Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 13
`Case 1:19-cv-00859—RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SH
`154-19-859
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`Civil Division
`
`Telephone:
`Facsimile:
`
`(202) 305-3075
`(202) 307-0345
`
`Washington, DC 20530
`
`
`
`January 29, 2021
`
`Sean O’Kelly
`O’Kelly & Ernst, LLC
`824 N. Market Street
`Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`O'Rourke Law Office, LLC
`1201 N. Orange Street
`Suite 7260
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
`gorourke@orourkefirm.com
`
`
`
`Re: e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. et al., v. United States,
`
`Court of Federal Claims No. 1:19-cv-859
`
`
`Dear Counsel,
`
`I write in response to both e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate, LLC’s
`(collectively, Plaintiffs or “E-Numerate”) infringement contentions dated December 15, 2020
`(preliminary infringement contentions or “PICs”) and Mr. O’Rourke’s related correspondence of
`January 5, 2021. As detailed below, these contentions do not meet the notice requirement
`necessary under the Court’s rules and case law. Additionally, your letter purporting to add seven
`additional agencies is procedurally improper.
`
`1. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions Do Not Identify a Single Infringing Act
`
`As a preliminary matter, under Rule 4 of the Patent Rules of the Court of Federal Claims
`(“PRCFC”), e-Numerate was required to provide “a chart identifying where each element of each
`asserted claim is found within each accused product, process, or method.” The Federal Circuit
`has explained that the purpose of such rules is for parties to provide “early notice of their
`infringement and invalidity contentions, and to proceed with diligence in amending those
`contentions when new information comes to light in the course of discovery. The rules thus seek
`to balance the right to develop new information in discovery with the need for certainty as to the
`legal theories.” O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed.
`Cir. 2006) (discussing similar rules adopted by the Northern District of California); see also
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 2
`
`CANVS Corp. v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 100, 102 (2012) (noting that the special procedures
`order was based on Northern District of California’s local patent rules).
`
`Notably, all of E-Numerate’s contentions fail to identify a single act of infringement
`based on compliance with the XBRL 2.1 format. At most, the PICs demonstrate that the XBRL
`2.1 data format includes functionality that could be used to commit infringing acts, but do not
`establish that infringing features are necessary for a product to be XBRL 2.1 compliant. Using
`an industry standard to establish infringement may be sufficient if the standard requires that the
`relevant feature be implemented, see Fujitsu Ltd. v. Netgear Inc., 620 F.3d 1321, 1327-28 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010), but E-Numerate has not made such an assertion, and nor could it.
`
`Additionally, E-Numerate’s PICs fail to establish a single act of infringement by any of the
`accused SEC systems or activities, including but not limited to the EDGAR Viewer, EDGAR
`Renderer, Arelle, and/or Inline XBRL Viewer. PICs at 2, 4. In a similar case where the patentee
`provided infringement contentions that “fail[ed] to identify a single accused device” and instead
`“merely refer[ed] to large technology categories” the court granted a motion for summary
`judgment of noninfringement and denied a motion to amend the contentions as moot.
`Demodulation, Inc. v. United States, 126 Fed. Cl. 499, 510 (2016).
`
`This deficiency is especially concerning because the SEC’s publicly available EDGAR
`Filer Manual1 details the requirements for filings including the content, format, and form of XBRL
`submissions. Additionally, E-Numerate’s infringement contentions identify a source code
`repository available online for the EDGAR Renderer2 yet inexplicably fail to chart any of this
`code. See, e.g., PICs Ex. G at 3. Moreover, while E-Numerate refers to a product by third-party
`Toppan Merrill Bridge, it failed to provide any screen shots displaying the accused operation of
`the product or cited to any product manual or literature, as is typically done in these cases.
