Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 8
`Case 1:19-cv-00859—RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`EXHIBIT G
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Gerard M. O’Rourke, Esq.
`gorourke@okorlaw.com
`Direct: (302) 778-4002
`
`
`
`March 4, 2021
`
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`
`
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`
`
`
`Dear Shahar:
`
`
`Re: e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. et al. v United States, Case No. 19-859-RTH
`
`We are in receipt of the Judge’s Order setting a status conference for March 15, 2021, in
`the above-referenced matter. Per your request, we set forth some issues that we would like to
`bring up with the Court at the hearing. It would be helpful if we could see if the Government
`will agree to these items in advance to minimize the areas of dispute between the parties.
`
`Initially, we set forth the procedural posture of the case as it stands now as well as what
`we believe the procedural posture of the case should be after the hearing and any amended
`pleading that follows. We then address the following:
`
`(1) amendment of the Complaint to assert U.S. Patent 10,423,708 against the Government
`and third party vendors (such as Toppan Merrill) providing validation of XBRL data;
`
` (2) amendment of the Complaint to assert the ‘748 patent (and its asserted dependent
`claims) against the Government and the ‘842 patent, claim 29, against third party vendors
`providing validation of XBRL data;
`
`(4) whether the Government will provide a verified response to an interrogatory
`identifying all systems in the Government that validate XBRL data pursuant to the XBRL
`validation standard;
`
`(5) amendment of the Complaint to assert infringement of the ‘748, ‘842 and ‘708 patents
`against the governmental agencies/departments identified in (4);
`
`(6) amendment of the Complaint to assert the ‘355, ‘816 and ‘383 patents against the
`
`SEC;
`
`
`(7) whether the Government will provide a verified response to an interrogatory
`identifying all XBRL analysis systems/programs in the Government used to analyze XBRL data;
`
`
`
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A, Wilmington, DE 19801
`PH (302) 778-4000 FX (302) 295-2873
`www.okorlaw.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 3 of 8
`
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC
`March 4, 2021
`
`(8) amendment of the Complaint to assert the ‘355, ‘816 and ‘383 against the systems
`identified in (7);
`
`(9) use of a representative third party product (e.g., Toppan Merrill bridge) to prove
`infringement against the vendors that supply XBRL filings to the SEC; and
`
`(10) re-setting the schedule for claim construction;
`
`Each issue is addressed in turn.
`
`
`I.
`
` Procedural Posture Of The Case
`
`e-Numerate served its preliminary infringement contentions on December 15, 2020,
`pursuant to Court of Federal Claims Patent Rules (“CFCPR”) 4 and 5 and D.I. 36 and 38. You
`sent us a letter raising purported inadequacies regarding those contentions on January 21, 2021.
`Although we disagreed with your assertions, we supplemented the infringement contentions on
`February 26, 2021.
`
`It should be apparent from these contentions that e-Numerate has no interest in playing
`“hide the ball” with the Government about what it contends is infringing the patents-in-suit.
`From our standpoint, the case as pleaded presently looks as follows:
`
`
`Accused Toppan Merrill Bridge/Third
`Party Vendor Functionality1
`
`Applicable Patents2
`
`Validation of data
`
`‘748 patent, claim 1.
`
`Gathering numerical data from numerous
`source documents and
`combining/transforming the numerical data
`
`“Change Once, Change Everywhere”
`
`
`
`‘816 patent; ‘383 patent; and/or ‘355 patent.
`
`‘384 patent; ‘748 patent, claims 11 and 19
`and asserted dependent claims; ‘337 patent.
`
`
`1 Please see infra for a discussion of the Toppan Merrill/third party vendor functionality.
`2 For ease of reference, we have only discussed independent claims here. The complete listing
`of asserted claims is set forth in our infringement contentions. The ‘748 patent has independent
`claim 1 which we contend applies to the validation functionality of Toppan Merrill Bridge (and
`the SEC) and independent claims 11 and 19, which we contend applies to the “change once,
`change everywhere” functionality of Toppan Merrill Bridge.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 4 of 8
`
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC
`March 4, 2021
`
`United States Securities Exchange
`Commission
`
`Applicable Patents
`
`Validation of data
`
`‘842 patent, claim 29.
`
`
`
`We believe that the procedural posture of the case should look as follows once all the
`asserted claims are amended and parties are joined:
`
`
`Accused Toppan Merrill Bridge/Third
`Party Vendor Functionality
`
`Applicable Patents
`
`Validation of data
`
`Gathering numerical data from numerous
`source documents and
`combining/transforming the numerical data
`
`“Change Once, Change Everywhere”
`
`‘748 patent, claim 1; ‘842 patent, claim 29;
`and‘708 patent.
