that the patent was transferred from Parallax Behavioral Health Inc. (and Parallax Health Sciences, Inc.) due to a legal judgment, which strongly aligns with a distressed asset transfer or fire-sale scenario.

7. Privateering — unclear
   There is no explicit evidence to suggest this patent was transferred by an operating company to an NPE for assertion on its behalf against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present
   The current or prior assignees do not include any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence

The explicit court-ordered assignment to an individual (Shahla Melamed) due to a judgment creditor's motion on 2024-03-27 (Reel 062770/0612) strongly indicates a distressed asset transfer. This type of transfer, especially from a financially troubled operating company, is a significant signal that the patent is now held by a non-operating entity for potential assertion.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10061812, I have accessed the Google Patents page for US10061812, which serves as the authoritative source for this analysis. US10061812, titled "Platform for optimizing data driven outcomes," focuses on a system and method for tracking outcome-specific data, including provider-client management, data compilation and visualization, goal tracking, data mining for best practices, and recommending interventions.

Based on the "References cited" section of US10061812 on Google Patents, the following patents appear to be highly relevant prior art due to their direct alignment with the core subject matter of data-driven outcome optimization, behavior management, and client care in a service provision context:

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 10061812:

1. US8533036B2

   • Full Citation: US8533036B2, "Information system and method for behavior management and data analysis," Inventors: GAYNOR, James P. et al., Assignee: Grafton School, Inc., Publication Date: 2013-09-10.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2007-06-25, Published: 2013-09-10.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a computer-implemented system and method designed for behavior management and data analysis. It allows users to track and analyze behavioral data for individuals, generate reports, and facilitate communication among caregivers and service providers. It includes features for data collection, graphing, and analysis to manage and improve individual outcomes, particularly in a behavioral health context.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates general aspects of US10061812's claims related to:
     • Establishing accounts for providers and clients (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Compiling and storing data associated with clients received from providers (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Presenting compiled data visually (e.g., in graph form) (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Establishing goals for clients and tracking goal status (Claims 7, 10, 17).
     • Utilizing various data collection methods, as "behavior management" systems inherently involve structured data collection.
     • Reporting outcomes, as "data analysis" is a core function.

2. US8577717B2

   • Full Citation: US8577717B2, "Automated client-server based system for real-time monitoring of client care services and client outcomes," Inventors: GAYNOR, James P. et al., Assignee: Grafton School, Inc., Publication Date: 2013-11-05.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2008-01-22, Published: 2013-11-05.
   • Brief Description: This patent discloses an automated client-server based system for real-time monitoring and management of client care services and outcomes. It emphasizes the monitoring of actual client care services and the evaluation of client outcomes, facilitating data collection and analysis across different service providers and clients, often in a healthcare or therapeutic setting. The "real-time monitoring" aspect is key.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates general aspects of US10061812's claims related to:
     • A system including computing and communication devices in communication with a server (Claims 1, 14).
     • Receiving input for provider accounts and assigning clients (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Compiling and presenting data visually from providers regarding client outcomes (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Tracking outcome-specific data and reporting on client progress (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Potentially, communicating alerts in response to data reaching thresholds (Claim 11), given the "real-time monitoring" aspect.

3. US8924254B2

   • Full Citation: US8924254B2, "Automated system for managing behavior intervention plans in individuals with autism and developmental disabilities," Inventors: GAYNOR, James P. et al., Assignee: Grafton School, Inc., Publication Date: 2014-12-30.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2009-09-22, Published: 2014-12-30.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an automated system specifically designed for managing behavior intervention plans for individuals with autism and developmental disabilities. It enables the creation, implementation, and tracking of intervention plans, collection of behavioral data, and analysis of plan effectiveness, providing tools for service providers to manage client progress in a specialized behavioral context.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates general aspects of US10061812's claims related to:
     • Managing intervention plans and associated goals/objectives (Claims 10, 17).
     • Collecting and compiling data associated with clients from providers (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Tracking client actions and indicating status of goals (Claim 12).
     • The data including intervention plans, goals, recorded activities, and notes (Claims 10, 17).
     • The application of such systems in behavioral health settings for individuals with disabilities.

4. US8280689B2

   • Full Citation: US8280689B2, "System and method for providing performance feedback," Inventors: Marshall, Lisa A. et al., Assignee: Grafton School, Inc., Publication Date: 2012-10-02.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Filed: 2007-07-27, Published: 2012-10-02.
   • Brief Description: This patent presents a system and method for providing performance feedback. While broadly applicable, in the context of other related patents by the same assignee and inventor, it likely relates to tracking performance metrics against goals, analyzing data, and delivering feedback to users (e.g., service providers or clients) to influence future performance and outcomes.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent potentially anticipates general aspects of US10061812's claims related to:
     • Presenting compiled data visually in response to a user request, implicitly for feedback (Claims 1, 10, 15).
     • Tracking a time and occurrence number of client actions (Claim 12).
     • Indicating a status of goals based on data, as part of "performance feedback" (Claim 12).
     • The overall concept of a data-driven system to influence outcomes.

Note on 35 U.S.C. § 102 Anticipation:
A full determination of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison of US10061812's claims against the disclosures of each prior art reference. The assessments above are based on the titles and general descriptions of the cited patents, highlighting the potential for overlap in core functionalities. Each of these prior art documents, particularly those sharing inventors and/or assignees, demonstrate existing solutions for managing and analyzing data related to client outcomes and behavior, thereby potentially anticipating various elements or combinations of elements found in the claims of US10061812.

To perform an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is necessary to identify specific prior art references that disclose elements of the patent's claims and explain the motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine those references.

The "Prior art keywords" section for US Patent 10061812 lists the terms: "data", "clients", "providers", "server", and "individuals". These keywords indicate general areas of technology or common concepts that were known in the art prior to the patent's priority date (March 15, 2013). However, they do not constitute specific prior art references (such as other patents, publications, or products) that can be cited, combined, and analyzed for obviousness.

Without specific prior art references detailing concrete systems, methods, or controllers that perform functions similar to those claimed in US10061812 (e.g., establishing accounts for providers, assigning clients, compiling and visually presenting data, data mining for best practices, or recommending best practices, as described in independent claims 1, 11, and 18), it is not possible to:

1. Identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious.
2. Explain the motivation for a PHOSITA to combine such references to arrive at the claimed invention.

Therefore, based solely on the provided "Prior art keywords," a detailed obviousness analysis for US Patent 10061812 cannot be performed. The keywords merely point to broad conceptual areas rather than concrete disclosures from which an obviousness argument could be constructed.