`
`The Court of Federal Claims has held that “where the information that a plaintiff relies
`upon to support amendment was publicly available prior to the time for filing plaintiff's
`infringement contentions, a court should be reluctant to permit amendment.” CANVS Corp., 107
`Fed. Cl. at 107 (citing Global Sessions LP v. Travelocity.com LP, No. 6:10cv671 LED–JDL, 2012
`WL 1903903, at *4 (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2012) (unpublished) (denying leave to amend infringement
`contentions to include information that was publicly available at the time that the original
`infringement contentions were due); SmartPhone Techs., LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10cv580
`LED–JDL, 2012 WL 1424173, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2012) (unpublished) (finding a lack of
`diligence and therefore no good cause to amend where a party omitted from its initial infringement
`contentions three accused devices that were publicly available at the time that infringement
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://www.sec.gov/edgar/filer-information/current-edgar-filer-manual
`2 https://github.com/Arelle/EdgarRenderer/blob/3.3.0.814/change_log.md.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 3
`
`contentions were due); cf. Patent L.R. 3–6(b) (noting that one circumstance that would support a
`finding of good cause is the “recent discovery of nonpublic information about the Accused
`Instrumentality which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of the
`Infringement Contentions”)).
`
`E-Numerate’s PICs also state that the “the Merrill Bridge product is representative of
`software and services provided by various service providers to assist their customers with SEC
`filings for which the United States has assumed liability” and that “the Mattress Firm SEC filing
`is representative of filings made by SEC filers for which the United States has assumed liability.”
`PICs at 2. Previously, in the Joint Preliminary Status Report, Plaintiffs requested that “any
`limitation on claim construction involving representative claims should be held in conjunction with
`the Government having to stipulate to representative third party products for liability purposes.”
`Dkt. No. 35 at *2. At the corresponding November scheduling hearing, the Government explained
`that E-Numerate would have to first identify the universe of relevant third-party software before
`any representative stipulation could be negotiated. These boilerplate statements in the PICs fail to
`provide the requisite notice of the identity of third-party software providers or filers.3
`
`Further, we have identified numerous failures to chart specific claim elements on a patent-
`by-patent basis and have provided tables summarizing that analysis in Exhibit A to this letter.
`
`In light of the foregoing, please provide amended infringement contentions in which you
`allege actual infringement based on an analysis of the relevant source code, EDGAR manual, and
`third-party software rather than merely the XBRL specification. Additionally, these amended
`contentions should provide notice as to the missing claim elements identified in Exhibit A, as this
`is affecting the Government’s ability to provide responsive invalidity contentions. Accordingly,
`please confirm by February 5, 2021 that E-Numerate will be providing these updated contentions,
`provide a date certain by which it will do so, and agree to a modification to the case schedule in
`which the Government’s deadline for its invalidity contentions under PRCFC 6 is extended in a
`commensurate manner. If you do not agree, please provide a time to meet-and-confer.
`
`2. The SEC’s Accused Internal Systems
`
`In its infringement contentions, E-Numerate stated that it believes that internal SEC
`systems, which it refers to as a validator program, a compliance reviewer, and an anti-fraud
`detector, infringe the ‘842 Patent. PICs at 2. We have attempted to identify these systems to
`determine if there is a plausible infringement allegation, and if so, to locate responsive documents.
`
`
`3 To date, we have not received any notice of third-party subpoenas despite E-Numerate’s
`request to initiate such discovery ahead of schedule. See Dkt. No. 35 at *8; RCFC 45(a)(4)
`(requiring notice of a subpoena to other parties before the subpoena is served).
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 4
`
`
`We understand the “validator program” to correspond to the open source “EDGAR Filer
`Manual” (EFM) validation plug-in that implements all validations documented in EDGAR Filer
`Manual sections 5.2.5 and section 6. This is published and maintained by Arelle and therefore E-
`Numerate should have already provided detailed contentions with respect to this software.
`
`We understand the “compliance reviewer” to correspond to an internal application that
`permits users to view, through any Inline XBRL document, the content of previous and/or related
`XBRL filings that have been loaded into the Interactive Data Analysis Platform (IDAP). The
`IDAP is a non-public data repository. We understand the “anti-fraud detector” to correspond to
`an internal application that uses data that has been downloaded into IDAP.
`
`Neither the compliance reviewer, the anti-fraud detector, nor IDAP perform XBRL
`validation. Rather, IDAP itself uses the output of EDGAR Validation and the compliance reviewer
`and anti-fraud detector use IDAP. Given that the systems corresponding to the “compliance
`reviewer” and “anti-fraud detector” are downstream from any software that performs XBRL
`validation, E-Numerate has not provided any infringement allegation to implicate these systems.
