IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`NETNUT LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
`
`In accordance with Local Patent Rules (“P.R.”) 3-3 and 3-4, and the Amended Court’s
`
`Docket Control Order (ECF No. 56), Defendant NetNut Ltd. (“NetNut”) provides the following
`
`invalidity contentions and accompanying document production addressing the claims asserted by
`
`Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd. (“Bright Data”) in its P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In this action Bright Data asserts the following claims of the following patents (together,
`
`the “Asserted Claims” of the “Asserted Patents”):
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`10,484,510 (“the ’510 patent)
`
`1, 2, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23
`
`10,257,319 (“the ’319 patent)
`
`1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 21-27
`
`10,491,713 (“the ’713 patent)
`
`1, 11, 24, and 27
`
`11,050,852 (“the ’852 patent)
`
`1, 14, 25, and 28
`
`11,044,346 (“the ’346 patent)
`
`
`1, 15, 17, 20, and 22-26
`
`1
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 1 of 210
`
`

`

`Based on NetNut’s investigation to date, NetNut hereby: (a) identifies each item of prior
`
`art that allegedly anticipates each Asserted Claim or renders it obvious; (b) specifies whether
`
`each such item of prior art (or a combination thereof) anticipates or renders obvious one or more
`
`of the Asserted Claims; (c) provides a chart identifying where specifically in each item of prior
`
`art each element of each asserted claim is found (see Appendices A-1 through A-5 and A-7 (’510
`
`patent); B-1 through B-5 and B-7 (’319 patent); C-1 through C-6 and C-8 through C-10 (’713
`
`patent); D-1 through D6 and D-8 through D-10 (’852 patent); E-1 through E4, E-6, E-8 and E-9
`
`(’346 patent)); and (d) identifies additional grounds of invalidity of the Asserted Claims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 112. P.R. 3-3(a)-(d).
`
`Concurrent with these invalidity contentions, NetNut also provides documentation
`
`sufficient to show the operation of the Accused Instrumentalities identified by Bright Data in its
`
`infringement contentions. P.R. 3-4(a); see NETNUT2-00011551–13554. NetNut has previously
`
`made its source code for the Accused Instrumentalities available for inspection by Bright Data on
`
`December 14, 2021. Additionally, NetNut produces herewith a copy of each item of prior art
`
`identified in these invalidity contentions which does not appear in the file history of the Asserted
`
`Patents. See NETNUT2-00000001–11550 (with NETNUT2-00000001–5388 being prior art
`
`Squid documents and NETNUT2-00005389-11550 being other prior art identified herein).
`
`II.
`
`RESERVATIONS
`
`NetNut reserves the right to amend these invalidity contentions in accordance with the
`
`Court’s Patent Rules and as the Court may otherwise provide. NetNut makes these invalidity
`
`contentions based upon its current knowledge, understanding, and belief as to the facts and
`
`information available as of the date of these invalidity contentions. To the extent that NetNut
`
`obtains additional information and prior art, including but not limited to prior art systems, sales,
`
`public uses, and publications, NetNut reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify these
`
`2
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 2 of 210
`
`

`

`invalidity contentions. Further, if Bright Data provides additional detail to NetNut relating to
`
`alleged infringement beyond the information in Bright Data’s infringement contentions served
`
`September 15, 2021 and supplemental infringement contentions served October 22, 2021,
`
`NetNut reserves the right to modify these invalidity contentions accordingly.
`
`Discovery in this action and NetNut’s investigation into the facts relating to this action
`
`are ongoing. NetNut reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify the disclosures made
`
`herein as new, additional, or different information is discovered through fact, expert, and/or
`
`third-party discovery, after the Court has construed the Asserted Claims, and/or if Bright Data
`
`alters its invalidity contentions. NetNut is currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which Bright
`
`Data will contend that limitations of the Asserted Claims are not disclosed by the prior art
`
`identified by NetNut. To the extent such an issue arises, NetNut reserves the right to identify
`
`other references that disclose the allegedly missing limitation(s) of the Asserted Claim(s).
`
`These invalidity contentions are not, and should not be understood as, admissions as to,
`
`or the adoption of, any particular claim scope or construction. To the extent possible, NetNut has
`
`attempted to consider Bright Data’s assertions regarding Bright Data’s apparent construction of
`
`the Asserted Claims. Nonetheless, NetNut provides these invalidity contentions prior to any
`
`claim construction ruling by the Court. Any invalidity analysis depends upon claim construction,
`
`which is a question of law reserved for the Court. The parties have not yet engaged in briefing on
`
`claim construction. NetNut reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify these invalidity
`
`contentions based on any claim construction positions that Bright Data may take in this case.
`
`NetNut further reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify these invalidity contentions
`
`after the Asserted Claims have been construed by the Court.
`
`3
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 3 of 210
`
`

