Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`NELSON KUAN
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`GARY L. HAUSKEN
`Director
`
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`shahar.harel@usdoj.gov
`Telephone: (202) 305-3075
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT,
`THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF 104), Defendant, the United States, respectfully
`
`submits this Supplemental Claim Construction Brief.
`
`I.
`
`Term 2: “Report”1
`
`In response to the Court’s preliminary construction, Defendant proposes that this term be
`
`construed as “a specially formatted output of information generated by applying one or more style
`
`documents to one or more data documents.” This revised construction is consistent with the
`
`disclosures and claims of both the ‘355 and ‘842 Patents.
`
`The ‘355 Patent’s disclosure supports the use of “one or more” and “applying” in the
`
`revised construction. See ‘355 Patent at 9:46-48 (“single RDML data document [] may contain a
`
`set of financial statements, but several different style sheets could be applied”); 16:32-34 (“RDML
`
`data object … can be placed into a report using one or more different style sheets”); 16:36-38 (“a
`
`style sheet written for one RDML document [] can be used for another”); 16:45-46 (“use the
`
`resulting stylesheet to create a report from any qualifying RDML data document”).
`
`The ‘842 Patent also suggests that a default stylesheet is used to provide some minimal
`
`amount of formatting for a report when a user does not specify use of a particular stylesheet. ‘842
`
`Patent at 20:30-34 and Figure 14 (report generated “without much [i.e., some] formatting” when a
`
`user does not specify a stylesheet filename, e.g., elements on new lines with appropriate
`
`indentation) and 20:35-38 (user specifies stylesheet filename using report generation dialog to
`
`generate “highly formatted user friendly report” of Figure 15);; compare Figure 14 (default
`
`stylesheet “10E-BalSheet.xsl” listed on second line) with Figure 15 (user-specified stylesheet).
`
`Therefore, the revised construction of “report,” is consistent with the ‘842 Patent.
`
`
`1 The headings use the numbering provided by the Court for purposes of the Markman
`hearing. This term was also listed as ‘355 Patent, Term 7 within the Joint Claim Construction
`Statement (“JCCS”). ECF 103-1 at 6-8.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs’ claim differentiation argument does not compel a different construction as it
`
`incorrectly assumes that that a “stylesheet” is coextensive with a “template.” While the ‘355 Patent
`
`states that “style sheets [] act as templates for output reports,” it also discusses using templates in
`
`other contexts unrelated to stylesheets, e.g., for formatting chart values. ‘355 Patent at 24:36-37
`
`(“string providing a template for the default representation of the x-axis values”), 40:18-20
`
`(“formatting templates are regular expression strings”). Furthermore, the use of “templates” in
`
`dependent claims 32 and 33 of the ‘842 Patent refers to “document templates” in the ‘842 Patent,
`
`not stylesheets. Compare ‘842 Patent at 9:28-45 and 15:1-4 (discussing “document templates”)
`
`with 15:4–33 (separately discussing stylesheets). Therefore, any claim differentiation in the ‘842
`
`Patent arising from dependent claims 32 and 33 impacts whether its independent claim 29 uses a
`
`“document template,” not whether it uses a stylesheet or other style document. Plaintiffs’ claim
`
`differentiation argument, therefore, should not impact the construction of “report” and certainly
`
`not with respect to the ‘355 Patent family.
`
`II.
`
`Terms 4A-4B: “Rule [for validation]” 2, 3
`
`This Court should construe the “rule [for validation]” limitation differently in the ‘355
`
`Patent family and the ‘842 Patent. “Claims must be read in view of the specification, of which
`
`they are a part [and] the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.
`
`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted). Inherent within
`
`such guidance is the principle that a variation in specification may result in a modification to a
`
`
`2 These terms were listed under ‘383 Patent, Term 8. ECF 103-1 at 29-30.
`
`3 Defendant referred to the singular form of this term “rule” as opposed to “rules” as that
`is how it appears within the relevant limitation of the asserted claims, i.e., “rule for validation.”
`Defendant does not seek a construction for “rules” within “rules for processing.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`claim construction. The varying disclosures between the ‘355 and ‘842 Patents provide a stark
`
`example of where additional disclosure mandates a different construction.
`
`In the ‘355 Patent family the only validation disclosed is based on rules within a DTD:
`
`“To be a valid RDML document 102, the file conforms to the RDML Document Type Definition
`
`(‘DTD’) which is described in detail below.” ‘355 Patent at 15:41-43. Additionally, while the
`
`patents state that in one implementation the document conforms with the rules provided by the
`
`DTD, id. at 50:37-39, the patentee indicated that the other scenarios are related to cases where
`
`validation (with the DTD) failed and error handling is invoked: “The error checking functions of
`
`the processor 708 simply compare the output of the parser 706 against the text expected as
`
`defined by the DTD 702. If the incoming document does not conform . . . an error message is
`
`sent . . .” Id. at 30:25-32. Hence, the “rule [for validation]” within the ‘355 Patent must be a
`
`constraint listed in a DTD.
`
`The ‘842 Patent explains that its (alleged) invention supplements the invention of the
`
`‘355 Patent family: “the present invention, a system, referred to as an ‘RDX system’, is a ‘bolt-
`
`on' or expansion to the system and methods for implementing RDL.” ‘842 Patent at 8:43-45
`
`(emphasis added). Notably, RDL4 is the Reusable Data Markup Language introduced and
`
`referred to within the ‘355 Patent family. See, e.g., ‘355 Patent at 3:51-57.
