Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 1 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Lydia Kay Griggsby
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT UNITED STATES OF
`AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`UNDER RULE 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOSEPH H. HUNT
`Assistant Attorney General
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`October 11, 2019
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 2 of 43
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Procedural Posture ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Related Proceedings ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`C. Legal Background.......................................................................................................... 3
`
`1. The State Street Standard for Patent Eligibility was Found Inadequate ............... 3
`
`2. Alice Step One: Whether the Claims are Directed to an Ineligible Concept ......... 4
`
`3. Alice Step Two: Whether the Claims have any Inventive Concept ...................... 5
`
`4.
`
`Patent Ineligibility May be Decided on a Motion to Dismiss ............................... 5
`
`D. The Asserted Patents and e-Numerate’s Allegations .................................................... 6
`
`E. e-Numerate’s Allegations Against the Government, the SEC, and XBRL ................... 9
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT............................................................................................................... 10
`
`A. Abstract Claims for Manipulating and Reporting Financial Information on Computers
`are Not Patent Eligible ................................................................................................. 11
`
`B. The Asserted ’355 Patent Claims are Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .................... 14
`
`1. The Claims are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Applying a Macro to Tagged
`Numbers and Reporting the Results on a Computer ................................................... 14
`
`2. The Claims Lack an Inventive Concept .............................................................. 17
`
`C. The Asserted ’816 and ’383 Patent Claims are Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..... 19
`
`1. The Claims are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Combining Two Sets of Data By
`Converting Them to a Common Format...................................................................... 19
`
`2. The Claims Lack an Inventive Concept .............................................................. 21
`
`D. The Asserted ’748 Patent Claims 2-5, 10 and ’842 Patent Claim 29 are Ineligible
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 3 of 43
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................ 23
`
`1. The Claims are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Validating Data Based on Rules
`
`23
`
`2. The Claims Lack an Inventive Concept .............................................................. 25
`
`E. The Asserted ’384 Patent Claim 66, ’748 Patent Claims 12-16, 20, and ’337 Patent
`Claim 1 are Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................ 26
`
`1. The Claims are Directed to the Abstract Idea of Generating Reports Based on
`Data 26
`
`2. The Claims Lack an Inventive Concept .............................................................. 28
`
`F. The Complaint’s Allegations Lack Merit .................................................................... 29
`
`1. The Court Should Reject e-Numerate’s Legal Conclusions Masquerading as
`Facts ............................................................................................................................. 29
`
`2. The Court Should Reject e-Numerate’s Expert Opinion Masquerading as Facts 31
`
`3.
`
`Patent Eligibility of the Asserted Patent Claims Warrants Scrutiny ................... 34
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 4 of 43
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
` 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................. 35
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
` 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 6
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
` 573 U.S. 208 (2014) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
` 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC,
` 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019)........................................................................................... 5, 6, 32
`
`BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
` 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 5
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
` 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 30, 31
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
` 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................. 17
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
` 561 U.S. 593 (2010) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
` 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................. 34
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
` 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)......................................................................................... 4, 19, 22
`
`Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree Holdings Corp.,
` 681 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC,
` 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................... 12
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
` 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 16, 30
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 5 of 43
`
`Denton v. Hernandez,
` 504 U.S. 25 (1992) .................................................................................................................... 33
`
`Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.,
` 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 35
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
` 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................... 18, 22, 26, 29
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
` 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 5, 30
`
`e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp. et al.,
` D. Del. No. 17-cv-933....................................................................................................... 2, 3, 32
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
` 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 6
`
`Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc.,
` No. 1:18-CV-00444, 2018 WL 6168618 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2018) ........................................... 15
`
`Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,
` 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................. 13
`
`In re Bilski,
` 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 4, 34, 35
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
` 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................. 4, 5, 6
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.,
` 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co.,
` 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................... 12, 14, 19
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
` 838 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................... 5
`
`Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Electronics Co.,
` 814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 13
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
` 566 U.S. 66 (2012) ............................................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 6 of 43
`
`MicroStrategy Inc. v. Apttus Corp.,
` 118 F. Supp. 3d 888 (E.D. Va. 2015) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv., Inc.,
` 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Nice Sys. Ltd. v. Clickfox, Inc.,
` 207 F. Supp. 3d 393 (D. Del. 2016) .......................................................................................... 10
`
`O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science Inc.,
` 149 F. Supp. 3d 984 (E.D. Ill. 2016)......................................................................................... 13
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
` 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 12
`
`SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
` 898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................. 5, 12
`
`Schirripa v. United States,
` 2015 WL 4628231 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 26, 2015) ............................................................................. 33
`
`Sciele Pharma Inc. v. Lupin Ltd.,
` 684 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 34
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority,
` 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. 11
`
`State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,
` 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Univ. of Florida Research Found. v. General Elec. Co.,
` 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,
` 887 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................. 34
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 7 of 43
`
`Other Authorities
`17 C.F.R. § 229.601 ...................................................................................................................... 10
`
`17 C.F.R. § 232.11 ........................................................................................................................ 10
`
`17 C.F.R. § 232.405 ...................................................................................................................... 10
`
`Henry T. Greely, Contracts as Commodities: The Influence of Secondary Purchasers on the
`Form of Contracts, 42 Vand. L. Rev. 133 (1989) .............................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 8 of 43
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The premise of this motion to dismiss is straightforward: the asserted patents claim
`
`ineligible subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Supreme Court precedent provides that an
`
`“abstract idea” is one of several exceptions to patent-eligible subject-matter; in other words,
`
`patent claims directed to an abstract idea are ineligible for patent protection. Here, the asserted
`
`patent claims are directed to the abstract idea of manipulating and reporting financial information
`
`on computers. The patent claims recite only functional language and generic computer terms.
`
`The patent specifications disclose that the claimed elements were commonly-used business
`
`practices and computer elements. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-
`
`Numerate, LLC (collectively “e-Numerate”) broadly assert infringement of these patent claims
`
`by public company financial statements submitted to the SEC pursuant to federal securities
`
`regulations. e-Numerate asserts the same kind of abstract patent claims as those that previously
`
`animated Congress and the Supreme Court to exclude abstract ideas from patent eligibility.
`
`The asserted patents’ subject matter ineligibility was called into question in a related
`
`litigation. In response, e-Numerate submitted an expert declaration, which e-Numerate has now
`
`incorporated largely verbatim as asserted factual allegations in the Complaint in this case. The
`
`specifications of the patents, however, directly refute e-Numerate’s allegations. Defendant the
`
`United States (“the government”) respectfully requests the Court to disregard the litigation-
`
`generated contentions and dismiss the Complaint.
`
`II. QUESTION PRESENTED
`
`Whether this action should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
`
`be granted because the asserted patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 9 of 43
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`A. Procedural Posture
`
`On June 11, 2019, e-Numerate filed a Complaint alleging that the government infringed
`
`claims from seven (7) United States patents. See generally ECF 1 (Complaint). On August 5,
`
`2019, the Court enlarged the time to respond to the Complaint to October 11, 2019. See ECF 7.
`
`This motion is timely filed.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`Prior to litigation before this Court, e-Numerate accused Mattress Firm Holding Corp.,
`
`Merrill Communications LLC, and Merrill Corporation in the District of Delaware of infringing
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,650,355, 8,185,816, 9,262,383, and 9,268,748. See ECF 1 ¶ 8; e-Numerate
`
`Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Mattress Firm Holding Corp. et al., D. Del. No. 17-cv-933 (“Delaware
`
`Case”). In the Delaware Case, e-Numerate’s second amended complaint cited a report filed with
`
`the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) through the EDGAR system using the
`
`eXtensible Business Reporting Language (“XBRL”) as an example of the alleged infringement.
`
`See A18-19 (Delaware Case ECF 31 ¶ 32). The Department of Justice, upon request by the SEC,
`
`filed a Statement of Interest in the Delaware Case on October 19, 2018. See ECF 1-2. The
`
`Statement of Interest confirmed that the United States had authorized and consented to defendants’
`
`use of XBRL to file documents with the SEC pursuant to federal regulation. See ECF 1-2 at 3.
`
`Accordingly, the District of Delaware dismissed the case on November 19, 2018.
