Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 95
`
`In the United States Court of Federal Claims
`No. 19-859
`(Filed: 22 March 2023)
`
`***************************************
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC., and
`*
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`*
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`*
`
`
`
`* Claim Construction; Markman Hearing;
`v.
`
`
`*
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning; Intrinsic
`
`
`
`* Record; Person Having Ordinary Skill in the
`THE UNITED STATES,
`* Art.
`
`
`
`*
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`*
`
`
`
`
`*
`
`***************************************
`
`
`Sean T. O’Kelly, O’Kelly & O’Rourke, LLC, with whom was Gerard M. O’Rourke, both
`of Wilmington, DE, for plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shahar Harel, Trial Attorney, Intellectual Property Section, with whom were Carrie
`Rosato, Trial Attorney, Scott Bolden, Of Counsel, Nelson Kuan, Of Counsel, Gary L. Hausken,
`Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, and Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant
`Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, all of Washington, DC, for
`defendant.
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`HOLTE, Judge.
`
`
`Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate, LLC1 accuse the government of
`patent infringement. The parties filed claim construction briefs seeking to construe the meaning
`of various disputed claim terms and resolved construction of three terms amongst themselves.
`The government argues fifteen claim terms are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 or must be
`construed under § 112 ¶ 6. While the parties raised numerous terms for construction, the Court’s
`procedures for claim construction, modeled after the rules of Judge Alan Albright of the United
`States District Court for the Western District of Texas, aided the Court in efficiently handling
`this claim construction.2 The Court first held a Markman hearing to construe the disputed terms
`not implicated by the government’s indefiniteness arguments, following agreement by the parties
`
`
`1 This court’s CM/ECF system, which names plaintiff as “e-Numerate Solutions, LLC,” contradicts the parties’
`briefing, which name plaintiff as “e-Numerate, LLC.”
`2 See also Haddad v. United States, 164 Fed. Cl. 28 (2023); Giesecke & Devrient GmbH v. United States, 163 Fed.
`Cl. 430 (2023); Wanker v. United States, 152 Fed. Cl. 219 (2021); Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 150 Fed.
`Cl. 486 (2020); CellCast Techs., LLC v. United States, 150 Fed. Cl. 353 (2020).
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 95
`
`at a status conference to split the Markman hearing into two days.3 This Claim Construction
`Opinion and Order construes the parties’ disputed terms not implicating indefiniteness.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`Background
`
`A.
`
`Factual History
`
`Plaintiff e-Numerate Solutions, Inc., the owner and assignee of the eight patents-in-suit
`and plaintiff e-Numerate, LLC (collectively, “plaintiffs” or “e-Numerate”), the exclusive
`licensee of the seven asserted patents, allege the government infringes the asserted patents.
`Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–4, ECF No. 53. The asserted patents generally relate to markup
`languages. U.S. Patent No. 7,650,355 (“the ’355 Patent”) describes “provid[ing] macros and a
`markup language . . . which allows numerical analysis routines to be written quickly, cheaply,
`and in a form that is usable by a broad range of data documents[.]” ’355 Patent at [57]. The
`’355 Patent “facilitates the browsing and manipulation of numbers, as opposed to text as in
`[Hypertext Markup Language (‘HTML’)], and does so by requiring attributes describing the
`meaning of the numbers to be attached to the numbers.” Id. U.S. Patent Nos. 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”) all relate to the same provisional applications as the
`’355 Patent—“[p]rovisional application No. 60/135,525, filed on May 21, 1999, [and]
`provisional application No. 60/183,152, filed on Feb. 17, 2000”—and address similar
`technology. Id. at [60]; see ’816 Patent at [60]; ’383 Patent at [60]; ’384 Patent at [60]; ’748
`Patent at [60]; ’337 Patent at [60]. U.S. Patent No. 9,600,842 (“the ’842 Patent”) describes
`“allow[ing] users to efficiently manipulate, analyze, and transmit eXtensible Business Reporting
`Language (‘XBRL’) reports” and “to automatically build financial reports that are acceptable to
`governing agencies such as the [Internal Revenue Service].” ’842 Patent at [57].
