`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB, AND CORETECH LT, UAB
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2021-01492
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`1 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................8
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ..........................................................................................10
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................12
`
`A. ANTICIPATION .........................................................................................15
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS ..........................................................................................15
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TO THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY.................................22
`
`V.
`
`..25
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE COMMON SPECIFICATION..............................29
`
`VII. REVIEW OF THE COMMON SPECIFICATION.....................................30
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................35
`
`A. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`..............................................37
`
`B. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`......................................................................40
`
`C. PURELY-ROLE BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`EXPRESS CLAIM LANGUAGE .......................................................................42
`
`D. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`FIGURES OF THE SPECIFICATION ...............................................................44
`
`2
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`2 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`1. REVIEW OF FIGURE 1..........................................................................45
`
`2. REVIEW OF FIGURE 3..........................................................................46
`
`3. COMPARISON OF FIGURES 1 AND 3 ................................................47
`
`E. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`..........................48
`
`1. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF PARENT PATENT NO. 10,069,936..49
`
`2. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF PATENT NO. 10,257,319 ..................52
`
`3. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF CHILD PATENT NO. 10,484,510 .....54
`
`F. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE
`
`55
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`.............................................................................................................57
`
`.............................................................................................................63
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF CROWDS (EX. 1006)...........................................................66
`
`A.
`
`-
`
`BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..............................................................................69
`
`X.
`
`.........71
`
`3
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`3 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS...................................72
`
`B. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................73
`
`C. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................74
`
`D. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ARCHITECTURE OF CLAIM 1
`
`....................75
`
`XI.
`
`OR IN COMBINATION .........................................................................................78
`
`A. TEACHING AWAY BY CROWDS...........................................................81
`
`XII. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH THE CHALLENGED,
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ..........................................................................................83
`
`A. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`..................................................................................83
`
`B. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`..................................................................................84
`
`C. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`..................................................................................84
`
`4
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`4 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`XIII. OVERVIEW OF BORDER (EX. 1012)......................................................86
`
`XIV.
`
`....89
`
`A. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS...................................89
`
`B. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................90
`
`C. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................91
`
`D. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ARCHITECTURE OF CLAIM 1
`
`XV.
`
`....................93
`
`.........94
`
`A. TEACHING AWAY BY BORDER............................................................96
`
`XVI. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH THE CHALLENGED,
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ..........................................................................................97
`
`A. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM 18
`
`.......................................................................................98
`
`XVII. OVERVIEW OF MORPHMIX (EX. 1008) ............................................98
`
`XVIII.
`
`PATENT101
`
`5
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`5 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS.................................101
`
`B. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER
`
`PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS................................................102
`
`C. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER
`
`PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS................................................103
`
`D. PETITIONERS DO NOT ANALYZE MORPHMIX UNDER PATENT
`
`..................................................105
`
`E. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ARCHITECTURE OF
`
`XIX.
`
`.107
`
`..108
`
`A. TEACHING AWAY BY MOPRHMIX ....................................................109
`
`XX. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH THE CHALLENGED,
`
`................................................110
`
`A. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT
`
`..................................................................110
`
`B. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT
`
`..................................................................111
`
`6
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`6 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`XXI.
`
`WEIGHT ................................................................................................................112
`
`XXII.
`
`BRIGHT DATA PRACTICES THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .........115
`
`XXIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS.......121
`
`7
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`7 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I, Dr. Tim A. Williams, declare as follows:
`
`My full name is Tim Arthur Williams.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert in this matter by
`
`provide my opinions on certain references in the above-identified inter partes
`
`1-01492, involving U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`19
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions on certain
`
`references in the related IPR proceeding, IPR2021-01493, involving U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,484,510
`
`. I have reviewed the papers and exhibits in
`
`in each of these IPR proceedings.
`
`4.