`
`Prior to the dismissal, the only substantive issue argued in the Delaware Case was patent
`
`ineligibility on the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Delaware court expressed skepticism at
`
`e-Numerate’s dubious arguments in support of patent eligibility. See, e.g., A58 (Delaware Case
`
`Transcript) (“Mr. O’Rourke: …. We think that in and of itself, that many words should be a
`
`defense to 101. The Court: I take it you are joking. Mr. O’Rourke: Not really.”); see also A62.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 10 of 43
`
`The motion was mooted because after the hearing, e-Numerate submitted an expert declaration
`
`prompting the court to grant leave to amend complaint. See A71-99 (Delaware Case ECF 28-1;
`
`ECF 30).
`
`Merrill filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) at the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board (“PTAB”) on July 12-13, 2018 against claims of the four patents asserted in the Delaware
`
`Case. The PTAB instituted IPRs on February 13, 2019 over all challenged patent claims. See,
`
`e.g., ECF 5-1. e-Numerate filed its response on May 6, 2019. The PTAB terminated the IPRs on
`
`July 25, 2019 after Merrill moved to withdraw its participation in the IPR proceedings.
`
`C. Legal Background
`
`“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
`
`composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
`
`subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court
`
`has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
`
`natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
`
`Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). “[T]he concern that drives this exclusionary principle [is] one of
`
`pre-emption.” Id. “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the basic tools of
`
`scientific and technological work.” Id. (quotation omitted)). “‘Monopolization of those tools
`
`through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to
`
`promote it,’ thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws.” Id. (quoting Mayo
`
`Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)).
`
`1. The State Street Standard for Patent Eligibility was Found Inadequate
`
`Prior to its abrogation, the permissive patent eligibility standard in State Street Bank &
`
`Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) “launched a legal
`
`tsunami, inundating the patent office with applications seeking protection for common business
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 11 of 43
`
`practices.” In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Mayer, J., dissenting). “Patents
`
`granted in the wake of State Street have ranged from the somewhat ridiculous to the truly
`
`absurd.” Id. Finding the standard “inadequate,” the Federal Circuit returned to the Supreme
`
`Court’s stricter standard. Id. at 959-60 (“[W]e also conclude that the ‘useful, concrete and
`
`tangible result’ inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test
`
`outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.”). The patent eligibility standard was
`
`further refined by the Supreme Court in Mayo and Alice. “Federal courts and the Patent Trial
`
`and Appeal Board have invalidated claims from more than 1,000 patents under the U.S. Supreme
`
`Court’s Alice decision since it came down five years ago ….” Dani Kass, Alice Axed Claims
`
`From Over 1,000 Patents In 5 Years: Study, Law360.1 Under Alice, courts apply a two-step
`
`process to determine patent eligibility.
`
`2. Alice Step One: Whether the Claims are Directed to an Ineligible Concept
`
`First, courts “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. In this first step, the claims are considered “in their entirety
`
`to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.”
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “[A] relevant
`
`inquiry at step one is to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer
`
`functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.” In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`
`823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotations omitted). For example, a patent claiming a self-
`
`referential table for a computer database was found to be “directed to an improvement in the
`
`functioning of a computer.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`1 Available at https://www.law360.com/ip/articles/1194300/alice-axed-claims-from-over-
`1-000-patents-in-5-years-study.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 12 of 43
`
`2016). In contrast, patent claims “recit[ing] generalized steps to be performed on a computer
`
`using conventional computer activity” were found to be directed to abstract ideas. Id. at 1338
`
`(citations omitted).
`
`3. Alice Step Two: Whether the Claims have any Inventive Concept
`
`In the second Alice step, courts search the patent claims for any “‘inventive concept,’
`
`thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea.”
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017) (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). This search for an “inventive concept” requires “an
`
`element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts
`
`to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18
`
`(quotations and brackets omitted). “[G]eneric computer components [are] insufficient to add an
`
`inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea.” TLI, 823 F.3d at 614.