`

`The citations to the prior art provided in these invalidity contentions are intended to be
`
`illustrative, but not exhaustive. Where NetNut cites a particular drawing, figure, or table, the
`
`citation encompasses the description of the drawing, figure, or table, as well as any text
`
`associated with the drawing, figure, or table, in the relevant prior art reference. Similarly, where
`
`NetNut cites particular text concerning a table or figure in a prior art reference, the citation
`
`encompasses that table or figure as well. Also, where NetNut cites any portion of a prior art
`
`reference as disclosing a particular limitation, that citation applies with equal weight to all
`
`similar or identical instances of the limitation in each of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents.
`
`NetNut has endeavored to cite relevant portions of the identified prior art references, but
`
`each item of identified prior art is relied upon for all that it teaches or suggests. Uncited portions
`
`and embodiments of the identified prior art may additionally disclose, either expressly or
`
`inherently, and/or render obvious one or more elements or limitations of the Asserted Claims.
`
`NetNut reserves the right to rely upon additional uncited portions of the identified prior art to
`
`establish the invalidity of any asserted claim. Moreover, NetNut reserves the right to rely on
`
`uncited portions of the identified prior art, other art, or expert testimony to provide context for,
`
`or aid in understanding of, the cited portions of the identified prior art. NetNut also reserves the
`
`right to rely upon the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art as demonstrated
`
`by the Asserted Patents, testimony, treatises, published industry standards, and/or similar
`
`documents.
`
`The obviousness combinations of references provided below under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are
`
`also intended to be illustrative, but not exhaustive. The identified prior art describes subject
`
`matter in the same art and addresses similar or related problems. The prior art references provide
`
`4
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 4 of 210
`
`

`

`solutions to those problems, which may be similar to other disclosed problems. There was ample
`
`reason to combine those references. Exemplary rationales for combining the references include,
`
`but are not limited to, teachings, suggestions and motivations in the prior art, common sense of a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA” or “POSA”), the combination of prior art elements
`
`according to known methods to yield predictable results, the simple substitution of one known
`
`element for another to obtain predictable results, routine experimentation, and known work in the
`
`art that prompted predictable variations of it based on design incentives or other market forces. A
`
`skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reaching the alleged
`
`inventions of the Asserted Patents based on the prior art.
`
`There are many combinations of the identified references and/or knowledge of persons
`
`skilled in the art that render the Asserted Claims obvious. NetNut reserves the right to use any
`
`such combinations in this action. Further, to the extent that Bright Data asserts that a limitation is
`
`not disclosed in a prior art reference, NetNut reserves the right to contend that the limitation is
`
`obvious based on the prior art reference and/or identify other references that may render the
`
`allegedly missing limitation obvious.
`
`NetNut is unaware of any objective indicia that could support an assertion of non-
`
`obviousness of the Asserted Claims. NetNut reserves the right to respond to any evidence or
`
`argument from Bright Data regarding any alleged objective indicia of non-obviousness.
`
`These invalidity contentions are based upon the alleged priority date of October 8, 2009,
`
`for the ’319, ’510, ’713, ’852, and ’346 patents, as alleged by Bright Data under its P.R. 3-1(e)
`
`disclosure. However, NetNut does not admit or concede that any of the Asserted Claims are
`
`entitled to that alleged priority date. Indeed, as discussed below in connection with certain prior
`
`art and other invalidity grounds, the Asserted Claims of the ’319, ’510, ’713, ’852, and ’346
`
`5
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 5 of 210
`
`

