`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 55 PagelD #: 4273
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`NETNUTLTD.
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ Case No. 2:21-CV-225-JRG-RSP
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On April 21, 2022, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disputed terms in United States Patents No. 10,257,319, 10,484,510, 10,491,713, 11,050,852,
`
`
`
`
`
`and 11,044,346. Before the Court is the Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 106) filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd. Also before the Court is the Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 115) filed by Defendant NetNut Ltd. as well as Plaintiff's reply (Dkt. No. 118).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further before the Court are the parties' Patent Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Statement
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 93) and the parties' Patent Rule 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 123,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. A). Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing and in their claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction briefing, having considered the intrinsic evidence, and having made subsidiary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court hereby issues this Claim Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane);
`Order.
`See Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`
`Teva Pharm.
`
`
`
`USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831,841 (2015).
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 1 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 55 PagelD #: 4274
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`
`I.BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`II.LEG AL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`III.AGREED TERMS ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`IV.DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`A."client" and "client device" ................................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`B."first server" ........................................................................................................................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C."server" and "second server" .............................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`"Hypertext Transfer"HTTP request(s)," (HTTP)," D."Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Protocol Secure (HTTPS)," and "HTTPS request(s)" ........................................................ 23
`
`E."from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending" and "from the web
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`server over the Internet in response to the sending" ........................................................... 31
`
`F."sending, to the second server using the second IP address over the Internet in response
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the identifying, the first content identifier and a geographical location," "generating
`
`
`
`an HTTP or HTTPS request that comprises the first URL and a geographical location,"
`
`
`
`
`"sending, to the second server using the second IP address over the Internet, the
`
`
`
`generated HTTP or HTTPS request," and "sending, . . . a geographical location and
`
`
`HTTP or HTTPS requests" ................................................................................................. 37
`
`
`
`
`
`G."receiving . . . via a first client device" ............................................................................... 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`H."geographical location" ...................................................................................................... 46
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I."anonymously fetching" ....................................................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`
`
`J."wherein the content is identified over the Internet using a distinct URL" ......................... 52
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`V.CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 54
`
`I.BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 10,257,319 ("the '319 Patent")
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10,484,510 ("the '510 Patent"), 10,491,713 ("the '713 Patent"), 11,050,852 ("the '852 Patent")
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 11,044,346 ("the '346 Patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit") (Dkt. No. 106, Exs. A-E).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff submits that the patents-in-suit relate to "new methods for fetching content from
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a target server over the Internet using intermediary proxies including third-party client devices,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`such as an individual's cell phone, in order to make the request from the intermediary proxy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`instead of the original requestor." 0kt. No. 106 at 1.
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 2 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 55 PagelD #: 4275
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant submits that "[t]he patents are generally directed to speeding up Hypertext
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Transfer Protocol ('HTTP') requests by requesting the content directly from a peer who already
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`has the content in its cache, rather than accessing it from a web server." Dkt. No. 115 at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`The '319 Patent, titled "System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Communication," issued on April 9, 2019, and bears an earliest priority date of October 8, 2009.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Abstract of the '319 Patent states:
`
`
`
`A system designed for increasing network communication speed for users, while
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lowering network congestion for content owners and ISPs. The system employs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`network elements including an acceleration server, clients, agents, and peers,
`
`
`
`
`
`where communication requests generated by applications are intercepted by the
`
`
`
`
`client on the same machine. The IP address of the server in the communication
`
`
`
`
`
`
`request is transmitted to the acceleration server, which provides a list of agents to
`
`
`
`
`use for this IP address. The communication request is sent to the agents. One or
`
`
`
`
`more of the agents respond with a list of peers that have previously seen some or
`
`
`
`
`
`all of the content which is the response to this request ( after checking whether this
`
`
`
`
`
`data is still valid). The client then downloads the data from these peers in parts
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and in parallel, thereby speeding up the Web transfer, releasing congestion from
`
`
`
`
`
`the Web by fetching the information from multiple sources, and relieving traffic
`
`
`
`
`from Web servers by offloading the data transfers from them to nearby peers.
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties submit that all five of the patents-in-suit are related and share the same
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification. See Dkt. No. 106 at 2 n.1; see also Dkt. No. 115 at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`"Bright Data asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 14, 15,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17, 18, 21, 22,
`
`
`
`
`
`23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the '319 Patent, independent claim 1 and dependent
`
`
`
`
`
`claims 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the '510 Patent, independent claim land
`
`
`
`
`
`dependent claims 11, 24, and 27 of the '713 Patent, independent claim 1 and dependent claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14, 25, and 28 of the '852 Patent, and independent claim 1 and dependent claims 15, 17, 20, 22,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23, 24, 25, and 26 of the '346 Patent." Id. at 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court previously construed disputed terms in the '319 Patent and the '510 Patent in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 191 (E.D. Tex. Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-CV-395, Dkt.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 3 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 55 PagelD #: 4276
`
`
`
`
`
`Dec. 7, 2020) ("Teso CC Order"), and Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-CV-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`395, Dkt. No. 453 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2021) ("Teso Supplemental CC Order" or "Teso Suppl. CC
`
`
`
`Order").
