They are trying to recover over 300 million rubles from the telemedicine service SberZdorovye

Over 300 million rubles. Doctor Shamil Khambazarov, who tried to launch a similar project more than ten years ago, is trying to recover from the telemedicine service SberZdorovye. He claims that the service violated his patent for remote health monitoring devices. The plaintiff calculated the amount of claims based on the profit received by the company since 2021 – since the launch of the product. According to lawyers, if the plaintiff’s device was actually used by the defendant, the doctor has a chance to win the case, but SberZdorovye, in turn, may try to revoke his patent.

Cardiologist Shamil Khambazarov filed a lawsuit in the Moscow Arbitration Court against Innovative Medicine LLC, which manages the telemedicine service SberZdorovye, demanding 312.6 million rubles from the company, found “Kommersant” in the file of arbitration cases. SberZdorovye told Kommersant that they had not yet received the case materials for review and therefore refrained from assessing the essence of the claim. Shamil Khambazarov did not respond to Kommersant’s request.

As Kommersant found out, Mr. Khambazarov previously filed a similar claim against Innovative Medicine in the Intellectual Rights Court (IPR), which returned the application to him due to a violation of the rules of jurisdiction. The head of the Elekskor law firm, Olga Zinovieva, considers the refusal of the SIP to consider the claim to be justified, since the plaintiff applied to this court in error.

As indicated in the IIP materials, Shamil Khambazarov is a co-author of a “patent for a device for conducting remote medical consultations and monitoring patient medical data” and demands that SberHealth stop using his invention in commercial activities. Other co-authors of the patent are Oleg Isaev, Konstantin Levchin and Alexey Turochkin. It was not possible to contact them.

All four, along with two other entrepreneurs, co-founded the Mobile Telemedicine company in 2011, which received a two-year license from Roskomnadzor for telematic communication services in 2013. In 2021, the company was excluded from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. In 2017, Shamil Khambazarov and his co-authors published an article on the benefits of remote monitoring in people with cardiac diseases for the healthcare system.

It also follows from the SIP materials that the amount of 312.6 million rubles requested by the plaintiff in the form of compensation for violation of an exclusive right was calculated based on the service’s profit for telemedicine services for 2021–2022. The plaintiff also indicated in his statement that the total amount may be increased, as it will include the amount of profit for 2023, which has not yet been made public. The company has not yet published financial statements for last year.

SberZdorovye launched a remote monitoring platform in 2020, where health information was first collected using a voice robot. Since 2021, medical devices have been connected to the service: the indicators of tonometers and glucometers began to be taken into account.

Alexey Mikhailov, head of patent practice at the Patentus bureau, notes that the controversial patent “describes the use of typical computer and telecommunications tools for remote diagnostics.” Moreover, the patent application was filed in 2011 – long before the widespread use of telemedicine began, the lawyer points out. The head of the patent department of the Online Patent company, Elena Kuptsova, points out that SberZdorovye could have filed an objection to the grant of a patent even at the stage of the dispute in the SIP if the company had grounds to invalidate the patent. But, since the patent is still valid, in her opinion, “it can be considered significant.”

As part of the proceedings, the court will have to decide, on the basis of expert opinions, whether the plaintiff’s patent technologies are used in the service, explains Olga Zinovyeva. If the answer is positive, the plaintiff, according to her, will be able not only to receive compensation, but also to qualify for payment in the future if SberZdorovye continues to use the service. But such disputes can last quite a long time, and the amount of compensation to the plaintiff has yet to be justified, Ms. Zinovieva clarifies. However, Alexey Mikhailov believes that SberZdorovye will challenge the patent and may seek its cancellation, “given the obviousness of the ideas underlying it.”

Polina Gritsenko