Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 5266
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.
`
`
` v.
`TESO LT, UAB; OXYSALES, UAB;
`METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§ Case No. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`LUMINATI’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`(LOCAL PATENT RULE 4-5(a))
`
`
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 5267
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................... 1
`A. The Patents-in-Suit ........................................................................................................ 1
`B. The Asserted Claims ...................................................................................................... 4
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 7
`III.
`LEVEL OF ONE OR ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 9
`IV.
`AGREED UPON TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ..................................................... 9
`V.
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 10
`A. Client Device (First Family) ........................................................................................ 10
`B. First Server (First Family) .......................................................................................... 13
`C. Second Server (First Family) ...................................................................................... 13
`D. Client Device (Second Family) .................................................................................... 15
`E. First Server (Second Family) ...................................................................................... 18
`VII. THE “INDEFINITENESS” ARGUMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANTS DO NOT
`REALLY RELATE TO INDEFINITENESS AND ARE NOT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES ..................................................................................... 19
`A. Not Indefinite: “The First IP Address” / “The First Client IP Address” ............... 20
`B. Not Indefinite: “Determining, By The First Client Device, That The Received First
`Content, Is Valid” / “The Determining Is Based On The Received HTTP Header
`According To, Or Based On IETF RFC 2616” ........................................................ 22
`C. Not Indefinite: “Periodically Communicating” ........................................................ 23
`D. Not Indefinite: “In Response To The Receiving Of The First Content Identifier” 24
`E. The Sending Of The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Request / Receiving
`And Storing Of The First Content / The Sending Of The Part Of, Or The Whole
`Of, The Stored First Content ..................................................................................... 25
`F. The Steps Are Sequentially Executed ........................................................................ 27
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 002
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 5268
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................... 20
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................ 23, 24, 27
`
`Danco, Inc. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-73-JRG-CMC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155936
`(E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2017) ............................................................................................................ 8
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................... 19
`
`Energizer Holdings v. International Trade Com’n, 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............ passim
`
`Gilead Scis. v. Mylan Inc., No. 1:14CV99, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44558 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6,
`2015).......................................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00057-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`96097 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) .................................................................................... 8, 13, 14
`
`Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................................................. 7
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................ passim
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................. 7
`
`On-Line Tech. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............... 8
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................ 8
`
`Poly-America, L.P. v. API Indus., Inc., 839 F. 3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................... 17
`
`Rheox, Inc. v. Entact, Inc., 276 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ......................................................... 17
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................. 23
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ...................................... 17
`
`Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc. 279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ... 20
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................... 19
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2015) ................................................ 7
`
`ii
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 5269
`
`Traxxas LP v. Hobby Prods. Int’l, No. 2:14-CV-945-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114148
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2015) ................................................................................................... 20, 23
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed Cir. 2014) .................................................... 8
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ........................................... 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................. 19
`
`iii
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 5270
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski, founders of Plaintiff Luminati Networks Ltd.
`
`(“Luminati”), invented new methods for fetching content from a target server over the Internet
`
`using intermediary third-party client devices, such as an individual’s cell phone, in order to make
`
`the request from the third-party instead of the original requestor. These inventions are claimed
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 10,257,319 (the “’319 Patent”, Ex. A), 10,484,510 (the “’510 Patent,” Ex. B) and
`
`10,469,614 (the “’614 Patent,” Ex. C) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit” or “asserted patents”).
`
`Using this novel service permits a user to access content from a server that might otherwise block
`
`the request or return a fake response. For example, a retailer can use this service to request pricing
`
`data from a competitor by appearing to that competitor as a potential customer.
`
`The parties in this case agree that many of the claim terms should be afforded their plain
`
`and ordinary meaning. In some cases, however, additional clarification is important because under
`
`the rubric of “plain meaning” Defendants in fact deviate from the plain meaning of the claim terms
`
`as used in the patents in light of the clear prosecution history by interpreting “servers” and “client
`
`devices” as interchangeable. As used in this patent claims, they are not. Defendants also assert
`
`indefiniteness as to a variety of claim terms, but such arguments are baseless as these claims were
`
`properly issued by the Patent Office and entitled to the presumption of validity.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are directed to architecture and methods for fetching content over the
`
`Internet. The ’319 and ’510 Patents, filed on April 20, 2018 and February 17, 2019 respectively,
`
`are in the same family (“First Family”) with a shared specification claiming priority to the same
`
`provisional application filed on October 8, 2009. The patents in the First Family are titled: “System
`
`1
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 005
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 5271
`
`Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication.” The ’614 Patent, filed on December
`
`10, 2018, shares the same inventors, but is in a separate family (“Second Family”) with a separate
`
`specification claiming priority to a provisional application filed on August 28, 2013. The ’614
`
`Patent is titled: “System and Method for Improving Internet Communication by Using
`
`Intermediate Nodes.” The asserted patents in both families claim methods utilizing a novel server
`
`– client device – web server architecture, whereby a client device serves as a proxy between the
`
`server and web server.
`
`The ’319 and ’510 Patents create a “system designed for increasing network
`
`communication speed for users…” Ex. A at Abstract.1 The ’319 and ’510 Patents discuss that
`
`previous “proxy servers” fail to provide a “comprehensive solution for Internet surfing,” in part
`
`because they “would need to be deployed at every point around the world where the Internet is
`
`being consumed.” Id. at 2:24-27; see also 2:8-23. Instead, to create a new type of consumer-based
`
`network that never existed before, these patents employ “client devices” that operate as proxies.
`
`Id. at 3:13-55. The client devices are modified to function as a client, peer or agent and serve as a
`
`proxy in the system, permitting “any number of agents and peers.” Id. at 4:43-64.
`
`Similarly, the ‘614 Patent creates a client device network of “tunnel devices” that are
`
`client devices within a server – client device – web server architecture. Ex. C at 1:19-23.
`
`Each of devices herein may consist of, include, be part of, or be based on, a part of,
`or the whole of, the computer 11 or the system 100 shown in FIG. 1. Each of the
`servers herein may consist of, may include, or may be based on, a part or a whole
`of the functionalities or structure (such as software) of any server described in the
`‘604 Patent, such as the web server, the proxy server, or the acceleration server.
`Each of the clients or devices herein may consist of, may include, or may be based
`on, a part or a whole of the functionalities or structure (such as software) of any
`client or device described in the ’604 Patent, such as the peer, client, or agent
`
`
`1 For simplicity, all references to the shared specification of the ’319 and ’510 Patents will be
`made to the specification of the ’319 Patent at Ex. A, but will be understood to include the
`corresponding citation from the ’510 Patent at Ex. B.
`
`2
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 5272
`
`devices.
`
`In one example, an accessing to a data server is improved by using an intermediate
`device referred to as ‘tunnel’ device, that is executing a ‘tunnel’ flowchart. FIG. 5
`shows a system 30 including two client devices, a client device #1 31a and a client
`device #2 31b, that may access the data 20 servers 22a and 22b using one or more
`of a tunnel device #1 33a, a tunnel device #2 33b, and a tunnel device #3 33c, under
`the management and control of an acceleration server 32. These network elements
`communicates with each other using the Internet 113.
`
`Ex. C at 83:4-15.
`
`
`The ’614 Patent further improves on the above network by having the proxy client devices
`
`
`
`dynamically shift between two states based on a criteria. Specifically, the client (tunnel) device
`
`is available as a proxy in the first state (for example, when there is sufficiently available
`
`bandwidth) but unavailable in the second state (for example, when there is not sufficiently
`
`available bandwidth). Criteria-based dynamic switching improves the performance of the system
`
`by maintaining a new, dynamic network made exclusively of available client devices that can meet
`
`a given performance criteria. Ex. C at 124:3-13.
`
`A problem in the art was the fact that certain websites with public information nevertheless
`
`create technological roadblocks to obtaining that information from certain requesting devices. For
`
`example, it is a routine practice of companies to obstruct their competitors from accessing the
`
`3
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 5273
`
`company’s otherwise publicly available pricing information. To overcome these artificial
`
`hinderances, the proxy service of the claims sends requests through one or more of a large group
`
`of proxy client devices, such as individual cell phone devices. As the proxy devices belong to real
`
`people who otherwise send such requests to target web servers as customers, the target will allow
`
`the queries and not artificially block them.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`In the present action, Luminati asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent
`
`claims 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the ’319 Patent, independent claim 1 and
`
`dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the ’510 Patent, and
`
`independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22,
`
`23, 25, 26, 28 and 29 of the ’614 Patent.
`
`Although each of the Asserted Claims involve methods performed within a server – client
`
`device – web server architecture, the claim terms differ int hat the “first” server in the ’319 and
`
`’510 Patents is referred to as the “second”
`
`server in the ’614 Patent. Fig. 3 is annotated
`
`below to illustrate the claimed steps [A],
`
`[B], [C], [D], and/or [E] performed by the
`
`client device in conjunction with the server
`
`and web server.
`
`Regarding
`
`the First Family of
`
`patents, representative independent claim 1
`
`of the ’319 Patent claims as follows:
`
`1. A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that
`comprises a web server that is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server that
`
`4
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 5274
`
`responds to HTTP requests, the first server stores a first content identified by a first
`content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first client
`device comprising:
`[B] receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`[C] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier;
`[D] receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`[E] sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server,
`in response to the receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`Representative independent claim 1 of the ’510 Patent claims as follows:
`
`
`
`1. A method for use with a web server that responds to Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`(HTTP) requests and stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, the
`method by a first client device comprising:
`[A] establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection with a
`second server;
`[C] sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first content identifier;
`[D] receiving, the first content from the web server over the Internet in
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`[E] sending the received first content, to the second server over the
`established TCP connection, [B] in response to the receiving of the first content
`identifier.
`
`Dependent claim 2 of the ’319 Patent adds to claim 1 the element of “wherein the first
`
`client device is identified by a Media Access Control (MAC) address or a hostname, and wherein
`
`the method further 35 comprising sending, by the first client device, during, as part of, or in
`
`response to, a start-up of the first client device, a first message to the second server, and wherein
`
`the first messages comprises the first IP address, the MAC address, or the hostname,” while
`
`dependent claim 2 of the ’510 Patent adds the identical element to claim 1, except that the
`
`underlined term is “the first client IP address.” Dependent claims 14 and 10 of the ’319 and ’510
`
`Patents respectively add to claim 1 “further comprising determining, by the first client device, that
`
`the received first content, is valid.” Dependent claims 15 and 11 of the ’319 and ’510 Patents
`
`respectively add to claim 14 and 10 respectively “wherein the determining is based on the received
`
`HTTP header according to, or based on, IETF RFC 2616.” Dependent claims 17 and 8 of the ’319
`
`5
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 5275
`
`and ’510 Patents respectively add to claim 1 “further comprising periodically communicating
`
`between the second server and the first client device.”
`
`Dependent claim 13 of the’510 Patent adds to claim 1, the element of “for use with a
`
`software application that includes computer instructions that, when executed by a computer
`
`processor, cause the processor to perform the sending of the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`
`request, the receiving and storing of the first content, the receiving of the first content identifier,
`
`and the sending of the part of, or the whole of, the stored first content, the method is further
`
`preceded by: downloading, by the first client device from the Internet, the software application;
`
`and installing, by the first client device, the downloaded software application.”
`
`Regarding the Second Family, representative independent claim 1 of the ’614 Patent
`
`claims as follows:
`
`1. A method for use with a resource associated with a criterion in a client device
`that communicates with a first server over the Internet, the client device is
`identified in the Internet using a first identifier and is associated with first and
`second state according to a utilization of the resource, the method comprising:
`[A] initiating, by the client device, communication with the first server
`over the Internet in response to connecting to the Internet, the communication
`comprises sending, by the client device, the first identifier to the first server over
`the Internet;
`when connected to the Internet, periodically or continuously determining
`whether the resource utilization satisfies the criterion;
`responsive to the determining that the utilization of the resource satisfies the
`criterion, shifting to the first state or staying in the first state;
`responsive to the determining that the utilization of the resource does not
`satisfy the criterion, shifting to the second state or staying in the second state;
`responsive to being in the first state, receiving, by the client device, a
`request from the first server; and
`performing a task, by the client device, in response to the receiving of the
`request from the first server,
`wherein the method is further configured for fetching over the Internet a
`first content identified by a first content identifier from a web server that is distinct
`from the first server, and the task comprising:
`[B] receiving, by the client device, the first content identifier from the first
`server;
`[C] sending, by the client device, the first content identifier to the web
`
`6
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 5276
`
`server;
`[D] receiving, by the client device, the first content from the web server in
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`[E] sending, by the client device, the received first content to the first
`server.
`
`Dependent claim 7 adds to claim 1 the element of “wherein the steps are sequentially
`
`executed.” The below Fig. 13 of the ’614 Patent has been modified to illustrate the above steps
`
`identified as [A] through [E], each of which is performed by the “client device”:
`
`
`
`Ex. C at Fig. 13.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`The proper construction of any disputed terms within a patent claim is exclusively within
`
`the province of the court. Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Although
`
`the ultimate issue of claim construction is a question of law, claim construction may contain
`
`evidentiary underpinnings; thereby involving questions of fact. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v.
`
`Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 838 (2015).
`
`Claim terms that form key disputes between the parties require construction. O2 Micro
`
`Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Also, courts
`
`should provide clarifying constructions when they will help the jury understand the terms as used
`
`7
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 5277
`
`in the claims (and may decline to adopt constructions that would instead cause juror confusion).
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00057-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`96097, at *33 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017). For claim construction courts will look to intrinsic
`
`evidence (claim language, specification, and prosecution history), and, if helpful and needed,
`
`extrinsic evidence (dictionaries, treatises, experts, and the like). Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic,
`
`Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “[E]xtrinsic evidence may be useful to the court, but it
`
`is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the
`
`context of the intrinsic evidence.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(en banc).
`
`With respect to the written description, i.e., the patent specification, it is “entirely
`
`appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily on the written
`
`description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. “[W]e cannot
`
`look at the ordinary meaning of [a] term … in a vacuum. Rather, we must look at the ordinary
`
`meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.” Id. at 1313.
`
`Extrinsic evidence “may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable
`
`interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319. It “cannot be used to alter a claim construction dictated by a proper
`
`analysis of the intrinsic evidence.” On-Line Tech. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d
`
`1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed
`
`Cir. 2014). “Claim constructions that read out a preferred embodiment are rarely, if ever, correct.”
`
`Danco, Inc. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-73-JRG-CMC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155936, at
`
`*17 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2017) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583-84).
`
`8
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 5278
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ONE OR ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Consistent with Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-3 disclosures, with regard to the Patents-in-Suit, “a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) would be an individual who, as of October 8, 2009,
`
`the filing date of the provisional application, had a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of
`
`Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a
`
`Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in Internet
`
`communications.” Rhyne Declaration at ¶ 4.
`
`V.
`
`AGREED UPON TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`
`The parties jointly ask the Court to include these constructions in its order:
`
`Claim Term / Phrase
`
`Preamble
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction
`
`Limiting
`
`’319 Pat. Claim 1; ’510 Pat. Claim 1; ’614 Pat. Claim 1
`
`“web server”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’510 Pat. Claims 1 and 16; ’614 Pat. Claims 1 and 29
`
`“receiving, from the second server, the first content
`identifier”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’319 Pat. Claim 1
`
`“during, as part of, or in response to, a start up”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’319 Pat. Claim 2
`
`“during, as part of, or in response to, a start up or
`power-up”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’510 Pat. Claim 2
`
`“in response to connecting to the Internet”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’614 Pat. Claim 1
`
`“connected to the Internet”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`9
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 5279
`
`’614 Pat. Claim 1
`
`“performing a task, by the client device, in response
`to the receiving of the request from the first server”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’614 Pat. Claim 1
`
`“above or below the threshold”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’614 Pat. Claim 17
`
`“hardware component”
`
`’614 Pat. Claims 18, 19 and 20
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“message that comprises a status”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`’614 Pat. Claim 25 and 26
`
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Client Device (First Family)
`
`Claim Term
`“Client device”
`
`(’319 Pat., cl. 1, 2, 14, 17, 22, 24,
`and 25; ’510 Pat., cl. 1, 2, 8, 10,
`13, 15, 18, and 19)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`“Consumer computer”
`
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`The term “client device” is defined in the patent specification of the ’319 and ’510 Patents:
`
`“In the network 50, files are stored on computers of consumers, referred to herein as client devices
`
`60.” Ex. A at 2:44-46.2 Dr. Rhyne has provided his opinion that as to the claims of the patents-in-
`
`suit “a POSA would understand the term ‘client device’ to refer to a consumer computer.” Rhyne
`
`Declaration, Ex. D at ¶ 6.