`Accordingly, we will not be producing documents relating to these systems in our forthcoming
`document production pursuant PRCFC 7(A).4
`
`3. New Allegations against Other Government Agencies
`
`In your letter of January 5, 2021 you purport to advance infringement allegations against
`seven other agencies or bodies besides the SEC, FDIC, and FFIEC based on unidentified
`references to XBRL within the US Federal Register. Given the hundreds of references you state
`are listed there, if E-Numerate had performed its diligence prior to filing its (original or even
`amended) complaint, it would have made these allegations long ago. After performing your due
`diligence to ensure that E-Numerate can credibly make these allegations, you must amend your
`complaint to assert infringement against these entities. Since you will need leave to amend your
`pleading again, we request that you meet-and-confer with us within three weeks of receipt of this
`letter, February 19, 2021, with a draft of the proposed amended complaint to discuss whether
`your request would be opposed and how your request may affect the discovery schedule.
`
`Additionally, the Government presently intends to make a document production pursuant
`to PRCFC 7 with respect to the SEC. Indeed, the rules provide a timing mechanism in which
`parties have time to identify, collect and produce required documents, but this assumes that a
`defendant was put on notice of the relevant allegation in the complaint. Accordingly, if you file
`another amended complaint, we expect that E-Numerate will provide detailed contentions as to
`
`
`4 We also note that documents relating to the compliance reviewer and anti-fraud detector
`are extremely sensitive and confidential.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 5
`
`these new agencies within the time frame required by PRCFC 4, at which point the Government
`will provide the corresponding document production required by PRCFC 7.
`
`Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`/s/ Shahar Harel
`
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 6
`
`
`Exhibit A
`a. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 7,350,355 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 7,350,355 (the “‘355 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies. Additionally, claim 46
`depends on parent claims 44 and 45 that have no infringement allegations against them.
`Accordingly, we understand that E-Numerate does not allege that claim 46 is infringed.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`“generating at least one first title
`corresponding to the series of
`numerical values”
`
`“generating at least one second
`title corresponding to results of the
`operation”
`
`E-Numerate cites reading and processing an XBRL-
`compliant Instance Document. However, E-Numerate fails
`to show any existence of a title or a second title in an
`Instance Document or any generation of a title based on
`data in an Instance Document.
`
`
`
`“receiving the macro comprises
`receiving
`the macro
`including
`interpreted code, meta-data, and
`error handling instructions”
`
`E-Numerate cites to a Calculation Rule in an XBRL
`Financial Report. However, E-Numerate fails to show or
`provide any reasoning that a Calculation Rule includes
`interpreted code, metadata, or error handling instructions.
`
`
`
`b. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 8,185,816 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 8,185,816 (the “‘816 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`first markup
`a
`“receiving
`document and a second markup
`document, both the first markup
`document and the second markup
`document
`including numerical
`values”
`
`E-Numerate cites a Taxonomy and an Instance Document
`in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-Numerate fails
`to show that the documents in a XBRL Financial Report
`include both a “first markup document” and a “second
`markup document” both containing “numerical values.”
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 7
`
`
`“automatically transforming the
`numerical values of at least one of
`the first markup document and the
`second markup document, so that
`the numerical values of the first
`markup document and the second
`markup document have a common
`format.”
`
`
`
`Rather, E-Numerate only identifies a single document that
`contains numerical values – the Instance Document.
`
`E-Numerate cites a Taxonomy and an Instance Document
`in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-Numerate fails
`to show that the documents in a XBRL Financial Report
`include “numerical values”
`in different
`formats.
`Specifically, E-Numerate has not provided any evidence or
`definition of a “format” or how data can be converted to a
`“common format.”
`
`c. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 9,262,383 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,262,383 (the “‘383 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies. Additionally, claim 6 depends
`on parent claim 5 that has no infringement allegations against it. Similarly, claims 14 and 15
`depend on parent claim 13 that has no infringement allegations against it. Accordingly, we
`understand that E-Numerate does not allege that claims 6, 14, and 15 are infringed.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`E-Numerate cites a Taxonomy and an Instance Document
`in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-Numerate fails
`to show that a single INSTANCE Document includes both
`a “first markup document including first numerical values”
`and a “second markup document including second
`numerical values”. Rather, E-Numerate only identifies a
`single document which it assumes contains numerical
`values.
