Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 1 of 12
`
`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’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT'S SUPPLEMENTAL
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Dated: April 26, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-778-4000
`gorourke@okorlaw.com
`sokelly@okorlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 2 of 12
`
`Table of Contents
`
` INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`I.
`
`II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A. The Federal Circuit Has Rejected Defendant’s Position ..................................................... 4
`
`B. Multiple District Courts Have Rejected Defendant’s Position ............................................ 4
`
`C. The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation Favors Rejecting Defendant’s Position .................. 5
`
`D. The Disclosure of the ‘383 Patent Militates Against “Means-Plus-Function Construction 8
`
`E. Claim 1 Is Not Indefinite Even if the Court Employs A “Means-Plus-Function” Analysis 9
`
`IV. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 3 of 12
`
`Cases
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Subaru Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208483 at * 44 – 57 (E.D. Tex.,
`
`December 11, 2018) ................................................................................................................ 1, 5
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2019) ............................................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc., 2018 WL 4035968 (E.D. Tex. August 23, 2018)
`
`................................................................................................................................................. 1, 4
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................... 1, 4, 6
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ... 6
`
`Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–72 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ................... 5
`
`Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int'l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................... 5
`
`Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................... 5
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................... 3, 8
`
`Security Profiling, LLC v Trend Micro America, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163935 *2 - *8
`
`(N.D. Tex. 2018) ..................................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987).......................... 5
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209589 at *17-*22 (N.D. Ill.
`
`December 5, 2019) .................................................................................................................. 1, 5
`
`Zeroclick, LLC, v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................... 1, 4
`
`Statutes
`
`§ 112 ................................................................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 4 of 12
`
`Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc., and e-Numerate, LLC (collectively “e-Numerate”)
`
`submit this Supplemental Claim Construction Brief on Indefiniteness in response to Defendant
`
`United States of America’s (“Defendant”) Supplemental Claim Construction Brief on
`
`Indefiniteness. (D.I. 111).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should not construe claim 1 of United States Patent 9,262,383 (“the ‘383 patent”)
`
`to be in “means-plus-function” format. The Federal Circuit has never held that “code for” is a
`
`“nonce” word invoking the means-plus-function analysis. To the contrary, the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision in Zeroclick, LLC, v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018), held that “user interface
`
`code” is not in means-plus-function format and reversed a district court decision to the contrary.
`
`Multiple district courts have recognized the controlling effect of the Federal Circuit’s ruling
`
`and have rejected the reasoning of Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D. Tex. 2019), and Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc.,
`
`2018 WL 4035968 (E.D. Tex. August 23, 2018), the primary authorities relied upon by Defendant.
`
`See, e.g., Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Subaru Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208483 at * 44 – 57 (E.D.
`
`Tex., December 11, 2018); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209589
`
`at *17-*22 (N.D. Ill. December 5, 2019); Security Profiling, LLC v Trend Micro America, Inc.,
`
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163935 *2 - *8 (N.D. Tex. 2018). The Federal Circuit itself also relied on
`
`ZeroClick in finding “code” limitations again not subject to means-plus-function analysis. Dyfan,
`
`LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2022)(“The district court also erred by not
`
`following our court’s recent decision in Zeroclick.”).
`
`Defendant cites none of this precedent to the Court. Instead, Defendant begins its analysis
`
`with the assumption that claim 1 of the ‘383 patent is in means-plus-function format. This is error.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 5 of 12
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation strongly militates against construing claim 1 of the ‘383
`
`patent in means-plus-function format. Construing claim 1 of the ‘383 patent in “means-plus-
`
`function” format renders it effectively identical in scope with claim 18 of the ‘383 patent. When
`
`e-Numerate intended to claim subject matter in “means-plus-function” format, it did so (including
`
`in the ‘383 patent itself via claim 18). That choice should be given weight.
`
`The specification of the ‘383 patent further confirms that claim 1 should not be construed in
`
`“means-plus-function” format. In particular, the ‘383 patent provides explicit examples of
`
`programming languages that can be used to practice the claimed invention. For example, the
`
`specification teaches the use of MS Excel Visual Basic and contains actual code exemplars written
`
`in MS Excel Visual Basic and XML version 1.0-compliant RMML. See, e.g., ‘383 Patent at col.
`
`45, line 60 – col. 46, line 22 and Appendix F and G. It is undisputed that MS Excel Visual Basic
`
`was a conventional programming language known at the time of the inventions of the ‘383 patent.
`
`Disclosure of this level detail is the antithesis of mere “black box” functionality.
`
`Finally, to the extent the Court construes claim 1 to be in “means-plus-function” format (and
`
`it manifestly should not), this claim is not indefinite for the reasons set forth in the previous briefing
`
`for claim 18 of the ‘383 patent. See D.I. 79, 89 and 92.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`This brief constitutes the seventh brief filed by the parties on the indefiniteness issues.
`
`Previous briefs include D.I. 79, 83, 89, 91, 92 and 111. Prior to the Markman hearing in this matter,
`
`Defendant never asserted that claim 1 of the ‘383 patent was in “means-plus-function” format. See
`
`generally D.I. 83 and 91. Similarly, Defendant never sought permission to amend the Joint Claim
`
`Construction Chart (D.I. 103) in this matter to make such an assertion. Instead, Defendant asserted
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 6 of 12
`
`for the first time at the Markman hearing in this matter that claim 1 of the ‘383 patent should be
`
`construed in “means-plus-function” format.
`
`Notwithstanding the extensive briefing that has already taken place on “means-plus-function”
`
`and the use of “code for” language in claim 11 in United States Patent 9,268,748 (“the ‘748
`
`patent”), Defendant requested permission to file yet another brief and yet another declaration by
`
`Dr. David Martin on this issue. The Court granted Defendant permission to file a supplemental
`
`brief over Plaintiffs’ objection at the Markman hearing.
`
`Notwithstanding that the Court did not rely on Dr. Martin’s previous declarations even once
`
`during its claim construction opinion, D.I. 109, Defendant persists in seeking to introduce
`
`impermissible extrinsic evidence into the claim construction proceeding in violation of Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc). e-Numerate again objects to the use
`
`of the Martin Declarations in the claim construction proceedings. Given the Court’s
`
`understandable reluctance to rely on Dr. Martin’s declarations, e-Numerate is not submitting a
`
`rebuttal declaration concurrently herewith.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`
`This Court should not construe the “code for” limitations in the ‘383 patent in “means-plus-
`
`function” format for multiple reasons. First, the Federal Circuit has never held that “code for” is
`
`a “nonce” word invoking means-plus-function analysis. Instead, two Federal Circuit decisions
`
`have refused to construe “code” limitations in “means-plus-function” format. Second, multiple
`
`district courts have recognized the controlling nature of the Federal Circuit’s precedent and refused
`
`to construe “code” claims in “means-plus-function” format. Third, construing claim 1 of the ‘383
`
`patent in “means-plus-function” format renders it effectively identical to claim 18 of the ’383
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 7 of 12
`
`patent and, as a result, violates the doctrine of claim differentiation. Fourth, there is extensive
`
`disclosure in the ‘383 patent about how to practice the claimed invention including multiple
`
`appendices that contain code exemplars. This extensive disclosure of the patent strongly militates
`
`against a “means-plus-function” construction. Finally, were the Court to construe claim 1 in
`
`“means-plus-function format” (and it manifestly should not), the claim would not be indefinite for
`
`the same reasons claim 18 (which is in “means-plus-function format”) is not indefinite.
`
`A. The Federal Circuit Has Rejected Defendant’s Position
`
`The Federal Circuit has never held that a “code for” limitation is a “nonce” word subject to
`
`“means-plus-function” analysis. To the contrary, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Zeroclick, LLC,
`
`v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018), held that “user interface code” is not in means-plus-
`
`function format and reversed a district court decision to the contrary. The Federal Circuit also
`
`relied on ZeroClick in finding “code” limitations again not subject to means-plus-function analysis.
`
`Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp., 28 F.4th 1360, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2022)(“The district court also erred
`
`by not following our court’s recent decision in Zeroclick.”).
`
`Both of these precedents are controlling here. In short, there is no Federal Circuit authority
`
`supporting Defendant’s position that “code for” is a “nonce” word subject to “means-plus-
`
`function” analysis.
`
`B. Multiple District Courts Have Rejected Defendant’s Position
`
`Multiple district courts have recognized the controlling effect of the Federal Circuit’s ruling
`
`and have rejected the reasoning of Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., 382 F. Supp. 3d 586 (E.D. Tex. 2019), and Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. ZTE (USA), Inc.,
`
`2018 WL 4035968 (E.D. Tex. August 23, 2018), the primary authorities relied upon by Defendant.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 8 of 12
`
`See, e.g., Blitzsafe Tex., LLC v. Subaru Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 208483 at * 44 – 57 (E.D.
`
`Tex., December 11, 2018); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209589
`
`at *17-*22 (N.D. Ill. December 5, 2019); Security Profiling, LLC v Trend Micro America, Inc.,
`
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163935 *2 - *8 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
`
`Defendant cites none of this precedent to the Court. Instead, Defendant essentially begins its
`
`analysis with the assumption that claim 1 of the ‘383 patent is in means-plus-function format. This
`
`is error.
`
`C. The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation Favors Rejecting Defendant’s Position
`
`The doctrine of claim differentiation strongly militates against Defendant’s proposed
`
`construction. The doctrine of claim differentiation stems from “the commonsense notion that
`
`different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have
`
`different meanings and scope.” Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971–
`
`72 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Although the doctrine is at its strongest “where the limitation sought to be
`
`‘read into’ an independent claim already appears in a dependent claim,” Liebel–Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004), there is still a presumption that two independent
`
`claims have different scope when different words or phrases are used in those claims, Kraft Foods,
`
`Inc. v. Int'l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1365–69 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Tandon Corp. v. U.S.
`
`Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
`
`The Federal Circuit has also emphasized that whether or not to invoke “means-plus-function”
`
`language is a choice typically left to the claim drafter. According to the Federal Circuit:
`
`[b]ecause invoking § 112 ¶ 6 is typically a choice left to the claim drafter, we
`presume at the first step of the analysis that a claim limitation is subject to § 112 ¶
`6 when the claim language includes the term "means." The inverse is also true—
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 9 of 12
`
`we presume that a claim limitation is not drafted in means-plus-function format in
`the absence of the term "means".
`Dyfan, LLC 28 F.4th at 1365 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis supplied). Here, e-Numerate
`
`explicitly choose when to use “means-plus-function” (‘383 patent, claim 18), and when not to
`
`(‘383 patent, claim 1).
`
`Defendant asserts that this choice should be given no weight. See D.I. 111 at page 3, n.1.
`
`Defendant is wrong. The Federal Circuit’s decision in Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med.
`
`Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008), relates to the meaning of a substantive term in
`
`the body of a claim. It did not address the issue here: specifically, whether means-plus-function
`
`was invoked by the patentee when “means” was not used. Id. at 1347.
`
`Defendant ignores the fact that construing claim 1 of the ‘383 patent in means-plus-
`
`function format renders it essentially identical to claim 18. This is illustrated in the following
`
`table:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`‘383 Patent Claim 1
`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.
`
`‘383 Patent Claim 18
`An apparatus, comprising:
`
`means 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;
`means for automatically transforming 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;
`means 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;
`means for causing a display of at least a
`portion of the single markup document.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 11 of 12
`
`Although Plaintiffs object to the use of Dr. Martin’s analysis in the claim construction
`
`process, his Second Supplemental Declaration incorporates his analysis of claim 18, which is in
`
`means-plus-function format. Thus, even the Defendant’s own expert recognizes that construing
`
`“code for” in claim 1 as “means for” renders claim 1 and claim 18 identical.
`
`D. The Disclosure of the ‘383 Patent Militates Against “Means-Plus-Function
`
`Construction
`
`The specification of the ‘383 patent further confirms that claim 1 should not be construed in
`
`“means-plus-function” format. In particular, the ‘383 patent provides explicit examples of
`
`programming language that can be used to practice the claimed invention.
`
`For example, the Appendices to the ‘383 patent contain code exemplars. Here, the specification
`
`teaches the use of MS Excel Visual Basic and contains actual code exemplars written in MS Excel
`
`Visual Basic and XML version 1.0-compliant RMML. See, e.g., ‘383 Patent at col. 45, line 60 –
`
`col. 46, line 22 and Appendices F and G. Disclosure of this level detail is the antithesis of mere
`
`“black box” functionality.
`
`Dr. Martin’s opinion to the contrary should be rejected as impermissible extrinsic evidence.
`
`Dr. Martin opines that the various “code for” claim limitations “[do] not refer to known or
`
`conventional programs or code from the time of the invention.” Martin Dec. at pars. 17, 30 and
`
`49. He uses the same boilerplate recitation that the claim term at issue merely describes “black
`
`box functionality.” Id. These opinions are explicitly contradicted by the specification including its
`
`disclosure regarding the use of MS Excel Visual Basic. Dr. Martin’s Declaration is exactly the
`
`type of extrinsic evidence that the Federal Circuit condemned in Phillips. 415 F.3d at 1318.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 112 Filed 04/26/23 Page 12 of 12
`
`E. Claim 1 Is Not Indefinite Even if the Court Employs A “Means-Plus-Function”
`
`Analysis
`
`Finally, to the extent the Court construes claim 1 to be in “means-plus-function” format (and
`
`it manifestly should not), this claim is not indefinite for the reasons set forth in the previous briefing
`
`for claim 18 of the ‘383 patent. See D.I. 79, 89 and 92. e-Numerate incorporates its briefing by
`
`reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`By way of further explanation, Section IV of the specification of the ‘383 patent runs from col.
`
`17, line 27 – col. 46, line 63 and contains extensive disclosure of the Internal Data Viewer
`
`Architecture that may be used in the claimed invention. This section refers to at least Figures 7 –
`
`22. Moreover, this section references at least Appendices A, B, C, F and G. There is simply no
`
`basis for asserting that e-Numerate is claiming “black-box” functionality in light of this extensive
`
`disclosure.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`For the reasons set forth, e-Numerate respectfully requests that the Court reject Defendant’s
`
`assertion that claim 1 of the ‘383 patent should be construed in “means-plus-function” format.
`
`Dated: April 26, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Gerard M. O’Rourke
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-778-4000
`gorourke@okorlaw.com
`sokelly@okorlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`9
`
`