`

`patents are not entitled to an October 8, 2009, priority date and are thus invalid for several
`
`reasons. NetNut specifically challenges the priority dates of at least the ’713, ’852, and ’346
`
`patents, which lack written description and cannot have a priority date any earlier than their
`
`actual filing dates of April 28, 2019; October 13, 2019; and January 12, 2021, respectively.
`
`NetNut reserves the right to challenge the priority dates of the ’510 and ’319 patents.
`
`NetNut reserves the right to further challenge the Asserted Claims as being invalid under
`
`any other available defenses. NetNut also reserves the right to challenge the enforceability of the
`
`Asserted Claims, which is not covered by P.R. 3-3.
`
`III.
`
`PATENT RULE 3-3
`
`A.
`
`Identification of References
`
`Each of the references below (and/or the underlying products described therein) qualifies
`
`as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`6
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 6 of 210
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Patents and Publications
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`1.
`
`Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions, by
`Michael K. Reiter and Aviel D. Rubin
`(“Crowds”)
`
`U.S.
`
`Publication
`Information
`Published
`November
`1998 (ACM
`Transactions
`on
`Information
`and System
`Security)
`
`2.
`
`MorphMix - A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access, by Marc
`Rennhard (“MorphMix”)
`
`CH
`
`Published no
`later than
`May 2004
`
`3. U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2003/0009518 to Harrow et al. (“Harrow”)
`
`U.S.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2008/0228938 to Plamondon
`(“Plamondon”)
`
`David Gourley & Brian Totty, HTTP: The
`Definitive Guide (O’Reilly Media 2002)
`(“HTTP Definitive Guide”)
`
`6. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2006/0026304 to Price (“Price”)
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Published
`January 3,
`2003; filed
`March 8,
`2002
`Published
`September
`18, 2008;
`filed March
`12, 2007
`
`2002, but no
`later than
`2004
`
`Published
`February 2,
`2006; filed
`May 4, 2005
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008070 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008092
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008229 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008534
`and
`NETNUT2-
`00008594 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008599
`NETNUT2-
`00007121 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007156
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008655 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008779
`
`NETNUT2-
`00005663 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006319
`NETNUT2-
`00007367 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007388
`
`7
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 7 of 210
`
`

`

`Bates Nos.
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006549 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006570
`NETNUT2-
`00005389 to
`NETNUT2-
`00005405
`NETNUT2-
`00008200 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008213
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008535 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008549
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008550 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008569
`NETNUT2-
`00006813 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006824
`
`Publication
`Information
`Published
`April 14,
`2011; filed
`July 14, 2010
`Issued July
`15, 2008;
`filed Oct. 23,
`2000.
`Published
`January 8,
`2008; filed
`September
`20, 2007
`Published
`February 5,
`2009; filed
`June 16,
`2008
`Published
`June 13,
`2002; filed
`Dec. 7, 2000
`
`Publicly
`available
`from IETF
`not later than
`February 2,
`2008
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`July 6, 2015
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008600 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008602
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`7.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2011/087733 to Shribman et al.
`(“Shribman”).
`
`8. U.S. Patent No. 7,401,115 to Arsenault
`(“Arsenault”)
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`9. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2008/0008089 to Bornstein et al. (“Bornstein”)
`
`U.S.
`
`10. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2009/0037977 to Gai et al. (“Gai”)
`
`11. U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2002/0073075 to Dutta et al. (“Dutta”)
`
`Andrew Daviel et al., Geographic extensions
`for HTTP transactions (Internet Engineering
`Task Force, Internet-Draft, Dec. 7, 2007)
`(publicly available Feb. 2, 2008, see Ex. G-4 at
`25), but not later than September 17, 2011,
`available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20110917072719/
`https://tools.ietf.org/pdf/draft-daviel-http-geo-
`header-05.pdf (last visited Dec. 3, 2021)
`(“Daviel”)
`HTTPS FAQ, The HTTPS-Only Standard,
`(July 6, 2015), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20150706212117/
`https://https.cio.gov/faq/ (last visited Nov. 28,
`2021) (“HTTPS FAQ”)
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`8
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 8 of 210
`
`