`
`
`2 For simplicity, all references to the shared specification of the First Family will be made to the
`specification of the ’319 Patent, but will be understood to include the corresponding citation
`from the ’510 Patent.
`
`10
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 5280
`
`Consistent with this definition, figure 3 illustrates a communication network 100 showing
`
`“client” 100, “peers” 112, 114, and 116, “agent” 122, “web server” 152, and “acceleration server”
`
`162, which has a “storage device” 164. Ex. A at Fig. 3. The specification clearly distinguishes
`
`between (a) “communication devices” of the client/peer/agent, (b) a web server, and (c) an
`
`acceleration server. The specification further describes the communication devices as serving as a
`
`“client,” “peer” or “agent” depending upon the requirements of the network.
`
`
`
`The present system and method provides for faster and more efficient data
`communication within a communication network. An example of such a
`communication network 100 is provided by the schematic diagram of FIG. 3. The
`network 100 of FIG. 3 contains multiple communication devices. Due to
`functionality provided by software stored within each communication device,
`which may be the same in each communication device, each communication device
`may serve as a client, peer, or agent, depending upon requirements of the network
`100, as is described in detail herein. It should be noted that a detailed description
`of a communication device is provided with regard to the description of FIG. 4….
`
`The communication network 100 also contains a Web server 152. The Web server
`152 is the server from which the client 102 is requesting information and may be
`for example, a typical HTTP server, such as those being used to deliver content on
`any of the many such servers on the Internet. It should be noted that the server 152
`is not limited to being an HTTP server. In fact, if a different communication
`protocol is used within the communication network, the server may be a server
`capable of handling a different protocol….
`
`The communication network 100 further contains an acceleration server 162 having
`an acceleration server storage device 164.
`
`Id. at 4:43-64 (emphasis added); see also e.g. Id. at 12:33-56.
`
`Dr. Rhyne uses figure 3 to explain that “a POSA would also understand client 102 and
`
`agent 122 to both be client devices operating as a ‘client’ and an ‘agent’ respectively.” Ex. D at ¶
`
`6. This is further supported by Figure 63, which shows the “communication device” as comprising
`
`a ‘client module,’ ‘peer module’ and ‘agent module.’ Ex. A at Fig. 6
`
`
`3 Figure 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating elements of the acceleration application of Figure 5,
`which is a schematic diagram illustrating the memory of Figure 4, which is a schematic diagram
`illustrating a communication device of the communication network of Figure 3. Ex. A at 4:6-13.
`
`11
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 015
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 5281
`
`
`
`FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram further illustrating elements of the acceleration
`application 220, as well as communication paths of the acceleration application
`220. The acceleration application 220 contains an acceleration system initializer
`module 222, which is called when the acceleration application 220 is started. The
`acceleration system initializer module 222 is capable of initializing all elements of
`the communication device 200 The acceleration application 220 also contains three
`separate modules that run in parallel, namely, a client module 224, a peer module
`226, and an agent module 228, each of which comes into play according to the
`specific role that the communication device 200 is partaking in the communication
`network 100 at a given time. The role of each module is further described herein.
`
`The client module 224 provides functionality required when the communication
`device 200 is requesting information from the Web server 152, such as, for
`example, but not limited to, Web pages, data, video, or audio. The client module
`224 causes the communication device 200 having the client module 224 therein to
`intercept the information request and pass the information request on to other
`elements of the communication network 100, such as, servers, agents or peers. This
`process is further described in detail herein.
`
`Ex. A at 9:13-36.
`
`Defense expert Dr. Freedman provided a declaration with Defendants’ P.R. 4-3 disclosures
`
`that confirm a “client device” can be a client, peer or agent. However, Defendants then improperly
`
`interpret this term broadly to be a “general purpose computer,” which Defendants improperly
`
`12
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2003
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 016
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 126 Filed 09/29/20 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 5282
`
`assert includes servers. Id.