`
`In the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`
`I also reviewed related
`
`I
`
`reviewed my prior declaration in support o
`
`Constructions (Dkt. 106-7) and the Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Claffy in support
`
`Litigation. I reviewed the
`
`8
`
`-1) in the NetNut
`
`in Case Nos. 2:19-
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`8 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkts. 191 and 453) and 2:19-cv-396 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkts. 97 and
`
`244) and 2:21-cv-225 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkt. 146)
`
`Alice Orders in
`
`Case Nos. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkt. 303) and 2:19-cv-396 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkt.
`
`98). I reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 126-5) and the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Freedman (Dkt. 138-1) regarding claim construction
`
`in the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395
`
`(E.D. Tex.)(th
`
`I reviewed the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Vernon Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 86-3) and the Declaration of Dr. Michael J.
`
`Freedman (Dkt 88-1) regarding claim construction in the case of Bright Data Ltd.
`
`v. Code200, UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`
`.
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed other exhibits submitted concurrently with this
`
`declaration, as cited and discussed herein.
`
`6.
`
`In connection with my review of the materials discussed in this
`
`declaration
`
`reviewer from the various Texas litigations
`
`,
`
`consulting source code
`
`Mr. Matt McKune.
`
`7.
`
`I am being paid for my work preparing this declaration at my normal
`
`consulting rate plus reimbursement of direct expenses. My compensation is not
`
`9
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`9 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`tied to the outcome of this matter and is not based on the substance of the opinions
`
`that I provide.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`I am an industry professional with over 45 years of experience in
`
`wireless communications, computer networking and telecommunications
`
`technology. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently active currently active as Chief Executive Officer at
`
`Beach Technologies, LLC (Danville, CA) a company related to intellectual
`
`property consulting.
`
`10.
`
`I am also currently active as a Member at Calumet Venture
`
`Management (Madison, WI) a company related to the investment into start-up
`
`companies.
`
`11. Beginning in 2004, I was the Founder and Chairman at DoceoTech
`
`Inc. (Danville, CA) which provides training for engineers in wireless, computer
`
`networking, and telephony technologies.
`
`12.
`
`From 2008 to 2010, I was Founder and Board Member of BitRail
`
`Networks, Inc (Miami, FL). This company designed and produced computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was edge devices for
`
`residential and community access.
`
`10
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`10 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`13.
`
`From 2006 to 2015, I was Founder and Board Member of BEEcube,
`
`Inc. (Freemont, CA). This company built high speed computing and computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was networking
`
`equipment for backhaul networks used in 5G cellular networks.
`
`14.
`
`From 2004 to 2008, I was Founder and CEO of SiBEAM, Inc. This
`
`company designed and produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`15.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was Interim CEO and Advisory Board Member
`
`of Atheros Communications, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) . This company designed and
`
`produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`16.
`
`From 1998 to 2000, I was CTO of Picazo Communications, Inc. (San
`
`Jose, CA). This company built computer networking equipment to provide VoIP
`
`PBX functionality.
`
`17.
`
`From 1991 to 1998, I was Co-Founder, CTO, VP Engineering of
`
`Wireless Access, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA). This company developed over the air
`
`communication protocols for communication between the subscriber device and
`
`the network.
`
`18.
`
`From 1979 to 1991, I was a Member of the Technical Staff at
`
`Motorola, Inc. (Schaumberg, IL and Austin, TX). In IL, I designed protocols for
`
`Digital voice communications. In TX, I designed ICs for communications
`
`including Telecom, Wireless, Cellular and Computer Networking.
`
`11
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`11 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`19.
`
`I have been engaged in over 200 patent related litigations since 1999.
`
`Many of these cases relate to computer networking technologies, including
`
`protocols for Internet communications and the architecture of computer networks.
`
`20.
`
`I hold degrees from Michigan Technological University (B.S.E.E.,
`
`1976) and the University of Texas at Austin (M.S.E.E., 1982 and Ph.D., Electrical
`
`Engineering, 1985 and M.B.A., 1991).
`
`21.
