Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 19-859-RTH
`
`
`
`
`
` THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Dated: November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-778-4000
`sokelly@okorlaw.com
`gorourke@okorlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`A. Terms 15A, B and C ......................................................................................................................... 1
`B. Term 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 4
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................... 3
`
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)......... 3
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................ 3
`
`Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............. 3
`
`North Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`..................................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271. 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................ 3
`
`SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............. 3
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronics, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc., and e-Numerate, LLC (collectively “e-Numerate” or
`
`“Plaintiffs”) submit this Supplemental Claim Construction Brief pursuant to the Court’s Order of
`
`November 21, 2022. ECF 104.
`
`
`
`e-Numerate’s proposed constructions of terms 15A, B and C (the “multiple hierarchical
`
`relationships” limitations) and e-Numerate’s proposed construction of term 2 (the “report”
`
`limitation) embrace the preferred embodiments in the asserted patents. As a result, e-Numerate’s
`
`proposed constructions are fully in accord with long-standing Federal Circuit precedent that
`
`embodiments should be encompassed within claim interpretations absent a compelling reason not
`
`to include them. In contrast, the Government’s proposed constructions excludes these
`
`embodiments and is in direct contravention of this precedent.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Each of the proposed constructions is addressed in turn.
`
`A. Terms 15A, B and C
`
`The Court’s proposed preliminary definitions were as follows:
`
`Term Number Term
`15A
`“multiple
`hierarchical
`relationships
`between two line
`items”
`
`“multiple
`hierarchical
`relationships
`between two line
`
`15B
`
`
`
`Court’s Proposed Definition
`A line item with more than one type of hierarchical
`relationship with another line item, conveying
`information such as dependency on other line items and
`relation of different line items to their parents, peers,
`and children. Examples of relationships between two
`line items include parent-child, siblings, and
`grandparent-grandchild.
`A line item with more than one type of hierarchical
`relationship with another line item, conveying
`information such as dependency on other line items and
`relation of different line items to their parents, peers,
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`items of
`corresponding
`numerical values”
`“multiple
`hierarchical
`relationships
`between two of the
`plurality of line
`items”
`
`and children. Examples of relationships between two
`line items include parent-child, siblings, and
`grandparent-grandchild.
`A line item of the two or more line items with more
`than one type of hierarchical relationship with another
`line item of the two or more line items, conveying
`information such as dependency on other line items and
`relation of different line items to their parents, peers,
`and children. Examples of relationships between two-
`line items include parent-child, siblings, and
`grandparent-grandchild.
`
`15C
`
`
`
`During the claim construction hearing, there was argument from both sides related to
`
`these claim terms and the extent to which any construction may or must include the figures in the
`
`respective patents. The parties disagreed on this issue. e-Numerate made clear in its presentation
`
`that these terms must be construed to encompass Figure 14A in the ‘383 and ‘748 patents and
`
`Figure 15 in the ‘842 patent. These figures are the only embodiments of financial reports
`
`contained in the specifications of the patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit explicitly teach the
`
`applicability of the claimed inventions to financial reports. See, e.g., ‘355 Patent at col. 49, lines
`
`51 – 57 (“RDML permits records to be arranged hierarchically within a table. Although not a
`
`standard approach for relational tables, this permits multiple levels of information to be placed in
`
`a single two-dimensional table. Users desire this, for example, when viewing financial
`
`statements, where a single line item 55 (e.g., "Equipment leasing") may have several sub-
`
`components ("Autos," "Trucks," "Office Equipment.")(emphasis supplied)); see also ‘355 Patent
`
`at col. 9, lines 44 – 52; col. 11, lines 38 – 48; col. 23, lines 33 – 50; col. 27, line 67 – col. 28, line
`
`6.
`
`The Federal Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that claims should be construed to cover
`
`the examples and embodiments disclosed in the specification absent compelling reasons not to
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`do so. This is true regardless of whether the embodiments are explicitly characterized as
`
`“preferred.” For example, the Federal Circuit has stated:
`
`We normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes
`embodiments disclosed in the specification. E.g., Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage
`Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (rejecting proposed claim
`interpretation that would exclude disclosed examples in the specification);
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`(finding district court's claim construction erroneously excluded an embodiment
`described in an example in the specification, where the prosecution history
`showed no such disavowal of claim scope); see also Vitronics Corp. v.
`Conceptronics, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (finding that a claim
`interpretation that excludes a preferred embodiment is "rarely, if ever, correct").
