Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 31
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC., and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6)
`
`
`JOSEPH H. HUNT
`Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Department of Justice
`
`RICHARD M. HUMES
`Associate General Counsel
`GEORGE C. BROWN
`Assistant General Counsel
`NELSON KUAN
`Senior Counsel
`Office of the General Counsel
`U.S. Securities and Exchange
`Commission
`
`January 24, 2020
`
`GARY L. HAUSKEN
`Director
`
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`Deputy Director
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`Email:
`Scott.Bolden@USDOJ.gov
`Telephone:
`(202) 307-0262
`Facsimile:
`(202) 307-0345
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES OF
`AMERICA
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`Dismissal of Ineligible Claims is Appropriate at this Time .................................... 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`e-Numerate does not Raise a Genuine Dispute as to Claim
`Construction ................................................................................................ 4
`
`e-Numerate does not Raise any Plausible Fact Issues ................................ 7
`
`II.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Legal Theories are Flawed and Misleading ........................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Federal Circuit Said Berkheimer and Aatrix Are “Narrow” ............... 9
`
`e-Numerate’s Patents Raise a Rebuttable Presumption of
`Eligibility .................................................................................................. 10
`
`A Claim for a New Abstract Idea is Still an Ineligible Abstraction ......... 10
`
`Enfish does not Support Plaintiffs ............................................................ 11
`
`University of Florida is Relevant and Applicable..................................... 12
`
`III.
`
`The Asserted Claims are Ineligible ....................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`Claim Group 1 – The ’355 Patent Claims are Ineligible .......................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’355 Patent is Representative of Claim
`Group 1 ......................................................................................... 13
`
`Claim Group 1 is Directed to an Abstract Idea ............................. 13
`
`Claim Group 1 Lacks an Inventive Concept ................................. 15
`
`B.
`
`Claim Group 2 – The ’816 and ’383 Patent Claims are Ineligible ........... 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 3 of the ’816 Patent is Representative of Claim
`Group 2 ......................................................................................... 17
`
`Claim Group 2 is Directed to an Abstract Idea ............................. 17
`
`Claim Group 2 Lacks an Inventive Concept ................................. 19
`
`C.
`
`Claim Group 3 – The ’748 and ’842 Patent Claims are Ineligible ........... 19
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 31
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 2 of the ’748 Patent is Representative of Claim
`Group 3 ......................................................................................... 20
`
`Claim Group 3 is Directed to an Abstract Idea ............................. 20
`
`Claim Group 3 Lacks an Inventive Concept ................................. 21
`
`D.
`
`Claim Group 4 – The ’384, ’748, and ’337 Patent Claims are
`Ineligible ................................................................................................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’337 Patent is Representative of Claim
`Group 4 ......................................................................................... 23
`
`Claim Group 4 is Directed to an Abstract Idea ............................. 23
`
`Claim Group 4 Lacks an Inventive Concept ................................. 24
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 31
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
` 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
` 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
` 842 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................ 23
`
`ART+ COM Innovation Pool GmbH v. Google Inc.,
` 183 F. Supp. 3d 552 (D. Del. 2016) .......................................................................................... 21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
` 556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC,
` 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 4, 9
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.),
` 687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
` 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
` 890 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Comm’s, Inc.,
` 778 F. App’x 882 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................... passim
`
`BSG Tech. LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
` 899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................ 21
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
` 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................ 10
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
` 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................................................. 2, 24
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp.,
` 681 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
` 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 14, 18
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
` 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 17, 19
`
`Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
` 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................................... 15, 23
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 2, 11, 14, 18
`
`e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp..,
` D. Del. No. 17-cv-933 ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
` 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`First-Class Monitoring v. UPS,
` 389 F. Supp. 3d 456 (E.D. Tex. 2019) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
` 700 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC,
` 818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .............................................................................................. 4, 7
`
`In re TLI Comm’s LLC Patent Litig.,
` 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................. 14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
` 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemn. Co.,
` 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................... 2, 14, 24
`
`Messaging Gateway Solutions, LLC v. Amdocs, Inc.,
` 2015 WL 1744343, No. 14-732-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 15, 2015) ................................................ 22
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 31
`
`MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC,
` 934 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 5
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................ 23
`
`Parker v. Flook,
` 437 U.S. 584 (1978) .............................................................................................................. 2, 23
`
`Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC,
` 576 F. App’x 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 20
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
` 855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................................ 2, 14
`
`Reese v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
` 774 Fed. App’x 656 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... 4
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
` 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 4, 14
`
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
` 873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 2, 14, 20
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
` 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 10, 14, 18
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
` 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 4, 10
`
`Univ. of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co.,
` 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ............................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 31
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Defendant, the United States (“the Government”), hereby replies to Plaintiffs’ Brief in
`
`Opposition to the United States’ Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6). See ECF 15 (“Opp.”).