`
`Plaintiffs contend the government has assumed liability for various companies which
`have infringed and continue to infringe the asserted patents through preparing and filing
`documents with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Second Am. Compl.
`¶¶ 51–52, 65–66, 82–83, 99–100, 113–114, 138–139, 152–153. Plaintiffs also argue the SEC
`directly infringes the ’816 and ’383 Patents through analysis of infringing submissions. Id.
`¶¶ 73–74, 90–91. Plaintiffs further assert the SEC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
`(“FDIC”), the Federal Financial Institutions Examining Council (“FFIEC”), the United States
`Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”), the
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), and the United States Department of Energy
`(“DOE”) directly infringe the ’748 and ’842 Patents by validating and processing infringing
`filings. Id. ¶¶ 122–125, 132, 134–136.
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Procedural History
`
`Plaintiffs filed their complaint on 11 June 2019. See Compl., ECF No. 1. On 11 October
`
`3 7 Oct. 2022 Status Conference Tr. (“SC Tr.”) at 101:14–19 (“THE COURT: So the Court hopes to divide the
`Markman hearing into two days with . . . the terms in day one, as much as we can get through them, and then in day
`two, indefiniteness. Does that make the most sense? [THE GOVERNMENT]: Yes. [PLAINTIFFS]: Yeah.”),
`ECF No. 100.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 95
`
`2019, the government filed a motion to dismiss. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
`ECF No. 8. This case was reassigned to the undersigned Judge on 9 December 2019. See Order,
`ECF No. 11. The Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss on 7 August 2020. See Op.
`& Order, ECF No. 27.
`
`
`Plaintiffs filed their opening claim construction brief, opening claim construction brief on
`indefiniteness, and an appendix on 14 March 2022. See Pls.’ Opening Cl. Constr. Br. (“Pls.’ Cl.
`Constr. Br.”), ECF No. 78; Pls.’ Opening Cl. Constr. Br. on Indefiniteness, ECF No. 79; App. in
`Supp. of Pls.’ Opening Cl. Constr. Brs. (“App.”), ECF Nos. 80–81. The government filed its
`responsive claim construction brief and responsive claim construction brief on indefiniteness on
`29 April 2022. See Def.’s Resp. Cl. Constr. Br., ECF No. 82; See Def.’s Resp. Cl. Constr. Br. on
`Indefiniteness, ECF No. 83. On 1 June 2022, plaintiffs filed their reply claim construction brief
`and reply claim construction brief on indefiniteness. See Pls.’ Reply Cl. Constr. Br., ECF No.
`88; Pls.’ Reply Cl. Constr. Br. on Indefiniteness, ECF No. 89. The government filed a surreply
`claim construction brief and a surreply claim construction brief on indefiniteness on 1 July 2022.
`See Def.’s Surreply Cl. Constr. Br., ECF No. 90; Def.’s Surreply Cl. Constr. Br. on
`Indefiniteness, ECF No. 91. On 15 July 2022, plaintiffs filed a surreply claim construction brief
`on indefiniteness. See Pls.’ Surreply Cl. Constr. Br. on Indefiniteness, ECF No. 92. The parties
`filed their joint claim construction statement on 18 August 2022. See J. Cl. Constr. Statement,
`ECF No. 95.
`
`The Court held a status conference on 7 October 2022 to discuss the parties’ joint claim
`construction statement, plaintiffs’ plans to drop U.S. Patent No. 10,423,708 (“the ’708 Patent”)
`from this case following reexamination, technology tutorials the parties submitted to the Court
`via email, similarities in the specifications of the asserted patents, and logistics for a Markman
`hearing. See Order, ECF No. 96; SC Tr. at 6:5–7:5. Following the status conference, the Court
`issued an order directing the parties to file: (1) the reexamination certificate for the ’708 Patent;
`(2) “[a] stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of Count 8 of the Second Amended Complaint . . .
