UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TESO LT, UAB; CODE200, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; AND
`OXYSALES, UAB, Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2021-00122
`Patent No. 10,484,511
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,484,511
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  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)) .............. 5 
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C § 314(A)) ......... 5 
`A.  Factor 1 ............................................................................................. 6 
`B.  Factor 2 ............................................................................................. 6 
`C.  Factor 3 ............................................................................................. 7 
`D.  Factor 4 ............................................................................................. 8 
`E.  Factor 5 ............................................................................................. 8 
`F.  Factor 6 ............................................................................................. 8 
`IV.  OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT ............................................................ 8 
`A.  Claims ............................................................................................... 8 
`B.  Specification ..................................................................................... 9 
`C.  Priority Date ................................................................................... 10 
`V.  LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ........................................................ 10 
`VI.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(3)) ........................ 10 
`VII.    OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ................................. 11 
`A.  Crowds ........................................................................................... 11 
`B.  Cohen ............................................................................................. 11 
`C.  Kocherlakota .................................................................................. 12 
`D.  RFC 2616 ....................................................................................... 12 
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(4)-(5)) .......... 12 
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`A.  GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 9, 14, 17,
`20-22, 25, 27-30 BY CROWDS .................................................... 12 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 14 
`a) Preamble .............................................................................. 14 
`b) Claim Step (a) (“receiving, from the first client device,
` the first content identifier”) ................................................. 14 
`c)  Claim Step (b) (“selecting, in response to the receiving of
` the first content identifier from the first client device, an
` IP address from the group”) ................................................. 17 
`d)  Claim Step (c) (“sending, in response to the selecting, the
` first content identifier to the web server using the selected
` IP address”) ......................................................................... 19 
`e)  Claim Step (d) (“receiving, in response to the sending,
` the first content from the web server”) ................................. 20 
`f)  Claim Step (e) (“sending the received first content to
` the first client device”) ......................................................... 21 
`g)  Claim Step (f) (“wherein the first content comprises a
` web-page, an audio, or a video content, and wherein
` the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource
` Locator (URL)”) .................................................................. 21 
`2.  Claim 2 ...................................................................................... 22 
`3.  Claims 3-5 ................................................................................. 23 
`4.  Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 25 
`5.  Claims 14 and 17....................................................................... 25 
`6.  Claims 20-22 ............................................................................. 26 
`7.  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 28 
`8.  Claim 27 .................................................................................... 29 
`9.  Claims 28 and 29....................................................................... 29 
`10. Claim 30 .................................................................................... 30 
`B.  GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-5, 9, 14, 17,
`20-22, 25, 27-30 BY CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 31 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 33 
`2.  Claims 14 and 17....................................................................... 34 
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 35 
`4.  Claims 28-29 ............................................................................. 36 
`5.  Claim 30 .................................................................................... 37 
`6.  Claims 2-5, 9, 20-22, and 27 ..................................................... 38 
`C.  GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30 BY COHEN ................................................................... 38 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 39 
`a) Preamble .............................................................................. 39 
`b)  Claim Step (a) (“receiving, from the first client device,
` the first content identifier”) ................................................. 40 
`c)  Claim Step (b) (“selecting, in response to the receiving
` of the first content identifier from the first client device,
` an IP address from the group”) ............................................ 41 
`d)  Claim Step (c) (“sending, in response to the selecting,
` the first content identifier to the web server using the
` selected IP address”)............................................................ 42 
`e)  Claim Step (d) (“receiving, in response to the sending,
` the first content from the web server”) ................................ 42 
`f) Claim Step (e) (“sending the received first content to the
` first client device”) ............................................................... 43 
`g) Claim Step (f) (“wherein the first content comprises a
` web-page, an audio, or a video content, and wherein the
` first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource
` Locator (URL)”) .................................................................. 44 
`2.  Claim 14 .................................................................................... 45 