`
`The Government filed its Motion to Dismiss on October 11, 2019. See ECF 8 (“Motion”). In its
`
`Motion, the Government established that the patent claims asserted by Plaintiffs e-Numerate
`
`Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate, LLC (collectively “e-Numerate”) are directed to abstract ideas
`
`and lack any inventive concept sufficient to transform the ideas. The claims are therefore
`
`ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law under binding precedent. In its Opposition,
`
`e-Numerate fails to overcome the Government’s showing of ineligibility. e-Numerate’s
`
`“significant advance” allegations are no more than legal conclusions couched as implausible fact
`
`allegations, and its legal theories are fundamentally flawed. Accordingly, the Court should
`
`dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims
`
`(“RCFC”).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`“[A]bstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
`
`208, 216 (2014). e-Numerate’s asserted patents broadly claim four aspects of a markup language
`
`for browsing, manipulating, and viewing numbers on a computer, but this idea constitutes
`
`ineligible subject matter. See id. at 219-26; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial
`
`Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338-43 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v.
`
`Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“humans have always performed”
`
`“data collection, recognition, and storage”). The fact that the computer can perform such
`
`operations more efficiently than a human does not make the claimed idea any less abstract. See
`
`Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1370 (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or
`
`efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility.”); see also RecogniCorp, LLC v.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 31
`
`Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2017); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`
`839 F.3d 1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And while e-Numerate asserts that “tagging,” “macro,”
`
`and “transformation” aspects of its patent claims transcend abstraction, controlling precedent has
`
`rejected such assertions. See Univ. of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co.,
`
`916 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“converting . . . data” idea abstract); Bridge and Post, Inc.
`
`v. Verizon Comm’s, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“tagged request” idea
`
`abstract); Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`(“personalized marking” idea abstract); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemn. Co., 850
`
`F.3d 1315, 1327-28 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (tagging data for indexing abstract); Parker v. Flook, 437
`
`U.S. 584, 595 n.18 (1978) (“an improved method of calculation, even when tied to a specific end
`
`use, is unpatentable”).
`
`
`
`The specification of e-Numerate’s patents confirms that “the present invention provide[s]
`
`a markup language . . . that permits the browsing and manipulation of numbers and provide[s] a
`
`related data viewer.”1 ’355 Patent at 3:51-54; ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d
`
`759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he specification may . . . illuminat[e] whether the claims are
`
`directed to the identified abstract idea.”) (citations omitted); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that the specification’s use of “the present
`
`invention” underscored the proper characterization of the claims). The intrinsic record
`
`underscores, however, that humans had always performed these tasks; the claimed ideas are
`
`focused on performing the tasks “automatically.” ’355 Patent at 2:38-44; see also id. 1:51-59,
`
`
`1 Citing its Complaint, e-Numerate uses similar language in its Opposition. See, e.g.,
`Opp. at 29 (“[T]he invention claimed in the ’816 patent allows users to easily view, compare and
`analyze numerical data on the Internet.”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 31
`
`3:51-58, 8:14-23. Focusing on the plain language of the claims, e-Numerate’s asserted claims
`
`can be grouped and distilled to the following four ideas:
`
`Group
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`Patent and Asserted Claims
`U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355
`(Claims 2-15, 21, 25-26,
`29-42, 46, 52-53, 55)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,185,816
`(Claims 3-9, 12-14, 19-25)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,383
`(Claims 3, 4, 6-12, 14, 15)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`(Claims 2-5, 10)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,600,842
`(Claim 29)
`U.S. Patent No. 9,262,384
`(Claim 66)
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,268,748
`(Claims 12-16, 20)
`
`Abstract Idea Claimed
`Applying a macro to tagged numbers and reporting
`the results on a computer
`
`Combining two sets of data by converting them to a
`common format
`
`
`Validating data based on rules
`
`
`Generating reports based on data
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,223,337
`(Claim 1)
`
`
`See Motion at 13-14 (“Claim Group #”); see also A44 (Tr. 14:21-15:2) (stating that the asserted
`
`patents “claim various aspects of the [markup] language”). These distilled ideas remain abstract.
