US 11809431

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 11809431:

Title: System and method for achieving goals

Assignee: Data Health Partners Inc., Melamed Shahla

Inventors: Nathaniel T. Bradley, James Gaynor, Joshua S. Paugh, Paul Arena, Lisa A. Marshall

Filing Date: December 9, 2021

Issue Date: November 7, 2023

Abstract:
A system and method are described for tracking progression toward one or more goals. Input is received to establish one or more clients, who are individuals receiving treatment or assistance. This client data is stored on a server accessible via networks. Clients are assigned to one or more providers, which can include individuals and biometric devices. Goals are set for each client, and associated data is compiled from the providers. The system determines if goals are being met based on thresholds for the compiled data. Alerts are automatically communicated when compiled data significantly varies from a threshold for a client. Other embodiments include tracking goal progression by establishing provider accounts, assigning clients to providers, setting goals and action plans, compiling client data from providers, determining if thresholds are met, and communicating alerts. Further embodiments involve tracking outcome-specific data by compiling provider-received client data and visually presenting it, potentially leveraging a cloud network and applications for user input and data mining for best practices.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Independent Claim 1 (System Claim):
This claim describes a system designed to track goal achievement for individuals. The system includes:

• Computing and communication devices that connect to a server over a network.
• A server configured to:
  • Receive input to create accounts for many providers who serve individuals.
  • Assign each individual to one or more providers based on an administrator's selections.
  • Gather (compile) data about each individual from their assigned providers, using the connected devices.
  • Visually display this gathered data in response to a user's request.
• A database connected to the server, which stores the accounts, permissions, settings, and collected data.

Independent Claim 13 (Method Claim):
This claim describes a method for tracking outcome-specific data, involving the following steps performed by a system:

• Receiving input to establish accounts for providers serving clients, with these accounts stored in a server.
• Assigning each client to one or more providers based on an administrator's selections.
• Compiling data associated with each client, received from their providers using computing or communication devices connected to the server.
• Presenting the compiled data visually in response to a user's request.

Independent Claim 18 (Controller Claim):
This claim describes a controller that tracks outcome-specific data, including:

• A processor that executes instructions.
• Memory that stores these instructions.
  The instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to:
• Receive input to establish user accounts for providers serving clients.
• Assign each client to one or more providers based on an administrator's selections.
• Compile data associated with each client, received from their providers using computing or communication devices connected to the server.
• Present the compiled data visually in response to a user's request.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search of CAFC 2026 dockets for patent number 11809431 did not return any specific litigation directly referencing this patent number. The search results provided various other patent litigation cases in the CAFC for 2026, but none were for US11809431.

I'll search for litigation involving US Patent 11809431 across patent litigation portals and court records.

Let me dig deeper into the specific case identifiers referenced on the patent record and search litigation databases.

I've found the primary litigation. Let me verify whether there are additional cases, related defendants, or appeals.

Litigation Involving US Patent 11,809,431 ("the '431 patent")

Bottom line: I found one federal district court case that names the '431 patent. It is the same Delaware action already flagged on the patent record. There is also related PTAB activity, but no PTAB proceeding is an Article III "litigation" (and the only AIA trial directly on the '431 patent, IPR2026-00391, is already covered in your PTAB section). No other district court suits, ITC actions, or CAFC appeals naming the '431 patent surfaced.

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

The '431 patent's role in the case

The '431 patent was not in the original complaint. It entered the case through amendment:

• Feb 13, 2023 — Original complaint asserted U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,061,812 (the '812) and 11,144,554 (the '554).
• June 23/27, 2023 — Amended Complaint added U.S. Pat. No. 11,151,142 (the '142).
• Post-May 2024 — Second Amended Complaint added U.S. Pat. No. 11,675,791 (the '791) and U.S. Pat. No. 11,809,431 (the '431, "System and Method for Achieving Goals," issued Nov. 7, 2023). The complaint alleges the Livongo platform infringes the '431 by creating user accounts, establishing health goals and baselines, compiling user data over time, comparing that data against thresholds, and generating alerts based on the comparison.

So the four patents-in-suit as of the operative pleading are the '554, '142, '791, and '431.