`3.  Claim 17 .................................................................................... 45 
`4.  Claim 20 .................................................................................... 46 
`5.  Claim 21 .................................................................................... 46 
`6.  Claim 22 .................................................................................... 47 
`7.  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 47 
`8.  Claim 27 .................................................................................... 47 
`9.  Claim 28 .................................................................................... 48 
`10. Claim 29 .................................................................................... 48 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`11. Claim 30 .................................................................................... 49 
`D.  GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30 BY COHEN + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 50 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 50 
`2.  Claims 14 and 17....................................................................... 51 
`3.  Claims 28 and 29....................................................................... 51 
`4.  Claims 20-22, 25, 27, 30 ........................................................... 52 
`E.  GROUND 5: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30 BY KOCHERLAKOTA + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 52 
`1.  Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 56 
`a) Preamble .............................................................................. 56 
`b) Claim Step (a) (“receiving, from the first client device,
` the first content identifier”) ................................................. 57 
`c) Claim Step (b) (“selecting, in response to the receiving
` of the first content identifier from the first client device,
` an IP address from the group”) ............................................ 60 
`d) Claim Step (c) (“sending, in response to the selecting,
` the first content identifier to the web server using the
` selected IP address”)............................................................ 62 
`e) Claim Step (d) (“receiving, in response to the sending,
` the first content from the web server”) ................................ 63 
`f) Claim Step (e) (“sending the received first content to the
` first client device”) ............................................................... 64 
`g) Claim Step (f) (“wherein the first content comprises a
` web-page, an audio, or a video content, and wherein the
` first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource
` Locator (URL)”) .................................................................. 65 
`2.  Claims 14 and 17....................................................................... 66 
`3.  Claim 20 .................................................................................... 67 
`4.  Claims 21 and 22....................................................................... 68 
`5.  Claim 25 .................................................................................... 69 
`6.  Claim 27 .................................................................................... 70 
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`7. Claims 28 and 29 ....................................................................... 70
`
`7.  Claims 28 and 29....................................................................... 70 
`8.  Claim 30 .................................................................................... 71 
`
`8. Claim 30 .................................................................................... 71
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Vi
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`United States Patent No. 10,484,511 to Shribman, et al.
`File History for United States Patent No. 10,484,511
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Code200, UAB, et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Minute Entry: Scheduling Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Code200, UAB, et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Docket Control Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB,
`et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Luminati Mtn. to Consolidate and Reset Trial, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Order: Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB
`Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-00299-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.)
`Petitioner’s Chart of Challenged Claims
`Declaration of Michael Freedman, Ph. D. with curriculum vitae and
`testifying list
`Network Working Group, RFC 2616
`Michael K. Reiter & Aviel D. Rubin, Crowds: Anonymity for Web
`Transactions, ACM Transactions on Information and System
`Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, Nov. 1998, at 66-92
`Declaration of Scott Delman (regarding Crowds)
`United States Patent No. 6,389,462 to Cohen
`United States Patent No. 6,785,705 to Kocherlakota
`Network Working Group, RFC 793
`United States Patent No. 5,826,014 to Coley
`United States Patent No. 5,974,566 to Ault
`United States Patent No. 6,185,625 to Tso
`ACM Award Winners, Michael J. Freedman
`Luminati’s Opposition to Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
`Dismiss, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al., 2:19-cv-
`00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Network Working Group, RFC 791
`Network Working Group, RFC 2460
`Network Working Group, RFC 793
`
`vii
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`Network Working Group, RFC 1034
`Network Working Group, RFC 1035
`Network Working Group, RFC 1945
`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.)
`Luminati’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Roger Dingledine, Michael Freedman, & David Molnar, The Free
`Haven Project: Distributed Anonymous Storage Service (2000)
`Michael Freedman & Robert Morris, Tarzan: A Peer-to-Peer
`Anonymizing Network Layer (2000)
`Google Scholar: Crowds Citations
`CM/ECF Live Report: Eastern District of Texas, Calendar Events
`Set for July 12, 2021
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`1038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511 (“Patent”), with a priority date of 2009, claims the
`
`sending of basic Internet information through a 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 2009 (“POSA”) and is invalidated by the Crowds, Cohen, and
`
`Kocherlakota references discussed herein. None of these references were 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 Teso LT, UAB, Code200, UAB,
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, “Petitioners”); as well as
`
`coretech lt, UAB.