`
`4. Patent Ineligibility May be Decided on a Motion to Dismiss
`
`“The Supreme Court has [] consistently held that § 101 provides a basis for a
`
`patentability/validity determination that is independent of—and on an equal footing with—any
`
`other statutory patentability provision.” BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
`
`LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation(s) omitted). “Courts may therefore dispose
`
`of patent-infringement claims under § 101 whenever procedurally appropriate.” Id. This issue
`
`“may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the undisputed facts require a holding of
`
`ineligibility.” Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743, 749
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018));
`
`see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1304, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held in favor of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals for patent
`
`ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., Univ. of Florida Research Found. v. General Elec.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 13 of 43
`
`Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Athena, 915 F.3d at 757; Voter Verified, Inc. v.
`
`Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2018); TLI, 823 F.3d at 615;
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Texas,
`
`LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`D. The Asserted Patents and e-Numerate’s Allegations
`
`e-Numerate asserts infringement of claims from patents in two different patent families.2
`
`See infra Figure 1. The first patent family includes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,650,355 (the “’355
`
`Patent”), 8,185,816 (the “’816 Patent”), 9,262,383 (the “’383 Patent”), 9,262,384 (the “’384
`
`Patent”), 9,268,748 (the “’748 Patent”) and 10,223,337 (the “’337 Patent”) (collectively, “the
`
`’525 and ’152 Provisional Patent Family”). The specification for each patent in the ’525 and
`
`’152 Provisional Patent Family is substantially similar, especially with respect to the issues in
`
`this Motion. Accordingly, this Motion will cite to the specification of the ’355 Patent where it is
`
`identical to the specification of the patent at issue.
`
`The specification for the ’355 Patent acknowledged that the purported invention was a
`
`computer markup language named RDML that was preferably “a fully compliant implementation
`
`of XML version 1.0[.]” ’355 Patent at 8:41-43 (ECF 1-4); see also ECF 1 ¶ 23 (“The inventions
`
`contained in the patents-in-suit utilize XML-compliant document formats[.]”). XML – an
`
`acronym for eXtensible Markup Language – was developed by the World Wide Web
`
`Consortium. See id. at 30:19-21.3 The purported invention aimed to solve incompatibility
`
`
`2 In patent parlance, a “family” refers to patents and applications that originate from one
`or more common applications, with the respective members of the family described in human
`familial terms, such as “ancestor,” “parent,” and “child.”
`
`3 See also Capital One Financial, 850 F.3d at 1338 (“XML is a specialized mark-up
`computer language developed in the mid-1990s that defines a set of rules for encoding
`documents in both a human- and machine-readable format.”).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 14 of 43
`
`problems through standardization. See id. at 2:7-11, 2:35-38, 2:47-51, 3:15-16, 3:17-23, 6:7-11;
`
`9:53-57; 10:16-18 (“Use of [the purported invention] addresses the problem of non-
`
`standardization by defining standards for both data characteristics and analytic routine
`
`interfaces.”). The concept of standardization, however, has been an age-old collective action
`
`problem. See, e.g., Henry T. Greely, Contracts as Commodities: The Influence of Secondary
`
`Purchasers on the Form of Contracts, 42 Vand. L. Rev. 133, 160 (1989) (describing “collective
`
`action problem [that] plagues any kind of standardization”). The specification explained that the
`
`purported invention would typically replace data manipulations done “by hand.” Id. at 12:25-33
`
`(“Every time the spreadsheet is used, the creator looks the numbers up in the newspaper and
`
`types the results into the appropriate cells, and any necessary transformations are made by hand.
`
`RDML removes the need for custom programming and manual input[.]”).
`
`The second patent family includes U.S. Patent No. 9,600,842 (the “’842 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the ’518 Provisional Patent Family”). The ’842 Patent has a different patent
`
`specification from the ’525 and ’152 Provisional Patent Family, but nevertheless shares similar
`
`patent claims. Specifically, the Patent Office rejected certain claims in the ’842 Patent based on
`
`double-patenting in view of the ’384 Patent, which e-Numerate overcame by disclaiming the
`
`excess patent term of the ’842 Patent. See A100-01 (Terminal Disclaimer, Appl. No. 10/052,250
`
`(Oct. 12, 2016)). Moreover, the asserted ’842 Patent claim 29 is largely similar to the ’748
`
`Patent claim 1. Compare ECF 1-14 at 68 with ECF 1-12 at 118. e-Numerate asserts that the
`
`SEC infringed the claims of the ’842 Patent, and asserts that Mattress Firm Holding Corp.