Procedural history / outcomes

• May 20, 2024 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (D.I. 27): denied Teladoc's motion to dismiss Data Health's direct infringement claims (rejecting the § 101 "abstract idea" challenge — the court held the representative claim "is directed to the non-abstract idea of improving the monitoring of patient goals and outcomes," resolving Alice step one in Data Health's favor); granted dismissal of pre-suit willful infringement claims for failure to adequately plead pre-suit knowledge.
• June 17, 2024 — Teladoc answered the Amended Complaint. Data Health then filed its Second Amended Complaint (adding the '791 and '431).
• July 23, 2026 — Opinion (reported July 28, 2026; No. 1:23-cv-00160-JCG): denied Teladoc's third motion to dismiss. The court found the complaint plausibly alleged direct infringement (identifying the Livongo products, explaining functional correspondence, and mapping claim limitations to public information) and adequately pled post-suit induced infringement (notice via the litigation). The court rejected Data Health's Rule 12(g)(2) waiver argument because the new complaint contained new factual allegations.
• Current status: Case remains open. RPX Insight lists a latest docket entry of 09/26/2025 with ~963 days in litigation at the time of its snapshot; the July 2026 opinion confirms the case survived a third round of pleading challenges.

Sources: RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-81475-data-health-partners-v-teladoc-health); Dockets.Justia (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv00160/81475); GovInfo docket package (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ded-1_23-cv-00160); D. Del. opinion PDF (https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/23-160.pdf); Justia opinion D.I. 91 (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv00160/81475/91/); Susman Godfrey case note (https://www.susmangodfrey.com/wins/susman-godfrey-client-defeats-abstract-idea-motion-to-dismiss-patent-claims/); VitalLaw/ Bloomberg Law IP Law Daily, Jul. 28, 2026 (https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-d-del-teladoc-must-face-patent-owner-s-infringement-lawsuit-over-diabetes-management-platform/ipm019df34cdfdc624a47a3fb140981135b7e); Unified Patents litigation entry for the case (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A23-cv-00160).

2. Related AIA trials (not district court litigation — context only)

Several PTAB proceedings exist on this patent family, but only one is directed at the '431 patent itself. Your PTAB section already covers IPR2026-00391 (Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners, Inc., filed June 5, 2026, challenging claims 1–20 of the '431 under § 103 over Douglas in view of Virginia / Sweeney, and Douglas + Chitiveli for claim 5). For completeness, the other family proceedings — IPR2024-00616 ('554), IPR2024-00617 ('142), and IPR2024-00618 ('812) — are on different patents, not the '431, and IPR2024-00618 was denied institution (Decision Denying Institution, Sept. 16, 2024).

3. Exceptions, caveats, and flags for consistency

1. Contradiction to flag in your existing materials: Your Assignment History section correctly notes the 2024-03-27 court-ordered assignment of rights to Melamed Shahla in aid of enforcement of a judgment. The Delaware litigation, however, was filed by and remains captioned to Data Health Partners, Inc. as plaintiff. If the judgment-enforcement assignment conveyed the '431 patent's enforcement rights, the plaintiff-side caption may or may not have been updated on the docket — I could not confirm a substitution of party from the results retrieved, so treat the plaintiff identity in the table above as the caption of record unless a substitution order is found.

2. A possible Third Circuit entry is internally inconsistent. A Studicata summary is titled "DATA HEALTH PARTNERS v. TELADOC HEALTH, INC., United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2024)," but the body of that summary describes only the district court's May 20, 2024 holding. This looks like a database mislabel rather than a genuine Third Circuit appeal (an appeal of a non-final motion-to-dismiss ruling would be procedurally unusual). I am not reporting a Third Circuit appeal as confirmed, and I flag it as unreliable.

3. No other defendants found. All litigation activity on the '431 patent traces to the single Teladoc dispute. I found no second district court case, no ITC § 337 action, and no CAFC appeal directly naming US 11,809,431. The patent's "family has litigation" Darts-IP reference (family 65038812, earliest 2014) points to the family rather than to separate suits on the '431.

4. Search-scope limitation. The instruction was to search for the specific number 11809431. Several results in my searches matched the visually similar but distinct number 11,813,291 (a Nivagen pharmaceutical patent in IPR2025-00779) and 11,925,661 (Amneal/Nivagen). Those are not this patent and have been excluded.

Summary for a defendant/analyst: US 11,809,431 has been asserted in exactly one litigation — Data Health Partners, Inc. v. Teladoc Health, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00160 (D. Del., filed Feb. 13, 2023) — where it was added via the Second Amended Complaint (post-May 2024), survived Teladoc's third motion to dismiss on July 23, 2026, and remains pending. The parallel validity challenge is the pending IPR2026-00391.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 11809431, which is currently pending institution. This means the patent is actively under challenge, and its claims have not yet been tested by a final PTAB decision.

