Red alert - we have the biggest information blocking court development since RTMS v. PCC: a preliminary injunction decision in Vyne v. Henry Schein!
As explained on the record during the hearing today, I anticipate granting preliminary injunctive relief in favor of both parties, as follows:
(1) a preliminary injunction against National Electronic Attachment, Inc.’s (“Vyne Dental”) marketing, selling, or distributing software capable of write access to Dentrix databases;
(2) an injunction requiring Vyne Dental to deprecate any software and/or software functions that are capable of write access to Dentrix databases;
(3) an injunction against Henry Schein One, LLC (“HSOne”) disabling Vyne Dental software and/or software functions that do not write back to Dentrix databases; and
(4) an injunction against HSOne denying printer-driver access to Vyne Dental’s customers’ electronic health information stored in Dentrix databases.
Okay, it is just the letter signaling the direction Judge Maddox will go, but this is shaping up to be the biggest decision since RTMS v. PCC across all the cases we’ve been tracking.
I wasn’t optimistic for Vyne’s chances here in “Who Decides What Software Can Do?” But Maddox tracked things with nuance:
HSOne indeed got its CFAA win on the write-back behavior, which was always Vyne's weakest ground given the behavior pattern (decrypted config files, super-credentials, API key generation, shifting CTO explanations).
Vyne has its printer driver method for reading data protected, which stops the hemorrhaging of 7000 practices and the customer attrition I flagged as “market share that doesn’t come back” in order to prevent irreparable harm.
Vyne also is postioned for a broader win I gave them no real odds on: an injunction preventing HSOne from disabling Vyne software functions that do not write back to Dentrix. Read operations of all varieties would be protected with this framing.
The reason for the anticipatory and tentative nature of the letter is simply that the court is still working through three operational details:
Compliance period
Bond amount
Technical feasibility
Vyne and Henry Schein have filed some, but not all of the briefs related to their arguments here:
Annoyingly, the rest currently are sealed without an available redacted version, so the operational meat is partially off the public record for now. This is something that's annoyed me about this case: the motions to seal throughout include language about 'prompt' redacted versions that, in many cases, seem to be missing despite deadlines long gone.
Net-net: Maddox didn't write the order I expected. He wrote a far more interesting one! The dual-injunction structure surgically separates legitimate from illegitimate conduct on both sides, the print-driver protection stops Vyne's market-share hemorrhage, and the RTMS v. PCC template just got its second federal PI in the Fourth Circuit.
The full transcript, as well as some deeper analysis for subscribers after the break regarding the information blocking implications, venue choices, and RPA shout-outs.