`to remove the ’708 Patent;” and (3) a revised joint claim construction statement. Order at 1, ECF
`No. 97. The parties filed their joint stipulation of dismissal and the reexamination certificate on
`18 October 2022, see J. Stipulation of Dismissal, ECF No. 101, and their revised joint claim
`construction statement on 20 October 2022, see Rev. J. Cl. Constr. Statement Ex. A (“RJCCS”),
`ECF No. 103-1. The Court held a Markman hearing on the disputed terms not implicating
`indefiniteness on 16 November 2022. See Order, ECF No. 98; 16 Nov. 2022 Markman Hearing
`Tr. (“Tr.”), ECF No. 106. Following the hearing, the Court allowed the parties to submit
`supplemental briefing clarifying their arguments. See Order, ECF No. 104; Def.’s Suppl. Cl.
`Constr. Br., ECF No. 107; Pls.’ Suppl. Cl. Constr. Br., ECF No. 108.
`
`
`The Technology of the ’355 Patent Family
`
`C.
`
`On 18 May 2000, e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`09/573,780, later issued on 19 January 2010 as the ’355 Patent. See ’355 Patent at [10],
`[21]–[22], [45]. The ’355 Patent, titled “Reusable Micro Markup Language,” id. at [54], relates
`to “data processing systems and, more particularly, to a computer markup language for use in a
`data browser and manipulator.” Id. col. 1 ll. 24–26. “A markup language is a way of embedding
`markup ‘tags,’ special sequences of characters, that describe the structure as well as the behavior
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 4 of 95
`
`of a document and instruct a web browser or other program on how to display the document.”
`Id. col. 1 ll. 32–36.
`
`
`Two examples of markup languages are HTML and Extensible Markup Language
`(“XML”). See id. col. 1 ll. 32, 61–62. HTML contains “a fixed set of tags with specific
`purposes” mixed with the ordinary text in text files, and “XML is a free-form markup language
`with unspecified tags, which allows developers to develop their own tags and . . . markup
`languages.” Id. col. 1 ll. 39–40, 63–66. The background of the ’355 Patent explains limitations
`of HTML and XML. See generally ’355 Patent col. 1 ll. 39–59, col. 2 ll. 1–11. HTML’s fixed
`set of tags limits the language to only working with text and images, and HTML only instructs
`browsers on reading and displaying a document’s characters—not understanding the data the
`browser is displaying. See id. col. 1 ll. 39–44. HTML is incapable of interpreting numbers as
`numbers—it only reads them as text—preventing users from being able to search through
`numerical data or run it through “an analytical program without human intervention to
`copy-and-paste.” Id. col. 1 ll. 44–59. XML falls short in two main areas. First, “XML describes
`structure and meaning, but not formatting.” Id. col. 2 ll. 1–2. Second, individualized markup
`languages the XML users develop from non-standardized tags are incompatible with each other
`because “different users use the tags for different purposes.” Id. col. 2 ll. 7–11.
`
`“Methods and systems in accordance with the [’355 Patent] provide a markup language,
`
`referred to as Reusable Data Markup Language (“RDML”), that permits the browsing and
`manipulation of numbers[,] and [these methods and systems] provide a related data viewer that
`acts as a combination Web browser and spreadsheet/analytic application that may automatically
`read numbers from multiple online sources and manipulate them without human intervention” to
`provide a “chart view” display. Id. col. 3 ll. 51–58; see also ’355 Patent col. 3 ll. 58–61, col. 4 ll.
`26–28. RDML is capable of making tags reflecting numerical values and their
`characteristics—such as unit and magnitude—and understanding these numerical characteristics
`rather than just reading text. See id. col. 3 ll. 65–67, col. 4 ll. 4–10.
`
`
`
`The Technology of the ’816, ’383, ’384, ’748, and ’337 Patents
`
`The ’355 Patent’s technology is representative of the technology claimed in the ’816,
`’383, ’384, ’748, and ’337 Patents because they all relate to the ’525 and ’152 applications filed
`on 21 May 1999 and 17 February 2000, respectively. See ’355 Patent at [60]; ’816 Patent at
`[60]; ’383 Patent at [60]; ’384 Patent at [60]; ’748 Patent at [60]; ’337 Patent at [60]; cf. SC Tr.