`

`Publication
`Information
`Published
`May 6, 2004;
`filed October
`31, 2002
`Published
`September
`14, 2006;
`filed March
`9, 2005
`Published
`May 20,
`2010; filed
`November
`17, 2008
`Published
`Sept. 25,
`2008; filed
`Mar. 22,
`2007
`February 7,
`2008; filed
`August 3,
`2006
`Issued July
`17, 2007;
`filed June 16,
`2004
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`August 2,
`2008
`
`U.S.
`
`June 1, 2006
`
`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`14. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2008/0088646 to Yeager et al. (“Yeager”)
`
`15. U.S. Patent Application Publication
`No. 2006/0206586 to Ling et al. (“Ling”)
`
`16.
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2010/0125673 to Richardson et al.
`(“Richardson”)
`
`17. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`2008/0235385 to Li (“Li”)
`
`18. U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`20008/0034416 to Kumar at al. (“Kumar”)
`
`19. U.S. Patent No. 7,246,272 to Cabezas et al.
`(“Cabezas”)
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`WorldProxy202 Canada, WorldProxy202,
`http://ca.worlproxy202.com, available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20080820091400/
`http://ca.worldproxy202.com/
`Ashish Mohta, Worldproxy202 – Proxy that’s
`pretty useful,
`http://www.technospot.net/blogs/worldproxy20
`2-proxy-thats-pretty-useful (Technospot.net),
`available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20080601050011/
`http://www.technospot.net/blogs/worldproxy20
`2-proxy-thats-pretty-useful/
`
`9
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`NETNUT2-
`00005414 to
`NETNUT2-
`00005548
`NETNUT2-
`00008214 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008228
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006335 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006355
`
`NETNUT2-
`00007285 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007296
`
`NETNUT2-
`00007297 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007325
`NETNUT2-
`00011536 to
`NETNUT2-
`00011550
`NETNUT2-
`00006827 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007119
`NETNUT2-
`00007114 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007119
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 9 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Geolocation API Specification, W3C (Dec. 22,
`2008), available at
`https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-geolocation-
`API-20081222/ (last visited Dec. 10, 2021)
`(“Geolocation API Specification”)
`Geolocation API Specification, W3C (Oct. 24,
`2013), available at
`http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-geolocation-
`API-20131024/ (last visited Dec. 15, 2021)
`“Geolocation API Specification 2013”)
`Request for Comments (RFC) 2396 (Uniform
`Resource Identifiers (URI): Generic Syntax),
`published by Network Working Group of the
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) (“RFC
`2396”)
`Request for Comments (RFC) 1738 (Uniform
`Resource Locators (URL)), published by
`Network Working Group of the Internet
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) (“RFC 1738”)
`Request for Comments (RFC) 1866 (Hypertext
`Markup Language -2.0), published by Network
`Working Group of the Internet Engineering
`Task Force (IETF) (“RFC 1866”)
`Request for Comments (RFC) 2616 (HTTP),
`published by HTTP Working Group of the
`Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) (“RFC
`2616”)
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`U.S.
`
`Dec. 2008
`
`U.S.
`
`Oct. 2013
`
`U.S.
`
`August 1998
`
`U.S.
`
`December
`1994
`
`U.S.
`
`November
`1995
`
`U.S.
`
`June 1999
`
`28. RFC 2460 (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6))
`(“RFC 2460”)
`
`U.S.
`
`December
`1998
`
`29. RFC 793 (Transmission Control Protocol
`(TCP)) (“RFC 793”)
`
`U.S.
`
`September
`1981
`
`30. RFC 1349 (Internet Protocol Suite) (“RFC
`1349”)
`
`U.S.
`
`July 1992
`
`10
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Publication
`Information
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006873 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006885
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006522 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006539
`
`NETNUT2-
`00007513 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007547
`
`NETNUT2-
`00009121 to
`NETNUT2-
`00009145
`NETNUT2-
`00009016 to
`NETNUT2-
`00009092
`NETNUT2-
`00006600 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006713
`NETNUT2-
`00007328 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007366
`NETNUT2-
`00007157 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007245
`NETNUT2-
`00007455 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007482
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 10 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Publication
`Information
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`31. RFC 2914 (Congestion Control Principles)
`(“RFC 2914”)
`
`U.S.
`
`September
`2000
`
`32. RFC 4026 (Provider Provisioned Virtual
`Private Network (VPN)) (“RFC 4026”)
`
`U.S. March 2005
`
`33. RFC 2547 (BGP/MPLS VPNs) (“RFC 2547”)
`
`U.S. March 1999
`
`34. RFC 1180 (TCP/IP Tutorial) (“RFC 1180”)
`
`U.S.
