throbber
Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 6 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`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 Lydia Kay Griggsby
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
`AN ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate, LLC, (collectively “e-Numerate”)
`
`
`
`hereby file their response to Defendant’s (“the Government”) Motion For An Enlargement of
`
`Time To Respond To Complaint (“Motion”) pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Rules of the Court of
`
`Federal Claims (“RCFC”). E-Numerate does not oppose, and has not opposed, the
`
`Government’s request for an enlargement. In fact, e-Numerate and the Government reached an
`
`agreement on an enlargement prior to the filing of this Motion in return for the Government not
`
`seeking a stay of this action in light of then-pending third party inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`petitions. The Government’s counsel, however, retreated from this agreement and insisted on
`
`filing a one-sided, argumentative, and highly misleading Motion that focuses extensively on the
`
`now-terminated IPRs. The Government’s actions were apparently motivated by its
`
`dissatisfaction with the agreement it reached, along with a desire to color the Court’s view of e-
`
`Numerate’s claims based on the pendency of the IPR petitions and their alleged relevance to the
`
`pending proceeding. However, the Government failed to inform this Court that all of the IPRs it
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 6 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`discusses in its motion have been terminated and an adverse judgment entered against the
`
`petitioner. As a result, e-Numerate must clarify and correct the record.
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND OF THIS LITIGATION
`
`On July 11, 2017, e-Numerate filed a suit for patent infringement against Mattress Firm
`
`Holding Corp. (“Mattress Firm”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`
`(“Delaware Action”) asserting four of the seven patents asserted in this case. On September 18,
`
`2017, e-Numerate amended the Complaint in the Delaware Action to add Merrill
`
`Communications LLC and Merrill Corporation (collectively “Merrill”) as additional co-
`
`defendants.
`
`On July 12-13, 2018, Merrill filed four IPR petitions against the independent claims of
`
`the four patents asserted in the Delaware Action. Last week, on July 25, 2019, the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board ("PTAB") entered an Order that Merrill's IPRs were considered abandoned
`
`and an adverse judgment was entered against Merrill on all four of its pending IPRs. The
`
`termination of all four of Merrill's IPRs and their complete lack of relevance to this action is
`
`discussed below.
`
` On October 19, 2018, the Government filed a Statement of Interest in the Delaware
`
`Action claiming that Mattress Firm’s and Merrill’s activities associated with filing reports with
`
`the SEC was done with the Government's “authorization and consent.” As a result, the
`
`Government maintained that claims directed to those activities should be filed in the Court of
`
`Federal Claims. Since the only activities accused of infringement in the Delaware Action were
`
`SEC-related, Plaintiffs sought dismissal of the Delaware Action without prejudice. The District
`
`Court agreed and dismissed the Delaware Action without prejudice on November 19, 2018.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 6 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`The Government’s Motion misleadingly omits that the dismissal of the Delaware Action
`
`was without prejudice. See Motion at pages 2 – 3. Similarly, the Government’s Motion implies
`
`that the allegations of infringement in this case relate only to Mattress Firm and Merrill. That is
`
`wrong. E-Numerate has accused all SEC filings following the Extensible Business Reporting
`
`Language (“XBRL”) standard of infringing the patents-in-suit in this case. In addition, e-
`
`Numerate has accused the Government of patent infringement via the Government’s activities.
`
`II.
`
`ALL IPRs HAVE BEEN TERMINATED AND ADVERSE JUDGMENT
`ENTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ARE IRRELEVANT TO
`THIS PENDING ACTION
`
`The Government failed to amend its motion and inform this Court that all four pending
`
`IPRs have been terminated by the PTAB. It is also important to note that none of the e-
`
`Numerate patent claims asserted against the Government in this action have ever been subject to
`
`an IPR petition.
`
` With regard to the IPRs filed by Merrill, on July 24, 2019, Merrill requested to withdraw
`
`from participation in the IPRs. Last week, this request was granted by the PTAB and the IPRs
`
`were terminated with an adverse judgement entered against the petitioner on July 25, 2019. As a
`
`result, there is simply no relevance whatsoever of the IPRs to this case. They have been
`
`terminated and the claims at issue in those IPRs remain valid.
`
`III. THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT WAS
`UNNECESSARY
`
`As set forth in the attached correspondence, e-Numerate and the Government reached an
`
`agreement regarding the enlargement that the Government reneged on. Specifically, e-Numerate
`
`agreed that it would grant the enlargement in return for the Government not moving to stay this
`
`case in light of the then-pending IPRs. Apparently dissatisfied with the agreement it reached, the
`
`Government insisted on filing a one-sided document that e-Numerate considered both improper
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 6 Filed 08/02/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`and misleading instead of a stipulation or a neutrally worded joint motion. Exhibits A and B.
`
`Thus, all briefing on the Motion was entirely unnecessary.
`
`With regard to the merits, the Government’s first and second justifications for an
`
`enlargement are generally not disputed (although e-Numerate does not concede that all
`
`recitations therein are correct). However, the Government’s third justification (the pendency of
`
`the IPRs) is completely devoid of merit. All IPRs have been terminated. Exhibit C.
`
`Finally, the Government’s fourth justification is highly misleading. The Government’s
`
`filing of the Statement of Interest in the Delaware Action necessitated filing this case. The
`
`Government has known this suit was coming for almost a year; and, in fact, effectively asked to
`
`be sued via its Statement of Interest. Plaintiffs cannot be faulted for expanding the Complaint
`
`and including additional patents not asserted in the Delaware Action given the Government’s
`
`Statement of Interest in the Delaware Action.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In sum, e-Numerate does not oppose granting a 60-day enlargement to the Government to
`
`respond to the Complaint. E-Numerate further laments that any of this briefing, and its attending
`
`imposition on the Court’s resources were made necessary simply because the Government
`
`wanted to color the merits of the case at the outset by reference to matters wholly irrelevant.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 6 Filed 08/02/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Dated: August 2, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`O’KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
`
`/s/ Sean T. O’Kelly
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 778-4000
`(302) 295-2873 (facsimile)
`sokelly@oelegal.com
`
`and
`
`O’ROURKE LAW OFFICE, LLC
`Gerard M. O'Rourke
`1201 N. Orange Street
`Suite 7260
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1186
`(484) 770-8046
`gorourke@orourkefirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs e-Numerate
`Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate LLC
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket