Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 54
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`NELSON KUAN
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`April 29, 2022
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`GARY L. HAUSKEN
`Director
`
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`shahar.harel@usdoj.gov
`Telephone: (202) 305-3075
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT,
`THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 54
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1
`
`TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW ............................................................................................2
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT ...................................................................................................3
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................5
`
`VI.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The ‘355 Patent ........................................................................................................7
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 1: “Series of numerical values having tags
`indicating characteristics …” ...................................................................................7
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 2: “tag/tags” .............................................................................12
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 3:“macro” .................................................................................14
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 4: “transform the series of numerical values …” .....................15
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 5:“generating at least one second title…” ................................16
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 6:“the step of receiving” ..........................................................17
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 7: “report” ................................................................................17
`
`The ‘816 Patent ......................................................................................................19
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 1: “tags reflecting characteristics…” .......................................19
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 2: “tag/tags” .............................................................................19
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 3: “wherein the characteristics indicate … format
`…” ..........................................................................................................................19
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 4:“automatically transforming … common format” ................20
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 5: “the markup language” ........................................................22
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 6:“means for receiving…” .......................................................22
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 7: “means for automatically…” ...............................................22
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 8: “means for combining…” ....................................................22
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 54
`
`
`
`9.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 9: “means for displaying…” ....................................................22
`
`10.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 10: “characteristic of the numerical value” ..............................22
`
`C.
`
`The ‘383 Patent ......................................................................................................23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 1: “first tags reflecting characteristics . ..” ...............................23
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 2: “second tags reflecting characteristics …” ..........................23
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 3: “tag/tags” .............................................................................23
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 4:“wherein the first tags . . . semantic tags . . .”.......................23
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 5: “semantic tag/semantic tags” ...............................................24
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 6: “automatic transformation . . . common unit of
`measure” ................................................................................................................24
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 7: “capable of including . . .” ...................................................24
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 8: “rule” ....................................................................................25
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 9: “presentation” ......................................................................28
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 10: “report” ..............................................................................29
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 11: “multiple hierarchical relationships between two
`line items …” .........................................................................................................29
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 12: “capable of including . . .” .................................................35
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 13: “means for identifying…” .................................................35
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 14: “means for automatically transforming…” ........................35
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 15: “means for processing…” ..................................................35
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 16: “means for causing a display…” .......................................35
`
`The ‘384 Patent ......................................................................................................35
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 1: “values” ................................................................................35
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 2:“data structure” .....................................................................36
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 3:“identify one or more indications … tagging …
`semantic tags” ........................................................................................................37
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 54
`
`
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`E.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`F.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 4:“one or more computer-readable semantic tags” ..................37
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 5: “semantic tags” ....................................................................37
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 6: “presentation” ......................................................................38
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 7: “report” ................................................................................38
`
`The ‘748 Patent ......................................................................................................38
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 1: “data values/values” .............................................................38
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 2: “computer-readable semantic tags …” ................................38
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 3: “semantic tags” ....................................................................39
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 4: “capable of including …” ....................................................39
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 5:“multiple hierarchical relationships …” ...............................39
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 6:“rule” .....................................................................................39
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 7: “code for storing...” ..............................................................39
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 8: “code for processing…” ......................................................39
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 9: “code for receiving…” ........................................................40
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 10: “code for receiving…” .......................................................40
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 11: “code for mapping…” ........................................................40
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 12: “code for outputting…” .....................................................40
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 13:“presentation” .....................................................................40
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 15:“report” ...............................................................................40
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 16:“code for outputting…” ......................................................40
`
`The ‘842 Patent ......................................................................................................40
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 1:“data values” .........................................................................40
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 2:“plurality of computer readable semantic tags…” ................41
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 3:“semantic tags” .....................................................................41
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 4:“capable... multiple hierarchical relationships …” ...............41
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 54
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`G.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 5:“multiple hierarchical relationships …” ...............................41
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 6:“rule” .....................................................................................42
`
`The ‘337 Patent ......................................................................................................42
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 1:“data values” .........................................................................42
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 2:“computer readable semantic tags . . .” .................................42
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 3:“semantic tags” .....................................................................42
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 4:“presentation” .......................................................................43
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 5:“report” .................................................................................43
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 6:“markup language” ...............................................................43
`
`H.
`
`The ‘708 Patent ......................................................................................................44
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 1:“data values” .........................................................................44
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 2: “computer readable semantic tags . . .” ................................44
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 3: “semantic tags” ....................................................................44
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 4: “capable … multiple hierarchical relationships
`…” ..........................................................................................................................45
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 5:“multiple hierarchical relationships …” ...............................45
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 6:“rule” .....................................................................................45
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 7:“report” .................................................................................45
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................45
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 54
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Advanced Fiber Techs. (AFT) Tr. v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ....................................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2006)......................... 8
`
`Aventis Pharms., Inc. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 335 F. Supp. 2d 558 (D.N.J. 2004) .......................... 37
`
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C-11-2709 EMC, 2014 WL 1365422 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 7, 2014) ........................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group, 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001).... 18, 28, 31
`
`Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F. 3d 945, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................. 27
`
`CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`2000) ............................................................................................................................. 8, 20, 32
`
`Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................... 15
`
`Fastship, LLC v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 499 (2013) ............................................................... 7
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................... 27
`
`Hockeyline, Inc. v. Stats, LLC, No. 13 CIV. 1446 CM, 2013 WL 11091886 (S.D.N.Y.
`Dec. 16, 2013) ......................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116
`(Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................................................... 11
`
`InterDigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F. App’x 972 (Fed. Cir.
`2015) ..................................................................................................................... 12, 20, 30, 31
`
`Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ....................................... 22
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ......................................... 5
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., 357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................. 6
`
`MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects Americas, 238 F. App’x 605 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................ 8
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) ................................................... 23
`
`Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 549 F.3d 1394 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................ 13, 30
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 54
`
`
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............ 7, 20
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................... passim
`
`Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................. 39
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................... 16
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................... 6
`
`SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985 .............................................. 5
`
`SuperSpeed, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., No. CIV.A. H-12-1688, 2014 WL 129225 (S.D. Tex.
`Jan. 14, 2014) .......................................................................................................................... 39
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................... 22
`
`U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................ 5
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................... 5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`§ 112, ¶ 2 ................................................................................................................................. 23, 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 54
`
`
`
`Defendant, the United States, respectfully submits this Responsive Claim Construction
`
`Brief in response to Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate Solutions, LLC
`
`(collectively, “e-Numerate”) Opening Claim Construction Brief (ECF 78).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`e-Numerate brought this suit against the United States alleging infringement of one or
`
`more claims of each of United States Patent Nos. 7,650,355 (“the ‘355 Patent”), United States
`
`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”), 9,600,842 (“the ‘842 Patent”), 10,223,337 (“the ‘337
`
`Patent”), and 10,423,708 (“the ‘708 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`The parties have met and conferred in order to narrow and focus the claim construction
`
`issues. e-Numerate filed a list of the parties’ agreed constructions. See ECF 80-2. For those terms
`
`that are in dispute, the parties have offered competing constructions. See ECF 80-3. This is the
`
`Government’s main responsive claim construction brief.
`
`II.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`Prior to this action, e-Numerate accused Mattress Firm Holding Corp., Merrill
`
`Communications LLC, and Merrill Corporation in the District of Delaware of infringing the
`
`‘355, ‘816, ‘383, and ‘748 Patents. 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. The United States filed a
`
`Statement of Interest in the Delaware Case, confirming that it 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. As a result, the District of Delaware dismissed the case on November 19, 2018.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 54
`
`
`
`e-Numerate commenced the present action on June 11, 2019 and asserted infringement of
`
`the ‘355, ‘816, ‘383, ‘384, ‘748, ‘842, and ‘337 Patents. See ECF 1. On October 11, 2019,
`
`Defendant moved to dismiss the action under RCFC 12(b)(6), alleging the asserted patents are
`
`invalid as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to an abstract idea. See ECF 8
`
`at 1. This Court held that “at step one, [representative] claim 2 of the ‘355 patent is directed to
`
`the abstract idea of applying a macro to tagged numbers and reporting the results on a
`
`computer.” ECF 27 at 26. However, the Court found that “the language of the specification and
`
`plaintiffs’ complaint contain factual allegations that the asserted patents claim more than ‘well-
`
`understood, routine, or conventional activity’ at the time of invention”, id. at 33, and denied
`
`Defendant’s motion, but allowed Defendant “to revisit the patent eligibility of the asserted claims
`
`under § 101 following claim construction and at least some fact discovery.” Id. at 35.
`
`After the Court ruled on Defendant’s motion, e-Numerate filed its First Amended
`
`Complaint alleging infringement of additional claims from the aforementioned patents. See ECF
`
`31. e-Numerate filed its Second Amended Complaint on April 27, 2021 alleging infringement of
`
`the ‘708 Patent and naming government agencies beyond the SEC. See ECF 53.
`
`The Court held a status conference on January 25, 2022 regarding logistics relating to the
`
`claim construction briefing. The Court then issued an order setting a revised schedule for claim
`
`construction and allowed the parties to submit two opening briefs with a main brief and a
`
`supplemental brief directed to indefiniteness terms. See ECF 75.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
`
`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; see also ECF 1 ¶ 23 (“The inventions contained
`
`in the patents-in-suit utilize XML-compliant document formats[.]”). XML – an acronym for
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 54
`
`
`
`eXtensible Markup Language – was developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. See id. at
`
`30:19-21.
`
`Extensible Markup Language (“XML”) is a widely used framework that represents
`
`structured information using a text-based format. XML documents have a structure that specifies
`
`elements using markup language “tags.” The framework allows for the creator of a particular
`
`XML document to determine the names of the tags and elements as long as certain rules are
`
`followed. For example, each element in an XML document must have opening and closing tags
`
`using angled brackets (e.g., <author> and </author>), but the names of those tags are determined
`
`by the creator. See ECF 81-7, Declaration of Dr. David Martin in Support of Defendant’s
`
`Proposed Preliminary Claim Constructions (“Martin Decl.”) at ¶¶ 35-37.
`
`A Document Type Definition (“DTD”) describes required and optional data elements,
`
`their ordering, syntax, and the controlled vocabulary for use in certain data elements. ‘355 Patent
`
`at 15:43-46. It specifies which attributes are required and which are optional for any embodiment
`
`of the DTD and depending on design constraints, the required and optional elements may vary.
`
`Id. at 21:31-33. Therefore, the number of attributes for a specific element is a design option for a
`
`user implementing an XML-based system. Similarly, a DTD may indicate whether an element
`
`has child elements. Ex. A, (“XML Bible”) at 191. For example, a DTD may dictate that a BOOK
`
`element has exactly one ISBN child, exactly one TITLE child, and one or more AUTHOR
`
`children, and it may or may not contain a single SUBTITLE. Id. A validating parser may read a
`
`DTD and check whether a document adheres to the rules specified by the DTD. Id at 196.
`
`IV.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`The Asserted Patents fall into two different patent families. The first patent family
`
`includes the ‘355, ‘816, ‘383, ‘384, ‘748, and ‘337 Patents, which all descend from U.S. Patent
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 54
`
`
`
`Application Nos. 60/135,525 and 60/183,152 (collectively, “the ‘525 and ‘152 Provisional Patent
`
`Family”). The Asserted Patents in the ‘525 and ‘152 Provisional Patent Family have substantially
`
`similar specifications. The second patent family includes the ‘842 and ‘708 Patents, which
`
`descend from U.S. Patent Application No. 60/263,518 (“the ‘518 Provisional Patent Family”).
`
`The ‘842 and ‘708 Patents both purport to incorporate by reference U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`09/573,780, which issued as the ‘355 Patent. However, the ‘842 Patent apparently has an error
`
`and stated that this application issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,421,648 (the “’648 Patent”).
`
`Nonetheless, the ‘842 Patent incorporates by reference U.S. Patent Application No. 09/573,778
`
`which issued as the ‘648 Patent; the ‘648 Patent has a substantially similar specification to the
`
`‘355 Patent. Therefore, all the Asserted Patents comprise disclosure substantially similar to the
`
`‘355 Patent while the ‘842 and ‘708 Patents comprise additional disclosure. Further, as the
`
`specifications of each of the Asserted Patents also incorporate by reference the book “XML
`
`Bible” by Elliotte Rusty Harold and published by IDG Books Worldwide in 1999, this is also
`
`part of the shared disclosure. E.g., ‘355 Patent at 8:44-46; ‘842 Patent at 2:13-15.
`
`The subject matter of the Asserted Patents may be divided into four categories. The first
`
`group is generally directed to the concept of applying a macro to tagged numbers and reporting
`
`the results on a computer and includes Claims 1, 2-15, 21, 25-42, 46, and 52-55 of the ‘355
`
`Patent. The second group is generally directed to the concept of combining two sets of data by
`
`converting them to a common format. It includes claims 1, 3-9, 12-14, and 19-25 of the ‘816
`
`Patent and Claims 3, 4, 6-12, 14, and 15 of the ‘383 Patent. The third group is generally directed
`
`to the concept of validating data based on rules. It includes claims 2-5, and 10 of the ‘748 Patent,
`
`Claim 29 of the ‘842 Patent, and Claims 1, 10, and 17 of the ‘708 Patent. The fourth group is
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 54
`
`
`
`generally directed to the concept of generating reports based on data. It includes Claim 66 of the
`
`‘384 Patent, Claims 12-16 and 20 of the ‘748 Patent and Claim 1 of the ‘337 Patent.
`
`V.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that the ‘claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to’” which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). “Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed
`
`meanings and technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee
`
`covered by the claims, for use in the determination of infringement.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v.
`
`Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim construction is an issue of law for the
`
`court to decide. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`Claim construction starts with the language of the claim itself. See Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). And it is the function of the claims, not the
`
`specification, to set forth the limits of the patentee’s invention. See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
`
`Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Despite the importance of claim terms,
`
`Phillips made clear that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term
`
`not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the
`
`context of the entire patent, including the specification.” 415 F.3d at 1313. Although the claims
`
`themselves may provide guidance as to the meaning of particular terms, those terms are part of
`
`“a fully integrated written instrument.” Id. at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 978).
`
`The prosecution history also helps to demonstrate how the inventor and the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) understood the patent. Id. at 1317. The prosecution history
`
`is intrinsic evidence that is relevant to the determination of how the inventor understood the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 54
`
`
`
`invention and whether the inventor limited the invention during prosecution by narrowing the
`
`scope of the claims. Id.; see also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (“[A] patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or
`
`not, are relevant to claim interpretation.”); Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d
`
`1570, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“The prosecution history limits the interpretation of claim terms so
`
`as to exclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution.”) (citations omitted).
`
`“Extrinsic evidence in general [is] less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history
`
`in determining how to read claim terms . . . .” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. However,
`
`“dictionaries, and especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted meanings of
`
`terms used in various fields of science and technology, [and] have been properly recognized as
`
`among the many tools that can assist the court in determining the meaning of particular
`
`terminology to those of skill in the art of the invention.” Id.
`
` “[E]xtrinsic evidence in the form of expert testimony can be useful to a court for a
`
`variety of purposes, such as to provide background on the technology at issue, to explain how an
`
`invention works, to ensure that the court’s understanding of the technical aspects of the patent is
`
`consistent with that of a person of skill in the art, or to establish that a particular term in the
`
`patent or the prior art has a particular meaning in the pertinent field.” Id. “However, conclusory,
`
`unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.”
`
`Id.
`
`“Although the trial court is not required to construe every term in a patent, it must
`
`construe any term for which claim scope is disputed.” Fastship, LLC v. United States, 114 Fed.
`
`Cl. 499, 504 (2013) (citing O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
`
`1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). “A determination that a claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 54
`
`
`
`‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’
`
`meaning or when reliance on a term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.”
`
`O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361.
`
`Under Federal Circuit jurisprudence, “different claim terms are presumed to have
`
`different meanings.” MicroStrategy Inc. v. Bus. Objects Americas, 238 F. App’x 605, 609 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (citing CAE Screenplates Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308,
`
`1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we must presume that the
`
`use of these different terms in the claims connotes different meanings.”); Applied Med. Res.
`
`Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he use of two terms
`
`in a claim requires that they connote different meanings....”)).
`
`VI. ARGUMENT
`
`This Court should adopt Defendant’s proposed claim constructions for each of the
`
`disputed terms.
`
`A.
`
`The ‘355 Patent
`
`1. ‘355 Patent, Term 1: “Series of numerical values having tags indicating
`characteristics …”
`
`Defendant maintains that this term need not be construed beyond Defendant’s proposed
`
`construction for the term “tags” (see Term 2) as e-Numerate’s proposal seeks to rewrite the
`
`claims. However, Defendant has also provided an alternative construction that incorporates its
`
`proposed construction into the longer claim language and highlights the parties’ disagreements.
`
`In such a framework, the main dispute is whether the tags must comprise more than one attribute
`
`as e-Numerate contends, or if they may only comprise one attribute as Defendant maintains. The
`
`second dispute between the parties is whether the relevant tags “describe” or “explain” the
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 82 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 54
`
`
`
`meaning of the values. As e-Numerate’s proposed construction contradicts the specification, this
`
`Court should adopt Defendant’s construction.
`
`e-Numerate argues that a plain and ordinary construction for this term is inappropriate
`
`because this would allow “the way a number is displayed (e.g., bolded or italicized) [to]
`
`potentially [be] a ‘characteristic of the numerical value.’” ECF 78 at 11. It also suggests that the
`
`patent’s background section differentiated the claimed “characteristic of the numerical value”
`
`with prior art HTML tags and the XML specification. Id. at 12. This argument is incorrect for
`
`two reasons. First, the patent’s background does not differentiate this limitation from prior art
`
`tags and is entirely silent as to this limitation. Indeed, e-Numerate fails to identify any portion of
`
`the specification that establishes such differentiation.
`
`Second, while the background section cited by e-Numerate asserts that “[u]nlike HTML,
`
`XML describes structure and meaning, but not formatting,” ‘355 Patent at 2:1-2, other portions
`
`of the specification establish that, like HTML, the relevant tags may be used for formatting
`
`purposes. For example:
`
`The x_prec attribute describes the precision or number of significant digits for
`purposes of axis label display. In this attribute, negative numbers cause rounding
`of amounts greater than zero. For example, a precision of “2” will display a
`number as “8,254.43”. That same numbe