`
`2.
`Related Matters
`The Patent claims the benefit of provision application 61/249,624, and is a
`
`continuation of (among other applications) U.S. Application No. 14/025,109.
`
`IPR2020-01266 asserts challenges to U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, which claims the
`
`benefit of the same provisional, and is a continuation of the same application.
`
`Similarly, IPR2020-01358 asserts challenges to U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510, which
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`claims the benefit of the same provisional, and is a continuation of the same
`
`application.
`
`The Patent is currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (with U.S. Pat. No.
`
`10,637,968, which claims the benefit of the same provisional as the Patent, and is a
`
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 14/025,109, also being asserted in that
`
`litigation). The Patent is also currently the subject of the litigations styled Luminati
`
`Networks, Ltd. v. NetNut, Ltd., 2:20-cv-00188-JRG (E.D. Tex.) and Luminati
`
`Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A NordVPN, 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Further, U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,257,319 and 10,484,510 (both claiming the benefit of the
`
`Patent’s provisional application) are 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system indicates that
`
`U.S. Application No. 16/600,505 (pending) claims the benefit of 16/278,109 (the
`
`Patent’s application number). Further, the following patent applications and patents
`
`claim the benefit of 61/249,624 (the Patent’s provisional application number):
`
`12/836,059 (issued as U.S. Pat. 8,560,604), 14/025,109 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`10,069,936), 15/957,942 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,313,484), 15/957,945 (issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. 10,257,319), 15/957,950 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,225,374), 16/031,636
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,616,375), 16/278,106 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,712),
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`16/278,107 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,484,510), 16/278,109 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`10,484,511), 16/278,104 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,523,788), 16/278,105 (issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. 10,469,628), 16/368,002 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,582,013), 16/368,041
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,582,014), 16/396,695 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,713),
`
`16/396,696 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,637,968), 16/600,504 (pending), 16/600,505
`
`(pending), 16/600,506 (pending), 16/600,507 (pending), 16/662,800 (pending),
`
`16/693,306 (pending), 16/782,073 (pending), 16/782,076 (pending), 16/807,661
`
`(pending), 16/807,691 (pending), 16/910,724 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,785,347),
`
`16/910,863 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,805,429), 17/019,267 (pending), 17/019,268
`
`(pending), and PCT/US10/51881 (published as WO 2011/044402).
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`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.
`
`B.
`Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103)
`The required fee is paid through Deposit Acct. No. 603576 (Customer ID No.
`
`172361), and the office is authorized to charge any fee deficiencies and credit any
`
`overpayments to that same account.
`
`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 Code200, UAB;
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB; and Oxysales, UAB of the Patent on December 6, 2019 and
`
`served the complaint on Oxysales, UAB and Metacluster LT, UAB (the earliest
`
`served defendants) on April 28, 2020. Ex. 1003. Both dates are less than twelve
`
`months prior to filing of this Petition. Petitioners have not filed a civil action
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`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
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`1-5, 9, 14, 17,
`20-22, 25, 27-30
`
`1-5, 9, 14, 17,
`20-22, 25, 27-30
`
`1, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30
`
`Anticipated by Crowds (§102)
`
`Obvious in view of Crowds + Knowledge of
`POSA + Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2616
`(§103)
`
`Anticipated by Cohen (§102)
`
`1, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30
`
`Obvious in view of Cohen + Knowledge of
`POSA + RFC 2616 (§103)
`
`1, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30
`
`Obvious in view of Kocherlakota + Knowledge
`of POSA + Request for Comments (“RFC”)
`2616 (§103)
`
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(A))
`
`Petitioner Teso LT 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 Teso LT. This weighs in favor of institution with respect to Teso LT.