IPR2026-00391 — Teladoc Health, Inc. v. Data Health Partners Inc., Melamed Shahla

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-06-05
• Status: Pending. The petition was recently filed and is awaiting a decision on institution.
• Judge panel: The judge panel has not been publicly assigned or published yet, as the proceeding is in its early stages.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not yet publicly available in detail, as the petition was only recently filed.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The PTAB typically has six months from the filing date of the petition to issue a decision on whether to institute the IPR.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the proceeding has not yet been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has occurred.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as there is no Final Written Decision to appeal.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that at least one party, Teladoc Health, Inc., believes there are valid grounds to challenge the patent's claims under an IPR. For a defendant, this means the patent is currently being challenged, but no claims have been invalidated or confirmed as patentable by the PTAB yet. The outcome of the institution decision will be the next critical milestone.

Strategic summary

As of today, US Patent 11809431 has one active Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00391, which was filed by Teladoc Health, Inc. on 2026-06-05. Given the very recent filing date, none of the patent's claims have been canceled, sustained, or fully tested by a final PTAB decision. All claims remain untested in the context of an AIA trial proceeding.

The estoppel landscape is not yet relevant, as no final written decision has been issued. Therefore, the petitioner, Teladoc Health, Inc., and its privies are not yet estopped from raising any grounds. For any other potential defendant, all prior-art grounds remain available for challenge. There are no pattern signals yet, as this is the first and only PTAB proceeding on file for this patent.

Recommended next steps

For parties interested in US Patent 11809431, the most important upcoming milestone for IPR2026-00391 is the institution decision. The PTAB has a statutory deadline of one year from institution to issue a final written decision, but the institution decision itself is typically due within six months of the petition's filing date. Parties should monitor the PTAB E2E system for the institution decision, which will determine whether the IPR proceeds to trial.

Inventors

• Nathaniel T. Bradley (Employer: Data Health Partners Inc. at time of priority date 2013-03-15, also listed as original assignee)
• James Gaynor (Employer: Data Health Partners Inc. at time of priority date 2013-03-15, also listed as original assignee)
• Joshua S. Paugh (Employer: Data Health Partners Inc. at time of priority date 2013-03-15, also listed as original assignee)
• Paul Arena (Employer: Data Health Partners Inc. at time of priority date 2013-03-15, also listed as original assignee)
• Lisa A. Marshall (Employer: Data Health Partners Inc. at time of priority date 2013-03-15, also listed as original assignee)

Original assignee

The original assignee listed on the issued patent is Data Health Partners Inc.. It is unclear from the patent text whether Data Health Partners Inc. shipped a product embodying the claims. Their primary line of business appears to be related to "System and method for achieving goals", particularly in the context of behavioral health and outcome-specific data tracking. Their current status is "Active" according to Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Assignment Center for patent number US11809431 was conducted. As of today, 2026-06-06, the following assignments are publicly recorded:

• 2021-12-29 (executed) / recorded 2021-12-29 — Reel 059958/0641

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: DATA HEALTH PARTNERS INC.
  • Assignee: PARALLAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.
  • Correspondent: LINDSEY CROWDER, 2147 E. REDONDO AVE., MESA, AZ 85204
  • Context: Transfer to a related entity.

• 2022-08-11 (executed) / recorded 2022-08-11 — Reel 060893/0885

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: PARALLAX BEHAVIORAL HEALTH INC
  • Assignee: DATA HEALTH PARTNERS INC
  • Correspondent: LINDSEY CROWDER, 2147 E. REDONDO AVE., MESA, AZ 85204. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Reassignment back to original assignee.

• 2022-12-22 (executed) / recorded 2022-12-22 — Reel 061324/0970

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: LISA A. MARSHALL
  • Assignee: DATA HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.
  • Correspondent: LINDSEY CROWDER, 2147 E. REDONDO AVE., MESA, AZ 85204. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Inventor's assignment to the assignee.

• 2024-03-27 (executed) / recorded 2024-03-27 — Reel 062771/0819

  • 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: ALISON S. CHUNG, 3050 POST OAK BLVD, SUITE 800, HOUSTON, TX 77056
  • Context: Court-ordered transfer as part of judgment enforcement.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11809431
    2021 : Filed by Data Health Partners Inc
         : Assigned to Parallax Behavioral Health
    2022 : Assigned to Data Health Partners
         : Inventor Marshall to Data Health Partners
    2023 : Issued
    2024 : Court ordered to Melamed Shahla