`
`I am the principal inventor on 28 U.S. Patents all of which relate to
`
`communications technologies.
`
`22.
`
`I have been a Registered Patent Agent since 2002.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`23. When interpreting a patent, it is my understanding that it is important
`
`to view the disclosure and claims of that patent from the level of ordinary skill in
`
`that art at the time of the invention. My opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is based on my personal experience working and teaching in the technical field
`
`of Internet communications, my knowledge of colleagues and others working in
`
`that field, my study of the 19 Patent and its file history, and my knowledge of:
`
`a. The level of education and experience of persons actively working in
`
`the field at the time the subject matter at issue was developed;
`
`b. The types of problems encountered in the art at the time the subject
`
`matter was developed;
`
`12
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`12 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`c. The relevant prior art patents and publications;
`
`d. The activities of others working in that field;
`
`e. The prior art solutions to the problems addressed by the relevant art;
`
`and,
`
`f. The sophistication of the technology at issue in this case.
`
`24.
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, I have also
`
`considered, among other things: (1) the sophistication of the relevant technology;
`
`(2) the rapidity with which innovations are made in that field; and (3) the
`
`educational level of active workers in that field. I also understand that these
`
`factors are not exhaustive and are merely a useful guide to determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`25.
`
`Taking the above factors into account, based on my experience in the
`
`art and my study of the Internet communication systems disclosed in the
`
`and
`
`Patents (which share the same inventors of Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski
`
`and a common specification), in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as
`
`13
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`13 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`experience in Internet communications. I exceeded that level of skill in the relevant
`
`time frame.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Petitioners proposed a POSA would be an individual
`
`who, as of Oc
`
`or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more
`
`working with and programming networked computer systems. Petition at 20. I
`
`understand that the Board applied
`
`definition in the Institution
`
`Decisions in IPR2021-01492 (Paper 12 at 17) and in IPR2021-01493 (Paper 11 at
`
`18). In my opinion, the differences in the proposed POSA definitions have subtle
`
`differences, e.g., requirement of a degree, rather than only experience, but my
`
`analysis is the same under either definition.
`
`27. Based on the foregoing, I believe that I am qualified to provide
`
`reliable opinions in the technical field of the
`
`Patents, including
`
`regarding what a POSA would have understood from the specification, drawings,
`
`claims, and file histories, as well as from the prior art in the field at the time of the
`
`invention (October 8, 2009).
`
`28. When offering opinions about how a POSA would evaluate or
`
`understand a particular issue, I have placed myself in the mindset of such a POSA,
`
`basing my opinions on the relevant education and skillset of such a POSA.
`
`14
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`14 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. ANTICIPATION
`
`29.
`
`alleged prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claim at issue,
`
`either expressly or inherently. In other words, every limitation of the claim must
`
`appear in a single prior art reference for the reference to anticipate that claim. I also
`
`understand that all limitations of the claim must be disclosed in the reference as
`
`they are arranged in the claim. I also understand that a requirement of a claim that
`
`is missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed inherently if that missing
`
`requirement is necessarily present in the prior art. I also understand that to be
`
`considered anticipatory, the prior art reference must be enabling and must describe
`
`have placed it in the
`
`possession of a POSA. I also understand that a POSA must be able to at once
`
`envisage the claimed invention based on the prior art reference without any need
`
`for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures.
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`30.
`
`I also
`
`alleged prior art reference or a combination of such references plus what a POSA
`
`would understand based on his or her knowledge and those references. I
`
`understand that a patent cannot be properly granted for subject matter that would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. It is also my
`
`15
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`15 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 ofPatent No. 10,257,319
`
`understanding that in assessing the obviousnessof claimed subject matter a POSA
`
`should evaluate obviousnessoverthe prior art from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made(andnotfrom the
`
`perspective of either a layman ora geniusin thatart).
`
`31.