`
`
`
`In response to the Government’s Motion, e-Numerate provides only a series of
`
`boilerplate and conclusory arguments. Citing Berkheimer and Aatrix, e-Numerate argues that
`
`claim construction and fact issues preclude dismissal. But e-Numerate misconstrues the scope of
`
`both decisions and fails to actually identify any substantive issues that could affect eligibility.
`
`Next, e-Numerate argues that its claimed inventions represent novel improvements over prior art
`
`markup languages. But even assuming, arguendo, the novelty of the claimed inventions, a new
`
`abstract idea is still an ineligible abstraction. For these reasons, as addressed below, the Court
`
`should grant the Government’s motion to dismiss.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 31
`
`I.
`
`
`
`DISMISSAL OF INELIGIBLE CLAIMS IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME
`
`The Court may appropriately consider on the pleadings the eligibility of e-Numerate’s
`
`asserted patent claims. “Like other legal questions based on underlying facts, [eligibility under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101] may be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6)” motion. SAP
`
`Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted); see also
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(“patent eligibility can be determined at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage”); Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v.
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 749 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (same); First-Class
`
`Monitoring v. UPS, 389 F. Supp. 3d 456, 471-72 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (citing cases).
`
`A.
`
`e-Numerate does not Raise a Genuine Dispute as to Claim Construction
`
`
`
`e-Numerate asserts that “claim construction issues compel denial of the Government’s
`
`Motion,” Opp. at 42, but e-Numerate fails to raise any genuine issue of claim construction in its
`
`Opposition. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly explained that claim construction is not a
`
`prerequisite to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d
`
`1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[C]laim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity
`
`determination under § 101.”) (citing Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1349); Bancorp Servs., LLC
`
`v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2012));
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Reese v. Sprint
`
`Nextel Corp., 774 F. App’x 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing the same in the context of summary
`
`judgment). When there is no genuine dispute, the Court may determine patent eligibility without
`
`a formal claim construction. See Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1374. But if a genuine dispute
`
`exists, the Court “must proceed by adopting the non-moving party’s constructions, or must
`
`resolve the disputes to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis.” Aatrix, 882
`
`F.3d at 1125 (citations omitted); see also MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 934 F.3d 1373, 1379
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 31
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (same). Thus, contrary to e-Numerate’s assertion, a genuine claim construction
`
`dispute would not automatically compel denial of the Government’s Motion. But, as explained
`
`below, this case presents no genuine claim construction disputes.
`
`
`
`e-Numerate presents no genuine dispute regarding the constructions of the relevant claim
`
`terms. In particular, e-Numerate contends that
`
`“tags,” “tags indicating characteristics of the numerical values,” “tags reflecting
`characteristics of the numerical values,” “computer readable semantic tags” (and
`related limitations), and “macro” (and related limitations) . . . have a concrete,
`technical meaning that distinguish the inventions from the prior art.
`
`Opp. at 42. Yet e-Numerate proposed no actual constructions for any of the asserted terms, and
`
`failed to explain how construction would be relevant to eligibility. Instead of attempting to
`
`define the “tags” and “macro” terms in its Opposition, e-Numerate simply recites the claim terms
`
`in the context of other claim limitations. For example,
`
`e-Numerate argues...
`[T]he claims [of the ’355 Patent],
`properly construed, required the use
`of tagged numerical data, wherein the
`tags indicate characteristics of the
`data.
`The claims further require a specific
`macro operating on a variable located
`in a different document than the
`document containing the macro,
`among other meaningful limitations.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’355 Patent
`1. A computer-implemented method of processing
`tagged numerical data, the method comprising:
`
`receiving a series of numerical values having tags
`indicating characteristics of the numerical values;
`receiving a macro . . .
`
`the macro comprises . . . a variable, the variable is
`referenced in a local or remote document other than
`a document that contains the macro . . .
`
`
`Compare Opp. at 23 with ’355 Patent Claim 1; see also Opp. at 21 (“Properly construed, these
`
`tags pair the metadata directly with the numerical data in machine-readable form.”); Opp. at 29
`
`(quoting limitations from Claim 1 of the ’816 Patent). e-Numerate’s claim construction
`
`arguments are completely focused on the claims’ alleged novelty, rather than their eligibility.