`
`‘816 patent; ‘383 patent; and/or ‘355 patent.
`
`‘384 patent; ‘748 patent, claims 11 and 19
`and asserted dependent claims; ‘337 patent.
`
`
`
`All Government Agencies/Departments
`That Perform Validation of XBRL Data
`
`Applicable Patents
`
`Validation of data
`
`‘748 patent, claim 1; ‘842 patent, claim 29;
`‘708 patent.
`
`
`All Government Agencies/Departments
`That Perform Analyses of XBRL Data
`Combining/Tranforming Numerical Data
`
`
`II.
`
`Applicable Patents
`
`‘816 patent; ‘383 patent; and/or ‘355 patent.
`
`Amendment To Assert The ‘708 Patent
`
`
`
`We would like to amend the Complaint to assert the ‘708 patent against third party
`vendors supplying XBRL filings to the SEC (such as Toppan Merrill) and the SEC itself along
`with every other Government agency/department that validates XBRL data.
`
`To put our position into context, please review the following:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 5 of 8
`
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC
`March 4, 2021
`
`
`https://specifications.xbrl.org/validation.html
`
`This page begins with the sentence:
`
`
`The core XBRL specifications (see XBRL Essentials) define validation
`constraints which XBRL processors must impose on all XBRL reports. These
`enforce not only basic syntactical checks, but also ensure that the reports comply
`with the definitions in the taxonomy.
`
`Id. (emphasis added). Three of the validation checks are: datatypes, calculations and
`units. Validation rules are recited in the claims of the ‘708 patent (and the ‘748 patent, claim 1,
`and ‘842 patent, claim 29). It is e-Numerate’s position that systems that validate XBRL data as
`required by the standard infringe the relevant asserted claims of the ‘748, ‘842 and ‘708 patents.3
`
`Please advise if you oppose the foregoing amendment.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`Amendment Of The Complaint To Assert The ‘748 patent (at least claim 1)
`Against The Government And The ‘842 patent, claim 29, Against Third Parties
`
`
`As set forth above, the ‘748 patent is presently being asserted against third party vendors
`such as Toppan Merrill. The ‘842 patent is presently being asserted against the Government.
`Upon reviewing the situation in more detail, it is apparent that ‘748 patent applies to Government
`infringement and the ‘842 patent applies to third party infringement. As a result, we would like
`to amend the complaint to assert the ‘748 and the ‘842 against both the third parties and the
`Government.
`
`Please advise if you oppose this amendment.
`
`
`
`IV. Government Identification Of Validation Systems
`
`As set forth above, we would ask the Government to provide a verified interrogatory
`response identifying all systems that validate XBRL data in the Government’s possession,
`custody and control pursuant to the XBRL validation standard. This identification should
`include an identification of the system name and the agency/department that runs the system
`and/or the third party(ies) that run the system on the Government’s behalf.
`
`Your letter of January 29, 2021 states that the SEC’s compliance and anti-fraud systems
`do not validate XBRL data (at least insofar as you are interpreting “XBRL validation”). We
`have no independent way to confirm that. Similarly, there is no readily available way for e-
`
`
`3 As we set forth below, we have reason to believe third party vendors that supply XBRL filings
`to other Government agencies (e.g., the FDIC) are similarly infringing the ‘748, ‘842, and ‘708
`patents as are the agencies themselves. Given that these vendors are in the exact same position
`as Toppan Merrill, e-Numerate contends that these vendors are also operating with the
`Government’s authorization and consent. Please advise if you disagree.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC
`March 4, 2021
`
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Page 5 of 7
`
`Numerate to identify other Governmental systems that validate XBRL data at other agencies
`including those that are the recipients of data shared by, e.g., the FDIC and the SEC. Given that
`this information is uniquely in the Government’s possession, custody and control, we ask that
`you agree to provide a verified interrogatory response identifying these systems.
`
`Please advise if you agree to this process and we will forward you an interrogatory.
`
`V.
`
`Assertion Of The ‘748, ‘842 and ‘708 Patents Against Government
`Agencies/Departments
`
`
`Once we obtain the identification requested in IV above, we would then assert the ‘748,
`‘842 and ‘708 patents against those systems and the involved agencies/departments. Please
`advise if you will consent to that.