`at 53:12–17 (“[PLAINTIFFS]: [The ’525 and ’152 applications] were the provisionals that
`underlie [the ’780] application, which issues as the ’355 [Patent].”). The ’355 Patent was
`published first. Compare ’355 Patent at [45], with ’816 Patent at [45], ’383 Patent at [45], ’384
`Patent at [45], ’748 Patent at [45], and ’337 Patent at [45]. Plaintiffs state “the ’355 covers the
`’816, the ’383, the ’384, the ’748, and the ’337,” and the ’842 is separate from the others as it
`contains additional disclosure. SC Tr. at 61:1–5; see also SC Tr. at 56:6–12 (“THE COURT:
`. . . [T]he government’s responsive claim construction brief stated that all of the asserted patents
`comprise disclosure substantially similar to the ’355 patent, but then goes on to say . . . the
`’842 . . . patent[] comprise[s] additional disclosure. Do you agree with that? [PLAINTIFFS]:
`Yes, the ’842 patent has additional disclosure than what is in the first series of patents.”).
`
`
`D.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 5 of 95
`
`The Technology of the ’842 Patent
`
`E.
`
`Unlike the ’355 Patent and the related patents, the ’842 Patent is representative of a
`separate patent family. See SC Tr. at 61:1–5. On 23 January 2002, plaintiffs filed U.S. Patent
`Application No. 10/052,250, later issued on 21 March 2017 as the ’842 Patent. ’842 Patent at
`[10], [21]–[22], [45]. The ’842 Patent is titled “RDX Enhancement of System and Method for
`Implementing Reusable Data Markup Language (RDL).” Id. at [54]. The ’842 Patent relates to
`“data processing systems and, more particularly, to a computer markup language for financial
`accounting and a related data browser and manipulator.” Id. col. 1 ll. 39–43. The parties agree
`there is a substantive difference between the ’355 and ’842 Patents. SC Tr. at 67:5–11, 67:23–25
`(“THE COURT: [T]he ’842 Patent, which has an almost identical spec[ification], has priority of
`January 2001. [THE GOVERNMENT]: Right. THE COURT: Does that result in a substantive
`difference? [THE GOVERNMENT]: Yes . . . . THE COURT: [Plaintiffs], any
`disagreement . . . ? [PLAINTIFFS]: . . . The ’355 patent and specification and the ’842
`specification are different.); see also SC Tr. at 67:11–20 (the government’s explanation of the
`differences); SC Tr. at 68:5–13 (plaintiffs’ explanation of the differences).
`
`Considering markup languages beyond HTML and XML, the ’842 Patent incorporates
`XBRL, “which has an underlying syntax defined in XML.” ’842 Patent col. 2 ll. 16–18; see also
`SC Tr. at 67:11–20 (“[THE GOVERNMENT]: [T]he ’842 includes all the ’355, but it includes
`significantly more . . . it may also incorporate by reference other references beyond the XML
`Bible, certainly references as to the XBRL standard.”). “XBRL is an XML-based language used
`for reporting financials such as balance sheets, cash flow reports, and the basic information that
`is reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (‘SEC’).” ’842 Patent col. 5 ll. 16–19.
`“XBRL includes two major elements: (1) a ‘taxonomy,’ which defines the financial terms which
`can be reported and the interrelationships between these terms, and (2) an ‘instance document,’
`which includes reported values for the terms of the taxonomy and references to the terms.” Id.
`col. 2 ll. 24–28. An XBRL “instance document is a report from a financial institution”
`describing “quantitative values such as the currency (monetary types), precision (e.g., values
`reported + or –10%), and magnitude (e.g., numbers in thousands, millions, etc.)”; the “XBRL
`taxonomies form the context” for these reports by defining “the names, data types (e.g., textual,
`monetary, numeric), and relationships (account/sub-account)” the reports can reference. Id. col.
`2 ll. 34–50. XBRL lacks, however, the tools for users to build XBRL reports, automatically
`schedule and transmit reports in XBRL format, automatically link a current accounting system to
`an XBRL document, or automatically analyze and manipulate data in an XBRL document. Id.
`col. 5 ll. 27–36.