`However, we have interpreted claims to exclude embodiments of the patented
`invention where those embodiments are clearly disclaimed in the specification,
`see SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d
`1337, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (excluding subject matter from claim scope based on
`clear disclaimer in the specification), or prosecution history, see North Am.
`Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir.
`2005) (excluding from claim scope certain embodiments in the drawings based on
`disclaimer during prosecution).
`
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276-77 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Funai Elec. Co. v.
`
`Daewoo Elecs. Corp., 616 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (refusing to read out preferred
`
`embodiment when patent-at-issue included only two embodiments); Nobel Biocare Servs. AG v.
`
`Instradent USA, Inc., 903 F.3d 1365, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2018)("there is a strong presumption
`
`against a claim construction that excludes a disclosed embodiment,")(quoting In re Katz
`
`Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
`
`Here, the financial reports shown in Figure 14A of the ‘383 Patent and Figure 15 of the
`
`‘842 patent are the only examples of hierarchical financial reports shown. As a result, they
`
`should be embraced by any construction the Court gives for terms 15A, B and C.
`
`
`
`As set forth at the hearing, e-Numerate’s proposed construction of “includes a line item
`
`in various types of hierarchical relationships with other line items. By way of example, parent-
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`child, siblings, grandparent-grandchild, etc.” encompasses these figures. For example, in Figure
`
`14A of the ‘383 patent, “Total Receipts” is a sibling “Total Outlays” and a child of “Summary of
`
`Receipts, Outlays.” In Figure 15 of the ‘842 patent, “Cash and Balances Due From Depository
`
`Institutions” is a sibling of “Interest Bearing Balances” and a child of “Total Assets.” As a result,
`
`e-Numerate’s construction fully embraces these figures.
`
`
`
`Defendant, however, argued otherwise, contrary to well-settled law. Indeed, Defendant
`
`has radically altered its position. Initially, Defendant relied on prosecution disclaimer and Dr.
`
`Martin’s declaration in support of its claim construction requiring intersecting hierarchies. See
`
`ECF 82 at pages 29 – 35. At the hearing, however, Defendant asserted that the “plain language of
`
`the claim” requires that the two-line items have multiple hierarchical relationships with each
`
`other. That construction is nonsensical and improperly attempts to add the words “with each
`
`other” into the claim. In support of the Government’s (improper) construction, Defendant’s
`
`counsel stated during oral argument that a line item could be in both a parent-child and sibling-
`
`sibling relationship with each other. That is impossible from a hierarchical standpoint and the
`
`examples shown in the patents. In short, Defendant is trying to read the claim as if it read
`
`“multiple hierarchical relationships between two line items with each other.”
`
`B. Term 2
`
`The Court’s proposed preliminary definition was as follows:
`Term
`Term Court’s Proposed Definition
`
`Number
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`report A specially formatted output of information about a given topic by
`combining data documents with style documents.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`Both parties had issues with the Court’s definition. e-Numerate believed that the
`
`definition should be “plain and ordinary meaning” and advocated that, if a definition were given
`
`at all, it should be “a formatted output of information about a given topic.” Both parties
`
`disagreed with the Court’s proposal to require multiple “data documents” and “style documents.”
`
`e-Numerate noted in its recent letter that the Government had not sought construction of “report”
`
`in the ‘842 patent until a footnote in its sur-reply claim construction brief.
`
`
`
`Having reviewed the ‘842 patent further in light of the oral argument, e-Numerate
`
`believes the specification of the ‘842 patent is dispositive in e-Numerate’s favor. e-Numerate
`
`refers the Court to col. 20, lines 27 – 34 and Figure 14. That paragraph states in pertinent part:
`
`An XBRL instance document 222 or report is developed as illustrated in FIG.
`14. FIG 14 illustrates an exemplary section 1402 of an XBRL instance
`document 222 generated without a specified optional stylesheet
`filename. There, exemplary section 1402 is essentially displayed as a text
`document without much formatting.”
`
`Id. at col. 20, lines 29 – 34 (emphasis supplied). This section flatly contradicts that
`
`Government’s assertion that a “report” requires a stylesheet. In contrast, e-Numerate’s proposed
`
`construction of “report” as “A formatted output of information about a given topic” encompasses
`
`the minimal formatting of the report shown Figure 14 of the ‘842 patent and the more extensive
`
`formatting of the report shown in Figure 15 of the ‘842 patent. It is consistent with both
`
`embodiments and should be adopted by the Court.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth, e-Numerate’s proposed constructions should be adopted.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 108 Filed 11/22/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`Dated: November 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Sean T. O’Kelly
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-778-4000
`sokelly@okorlaw.com
`gorourke@okorlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`