Carrum Health Sues to Avoid Patent Liability from MDsave

A complaint was filed on Friday in the Northern District of California by Carrum Health, Inc. against MDsave Shared Services, Inc. and MDsave, Inc. The complaint for declaratory judgment is seeking a finding of non-infringement on five counts, as the defendants allegedly contend that Carrum’s website uses healthcare purchasing technology that was previously patented by MDsave.

The patents at issue concern healthcare provision. The defendants allegedly “asserted that ‘Companies in the Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Healthcare space may not realize that they need to obtain a patent license from MDsave.’”

According to the complaint, the MDsave alleged that the plaintiff infringed on five of their patents (the patents-in-suit) which MDsave uses on their website. MDsave allegedly sent the plaintiff a notification letter in October of 2015, in which they “recommended that Carrum Health carefully review MDsave’s issued patent and their growing portfolio with counsel to assess whether [the patents-in-suit] are relevant to the online healthcare marketplace products and/or services that Carrum Health is currently offering or developing.”

Following the 2015 notification letter, in January of 2022, Liquidax Capital, LLC, an intellectual property management firm, began representing the defendants in the execution and program management of the patents-in-suit, the complaint says. The press release announcement detailing the new relationship between Liquidax and MDsave explained that “companies in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) healthcare space may not realize that they need to obtain a patent license from MDsave.” Shortly after, Liquidax sent a letter to the plaintiff’s CEO explaining that their website incorporated MDsave’s patented technology.

Since January 2022, Liquidax has continued to communicate with Carrum regarding the allegations of Carrum’s alleged infringement. Carrum’s suit cites five counts of non-infringement. They assert that they have not infringed on any of the patents-in-suit, “either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because neither Carrum’s products nor services comprise or utilize any apparatus or system claimed in the independent claims” of the patents. The plaintiff is seeking judgment of non-infringement and that they have not infringed on any valid or enforceable claim of the patents-in-suit, litigation fees, a trial by jury, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.

The plaintiff is represented in the litigation by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.