`
`“Methods and systems consistent with the [’842 Patent] provide a data processing system
`for developing reports,” allowing “users to efficiently build, manipulate, analyze and transmit
`XBRL documents and reports” and “open[ing] analysis possibilities that would normally remain
`closed to XBRL users.” Id. col. 5 ll. 42–43, col. 7 ll. 4–6, col. 8 ll. 35–36. In relation with the
`’355 Patent’s RDML, ’842 Patent systems and methods allow for “transl[ation] of an XBRL
`instance document into RDML format for the RDML system to analyze it”; such systems also
`allow for manipulation of RDML text documents to create instance documents in alternative,
`non-XBRL formats. Id. col. 7 ll. 16–19, col. 8 ll. 12–41.
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 6 of 95
`
`F.
`
`
`
`Overview of Claims
`
`1.
`
`’355 Patent
`
`
`
`Disputed Term
`
`Applicable Claims
`
`Plaintiffs assert infringement of 39 claims of the ’355 Patent: 1, 2–15, 21, 25–42, 46, and
`52–55. Second Am. Compl. ¶ 51. These claims are directed to methods and systems for
`“provid[ing] macros and a markup language . . . which allows numerical analysis routines to be
`written quickly, cheaply, and in a form that is usable by a broad range of data documents[.]”
`’355 Patent at [57]. Asserted claims 2–4, 6–10, 12–15, 21, 25, and 55 depend on claim 1;
`asserted claim 5 depends on claim 4; asserted claim 11 depends on asserted claim 9; asserted
`claim 26 depends on asserted claim 25 and ultimately asserted claim 1; asserted claims 29–31,
`33–37, 39–42, and 52 depend on asserted claim 28; asserted claim 32 depends on asserted claim
`31 and ultimately asserted claim 28; asserted claim 38 depends on asserted claim 36 and
`ultimately asserted claim 28; asserted claim 46 depends on claim 45 and ultimately asserted
`claim 28; and asserted claim 53 depends on asserted claim 52 and ultimately asserted claim 28.
`Id. col. 56 l. 34–col. 60 l. 61.
`
`Based on the Court’s detailed review of the ’355 Patent, the disputed terms not
`implicating indefiniteness appear in the asserted claims as follows:
`
`Claim
`Term No.4
`2
`7
`
`Claim 21
`Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 25, 26, 27,
`28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 52, 53, 54,
`55
`Claims 1, 13, 14, 15, 27, 28,
`40, 41, 42, 54
`Claims 1, 27, 28, 54
`
`Claims 1, 27, 28, 54
`
`
`Claims 1, 28
`
`“report”
`“macro”
`
`“tags” 5
`
`8
`
`10J
`
`14
`
`17
`
`“series of numerical values having tags
`indicating characteristics of numerical values”
`“transform the series of numerical values into
`a new representation of the series of numerical
`values”
`“generating at least one second title
`corresponding to results of the operation”
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’355 Patent, reproduced below, provides a representative example of five
`
`of the disputed claim terms (“macro,” “tags,” “series of numerical values having tags indicating
`characteristics of numerical values,” “transform the series of numerical values into a new
`representation of the series of numerical values,” and “generating at least one second title
`
`4 The Court significantly altered the order of claim terms from the parties’ RJCCS to group similar terms together
`and construe claim terms first which impacted later claim terms. The Court provided its revised numbering of the
`claim terms to the parties via email before the Markman hearing and uses the revised numbering throughout this
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order.
`5 The government notes in its responsive claim construction brief it no longer seeks a construction of the singular
`“tag,” so the Court construes only the plural, “tags.” Def.’s Resp. Cl. Constr. Br. at 13 n.2.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 7 of 95
`
`corresponding to results of the operation”). Disputed terms are emphasized:
`
`
`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;
`generating at least one first title corresponding to the series of numerical values;
`receiving a macro defined to perform an operation on the series of numerical
`values;
`performing an operation defined by the macro on the series of numerical values to
`transform the series of numerical values into a new representation of the series of
`numerical values based on the tags;
`generating at least one second title corresponding to results of the operation; and
`displaying the results of the operation and the at least one second title, wherein:
`the macro makes a copy of the series of numerical values before the operation is
`performed,
`the macro comprises at least one arithmetic statement, the at least one arithmetic
`statement comprises a variable, the variable is referenced in a local or remote
`document other than a document that contains the macro, and the step of receiving
`the macro comprises receiving the macro including interpreted code, meta-data,
`and error handling instructions.
