- Filed
- Oct 23, 2026
- Last modified
- Oct 23, 2026
- Petitioner
- BMJ Publishing Group Limited
- Inventor
- Carl Bate TULLEY et al
Invalidity dossier
US 11869674
Translation of medical evidence into computational evidence and applications thereof
Current assignee: Evidium Inc
Added 10/24/2026, 12:00:17 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 11,869,674 B2
Title: Translation of Medical Evidence into Computational Evidence and Applications Thereof
Patent number: US 11,869,674 B2 (application US 18/135,026; pre-grant publication US 2023/0335299 A1)
Assignee (per source): Evidium Inc (current assignee); original assignee Recovery Exploration Technologies Inc.
Key dates (as listed): Priority date 2022-04-15; filing date 2023-04-14; publication/grant 2024-01-09; anticipated expiration 2043-04-14. Status: Active (the source notes legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion).
Inventors: Carl Bate Tulley, Wian Stipp, Thomas Unger, David A. Epstein, Matthew McSorley, Fady Nakhla, David Robinson, Jennifer May Lee, Arthur Böök.
Purpose: According to the supplied text, the invention relates generally to "automating access to medical evidence" and to making medical evidence computational and usable by any application. The stated problem is that prior-art techniques place medical evidence into separate silos that cannot be used for reasoning by medical applications.
Plain-language scope (from the text): The patent describes a computational evidence platform that extracts medical evidence or related clinical guidelines from any source and places it into a structured computational representation, allowing any application to query the evidence and map it to external inputs such as a patient chart. The database reportedly includes interlinked computational elements for conditions, diagnostic factors, risk factors, and investigations. Embodiments provide: (1) representing clinical concepts as elemental factors and investigations that are computationally useful and shared across conditions, and linking them in a database; (2) determining a patient's clinical state using those elemental factors and investigations; and (3) determining a next-best action to recommend based on that state. The text states these elemental factors provide "a common language for comparison," linking medical science to medical practice, and that such a database may support clinical decision support, diagnosis, administrative processes (e.g., prior authorization, scheduling), and research.
Classification highlights: G16H50/70, G16H10/40, G16H10/60, G16H70/20, G16H15/00, G06F40/237, G06F40/279, G06F40/30, G06F40/40.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11869674/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not provide the full claim text, detailed description, drawings, or cited prior-art references, so the precise metes and bounds of the claims cannot be assessed from the supplied material. It also does not independently verify dates, status, or assignee.
Generated 10/24/2026, 12:00:49 AM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 11869674. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (1)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.