`
`first
`identifying a
`for
`“code
`markup document including first
`numerical values and first tags
`reflecting first characteristics of
`the
`first
`numerical
`values
`associated with a first unit of
`measure, and a second markup
`document
`including
`second
`numerical values and second tags
`reflecting second characteristics
`of the second numerical values
`associated with a second unit of
`measure”
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 9 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 8
`
`
`d. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 9,262,384 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,262,384 (the “‘384 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`least parts of a
`“identify at
`plurality of original documents
`including a plurality of original
`values, the plurality of original
`documents
`including
`a
`first
`document including first values
`and a second document including
`second values”
`
`“identify one or more indications
`for one or more of the original
`values for tagging, in connection
`with at
`least one computer-
`readable Extensible Markup
`Language (XML)-compliant data
`document, using a corresponding
`one or more computer-readable
`semantic tags”
`
`“generate a presentation/report/at
`least
`one
`computer-readable
`XML-compliant data document5
`utilizing at least a portion of the at
`least one data structure.”
`
`“utilizing the at least one data
`structure, a change to the at least
`one original value results in a
`corresponding
`change
`in
`a
`subsequently
`generated
`presentation/report/at least one
`
`E-Numerate cites a XBRL Instance Document and
`linkbases in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-
`Numerate fails to show that the documents in a XBRL
`Financial Report include both a “first document including
`first values” and a “second document including second
`values.” Rather, E-Numerate only identifies a single
`document that it assumes contains numerical values.
`
`E-Numerate cites a XBRL Instance Document and
`linkbases in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-
`Numerate fails to show how one or more original values
`can be selected for tagging as the identified document
`already contains tagged values.
`
`E-Numerate cites the preparation, editing, and submission
`of a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-Numerate has
`not articulated how preparing, editing, or submitting a
`report requires generating a presentation, a report, or a
`XML-compliant data document, nor has E-Numerate
`identified any portion of any software or system that
`constitutes a presentation, report, or XML-compliant data
`document.
`
`
`5 To conserve space, we have collapsed several different but similar claim elements into
`one row and used italics with a slash to designate the varying terms within these similar claim
`elements.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 10 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 9
`
`
`computer-readable
`compliant data document.”
`
`XML-
`
`
`
`e. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 9,262,748 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,262,748 (the “‘748 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`“where the at least one computer-
`readable XML-compliant data
`document is capable of including
`multiple hierarchical relationships
`between two line items”
`
`a plurality of computer-readable
`rules
`including: a computer-
`readable
`datatype
`rule
`for
`validation of a type of data values,
`a computer-readable calculation
`rule for validation of a calculation
`involving data values, and a
`computer-readable unit rule for
`validation of a unit of data values.”
`
`“storing a plurality of original
`documents including a plurality of
`original values, including a first
`document including first values
`and a second document including
`second values.”
`
`E-Numerate cites a XBRL Instance Document and XBRL
`Taxonomy. However, E-Numerate has not explained how
`these are capable of including multiple hierarchical
`relationships between two line items.
`
`
`
` E-Numerate cites an XBRL Instance Document and
`associated linkbases. However, E-Numerate has not
`identified any examples of any document containing any
`rules or provided any example of specific rules that
`constitute “computer-readable datatype rule,” a “computer-
`readable calculation rule,” or a “computer-readable unit
`rule.”
`
`E-Numerate cites an XBRL Instance Document and
`linkbases in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-
`Numerate fails to show that the documents in a XBRL
`Financial Report include both a “first document including
`first values” and a “second document including second
`values.” Rather, E-Numerate only identifies a single
`document that contains numerical values.
`
`receiving a user
`for
`“code
`selection of one or more
`computer-readable semantic tags;
`code for receiving a user selection
`
`E-Numerate cites an XBRL Instance Document and
`linkbases in a XBRL Financial Report to disclose the
`original document. However, E-Numerate fails to cite any
`relevant code.
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 11 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 10
`
`
`of one or more of the original
`values.”
`
`a
`
`“outputting
`presentation/report/XML-
`compliant data document that is
`based on at least a portion of the at
`least one object.”
`
`“a change to the at least one
`original value of the at least one
`original document results in a
`corresponding
`change
`in
`a
`subsequent
`instance
`of
`the
`presentation/report/
`computer-
`readable XML-compliant data
`document.”