`
`Claim 21 of the ’355 Patent, reproduced below, provides a representative example of one
`
`disputed claim term (“report”). The disputed term is emphasized:
`
`
`21. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the step of performing
`comprises the step of adding, to at least one of a chart, a report and a graph, at least
`one of: overlays, datapoint notes, and footnotes.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`’816 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs assert infringement of 23 claims of the ’816 Patent: 1, 3–10, 12–14, and 17–27.
`Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 65, 74. These claims are directed to methods and systems for
`“provid[ing] a computer markup language . . . and a data viewer for retrieving, manipulating and
`viewing documents and files in the RDML format that may be stored locally or over a network
`(e.g., the Internet).” ’816 Patent at [57]. Asserted claims 3–9 depend on asserted claim 1;
`asserted claims 12–14 depend on asserted claim 10; and asserted claims 18–25 depend on
`asserted claim 17. Id. col. 55 l. 6–col. 58 l. 41.
`
`Based on the Court’s detailed review of the ’816 Patent, the disputed terms not
`implicating indefiniteness appear in the asserted claims as follows:
`
`
`Claim
`Term No.
`8
`
`Disputed Term
`
`Applicable Claims
`
`“tags”
`
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
`17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 8 of 95
`
`9
`10G
`
`12
`
`13A
`
`“characteristic of the numerical value”
`“tags reflecting characteristics of the numerical
`values”
`“wherein the characteristics indicate that the
`numerical values of the first markup document
`differ in format from the numerical values of
`the second markup document”
`“automatically transforming/transforms 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”
`
`26, 27
`Claim 27
`Claims 1, 10, 17, 26, 27
`
`Claims 1, 10, 17, 26, 27
`
`
`Claims 1, 10, 17, 26, 27
`
`Claim 27 of the ’816 Patent, reproduced below, provides a representative example of five
`disputed claim terms (“tags,” “characteristic of the numerical value,” “tags reflecting
`characteristics of the numerical values,” “wherein the characteristics indicate that the numerical
`values of the first markup document differ in format from the numerical values of the second
`markup document,” and “automatically transforming/transforms 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”).
`Disputed terms are emphasized:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. A method in a data processing system, comprising the steps of:
`receiving a request for a numerical value, the request indicating at least one
`characteristic of the numerical value;
`receiving a first markup document and a second markup document, both the first
`markup document and the second markup document containing numerical values
`and tags reflecting characteristics of the numerical values, wherein the
`characteristics indicate that the numerical values of the first markup document
`differ in format from the numerical values of the second markup document, and
`wherein at least one of the tags has the indicated characteristic of the requested
`numerical value;
`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;
`combining the first markup document and the second markup document into a
`single data set;
`displaying the single data set; and
`manipulating the display of the single data set using the tags reflecting the
`characteristics of the numerical values.
`
`3.
`
`’383 Patent
`
`Plaintiffs assert infringement of 14 claims of the ’383 Patent: 1, 3, 4, 6–12, 14, 15, 17
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 9 of 95
`
`and 18. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 82, 91. These claims are directed to a system, method, and
`computer program “for identifying a first 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.” ’383 Patent at [57]. Asserted claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 depend on asserted claim 1;
`asserted claim 6 depends on asserted claim 5 and ultimately on asserted claim 1; asserted claims
`9–11 depend on asserted claim 8 and ultimately on asserted claim 1; asserted claim 12 depends
`on asserted claim 11 and ultimately on asserted claim 1; and asserted claims 14 and 15 depend
`on asserted claim 13 and ultimately on asserted claim 1. Id. col. 143 l. 2–col. 146 l. 46.
`
`Based on the Court’s detailed review of the ’383 Patent, the disputed terms not
`implicating indefiniteness appear in the asserted claims as follows:
`
`
`Disputed Term
`
`Applicable Claims
`
`Claim
`Term No.