`
` Itis my further understanding that the question of obviousnessis to be
`
`determined based on:
`
`e The scope and content of the priorart:
`
`b. The difference or differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art (wherebyin assessing the possibility of obviousness
`
`one should consider the manner in which a patentee and/or a Court
`
`has construed the scope of a claim);
`
`c. Thelevel of ordinary skill in the art at the timeofthe alleged
`
`invention of the subject matter of the claim; and,
`
`d. Any relevant objective factors (the “secondary indicia”) indicating
`
`non-obviousnessasI discuss further below.
`
`32.
`
` Itis also my understandingthat the United States Supreme Court
`
`clarified the law of obviousness in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 398
`
`and 419 (2007) case (“KSR”), which I have read and incorporate herein by
`
`reference. Based on KSR,it is my understanding that to determine whetherit
`
`would have been obvious to combine knownlimitations in a mannerclaimed in a
`
`16
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`16 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`patent, one may consider such things as the interrelated teachings of multiple
`
`patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge of a POSA.
`
`33.
`
`It is my further understanding that for a claim to be found invalid as
`
`obvious, it must be obvious to a POSA at the relevant time. I also understand that
`
`the existence of each and every limitation of the claimed invention in multiple
`
`prior art references/systems does not necessarily prove obviousness since most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. Obviousness may be found
`
`where, for example, the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`34.
`
`It is my further understanding that I should consider whether there
`
`was a reason that would have prompted a POSA to combine the known limitations
`
`in a way the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as: (1)
`
`whether the claimed invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art
`
`limitations according to their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention
`
`provides an obvious solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether
`
`the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining limitations claimed
`
`in the invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining limitations
`
`17
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`17 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`in the claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the
`
`combinations of limitations, such as when there is a design need or market pressure
`
`to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions; and (6) whether the change resulted more from design incentives or
`
`other market forces. I also understand that to render a claim obvious, the cited
`
`combination of prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success for the
`
`proposed combination.
`
`35.
`
`It is also my understanding that in developing opinions as to whether
`
`or not certain claimed subject matter would have been obvious, each claim of a
`
`given patent should be considered in its entirety and separately from any other
`
`claims. In so doing, it is my understanding that while I should consider any
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, I should also assess the
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the entirety of a claim covering an alleged
`
`invention, not merely some portion of it.
`
`36.
`
`It is my further understanding that although the KSR decision I
`
`ion or
`
`is still inappropriate when making such an assertion. For example, § 2142 of the
`
`M
`
`18
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`18 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the
`
`examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the
`
`legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior
`
`who assert that the general knowledge of a POSA and/or a combination of
`
`references invalidates a patent claim through obviousness.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been informed that in cases such as the decision In re
`
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art
`
`references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the
`
`Supreme Court also stated in KSR at pp. 418-
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to
`
`look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of
`
`two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to
`
`identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.
`
`19
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`19 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building
`
`blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
`
`38. Additionally, and also relevant to the above caution to avoid
`
`hindsight, it is my understanding that it is not enough to find that prior art
`
`references could be combined, and that to show obviousness one must prove that a
`
`POSA would actually combine the multiple references to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention, including showing that a POSA would be motivated to do so. For
`
`example, in the case PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987,
`
`whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated
`
`to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
`
`39.
`
`It is also my understanding that I should consider any objective
`
`ay have existed
`
`at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light on the non-
`
`obviousness of the claims, such as:
`
`a. Whether the invention was commercially successful as a result of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention (rather than the result of design needs
`
`or market-pressure advertising or similar activities);
`
`20
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`20 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`b. Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`c. Whether others had tried and failed to make the invention;
`
`d. Whether others invented the invention at roughly the same time;
`
`e. Whether others copied the invention;
`
`f. Whether there were changes or related technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention;
`
`g. Whether the invention achieved unexpected results;
`
`h. Whether others in the field praised the invention;
`
`i. Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention
`
`expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the invention;
`
`j. Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent from the patent
`
`holder; and,
`
`k. Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom in the
`
`field.