`
`Teso LT’s co-petitioners, which are sister entities of Teso LT, were sued by
`
`Luminati for alleged infringement of the Patent, as noted above. As to the co-
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`petitioners, however, the Fintiv1 factors show that the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution in view of Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB,
`
`et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Lawsuit”).
`
`A.
`Factor 1
`District Court Stay. The Scheduling Conference did not occur until July 20,
`
`2020. Ex. 1004. The Docket Control Order issued August 5, 2020, and claim
`
`construction is set for January 29, 2021. Ex. 1005.
`
`No party has requested a stay of the Lawsuit pending 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
`Proximity of Trial. While jury selection is currently set for July 12, 2021
`
`(Ex. 1005), 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. Ex. 1006 at 2. Luminati sought to delay
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020)
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`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. 1007.
`
`Additionally, there are seven other cases currently set for jury selection before
`
`the presiding Judge Gilstrap on the same July 12, 2020 date—six patent cases and
`
`one copyright case. Ex. 1038. These jury selections cannot occur at the same time.
`
`As such, it appears likely that the current trial date will be pushed back.
`
`In view of Luminati’s history, the busy Eastern District of Texas docket, and
`
`the potential for COVID-related delays (which are more likely to affect a jury trial),
`
`Factor 2 is neutral.
`
`C.
`Factor 3
`Investment in Parallel Proceedings. The Lawsuit is at an early stage, with
`
`the Docket Control Order issuing August 5, 2020. Ex. 1005. Luminati did not
`
`provide its infringement contentions identifying its assert claims until July 6, 2020.
`
`Id. This Petition was filed less than four months after the asserted claims were
`
`disclosed, and nearly six months before co-petitioners’ statutory deadline for filing
`
`an IPR. Id. Expert discovery does not close until March 29, 2021. Id.
`
`Given the early stages of the case, and prompt filing of this Petition, Factor 3
`
`weighs strongly in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`D.
`Factor 4
`Overlap of Claims. Luminati asserts claims 1, 14, 17, 20-22, 25, and 27-30
`
`in the Lawsuit. In addition to these claims, this Petition also challenges claims 2-5
`
`and 9. Factor 4 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`E.
`Factor 5
`Overlap of Parties. Petitioner Teso LT is not a defendant in the Lawsuit,
`
`although it has been sued by Luminati as to alleged infringement of other patents
`
`addressing related subject matter. Ex. 1008. Factor 5 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`F.
`Factor 6
`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 2009 priority date.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT
`
`A. Claims
`Claim 1, the only independent claim of the Patent, is included in the attached
`
`Exhibit 1009, 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,
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`where the “first server”—which stores a group of IP addresses—acts as an
`
`intermediary to retrieve from a web server content requested by a “first client
`
`device,” and send the content to the first client device.
`
`The dependent Challenged Claims merely recite additional steps known to a
`
`POSA, including that “TCP/IP” is used or that the first server uses a server operating
`
`system.
`
`B.
`Specification
`The Patent’s specification confirms that claim terms used in the Patent have
`
`broad and generic meanings and may be satisfied by standard computers. Figure 3
`
`depicts “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent” communicating, with the “agent”
`
`forming a connection to the web server. Ex. 1001, Fig. 3. The Patent specification
`
`states that “[t]he network 100 of FIG. 3 contains multiple communication devices,”
`
`and that “each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent.” Id. at
`
`4:46-55 (emphasis added).
`
`A “communication device” contains “general components of a computer” and
`
`“may serve as a client, agent, or peer.” Id. at 5:54-59. For example, “[t]he
`
`communication device 200 includes a processor 202, memory 210, [and] at least one
`
`storage device 208[.]” Id. at 5:61-64. Other off-the-shelf features of the
`
`“communication device” include “RAM” and a “hard drive,” an “operating system,”
`
`and a “keyboard” and “mouse.” Id. at 6:16-26, 33-39, 63-65.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`C.