`
`It is the RDX system — and only the RDX system — that performs validation based on
`
`rules outside of the DTD. As the ‘842 Patent explains: “RDX system 100 supplements the DTD
`
`validation with optional semantic validation based on user-defined rules,” id. at 13:63-65
`
`(emphasis added), and “[i]f the XBRL DTD rules are satisfied and there are no user-defined
`
`
`4 The ‘842 Patent refers to RDML as RDL. ‘842 Patent at 7:23-24.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`rules. . . If, however, the XBRL rules are satisfied and there are user-defined rules, RDX parser
`
`204 interprets the XBRL document, by applying the user-defined rules,” id. at 14:3-8.
`
`Moreover, the disclosure of the ‘842 Patent represents the patentee’s admission that the
`
`Court may utilize in construing the scope of the corresponding “rule” term in the ‘355 Patent
`
`family. Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (relying
`
`on party statements made by defendant in front of a foreign tribunal regarding corresponding
`
`claims in construing claim term). Here, the ‘842 Patent incorporates by reference the disclosure
`
`of the ‘355 Patent family and explicitly supplements it, making its statements as to the
`
`limitations of the ‘355 Patent family both meaningful and consequential. As both the RDX
`
`system and validation of rules outside of the DTD are only disclosed within the ‘842 Patent, the
`
`Court should limit “rule [for validation]” in the ‘383 and ‘748 Patents to be a “constraint listed
`
`within a DTD” and have a plain and ordinary construction in the context of the ‘842 Patent.
`
`III. Terms 15A-15C: “Multiple hierarchical relationships between two line items. . .” 5
`
`As explained at the hearing, Defendant proposed the following variation of the Court’s
`
`preliminary construction for terms 15A-15C: “a line item with more than one type of hierarchical
`
`relationship with another line item wherein both hierarchical relationships are explicitly
`
`specified, the hierarchical relationship conveying information such as dependency on the other
`
`line item. Examples of relationships between two line items include parent-child, sibling-sibling,
`
`grandparent-grandchild, and member-collection.”
`
`While Plaintiffs seek to rewrite their claims, Defendant’s proposed construction tracks
`
`the claim language and the relevant disclosure. The asserted patents explain that through the use
`
`
`5 These terms were listed as ‘383 Patent, Term 7, ‘748 Patent, Term 5, and ‘842 Patent
`Term 5. ECF 103-1 at 32-34; 51-53; 68-70.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`of “level” and “relationship” attributes, hierarchical relationships may be specified between two
`
`lines items. ‘383 Patent at 27:25-46. A line item may be a child of another line item and
`
`additional relationships may also be implemented. Id. However, in all cases, the relevant
`
`relationship needs to be specified through the “relationship” attribute. As one type of
`
`relationship is a collection-member, this can provide an additional relationship between a child
`
`line item and its parent line item. See ECF 82 at 31.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs cannot credibly argue that two hierarchical relationships between the same two
`
`line items is “nonsensical” as such relationships were known concepts, including to them. Both
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,940,822 (ECF 82-2) and U.S. Patent Application No. 60/219,796 (ECF 82-3)
`
`disclosed multiple hierarchical relationships between two line items. See ECF 82 at 32-33. For
`
`example, two employees within a company can have a reporting relationship with each other and
`
`both be siblings within a hierarchy relating to office location. See ECF 82-3 at 28. Moreover,
`
`during prosecution, the patentee specifically noted the concept of two separate hierarchies in the
`
`context of their (alleged) invention and therefore recognized that two line items can belong to
`
`both hierarchies (through the use of separate relationships). See ECF 82 at 33-34.
`
`
`
`Finally, any dispute with respect to Figures 14A (‘355 Patent) and Figure 15 (‘842
`
`Patent) is a red herring. First, the patentee never referred to these figures as “preferred
`
`embodiment[s].” Notably, the disclosure relating to multiple hierarchical relationships (e.g.,
`
`‘383 Patent at 27:29-45) does not even reference these figures. While Plaintiffs may argue that
`
`these figures must be within the scope of (some of) its claims, they do not explain why they are
`
`not within the scope of claims such as claim 11 of the ‘748 Patent which is directed to outputting
`
`a “report” and a “presentation” rather than the claims reciting Terms 15A-15C. Accordingly, the
`
`Court should adopt Defendant’s modified proposed construction recited herein.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`NELSON KUAN
`Department of Justice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`GARY L. HAUSKEN
`Director
`
`s/ Shahar Harel
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`Email: Shahar.Harel@USDOJ.gov
`Telephone:
`(202) 305-3075
`Facsimile:
`(202) 307-0345
`COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES OF
`AMERICA
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 107 Filed 11/22/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true copy of this sur-reply was sent by electronic mail this 22nd day
`
`of November 2022 to:
`
`
`
`
`
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`Gerard M. O'Rourke
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-778-4000
`sokelly@okorlaw.com
`gorourke@okorlaw.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`NELSON KUAN
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Shahar Harel
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Intellectual Property Section
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`Shahar.Harel@usdoj.gov
`Tel: (202) 305-3075
`Fax: (202) 307-0345
`
`Attorney for the Defendant,
`the United States of America.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`