`
`VI. Amendment Of The Complaint To Assert The ‘355, ‘816 And ‘383 Patents
`Against The SEC
`
`
`We further wish to amend the Complaint to assert infringement of the ‘355, the ‘816 and
`the ‘383 patents by the SEC. We refer you to the interview of Mr. Michael Willis, the head of
`the SEC’s structured data group, in the article entitled “The SEC’s Increasingly Sophisticated
`Use of XBRL-Tagged Data” sent concurrently herewith.
`
`The following exchange took place with Mr. Willis:
`
`
`Q How is the SEC using XBRL data internally?
`
`While the word on the street may be that the SEC is not using XBRL, that
`is simply not true.
`
`
`One way the SEC uses XBRL data is for economic analysis. When an
`analysis is looking across all SEC companies – and I repeat that: all companies,
`from the largest to the smallest– that is when the XBRL data is very useful. Some
`data aggregators may focus on the largest filers. When we need an answer that
`covers all companies, XBRL data is the only game in town for assessing
`information from the entire set of corporate filers.
`
`Text analytics and sentiment analysis also use XBRL structured
`disclosures. The reason is that textual-analytical engines are wildly more effective
`at analyzing structured disclosures when they know what they are looking at
`versus attempting to consume and analyze an entire unstructured report.
`
`In general, given the focus on data-driven regulation at the Commission,
`the use of structured data continues to grow. That is a useful backdrop as to why
`the Commission is looking to enhance analytical capabilities.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`
`O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC
`March 4, 2021
`
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Page 6 of 7
`
`Id. at page 4 of the pdf. See also https://blog.toppanmerrill.com/blog/100-xbrl-coverage-has-
`transformed-sec-review-and-enforcement
`
`e-Numerate believes that the above analytics are performed using the inventions claimed
`
`in the ‘816, ‘383, and/or ‘355 patents. The SEC is running numerous compliance checks, fraud
`checks, and analytics against filed XBRL data using the inventions claimed in e-Numerate’s
`patents. Other agencies are believed to be doing the same thing.
`
`
`Please advise if you will consent to this amendment.
`
`VII. Government Identification of XBRL Analysis Systems
`
`
`
`As with systems that validate XBRL data in the Government, the identity of the systems
`that perform XBRL analysis within the Government is similarly uniquely within the
`Government’s possession, custody and control. Please advise if you will agree to an
`interrogatory with a verified response identifying all such systems.
`
`VIII. Assertion of the ‘355, ‘816 and ‘383 against the systems identified in VII
`
`
`
`Representative Third Party Products
`
`As with the validation systems, we want to assert the ‘355,’816 and ‘383 patents against
`all systems the Government identifies in response to the interrogatory referred to in item VII.
`
`IX.
`
`We again ask you to agree that e-Numerate can use a representative third party product
`(e.g., Toppan Merrill bridge) or products to prove infringement against the third party vendors.
`Each of these vendors offers systems that contain the accused functionalities. We direct you to
`the following videos4:
`
`Third Party Vendor
`Toppan Merrill Bridge
`
`Workiva
`
`Certent
`
`Oracle
`
`DFIN
`
`Product Promotional Video/Webpage
`https://toppanmerrill.com/bridge/ “Let’s Get Started
`Video”
`https://www.workiva.com/solutions/sec-reporting (click
`on the demo on this page)
`https://certent.com/solutions/financial-regulatory-
`reporting/sec-edgar/
`
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBNmoKx-
`HA4&t=112s
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDLBQ0p7H9M;
`
`
`
`4 Please note that these videos are not intended to be the only proof e-Numerate would rely upon
`at trial. e-Numerate has served subpoenas on all of these entities, and others. You have copies
`of the subpoenas via the Notices we served on you.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 44-7 Filed 03/11/21 Page 8 of 8
`
`Shahar Harel, Esq.
`Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC
`March 4, 2021
`
`see also
`
`https://www.dfinsolutions.com/products/activedisclosure
`(click demo on this page)
`
`
`Please advise if the Government will agree to a product (such as Toppan Merrill Bridge)
`
`as representative of the third party products.
`
`
`X.
`
`Resetting the Schedule for Claim Construction
`
`
`
`The Government requested up to 8 weeks to respond with invalidity contentions after we
`supplemented our infringement contentions on February 26, 2021. We agreed. We would like 3
`weeks to review those invalidity contentions before engaging in the claim construction process in
`this case. We would therefore ask that the existing schedule be reset so as to commence 3 weeks
`after we receive the Government’s invalidity contentions.
`
`XI.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`We look forward to hearing back from you about the foregoing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cc: All counsel of record (via electronic mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`/s/ Gerard M. O’Rourke
`
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`