`2
`3
`4A
`8
`10A
`
`“report”
`“presentation”
`“rule”
`“tags”
`“semantic tags”6
`
`10H
`
`10I
`
`11
`
`13B
`
`15B
`
`“first tags reflecting characteristics of the first
`numerical values”
`“second tags reflecting characteristics of the
`second numerical values”
`“wherein the first tags and the second tags each
`include computer-readable semantic tags that
`describe a semantic meaning of a
`corresponding one of at least one of the first
`numerical values or the second numerical
`values”
`“automatic transformation of at least a portion
`of the first or second numerical values of at
`least one of the first markup document or the
`second markup document, so that at least some
`of the first numerical values of the first markup
`document and at least some of the second
`numerical values of the second markup
`document have a common unit of measure”
`“multiple hierarchical relationships between
`two line items of corresponding numerical
`values”
`
`Claim 14
`Claim 14
`Claims 9, 10
`Claims 1, 4, 17
`Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15,
`17, 18
`Claims 1, 4, 17, 18
`
`Claims 1, 4, 17, 18
`
`Claims 1, 17, 18
`
`Claims 1, 17
`
`Claims 7, 8, 15
`
`
`6 Plaintiffs noted during the 7 October Status Conference the parties no longer dispute the singular form of the term,
`“semantic tag,” so the Court construes only the plural, “semantic tags.” SC Tr. at 77:21–22.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 10 of 95
`
`16C
`
`16D
`
`“capable of including at least one of: multiple
`hierarchical relationships between two line
`items of corresponding numerical values; or
`computer-readable semantic tags that each
`describe a semantic meaning of one or more of
`corresponding numerical values”
`“capable of including computer-readable
`semantic tags that each describe a semantic
`meaning of one or more of the corresponding
`numerical values”
`
`Claim 8
`
`Claim 15
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’383 Patent, reproduced below, provides a representative example of six
`disputed claim terms (“tags,” “semantic tags,” “first tags reflecting characteristics of the first
`numerical values,” “second tags reflecting characteristics of the second numerical values,”
`“wherein the first tags and the second tags each include computer-readable semantic tags that
`describe a semantic meaning of a corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical values
`or the second numerical values,” and “automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first
`or second numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the second markup
`document, so that at least some of the first numerical values of the first markup document and at
`least some of the second markup document have a common unit of measure”). Disputed terms
`are emphasized:
`
`
`1. A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable
`medium comprising:
`code for identifying a first 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, wherein the first tags and the
`second tags each include computer-readable semantic tags that describe a
`semantic meaning of a corresponding one of at least one of the first numerical
`values or the second numerical values, via a computer-readable tagging association
`therebetween, where the first characteristics of the first numerical values associated
`with the first unit of measure are different from the second characteristics of the
`second numerical values associated with the second unit of measure;
`code for causing automatic transformation of at least a portion of the first or second
`numerical values of at least one of the first markup document or the second markup
`document, so that at least some of the first numerical values of the first markup
`document and at least some of the second numerical values of the second markup
`document have a common unit of measure;
`code for processing at least a part of the first markup document and at least a part
`of the second markup document, resulting in a single markup document; and
`code for causing a display of at least a portion of the single markup document.
`
`
`
`Claim 8 of the ’383 Patent, reproduced below, provides a representative example of three
`disputed claim terms (“semantic tags,” “multiple hierarchical relationships between two line
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 109 Filed 03/22/23 Page 11 of 95
`
`items of corresponding numerical values,” and “capable of including at least one of: multiple
`hierarchical relationships between two line items of corresponding numerical values; or
`computer-readable semantic tags that each describe a semantic meaning of one or more of
`corresponding numerical values”). Disputed terms are emphasized:
`
`
`8. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the computer program
`product
`is operable such
`that
`the single markup document
`includes a
`XML-compliant data document that is capable of including at least one of:
`multiple hierarchical relationships between two line items of corresponding
`numerical values, or computer-readable semantic tags that each describe a
`semantic meaning of one or more of corresponding numerical values.
`
`Claim 9 of the ’383 Patent, reproduced below, provides a representative example of one
`disputed claim term (“rule”). The disputed term is emphasized:
`
`
`9. The computer program product of claim 8, wherein the com