`
`
`
`E-Numerate cites the preparation, editing, and submission
`of a XBRL Financial Report as meeting these claim
`limitations. However, E-Numerate has not articulated how
`preparing, editing, or submitting a report requires
`generating a presentation, a report, or a XML-compliant
`data document, nor has E-Numerate identified any portion
`of any software or system that constitutes a presentation,
`report, or XML-compliant data document.
`
`E-Numerate cites the preparation, editing, and submission
`of a XBRL Financial Report as meeting these claim
`limitations. However, E-Numerate has not articulated how
`preparing, editing, or submitting a report requires
`corresponding changes to flow through a presentation,
`report, or XML-compliant data document.
`
`f. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 9,600,842 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 9,600,842 (the “‘842 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`“where the at least one computer-
`readable XML-compliant data
`document is capable of including
`multiple hierarchical relationships
`between two of the plurality of
`line items.”
`
`“retrieving data from one or more
`sources to represent the at least
`one data value in the report.”
`
`E-Numerate cites an XBRL Instance Document and XBRL
`Taxonomy as meeting this claim limitation. However, E-
`Numerate has not explained how these are capable of
`including multiple hierarchical relationships between two
`line items.
`
`
`
`E-Numerate cites the use of an XBRL validator to disclose
`this claim limitation. However, E-Numerate fails to show
`any automatic update of those reports. E-Numerate fails to
`demonstrate how or why an XBRL Financial Report, which
`already includes all values in its Instance Document, would
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 12 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 11
`
`
`
`
`retrieve additional values from a separate data source
`during a validation or rendering process.
`
`g. E-Numerate’s Infringement Contentions with respect to U.S. Pat. No. 10,223,337 are
`deficient
`
`In addition to the above general deficiencies, E-Numerate’s contentions with respect U.S.
`Pat. No. 10,223,337 (the “‘337 Patent”) fail to provide support for certain claim limitations. The
`table below identifies the relevant claim elements and deficiencies.
`
`Claim Element
`
`E-Numerate’s Contentions
`
`“storing a plurality of original
`documents including a plurality of
`original values, including a first
`document including first values
`and a second document including
`second values.”
`
`“receiving a user selection of one
`or more
`computer-readable
`semantic tags; receiving a user
`selection of one or more of the
`original values.”
`
`a
`
`“outputting
`presentation/report/XML-
`compliant data document that is
`based on at least a portion of the at
`least one object.”
`
`“utilizing the at least one object, a
`change to the at least one original
`value of the at least one original
`document
`results
`in
`a
`corresponding
`change
`in
`a
`subsequent
`instance
`of
`the
`
`E-Numerate cites a XBRL Instance Document and
`linkbases in a XBRL Financial Report. However, E-
`Numerate fails to show that the documents in a XBRL
`Financial Report include both a “first document including
`first values” and a “second document including second
`values.” Rather, E-Numerate only identifies a single
`document that contains numerical values.
`
`E-Numerate cites a XBRL Instance Document and
`linkbases in a XBRL Financial Report to disclose the
`original document. However, E-Numerate fails to show
`how one or more semantic tags or original values can be
`selected in the first document or second document. Rather,
`the document identified as both the first document and
`second document already contains tagged values.
`
`E-Numerate cites the preparation, editing, and submission
`of a XBRL Financial Report as meeting these claim
`limitations. However, E-Numerate has not articulated how
`preparing, editing, or submitting a report requires
`generating a presentation, a report, or a XML-compliant
`data document, nor has E-Numerate identified any portion
`of any software or system that constitutes a presentation,
`report, or XML-compliant data document.
`
`E-Numerate cites the preparation, editing, and submission
`of a XBRL Financial Report as meeting these claim
`limitations. However, E-Numerate has not articulated how
`preparing, editing, or submitting a report requires
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-4 Filed 03/11/21 Page 13 of 13
`
`Gerard O’Rourke and Sean O’Kelly
`January 29, 2021
`pg. 12
`
`
`computer-
`presentation/report/
`readable XML-compliant data
`document.”
`
`
`
`
`
`corresponding changes to flow through a presentation,
`report, or XML-compliant data document.
`
`