`
`infringed the claims of the other patents. Compare ECF 1 ¶ 109 (“The SEC infringes . . . .”) with
`
`id. ¶¶ 39, 53, 67, 81, 95, 116 (“Mattress Firm infringes . . . .”).
`
`The asserted patents are highlighted in the patent family diagram below:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 15 of 43
`
`Figure 1. A depiction of the patents asserted by e-Numerate within their respective patent
`families.
`e-Numerate alleges in its Complaint that its asserted patents provide certain “capabilities”
`
`
`
`in accounting. See ECF 1 ¶ 17.a (“Before the introduction of the inventive concepts contained in
`
`the patents-in-suit, there were no tools that could automatically associate individual accounting
`
`data items with the appropriate sections of the organization’s financial statements.… The
`
`patents-in-suit provide these capabilities which are not addressed by either HTML or XML.”);
`
`accord ECF 1 ¶ 17.b (“Before the introduction of the inventions contained in the patents-in-suit,
`
`the preparation of financial statements involved the manual selection, analysis, combination and
`
`outputting of numerical data items based on the best efforts of the organization’s senior
`
`accountants …. “). e-Numerate makes clear that it is accusing infringement against all filings to
`
`the SEC by alleging that the activities identified in the complaint “are representative of the
`
`activities and infringement of third-party vendors that assist companies with their SEC filings.”
`
`ECF 1 ¶¶ 46, 60, 74, 88, 102, 123; accord id. ¶¶ 41, 55, 69, 83, 97, 118 (alleging that “[t]he SEC
`
`has admitted it is responsible for all patent infringement liability in connection with the SEC
`
`filings”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 16 of 43
`
`During patent prosecution, the applications that issued as, or are parents to, the asserted
`
`patents were rejected for failure to claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For
`
`example, the Patent Office rejected the claims of the application that issued as the ’355 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims were “directed merely to an abstract idea.” A103-04
`
`(Office Action at 2, Appl. No. 09/573,780 (Dec. 28, 2005)). e-Numerate relied on State Street,
`
`the patent eligibility standard applicable at the time, to argue that “[a] new representation of the
`
`series of numerical values is a useful, tangible, and concrete result.” A127-31 (Reply to Office
`
`Action at 19, Appl. No. 09/573,780 (Mar. 28, 2006)); A147-52 (Reply to Office Action at 17,
`
`Appl. No. 09/573,780 (Aug. 30, 2006)). In its attempts to overcome the patent ineligibility
`
`rejections for the relevant applications, e-Numerate added elements such as:
`
`• “computer-implemented,” A112-28 (Reply to Office Action at 3-19, Appl.
`No. 09/573,780 (Mar. 28, 2006) (application later issued as the ’355 Patent))
`
`• “displaying the results of the operation,” A133, A140, A146-48 (Reply to
`Office Action at 2, 9, 15-17, Appl. No. 09/573,780 (Aug. 30, 2006)
`(application later issued as the ’355 Patent))
`
`• “non-transitory” computer-readable medium, A164 (Reply to Office Action at
`12, Appl. No. 12/222,752 (Nov. 11, 2011) (application later issued as the ’816
`Patent))
`
`• “non-transitory” computer-readable medium and memory device, A184-85
`(Reply to Office Action at 13-14, Appl. No. 12/222,751 (Nov. 14, 2011)
`(application later abandoned))
`
`• “non-transitory” computer storage medium, A195 (Reply to Office Action at
`5, Appl. No.11/819,125 (Oct. 14, 2010) (application later abandoned)).
`
`
`E. e-Numerate’s Allegations Against the Government, the SEC, and XBRL
`
`In its Complaint, e-Numerate broadly asserts that the Government is liable for
`
`infringement for every XBRL-compliant document filed with the SEC. See, e.g., ECF 1 ¶¶ 39,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-LKG Document 8 Filed 10/11/19 Page 17 of 43
`
`41, 53, 55, 67, 69.4 XBRL is an international open-standard markup langu