`
`January 1991
`
`35.
`
`RFC 1122 (Requirements for Internet Hosts --
`Communication Layers), published by
`Network Working Group of the Internet
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) (“RFC 1122”)
`
`U.S.
`
`October 1989
`
`36.
`
`BIScience GeoSurf, including GeoSurf
`Toolbar, documentation available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20090227095940/
`http://www.biscience.com/aboutus.html;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20090404044144/
`http://www.biscience.com/;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20090904035853/
`http://www.geosurf.com/aboutus.html;
`https://web.archive.org/web/20091003060210/
`http://www.geosruf.com:80/
`
`U.S.
`
`2009
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006898 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006914
`NETNUT2-
`00006580 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006599
`NETNUT2-
`00007424 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007448
`NETNUT2-
`00009093 to
`NETNUT2-
`00009120
`NETNUT2-
`00008855 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008970
`NETNUT2-
`00006825 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006826;
`NETNUT2-
`00006871 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006872; to
`NETNUT2-
`00007326 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007327;
`NETNUT2-
`00007449 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007454;
`and
`NETNUT2-
`00008780 to
`NEtNUT2-
`00008781
`
`11
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 11 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`37. U.S. Patent No. 6,785,705 to Kocherlakota
`(“Kocherlakota”)
`
`38.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,389,462 to Cohen et al.
`(“Cohen”)
`
`
`39.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2008/0196098
`to Cottrell et al. (“Cottrell”)
`
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`40. U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2007/0073878
`to Issa (“Issa”)
`
`U.S.
`
`41.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2006/0212584
`to Yu et al. (“Yu”)
`
`
`U.S.
`
`42.
`
`Japanese Patent Application Publication H11-
`355302 to Yokoi (“Yokoi”)
`
`
`JP
`
`Publication
`Information
`Issued
`August 31,
`2004; filed
`February 8,
`2000
`Issued May
`14, 2002;
`filed
`December
`16, 1998
`Published
`August 14,
`2008; filed
`December
`31, 2005
`Published
`March 29,
`2007; filed
`September
`23, 2005
`Published
`September
`21, 2006;
`filed
`December
`21, 2005
`
`Published
`December
`24, 1999;
`filed June 11,
`1998
`
`43. Web Proxy Servers, Ari Luotonen
`(“Luotonen”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1998
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`NETNUT2-
`00011280 to
`NETNUT2-
`00011287
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006828 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006845
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006735 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006756
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006853 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006870
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008988 to
`NETNUT2-
`00009001
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006886 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006897
`and
`NETNUT2-
`00009211 to
`NETNUT2-
`00009233
`NETNUT2-
`00007548 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007999
`
`12
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 12 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Publication
`Information
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`44. William R. Stanek, Introducing Microsoft
`Windows Vista (2006) (“Stanek”)
`
`U.S.
`
`2006
`
`45.
`
`Yong Wang, et. al., Towards Street-Level
`Client-Independent IP Geolocation (2011)1
`(“Wang”)
`
`U.S.
`
`2011
`
`46.
`
`ICP and the Squid Web Cache, by Duane
`Wessels et al. (“Wessels”)
`
`U.S.
`
`August. 13,
`1997
`
`47. RFC 1034 (Domain Names – Concepts and
`Facilities) (“RFC 1034”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1987
`
`48. RFC 1035 (Domain Names – Implementation
`and Specification) (“RFC 1035”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1987
`
`49.
`
`RFC 2663 (IP Network Address Translator
`(NAT) Terminology and Considerations)
`(“RFC 2663”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1999
`
`50. RFC 3022 (Traditional IP Network Address
`Translator (Traditional NAT) (“RFC 3022”)
`
`U.S.
`
`2001
`
`51. RFC 1919 (Classical versus Transparent IP
`Proxies) (“RFC 1919”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1996
`
`NETNUT2-
`00006371 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006444
`NETNUT2-
`00009002 to
`NETNUT2-
`00009015
`NETNUT2-
`00007260 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007284
`NETNUT2-
`00008145 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008199
`NETNUT2-
`00008007 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008069
`NETNUT2-
`00007483 to
`NETNUT2-
`00007512
`NETNUT2-
`00006445 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006460
`NETNUT2-
`00011288 to
`NETNUT2-
`0001322
`
`
`1 https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/nsdi11/tech/full_papers/Wang_Yong.pdf