`
`40.
`
`It is my further understanding the Board has designated a precedential
`
`decision regarding the proper analysis of secondary considerations in the case of
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB Jan. 24,
`
`2020)(designated April 14, 2020)
`
`. I understand that for
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness to be accorded substantial weight,
`
`the patentee must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the
`
`21
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`21 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`claimed invention. Id.
`
`less the evidence presented is
`
`Id. I understand that a
`
`asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and t
`
`Id.
`
`feature that is claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the
`
`Id.
`
`41.
`
`Lectrosonics
`
`opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary
`
`Id.
`
`claim not already in the prior art
`
`Id.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TO THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that network components,
`
`such as client devices and web servers, communicating over the Internet are
`
`component, typically stores content that may be identified by a uniform resource
`
`22
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`22 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`geolocate the network component with a particular IP address.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that an IP packet sent over
`
`the internet to, for example, a web server includes an IP header and payload. The
`
`IP header includes the Source IP Address (the IP address of the sending network
`
`component) and the Destination IP Address (the IP address of the receiving
`
`network component, for example, the IP address of the web server). The payload
`
`includes the data being transmitted, such as a request for a content stored on the
`
`web server.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, normally, a request for
`
`content is sent from a client device (discussed in detail below) to a web server. For
`
`example, a customer that is considering buying a product from a store may request
`
`content associated with that particular product
`
`. That same
`
`customer may also request content associated with that same product at a different
`
`As one example, a customer may request content to see if the
`
`product is on sale. Therefore, in my opinion, a POSA would understand that the IP
`
`pac
`
`device.
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, normally, the web
`
`server responds to a request for content by sending the requested content back to
`
`23
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`23 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`the Source IP Address. In some cases, the response to the request for content may
`
`be blocked or spoofed due to, for example, the geographic location of the Source
`
`IP Address. As another example, multiple requests having the same Source IP
`
`Address may become suspicious and subsequently blocked or spoofed by the web
`
`server. As yet another example, requests having a commercial IP address, rather
`
`than a residential IP address, as the Source IP Address may be blocked or spoofed
`
`by the web server.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, at the time of
`
`invention, a different type of network component known as a proxy server may be
`
`used as an intermediary between the client device and the web server in order to
`
`conceal the original Source IP Address for a request for content. See EX. 1001 at
`
`Fig. 1. The IP packet will be sent from the original requestor to the proxy server
`
`and from the proxy server to the web server. When sending the IP packet from the
`
`proxy server to the web server, the proxy server will often replace the original
`
`Source IP address of the original requestor with its own IP address. Thus, a POSA
`
`server. Instead of being blocked or spoofed, the requested content may be sent
`
`back to the original requesting network component via the proxy server.
`
`24
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2065
`24 of 134
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2021-01492 ofPatent No. 10,257,319
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION TO THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘319 AND ‘510
`PATENTS
`
`47. All of the patents claiming priority to Provisional Application No.
`
`61/249,624 filed on October 8, 2009 share the same specification.
`
`48.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent is the only independentclaim ofthe ‘319
`
`Patent. Claim 1 of the ‘’510 Patent is the only independentclaim ofthe ‘510
`
`Patent. Claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent recites a “first server” that comprises a web
`
`server and Claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent recites a “web server”. The independent
`
`claims of the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents recite a separate server referred to as the
`
`“second server”. Finally, the independentclaimsof the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents
`
`recite a “first client device” serving as an intermediary between the web server
`
`and the second server.
`
`49.
`
`The ’319 and ’510 Patent claims recite methods performed by
`
`elements performed bythe “first client device” within a second server < first
`
`client device < web server architecture as shown, for example, in the annotated
`
`claimsin the followingtable:
`
`ransfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and
`
`1. A method for use with a first
`
`1. A method for use with a web
`
`lient device, for use with a fi