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While there's a transfer between Data Health Partners Inc. and Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc. (and back), it's not clear from the provided data if Parallax Behavioral Health is a licensing-only shell entity. The names themselves don't strongly suggest a shell, and no product information or registered-agent addresses are available to confirm.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the assignors or assignees (Data Health Partners Inc., Parallax Behavioral Health Inc., Melamed Shahla) are recognized as known NPEs based on the provided list or general knowledge without further investigation.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Lindsey Crowder of 2147 E. REDONDO AVE., MESA, AZ 85204 appears as the correspondent for three assignments: Reel 059958/0641 (2021-12-29), Reel 060893/0885 (2022-08-11), and Reel 061324/0970 (2022-12-22). This recurrence indicates a consistent legal representative for Data Health Partners Inc. and Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. While there are transfers within a relatively short period, they involve Data Health Partners Inc. and Parallax Behavioral Health, Inc., suggesting internal reassignments rather than a rapid succession through unrelated shell entities. The transfers are not between different, new LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The "Family has litigation" section indicates a US case filed in Delaware District Court (case 1:23-cv-00160) and a first worldwide family litigation filed in 2014. The last assignment to Melamed Shahla was recorded on 2024-03-27. Without the exact filing date of the Delaware District Court case, it's impossible to confirm if the assignment to Melamed Shahla was within 6 months of litigation specific to this patent. Google Patents shows the litigation against this patent was filed March 2023, so the assignment to Melamed Shahla occurred after litigation had started.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of any of the assignors or assignees filing for Chapter 7 or 11 bankruptcy. The last assignment to Melamed Shahla was court-ordered, but not explicitly stated to be from bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence or indication of an operating company transferring the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregators like RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While there is a recurring correspondent (Lindsey Crowder) on multiple assignments (Reel 059958/0641, Reel 060893/0885, Reel 061324/0970), which is a weak signal, there is no strong indication of shell entities or known NPE involvement. The final assignment to Melamed Shahla was court-ordered for judgment enforcement, which is an unusual pattern for typical NPE activity. Further, there is not enough information to determine if Data Health Partners Inc. is an operating company or a pure licensing entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11809431, I will examine the "Cited By" section on the patent's Google Patents page, as this typically lists prior art references considered by the patent examiner.

Here's the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11809431, based on its citations:

1. US 10,061,812 B2

• Full Citation: US 10,061,812 B2 (Bradley et al.)
• Publication/Filing Date: The priority date for US11809431B2 is 2013-03-15, and it explicitly states "Priority claimed from US14/212,429," which ultimately led to patent US10061812B2. The publication date of US10061812B2 is September 4, 2018, and its filing date was March 14, 2014.
• Brief Description: This patent is titled "System and method for achieving goals" and appears to be a grandparent or related patent to US11809431. It describes systems and methods for tracking progression toward goals for clients, involving providers, data compilation, threshold determination, and alerts. This suggests a very similar underlying invention or earlier iteration of the same technology.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given the shared title, inventors, and abstract content, US 10,061,812 B2 potentially anticipates all independent claims (Claim 1, Claim 13, and Claim 18) of US 11,809,431 if its teachings disclose each and every element of those claims. The description of receiving input for clients, assigning providers, compiling data, setting goals, determining if goals are met, and issuing alerts is highly similar to the core aspects of the independent claims in US 11,809,431. Specifically, it mentions "a system, method, server, and computer readable medium for tracking progression toward one or more goals," and details steps like "Input is received establishing one or more clients," "the one or more client(s) are individual(s) receiving treatment or assistance," "the data associated with the one or more clients are stored in a server available through one or more networks," "Each of the one or more clients are assigned to one or more providers in response to selections from an administrator," "Goals are set for each of the one or more clients," "Data associated with each of the one or more clients is compiled as received from the one or more providers in the server," and "Alerts are automatically communicated in response to the compiled data varying from a threshold to become significant for one of the one or more clients." This directly mirrors the elements found in Claims 1, 13, and 18.

Further analysis would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison between US11809431 and US10061812B2 to pinpoint exact areas of anticipation or obviousness.

The request asks for an obviousness analysis of US Patent 11809431 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically identifying combinations of prior art references and motivations for combining them.

However, the "Prior Art section of this page" provided in the prompt only lists "Prior art keywords" (data, client, clients, goals, providers) and a "Prior art date" (2013-03-15). It does not provide specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, publications, or other documents) that disclose elements of the claims.

Without specific prior art references to analyze and combine, it is not possible to perform a proper obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103. A thorough obviousness analysis requires:

1. Identifying the scope and content of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Determining whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, which often involves considering motivations to combine references, secondary considerations, etc.

Since specific prior art references are not provided, I cannot identify combinations of references that would render the claims obvious, nor can I explain the motivation for combining them. I lack the necessary factual basis from the provided "Prior Art section" to complete this specific aspect of the task.