`
`13
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 13 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Publication
`Information
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`52. RFC 2068 (Hypertext Transfer Protocol –
`HTTP/1.1) (“RFC 2068”)
`
`U.S.
`
`January 1997
`
`53. RFC 2186 (Internet Cache Protocol (ICP),
`version 2) (“RFC 2186”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1997
`
`54. RFC 2187 (Application of Internet Cache
`Protocol (ICP), version 2) (“RFC2187”)
`
`U.S.
`
`1997
`
`NETNUT2-
`000011323
`to
`NETNUT2-
`00011508
`NETNUT2-
`00006571 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006579
`NETNUT2-
`00008570 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008593
`NETNUT2-
`00008093 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008144
`NETNUT2-
`00006492 to
`NETNUT2-
`00006521
`NETNUT2-
`00008807
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008800
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`HAProxy Reference Manual, version 1.2.18,
`by Willy Tarreau (“HAProxy Reference
`Manual”)
`
`HAProxy Architecture Guide, version 1.2.18,
`by Willy Tarreau (“HAProxy Architecture
`Guide”)
`
`History and Credits, Squid User’s Guide (Feb.
`22, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070222021517/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/History_and_Credits (last accessed Dec.
`13, 2021) (“Squid History and Credits”)
`Squid User’s Guide: Copyrights, Squid User’s
`Guide (March 24, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070324031958/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Squid_User%27s_Guide:Copyrights (last
`accessed Dec. 13, 2021) (“Squid Copyrights")
`Installing Squid, Squid User’s Guide (Feb. 24,
`2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070224172406/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Installing_Squid (last accessed Dec. 13,
`2021) (“Installing Squid”)
`
`14
`
`FR
`
`FR
`
`May 25,
`2008
`
`May 25,
`2008
`
`U.S.
`
`February 8,
`2007
`
`U.S. March 24,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 24,
`2007
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008810 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008819
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 14 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Squid Configuration Basics, Squid User’s
`Guide (Feb. 24, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070224171528/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Squid_Configuration_Basics (last
`accessed Dec. 13, 2021) (“Squid Configuration
`Basics”)
`Starting Squid, Squid User’s Guide (Feb. 24,
`2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070224013359/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Starting_Squid (last accessed Dec. 13,
`2021) (“Starting Squid”)
`Browser Configuration, Squid User’s Guide
`(Feb. 24, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070224172054/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Browser_Configuration (last accessed
`Dec. 13, 2021) (“Squid Browser
`Configuration”)
`Access Control and Access Control Operators,
`Squid User’s Guide (Feb. 22, 2007), available
`at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070222115449/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Access_Control_and_Access_Control_O
`perators#Username_and_Password (last
`accessed Dec. 13, 2021) (“Squid Access
`Control and Access Control Operators”)
`Cache Hierarchies, Squid User’s Guide (Feb.
`27, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070227194912/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Cache_Hierarchies (last accessed Dec.
`13, 2021) (“Squid Cache Hierarchies”)
`Accelerator Mode, Squid User’s Guide (Feb.
`26, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070226231137/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Accelerator_Mode (last accessed Dec.
`13, 2021) (“Squid Accelerator Mode”)
`
`60.
`
`61
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`15
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Publication
`Information
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`U.S.
`
`February 24,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 24,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 24,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 22,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 27,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 26,
`2007
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008824 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008831
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008801 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008806
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008832 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008837
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008788 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008799
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008782 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008787
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008820 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008823
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 15 of 210
`
`

`

`
`
`Reference
`
`Country
`of Origin
`
`Publication
`Information
`
`Bates Nos.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Transparent Caching/Proxy, Squid User’s
`Guide (March 2, 2007), available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070302123352/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Transparent_Caching/Proxy (last
`accessed Dec. 13, 2021) (“Squid Transparent
`Caching/Proxy”)
`Wishlist, Squid User’s Guide (Feb. 27, 2007),
`available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070227195024/
`http://www.deckle.co.za/squid-users-
`guide/Wishlist (last accessed Dec. 13, 2021)
`(“Squid Wishlist”)
`Squid version 2.5, squid-cache.org (May 9,
`2013), available at www.squid-
`cache.org/Versions/v2/2.5/ (last accessed Dec.
`14, 2021) (“Squid version 2.5”)
`
`Prior Art Systems
`
`U.S. March 2,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
`February 27,
`2007
`
`U.S.
`
` May 9, 2013
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008838
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008839
`
`NETNUT2-
`00008808 to
`NETNUT2-
`00008809
`
`1. Microsoft Windows Vista operating system; Microsoft Corp.; available January 2007.
`
`2. HAProxy; HAProxy.org, open source; version 1.2.18 released May 25, 2008.
`
`3. ProxyWay; formerly ProxyWay.com; version 5.0, released September 1, 2008.
`
`4. Hidemyass; hidemyass.com; first released in 2005.
`
`5. GeoSurf; BIScience, released 2009.
`
`5. Tor file transfer system; released not later than 2004.
`
`6. Squid; released not later than March 2007. The Squid prior art system is evidenced by
`
`the documents at NETNUT2-00000001-5388 and listed in the table above.
`
`16
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 16 of 210
`
`

`

`7. Bright Data residential proxy service (also referred to as Luminati residential proxy
`
`service2) based on the Bright Data Residential Proxy Network, including static and rotating
`
`residential proxy services (including “Bright Data Proxy Manager,” “Data Collection
`
`Automation (crawler),” “Data Unblocker,” “Proxy Manager,” “Bright Data Chrome extension,”
`
`“Bright Data Android extension,” “Bright Data mobile app,” “Bright Data API,” and “Browser
`
`Extension”).3 On information and belief, the Bright Data Data Center Proxy service and Static
`
`Residential service have been publicly sold, offered for sale, known, and used, at least as early as
`
`February 16, 2018, more than one year before the earliest filing date of the ’510 patent (February
`
`17, 2019), ’319 patent (April 20, 2018) ’713 patent (April 28, 2019), ’852 patent (October 13,
`
`2019), and ’346 patent (January 12, 2021). Bright Data has admitted that this product practices
`
`the asserted claims of each patent, thereby rendering them unpatentable. Dkt. 41, ¶¶ 12, 42, 55,
`
`68, 81, 92. The Bright Data Data Center Proxy service and Static Residential service are
`
`admitted by Bright Data in its P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions and amended infringement
`
`contentions as “practicing the Asserted Claims.” The Bright Data Data Center Proxy service and
`
`Static Residential service evidenced by at least: “Illuminating HolaVPN and the Dangers It
`
`Poses,” TrendMicro Research (2018); “Tunneling for Transparency: A Large-Scale Analysis of
`
`End-to-End Violations in the Internet,” ICM, by Taejoong Chung et al. (2016); “Resident Evil:
`
`Understanding Residential IP Proxy as a Dark Service,” IEEE, by Xianghang Mi et al. (2019);
`
`
`2 References to Luminati and Bright Data are used interchangeably because Bright Data was
`formerly known as Luminati Networks Ltd. (“Luminati”). See Amended Compl. Dkt. No. 41,
`¶ 11.
`
`3 This service is now known as the “Bright Data Residential Proxy Network” (including
`“Bright Data Proxy Manager,” “Data Collection Automation (crawler),” “Data Unblocker,”
`“Proxy Manager,” “Bright Data Chrome extension,” “Bright Data Android extension,” “Bright
`Data mobile app,” “Bright Data API,” and “Browser Extension”).
`
`17
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 17 of 210
`
`

