UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; AND
`OXYSALES, UAB, Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01506
`Patent No. 10,469,614
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,469,614
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`STATUTORY PREDICATES ........................................................................ 1
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8) ................................................................. 1
`1. Real Parties-In-Interest ..................................................................... 1
`2. Related Matters ................................................................................. 1
`3. Lead and Back-Up Counsel .............................................................. 3
`4. Service Information .......................................................................... 3
`B. Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103) ................................................................. 4
`C. Certification of Standing (37 CFR § 42.104(a)) ............................................. 4
`D. Identification of Challenges (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) ........................... 4
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) .................. 5
`A. Factor 1 ...................................................................................................................... 5
`B. Factor 2 ...................................................................................................................... 6
`C. Factor 3 ...................................................................................................................... 7
`D. Factor 4 ...................................................................................................................... 7
`E. Factor 5 ...................................................................................................................... 7
`F. Factor 6 ...................................................................................................................... 8
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT ..................................................................... 8
`A. Claims ........................................................................................................................ 8
`B. Specification ............................................................................................................ 9
`C. Priority Date ............................................................................................................. 9
`D. Alleged Benefit of the Patent ............................................................................... 9
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ................................................................. 10
`V.
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(3)) .................................. 10
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............................................ 11
`A. Mithyantha ............................................................................................................. 11
`B. MorphMix ............................................................................................................... 11
`C. RFC 2616 ................................................................................................................ 12
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) .................... 12
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`A. GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-13, 15-20, 22-23,
`25-26, 29 BY MITHYANTHA ......................................................................... 12
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 15
`a) Preamble .................................................................................................. 15
`b) Claim step (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”) .................................................................................................. 16
`c) Claim step (b) (“when connected to the Internet, periodically or
`continuously determining whether the resource utilization
`satisfies the criterion”).......................................................................... 18
`d) Claim step (c) (“responsive to the determining that the
`utilization of the resource satisfies the criterion, shifting to the
`first state or staying in the first state”) ............................................. 19
`e) Claim step (d) (“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”) ....................... 20
`f) Claim step (e) (“responsive to being in the first state, receiving,
`by the client device, a request from the first server”) ................... 21
`g) Claim step (f) (“performing a task, by the client device, in
`response to the receiving of the request from the first server”) . 21
`h) Claim step (g) (“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”) ...................................................... 21
`i) Claim step (h) (“receiving, by the client device, the first content
`identifier from the first server”) ......................................................... 22
`j) Claim step (i) (“sending, by the client device, the first content
`identifier to the web server”) .............................................................. 24
`k) Claim step (j) (“receiving, by the client device, the first content
`from the web server in response to the sending of the first
`content identifier”) ................................................................................ 25
`l) Claim step (k) (sending, by the client device, the received first
`content to the first server”) .................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`2. Claim 2 ............................................................................................ 27
`3. Claim 4 ............................................................................................ 28
`4. Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 29
`5. Claim 6 ............................................................................................ 29
`6. Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 29
`7. Claim 8 ............................................................................................ 30
`8. Claims 9-12 ..................................................................................... 31
`9. Claim 13 .......................................................................................... 31
`10. Claims 15-16 ................................................................................... 31
`11. Claim 17 .......................................................................................... 32
`12. Claims 18-20, 22-23 ....................................................................... 32
`13. Claims 25-26 ................................................................................... 33
`14. Claim 29 .......................................................................................... 33
`B. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-13, 15-20, 22-23,
`25-26, 28-29 BY MITHYANTHA + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE ..................................................................................................... 34
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 36
`2. Claim 2 ............................................................................................ 38
`3. Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 39
`4. Claims 18-20, 22-23 ....................................................................... 39
`5. Claim 28 .......................................................................................... 40
`6. Claims 4, 6-13, 15-17, 25-26, 29 .................................................... 42
`C. GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, 17-20,
`22-23, 25-26, 29 BY MORPHMIX ................................................................. 43
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 44