`
`See id.; Opp. at 42. Nevertheless, e-Numerate’s straightforward recitation of the “tags” and
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 31
`
`“macro” terms, without any departure from their plain and ordinary meaning, strongly suggests
`
`that no construction of these terms is required at this stage.
`
`
`
`In addition, e-Numerate expressly refused to provide any proposed claim constructions to
`
`the Government. After e-Numerate filed its Opposition, counsel for the Government requested
`
`that “Plaintiffs provide their claim constructions for the terms that they claim are disputed” for
`
`purposes of this Motion. See A239-40 (letter). In response, counsel for e-Numerate stated that
`
`“Plaintiffs will not provide claim constructions at this time.” See A241 (letter).
`
`
`
`e-Numerate’s refusal to provide its claim constructions at this time is surprising, given
`
`that it previously adopted claim construction positions on the same terms in the context of the
`
`inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. See also Opp. at 42-43 (citing IPR construction of
`
`terms). For example, in its IPR institution decision for the ’355 Patent, the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) applied the following constructions proposed by the petitioner:
`
`• “tag” is “a sequence of characters that adds data about data”
`
`• “macro” is “a short program that defines a set of instructions”
`
`A365-66 (IPR2018-01394). e-Numerate adopted and used the constructions without dispute.
`
`See A432-33 (IPR2018-01394).2 Even though the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard
`
`was used for these terms, the constructions appear completely consistent with the plain and
`
`ordinary meanings of the terms. See A365-66 (IPR2018-01394) (relying on the Microsoft
`
`Computer Dictionary and the specification of the ’355 Patent). e-Numerate asserts that these
`
`constructions are “irrelevant information” because of the “claim construction standard employed
`
`in the IPR proceedings,” A241, but the different standards do not suggest different results here.
`
`
`2 Similarly, in the IPR proceeding for the ’748 Patent, e-Numerate adopted and used the
`following construction for “semantic tag”: “a reference or a sequence of characters that adds
`data describing the meaning of the data.” A248-49, A307-08 (IPR2018-01389).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`The constructions adopted by e-Numerate during the IPR proceedings are also
`
`remarkably consistent with the definitions provided by counsel during oral argument in district
`
`court. See e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp.., D. Del. No. 17-cv-933
`
`(“Delaware Case”); A50 (Tr. 20:3-20) (a “macro” is “a small, . . . individualized program” that
`
`performs an automatic operation); A56 (Tr. 26:2-7) (“tags . . . are computer readable [sequences]
`
`that describe [or] correspond[ to] numerical values”). These representations strongly suggest
`
`that e-Numerate construes these terms in accord with their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`
`
`Nevertheless, e-Numerate’s refusal to provide claim constructions apart from those used
`
`by the PTAB demonstrates that there are no competing constructions and no genuine claim
`
`construction dispute. Accordingly, the Court may determine eligibility at this stage without a
`
`formal claim construction. See Genetic Techs., 818 F.3d at 1374.
`
`B.
`
`e-Numerate does not Raise any Plausible Fact Issues
`
`
`
`In its Opposition, e-Numerate insists that its allegations, as pled in the Complaint, must
`
`be accepted as true and preclude dismissal. See, e.g., Opp. at 2, 3, 6, 13, 43-44. The Court,
`
`however, must only accept allegations that are both: (1) “factual” and (2) “plausible.” Aatrix,
`
`882 F.3d at 1125; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). e-Numerate’s
`
`conclusory allegations fail to meet this standard.
`
`
`
`First, e-Numerate’s conclusory allegations are not factual. e-Numerate repeatedly alleges
`
`that the claimed limitations represent a “significant advance” over XML and HTML, allowing
`
`for entirely new uses of data. Opp. at 1, 3, 21, 28, 30, 32-34, 43, 44; see also ECF 1 ¶¶ 13-27.
`
`e-Numerate provides no plausible facts that sufficiently support this conclusion. In the absence
`
`of support, e-Numerate’s “significant advance” allegations are no more than legal conclusions
`
`couched as fact allegations. Accordingly, the Court may properly disregard e-Numerate’s
`
`unsupported “significant advance” allegations. See Bridge and Post, 778 F. App’x at 894
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 14 of 31
`
`(holding that a court correctly disregarded a plaintiff’s “repeated characterization of its
`
`inventions as ‘technical innovations’”).