`

`“Luminati’s Unblocker,” Luminati; “Example Use Cases,” Luminati, retrieved from Archive.org
`
`(Apr. 12, 2017); “Luminati FAQ,” Luminati, retrieved from Archive.org (May 1, 2017); “Most
`
`Advanced Proxy Network,” Luminati, retrieved from Archive.org (May 1, 2017); “How it
`
`Works,” Luminati, retrieved from Archive.org (Mar. 15, 2017); “Luminati HTTP/HTTPS Proxy
`
`Manager,” GitHub, retrieved from Archive.org (Oct. 25, 2017); “How to Get an IP from any City
`
`in the World - Luminati Tutorials,” Luminati, retrieved from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnYW4pyo6no (Apr. 27, 2017); “How to choose the right
`
`IP rotation preset - Luminati Tutorials,” Luminati, retrieved from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5Uq4H0zjTY (July 30, 2017); “How to work with
`
`Luminati Proxy Manager and Network Rules - Luminati Tutorials,” Luminati, retrieved from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyrB3CQUTTg (Mar. 13, 2019); “How to Install the
`
`Luminati Proxy Manager - Luminati Tutorials,” Luminati, retrieved from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUGHLSPr0vs (Mar, 15, 2017); “How to Target a Specific
`
`ASN - Luminati Tutorials,” Luminati, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMZUWO9hx_4
`
`(July 30, 2017); and “Luminati Waterfall Feature,” Luminati, retrieved from
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK95vb_3AN0 (Jan. 3, 2018); all of which are produced by
`
`NetNut together with these invalidity contentions.
`
`7. Accused NetNut Services; released January 2017.
`
`2.
`
`Applicant Admitted Prior Art
`
`The Asserted Patents include background material describing examples of subject matter
`
`that was known in the prior art before the alleged October 8, 2009 priority date asserted by
`
`Bright Data. The ’510, ’319, ’703, ’852, and ’319 patents share a common specification. All
`
`citations below are to the ’713 patent specification, and internal citations to portions of figures
`
`have been omitted. The ’510, ’319, ’703, ’852, and ’319 patents admit the following prior art:
`
`18
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1104
`Page 18 of 210
`
`

`

`•
`
`The Internet and the Web were known. ’713 patent, 1:23-25 (patent directed to
`
`“improving data communication speed and bandwidth efficiency on the Internet”); id. at 2:1
`
`(referring to “‘Web2.0’ trend”), 2:1-5 (referring to Web sites), 2:10-18 (referring to Web servers
`
`from which existing proxies request data), 2:30-32 (referring to dynamic data “that is prevalent
`
`now on the Web”).
`
`•
`
`Proxies were known in the art and have “been in use,” including fetching data
`
`from other devices, such as web servers, for client devices. The “proxy, or proxy server 4, 6, 8 is
`
`a device tha