`Priority Date
`Petitioners do not contest (for purposes of this Petition only) the Patent’s
`
`asserted October 8, 2009 priority date (“Priority Date”).
`
`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. 1010, ¶¶ 27-29. Dr. Freedman also opines as to the
`
`relevant knowledge a POSA would possess as of the Priority Date. Id. at ¶¶ 30-48.
`
`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. Petitioners understand that
`
`issues of indefiniteness are not resolved in an IPR, but Petitioners do not waive any
`
`applicable indefiniteness challenges.
`
`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`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. 1011 at §1.3.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`A. Crowds
`Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions (“Crowds” (Ex. 1012)) is an article
`
`authored by Michael K. Reiter of Bell Laboratories and Aviel D. Rubin of AT&T
`
`Labs, and published in 1998 in the ACM Transactions on Information and System
`
`Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, November 1998, Pages 66-92. Crowds states it was
`
`published in November 1998. ACM confirms in a declaration that Crowds was
`
`published in November 1998. Ex. 1013; Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 56-57. Crowds is accordingly
`
`prior art. 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Crowds was not before the Patent Office during
`
`prosecution of the Patent. See Ex. 1002.
`
`B. Cohen
`United States Patent 6,389,462 (“Cohen” (Ex. 1014)) issued on May 14, 2002.
`
`Cohen is accordingly prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Cohen was not before the
`
`Patent Office during prosecution of the Patent. See Ex. 1002.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`C. Kocherlakota
`United States Patent 6,785,705 (“Kocherlakota” (Ex. 1015)) on August 31,
`
`2004. Kocherlakota is accordingly prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Kocherlakota
`
`was not before the Patent Office during prosecution of the Patent. See Ex. 1002.
`
`D. 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. Ex. 1001, 4:67-5:1, 5:62-
`
`64; Ex. 1002, p. 406 (IDS listing RFC 2616 as prior art). RFCs (and like standards
`
`documents) posted on the Internet are published in the ordinary course by standards
`
`organizations, and are intended to be viewed by the interested engineering audience
`
`as of their dates of publication as stated on the cover of each. Ex. 1010, ¶¶ 60-61.
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY (37 CFR § 42.104(B)(4)-(5))
`
`A. GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-5, 9, 14, 17, 20-22,
`25, 27-30 BY CROWDS
`Crowds is a system “for protecting users’ anonymity on the world-wide-web.”
`
`Ex. 1012 at 66.2 In Crowds, a user’s request to a web server is not passed directly to
`
`the web server, but instead to a member of the crowd selected at random, who either
`
`submits the request directly to the web server or forwards it again. The web request
`
`
`2 ACM journal pagination is used, with page 66 being the first page of Crowds.
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`is eventually submitted to the web server by a Crowd member, “thus preventing the
`
`end server from identifying its true initiator.” Id. at 67.
`
`A “user is represented in a crowd by a process on her computer called a
`
`jondo.” Id. at 73. Once admitted to the crowd, the jondo receives “the current
`
`membership of the crowd” and other information enabling participation. Id. Upon
`
`receiving a web browser request, the jondo “initiates the establishment of a random
`
`path of jondos that carries its users’ transactions to and from their intended web
`
`servers.” Id. Each jondo in a path is linked by TCP/IP connections. Id. at 81.
`
`Crowds Figure 2 illustrates multiple exemplary jondo paths, including the
`
`path discussed throughout this Petition: 5→4→6→server 5. Id. at 73-74.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Claim 1
`a)
`Preamble
`Each preamble element is satisfied for the reasons provided in the discussion
`
`of claim steps (a)-(f), mapping onto Crowds (in the discussed example path
`
`5→4→6→server 5) as follows:
`
`First client device: jondo “5”
`
`Web server: web server “5”
`
`First server: jondo “4”
`
`First content identifier: URL
`
`First content: web page at the requeste