`
`
`
`Second, e-Numerate’s conclusory allegations are not plausible. For example, citing its
`
`Complaint, e-Numerate asserts that its 1999 invention “represented a significant technological
`
`advance that allowed users for the first time to view, compare, and analyze numerical data on the
`
`internet.” Opp. at 7.3 e-Numerate’s broad assertion is implausible – there can be no doubt that
`
`users performed these tasks on the internet prior to 1999.4 Moreover, e-Numerate’s Complaint
`
`and the intrinsic record of the patents directly contradict e-Numerate’s assertion. In its
`
`Complaint, e-Numerate admitted that “the Internet was replete with numerical data” by “the late
`
`1990s,” that “a financial statement showing numbers could be displayed by computer systems
`
`running browsers,” and that an “organization would have to rely on its senior financial
`
`accountants to manually select, analyze, combine, and format accounting items.” ECF 1 ¶¶ 15,
`
`15.c, 17.a. e-Numerate’s Complaint and the intrinsic record repeatedly state that numerical data
`
`could be viewed, compared, and analyzed, but that the tasks required “human intervention”:
`
`Human intervention is required to recognize differing types of numerical data and
`conform the data so that it may be combined and displayed coherently on charts,
`graphs and reports. Conventionally, formatting of graphical charts displaying
`numerical data requires manual manipulation when series of different types of
`data are combined.
`
`See ’355 Patent at 2:38-44; see also id. at 1:51-59, 3:51-58, 8:14-23; ECF 1 ¶¶ 16.c.ii, 17.a.
`
`Therefore, the Complaint and the intrinsic record demonstrate that the alleged advance was not
`
`viewing, comparing, and analyzing numerical data on the Internet; instead, e-Numerate’s alleged
`
`3 And even assuming, arguendo, the truth of this implausible allegation, it is merely
`directed to the ineligible abstract idea itself, and cannot serve as an inventive concept. See, e.g.,
`Univ. of Florida Research, 916 F.3d at 1369; Capital One, 850 F.3d at 1341.
`
`4 See, e.g., EDGAR Database of corporate information, February 23, 1998, archived at
`https://web.archive.org/web/19980223220012/http://www.sec.gov/edgarhp.htm.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 15 of 31
`
`advance was performing these tasks “automatically,” without “human intervention.” See ’355
`
`Patent at 2:38-44; see also id. at 1:51-59, 3:51-58, 8:14-23; ECF 1 ¶¶ 16.c.ii, 17.a. e-Numerate’s
`
`“technological advance” characterizations in the Opposition are contradicted by the intrinsic
`
`record. See, e.g., Athena Diagnostics, 915 F.3d at 756 (“Because Athena’s expert declaration
`
`made allegations inconsistent with the [asserted] patent, the district court was not obliged to
`
`accept them as true.”). Thus, e-Numerate raises no plausible fact issues that preclude dismissal.
`
`See Bridge and Post, 778 F. App’x at 894.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL THEORIES ARE FLAWED AND MISLEADING
`
`In the absence of a genuine claim construction or fact issue, e-Numerate relies on a series
`
`of mistaken legal arguments. The Court should reject each of e-Numerate’s arguments.
`
`A.
`
`The Federal Circuit Said Berkheimer and Aatrix Are “Narrow”
`
`
`
`e-Numerate inflates the impact of Berkheimer and Aatrix and suggests that prior
`
`precedential decisions may be disregarded. See Opp. at 5, 12 n.3, 40-41 (asserting that the
`
`decisions “changed the law” and purportedly distinguishing “pre-Aatrix” cases). e-Numerate’s
`
`assertions are erroneous. Both Berkheimer and Aatrix are based on prior precedent, and neither
`
`suggest that such precedent may be disregarded.5 See, e.g., Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d
`
`1360, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Nothing in this decision should be viewed as casting doubt on
`
`the propriety of [prior] cases.”); Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1127-28. Patent ineligibility under Section
`
`101 remains “a question of law [that] may contain underlying facts,” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at
`
`1368, and it “may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the undisputed facts require a
`
`holding of ineligibility,” Athena Diagnostics, 915 F.3d at 749.
`
`
`5 Indeed, the author of both decisions, as well as the other joining judges, described the
`decisions as “stand[ing] for [an] unremarkable proposition,” “apply[ing] the well-settled Rule
`12(b)(6) standard,” and “narrow.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1370, 1372, 1374
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (per curiam concurrence) (denying petition for rehearing en banc).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 19 Filed 01/24/20 Page 16 of 31
`
`B.
`
`e-Numerate’s Patents Raise a Rebuttable Presumption of Eligibi