`a) Preamble .................................................................................................. 44
`b) Claim step (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”) .................................................................................................. 45
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`c) Claim step (b) (“when connected to the Internet, periodically or
`continuously determining whether the resource utilization
`satisfies the criterion”).......................................................................... 47
`d) Claim step (c) (“responsive to the determining that the
`utilization of the resource satisfies the criterion, shifting to the
`first state or staying in the first state”) ............................................. 49
`e) Claim step (d) (“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”) ....................... 50
`f) Claim step (e) (“responsive to being in the first state, receiving,
`by the client device, a request from the first server”) ................... 50
`g) Claim step (f) (“performing a task, by the client device, in
`response to the receiving of the request from the first server”) . 51
`h) Claim step (g) (“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”) ...................................................... 51
`i) Claim step (h) (“receiving, by the client device, the first content
`identifier from the first server”) ......................................................... 52
`j) Claim step (i) (“sending, by the client device, the first content
`identifier to the web server”) .............................................................. 54
`k) Claim step (j) (“receiving, by the client device, the first content
`from the web server in response to the sending of the first
`content identifier”) ................................................................................ 55
`l) Claim step (k) (sending, by the client device, the received first
`content to the first server”) .................................................................. 56
`2. Claim 2 ............................................................................................ 57
`3. Claim 4 ............................................................................................ 57
`4. Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 58
`5. Claim 7 ............................................................................................ 58
`6. Claim 8 ............................................................................................ 59
`7. Claims 9-10 ..................................................................................... 59
`8. Claim 13 .......................................................................................... 59
`9. Claim 17 .......................................................................................... 60
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`10. Claims 18-20, 22-23 ....................................................................... 60
`11. Claims 25-26 ................................................................................... 62
`12. Claim 29 .......................................................................................... 63
`D. GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-13, 15-20, 22-23,
`25-26, 28-29 BY MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE ..................................................................................................... 63
`1. Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 64
`2. Claim 2 ............................................................................................ 67
`3. Claim 5 ............................................................................................ 67
`4. Claim 6 ............................................................................................ 68
`5. Claims 9-12, 15-16 ......................................................................... 68
`6. Claims 18-20, 22-23 ....................................................................... 69
`7. Claim 28 .......................................................................................... 70
`8. Claims 4, 7-8, 13, 17, 25-26, 29 ..................................................... 72
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`United States Patent No. 10,469,614 to Shribman et al.
`File History for United States Patent No. 10,469,614
`Minute Entry: Scheduling Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Docket Control Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et
`al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Luminati Mtn. to Consolidate and Reset Trial, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Order: Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB
`Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Petitioners’ Chart of Challenged Claims
`to Dismiss,
`Luminati’s Opposition
`to Defendants’ Motion
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Michael Freedman, Ph. D. with curriculum vitae and
`testifying list
`Luminati’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`United States Patent No. 8,972,602 to Mithyantha
`Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Doctoral Thesis)
`Declaration of Marc Rennhard (regarding MorphMix)
`Declaration of Bernhard Plattner (regarding MorphMix)
`Declaration of Andreas Berz (regarding MorphMix)
`Network Working Group, RFC 2616
`Network Working Group, RFC 2547
`ACM Award Winners, Michael J. Freedman
`Network Working Group, RFC 791
`Network Working Group, RFC 2460
`Network Working Group, RFC 793
`Network Working Group, RFC 959
`Network Working Group, RFC 821
`Network Working Group, RFC 918
`Network Working Group, RFC 937
`Network Working Group, RFC 1939
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Network Working Group, RFC 1034
`Network Working Group, RFC 1035
`Network Working Group, RFC 1945
`Google Scholar: MorphMix citation in Alessandro Acquisti, et al.,
`Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices (2007)
`Network Working Group, RFC 4026
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. Code200, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`United States Patent No. 10,484,510 to Shribman
`W3C Geolocation API specification (Oct. 24, 2013)
`Yong Wang, et al., Towards Street-Level Client-Independent IP
`Geolocation (2011)
`
`
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614 (“Patent”), with a claimed priority date of August
`
`28, 2013, claims the sending of basic Internet information, using the HTTP protocol,
`
`through an available proxy device that retrieves content from the target web server
`
`and returns the content to the requesting device. Not surprisingly, the alleged
`
`invention was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as of 2013
`
`(“POSA”) and is invalidated by the Mithyantha and MorphMix references discussed
`
`herein. Neither reference was before the examiner during prosecution. In short,
`
`Luminati did not come close to being the first to invent a web proxy, and its Patent
`
`should be invalidated.
`
`II.
`
`STATUTORY PREDICATES
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are the Petitioners Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB,
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, “Petitioners”); as well as
`
`coretech lt, UAB.
`
`2.
`Related Matters
`The Patent is currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The Patent is also
`
`currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A.
`
`D/B/A NordVPN, 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`The Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system indicates that
`
`U.S. Application No. 16/593,996 (pending) claims the benefit of 16/214,433 (the
`
`Patent’s application number). Further, the following patent applications and patents
`
`claim the benefit of 61/870,815 (the Patent’s provisional application number):
`
`14/468,836 (issued as U.S. Pat. 9,241,044), 14/930,894 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`9,742,866), 15/663,762 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,277,711), 16/140,749 (issued as U.S.
`
`Pat. 10,652,357), 16/140,785 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,659,562), 16/214,451 (issued
`
`as U.S. Pat. 10,440,146), 16/214,476 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,652,358), 16/214,496
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,721,325), 16/292,363 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,469,615),
`
`16/292,382 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,447,809), 16/292,364 (pending), 16/292,374
`
`(pending), 16/365,250 (pending), 16/365,315 (pending), 16/524,026 (pending),
`
`16/566,929 (pending), 16/567,496 (pending), 16/593,996 (pending), 16/593,999
`
`(pending), 16/662,883 (pending), 16/865,362 (pending), 16/865,364 (pending),
`
`16/865,366 (pending), 16/932,763 (pending), 16/932,764 (pending), 16/932,766
`
`(pending), 16/932,767 (pending).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`Lead Counsel
`Craig Tolliver
`Registration No. 45,975
`ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`469-587-7263
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza,
`PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`George “Jorde” Scott
`Registration No. 62,859
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`469-587-7264
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza,
`PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Electronic mail
`
`1. ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`2. jscott@ccrglaw.com
`
`(and hand-delivery) mailing
`
`Postal
`address
`
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone
`
`Facsimile
`
`(214) 521-6400
`
`(214) 764-8392
`
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners consent to electronic service via e-mail at the e-mail
`
`addresses noted above.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103)
`The required fee is paid through Deposit Acct. No. 603576, and the office is
`
`authorized to charge any fee deficiencies and credit any overpayments to Deposit
`
`Acct. No. 603576 (Customer ID No. 172361).
`
`C. Certification of Standing (37 CFR § 42.104(a))
`Petitioners certify that the Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`alleged herein. Luminati filed a complaint alleging infringement by Teso LT, UAB;
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB; and Oxysales, UAB of the Patent on December 6, 2019 and
`
`served the complaint on Metacluster LT, UAB (the earliest served defendant) on
`
`February 18, 2020. Ex. 1033. Both dates are less than twelve months prior to filing
`
`of this Petition. Petitioners have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the Patent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 315(a).
`
`D.
`Identification of Challenges (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
`Petitioners request cancellation of the challenged claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`1-2, 4-13, 15-20,
`22-23, 25-26, 29
`
`Anticipated by Mithyantha (§102)
`
`1-2, 4-13, 15-20,
`22-23, 25-26,
`28-29
`
`Obvious in view of Mithyantha + Knowledge of
`POSA + Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2616
`(§103)
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1-2, 4-5, 7-10,
`13, 17-20, 22-
`23, 25-26, 29
`
`1-2, 4-13, 15-20,
`22-23, 25-26,
`28-29
`
`Anticipated by MorphMix (§102)
`
`Obvious in view of MorphMix + Knowledge of
`POSA + RFC 2616 (§103)
`
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(A))
`
`Petitioner Code200 has been sued by Luminati for alleged patent
`
`infringement, but Luminati (as of yet) has not filed any lawsuit alleging infringement
`
`of the Patent by Code200. This weighs in favor of institution with respect to
`
`Code200.
`
`Code200’s co-petitioners were sued by Luminati for alleged infringement of
`
`the Patent, as noted above. As to the co-petitioners, however, the Fintiv1 factors,
`
`discussed below, show that the Board should not exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution in view of Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-CV-
`
`00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Lawsuit”).
`
`A.
`Factor 1
`The first factor is whether the court may grant a stay if a proceeding is
`
`instituted. The Scheduling Conference did not occur until May 18, 2020. Ex. 1003.
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020)
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`The Docket Control Order issued June 3, 2020, and claim construction is set for
`
`November 10, 2020. Ex. 1004.
`
`No party has requested a stay of the Lawsuit pending the IPR, and the Board
`
`has previously “decline[d] to infer” how a District Court would decide a stay motion.
`
`Fintiv, Paper 15 at 12. Factor 1 is neutral.
`
`B.
`Factor 2
`The second factor concerns the proximity of the Lawsuit trial date to the
`
`Board’s projected final written decision. While jury selection is currently set for May
`
`3, 2021 (Ex. 1004), Luminati has previously sought to abandon its trial dates as the
`
`“day of reckoning” approaches. In Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet and
`
`Metacluster UAB, No. 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D.Tex.) (“Prior Lawsuit”), Luminati,
`
`on December 23, 2019, filed an opposed motion to reset the trial date just over one
`
`week before the January 3, 2020 pretrial hearing at which co-petitioners’ dispositive
`
`motions were to be heard. Ex. 1005 at 2. Luminati sought to delay the February 3,
`
`2020 trial date for at least five months until “after July 2020.” Id. at 1.
`
`The parties settled the Prior Lawsuit at the pretrial conference, prior to
`
`resolution of dispositive motions. Ex. 1006.
`
`In view of Luminati’s history and the potential for COVID-related delays
`
`(which are more likely to affect a jury trial), Factor 2 is neutral.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`Factor 3
`Factor 3 concerns “investment in the parallel proceedings.” The Lawsuit is at
`
`an early stage, with the Docket Control Order issuing June 2, 2020. Ex. 1004.
`
`Luminati did not provide its infringement contentions, and therefore did not identify
`
`its asserted claims, until May 4, 2020. Id. This Petition was filed only four months
`
`after the asserted claims were disclosed, and more than five months before co-
`
`petitioners’ statutory deadline for filing an IPR. Id. Expert discovery does not close
`
`until January 21, 2021. Id.
`
`Further, this Petition was filed promptly—within one month—of August 6,
`
`2020, the first day on which the Patent became available for IPR after the close of
`
`the PGR window.
`
`Given the early stages of the case, and the prompt filing of this Petition, Factor
`
`3 weighs strongly in favor of institution.
`
`D.
`Factor 4
`Factor 4 concerns the overlap between the claims at issue in the Petition and
`
`the Lawsuit. Luminati asserts claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 15-20, 22-23, 25-26, 28-29 in
`
`the Lawsuit. In addition to these claims, this Petition also challenges claims 8 and
`
`13. Factor 4 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`E.
`Factor 5
`Factor 5 concerns the overlap between the parties in the Petition and the
`
`parties in the Lawsuit. Petitioner Code200 is not a defendant in the Lawsuit, although
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`it has been sued by Luminati as to alleged infringement of patents addressing related
`
`subject matter. Ex. 1032. Factor 5 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`F.
`Factor 6
`Factor 6 concerns “other circumstances.” The challenged Patent is
`
`extraordinarily weak. Luminati has essentially claimed the exchange of standard
`
`Internet information via a typical intermediary computer device to perform web
`
`requests for a client—a basic concept well known for decades. Policy favors the
`
`Board instituting review to stop Luminati from pursuing infringement claims based
`
`on an invalid alleged invention known well before the 2013 priority date.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT
`
`A. Claims
`Claim 1, the only independent claim of the Patent, is included in the attached
`
`Exhibit 1007, which lists the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Patent claims ordinary devices that exchange standard Internet requests
`
`or content in a routine way. Claim 1 recites the standard use of an intermediary,
`
`where the “client device”—after it is confirmed as available based on its utilization
`
`of resources—acts as an intermediary to retrieve from a web server content requested
`
`by a “first server,” and send the content to the first server.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`The dependent Challenged Claims merely recite additional steps known to a
`
`POSA, including that “TCP/IP” is used or that the client device uses a standard
`
`operating system.
`
`B.
`Specification
`The Patent’s specification confirms that the claim terms used in the Patent
`
`may be satisfied by standard computers. The Patent states that a “device or network
`
`element” discussed in the Patent may be any device with computing power,
`
`including an air conditioner, dishwasher, refrigerator, or kitchen stove. Ex. 1001 at
`
`169:5-18. Further, the terms “device” and “server” are generic and used
`
`interchangeably, where any device may serve in either role. Id. at 119:50-53
`
`(“[D]evices that are not denoted herein as servers, may equally function as a server
`
`in the meaning of client/server architecture.”), 119:18-21 (“[D]evices denoted herein
`
`as servers, may equally function as a client in the meaning of client/server
`
`architecture.”).
`
`C.
`Priority Date
`The Patent claims priority to provisional application 61/870,815 filed August
`
`28, 2013. The prior art references asserted herein pre-date that date; Petitioners do
`
`not contest (for purposes of this Petition only) that priority date (“Priority Date”).
`
`D. Alleged Benefit of the Patent
`Luminati has argued that the Patent allows for the benefit of “untraceability
`
`and anonymity.” Ex. 1008 at 6. Luminati asserts that data center proxies “with a
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`limited number of commercial IP addresses” could easily be blocked by a web
`
`server, whereas the usage of many “millions” of consumer devices as proxies
`
`provided many more consumer IP addresses, which could not easily be blocked. Id.
`
`at 6-7.
`
`Even if these (non-claimed) concepts were relevant to Luminati’s alleged
`
`invention, the MorphMix reference presented in this Petition teaches precisely the
`
`benefit of using many ordinary computers as proxies to send anonymous web
`
`requests on behalf of others.
`
`V. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Dr. Michael Freedman opines that a POSA to which the Patent pertains would
`
`have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent
`
`experience), as well as two or more years’ experience working with and
`
`programming networked computer systems as of the Priority Date. Such a person
`
`would be familiar with the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network
`
`communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks, including the
`
`HTTP and TCP/IP protocols. Ex. 1009, ¶ 36. Dr. Freedman also opines as to relevant
`
`knowledge a POSA would possess as of the Priority Date. Id. at ¶¶ 37-57.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(3))
`
`The claim terms at issue in the Challenged Claims require no express claim
`
`construction, as the plain and ordinary meanings apply. Further, Petitioners
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`understand that issues of indefiniteness are not resolved in an IPR and do not raise
`
`them here, but Petitioners do not waive any applicable indefiniteness challenges.
`
`Petitioners provide the following additional discussion regarding claim construction.
`
`As discussed above in Section IV.B, general purpose computers serve as the
`
`devices cited in the Patent, and the terms “device” and “server” are used
`
`interchangeably and refer to the role of a device at a given time. This understanding
`
`that “client” and “server” refer to roles is confirmed by pertinent Internet standards,
`
`including RFC 2616, the standard for HTTP/1.1. RFC 2616 confirms that “client”
`
`and “server” refer “only to the role being performed by the program for a particular
`
`connection.” Ex. 1016 at §1.3; see also Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 58-64.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A. Mithyantha
`United States Patent 8,972,602 (“Mithyantha” (Ex. 1011)) issued on March 3,
`
`2015. Mithyantha’s application 13/524,799 was filed June 15, 2012. Accordingly,
`
`Mithyantha is prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Mithyantha was not before the Patent
`
`Office during prosecution of the Patent. See Ex. 1002.
`
`B. MorphMix
`MorphMix - A Peer-to-Peer-based System for Anonymous Internet Access
`
`(“MorphMix” (Ex. 1012)) is a doctoral thesis authored by Marc Rennhard, of the
`
`Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Computer Engineering and Networks
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Laboratory; Zurich, Switzerland. MorphMix states it was published in 2004. Dr.
`
`Rennhard, his supervisor Dr. Plattner, and the Swiss National Library, each
`
`confirmed in declarations that MorphMix was published in 2004. Exs. 1013-15; Ex.
`
`1009, ¶ 67. MorphMix is accordingly prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). MorphMix was
`
`not before the Patent Office during prosecution of the Patent. See Ex. 1002.
`
`C. RFC 2616
`Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2616 was a definitive specification for the
`
`HTTP/1.1 protocol. RFC 2616 was published by the HTTP Working Group of the
`
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in June 1999. RFC 2616 is discussed in the
`
`Patent specification and was submitted during prosecution of the Patent. Ex. 1001,
`
`4:67-5:1, 5:62-64; Ex. 1002, p. 566 (IDS listing RFC 2616 as prior art). RFCs (and
`
`like standards documents) posted on the Internet are published in the ordinary course
`
`by established standards organizations, and are intended to be viewed by the
`
`interested Internet engineering audience as of their dates of publication as stated on
`
`the cover of each. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 69-70.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(4)-(5))
`
`A. GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-2, 4-13, 15-20, 22-
`23, 25-26, 29 BY MITHYANTHA
`Mithyantha is a system related to “data communication networks,” and, in
`
`particular, “systems and methods for using equal cost multi-path routing for traffic
`
`distribution in a cluster environment.” Ex. 1011 at 1:7-10.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 1B of Mithyantha illustrates an exemplary “network environment
`
`deploying multiple appliances 200.”:
`
`
`Ex. 1001 at 7:1-2, Fig. 1B. The network environment comprises “one or more clients
`
`102a-102n” that communicate with “one or more servers 106a-106n,” for example,
`
`when a web browser on a client 102 sends a request for a web page to a web server
`
`106. Id. at 4:58-64, 6:52-53, 10:45-51, 11:1-24, 50-52, 23:55-58, Fig. 1B. The “client
`
`102 communicates with a server 106 via an appliance 200,” or, as in Figure 1B
`
`above, via “multiple appliances 200.” Id. at 4:64-65, 5:39-43, 7:1