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the April 21, 2022 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`prelimin
`
`
`
`
`and facilitating the parties' arguments ary constructions with the aim of focusing
`
`
`
`
`discussion. Those prelimin
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for each the discussion ary constructions are noted below within
`
`term.
`
`II.LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`"It is a 'bedrock principle' of patent law that 'the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude."' 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting
`Phillips,
`
`
`
`Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the court to decide.
`Markman v.
`
`
`
`Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970--71 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en bane), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370
`
`
`
`
`
`(1996). "In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent's
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for example, the
`
`
`
`backgr ound science
`
`
`
`
`or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period."
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`facts are in dispute, Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841 (citation omitted). "In cases where those subsidiary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`courts will need to make subsidi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence. These are the ary factual findings about that extrinsic
`
`
`'evidenti
`
`
`
`
`
`and this that we discussed ary underpinnings' of claim construction in Markman,
`
`
`
`
`subsidi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`517 U.S. 370). for clear error on appeal." ary factfinding must be reviewed Id. (citing
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`388 See Phillips, evidence. 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. US. Surgical Corp.,
`
`
`
`
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
`
`
`
`
`Bell At!. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Group, Inc.,
`
`
`
`T
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 4 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 55 PagelD #: 4277
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Phillips, specification, and the prosecution history. 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent.
`
`Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312-13;
`
`
`
`accord Alloc, Inc. v. lnt'l Trade Comm 'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particular claim terms. 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term's context in the asserted claim
`
`
`
`
`Phillips,
`
`
`
`can be very instructive.
`
`
`
`can aid in determining the Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim's meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent.
`
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term's meaning. Id. For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id at 1314--15.
`
`
`
`
`
`"[C]laims 'must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part."'
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`at 1315 (quoting 52 F.3d at 979). "[T]he specification 'is always highly relevant to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Markman,
`
`the claim construction analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the
`
`
`
`
`meaning of a disputed term."' 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting
`Phillips,
`
`Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`
`
`
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N Am.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Corp.,
`
`
`
`
`
`299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`
`
`
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the inventor's 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, or disavow the claim scope. Phillips,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`lexicography governs.
`
`
`
`
`claim of ambiguous Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`terms "where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 5 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 6 of 55 PagelD #: 4278
`
`
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.''
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Teleflex,
`
`
`
`299 F.3d at 1325. But, "[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims."
`Comark Commc 'ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting
`Corp.,
`
`
`
`Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); 415 F.3d at 1323.
`accord Phillips,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent.
`
`Home
`
`
`
`
`
`Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("As in the case of the
`
`
`
`
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent."). "[T]he prosecution
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`history ( or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance."
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448,452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is "less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language." 415 F.3d at 1317
`Phillips,
`
`
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the art might court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert's conclusory, unsupported
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`assertions as to a term's definition are entirely unhelpful to a court.
`
`
`Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 6 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 7 of 55 PagelD #: 4279
`
`
`
`evidence is "less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim terms."
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has "read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, 12 to require that a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty."
`
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
`
`
`
`
`"A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court's performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`
`
`claims."
`
`
`
`
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`( citations and internal quotation marks omitted),
`134
`
`abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus,
`
`
`
`
`
`S.Ct. 2120. "Indefiniteness must be proven by clear and convincing evidence."
`
`Sonix Tech. Co.
`
`
`
`
`
`v.Publ'ns Int'!, Ltd., 844 F.3d 1370, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`"[P]rior orders in related cases do not bar the Court from conducting additional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction in order to refine earlier claim constructions."
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc., No.
`
`
`
`
`
`2:12-CV-180-WCB, 2014 WL 2810016, at *6 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2014) (Bryson, J., sitting by
`
`
`
`
`
`designation).
`
`
`
`
`
`In general, however, prior claim construction proceedings involving the same patents-in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the goals suit are "entitled to reasoned deference under the broad principals of stare decisis and
`
`
`
`may not be applicable even though articulated by the Supreme Court in Markman, stare decisis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`per se." Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp.,
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:04-CV-450, 2006 WL 1751779,
`
`
`
`at *6 ("[P]revious at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) (Davis, J.); see TQP, 2014 WL 2810016,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim constructions in cases involving the same patent are entitled to substantial weight, and the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Court has determined that it will not depart from those constructions absent a strong reason for
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be binding because cases will sometimes doing so."); see also Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 839-40 ("prior
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 7 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 8 of 55 PagelD #: 4280
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of issue preclusion and sometimes will serve as persuasive authority") ( citation omitted);
`
`
`Finisar
`
`
`
`
`
`of "the importance Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`
`uniformity in the treatment of a given patent") (quoting
`
`
`
`
`
`517 U.S. 370,390 (1996)).
`
`III.AGREED TERMS
`
`
`
`In their February 9, 2022 Patent Rule 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statement (Dkt. No. 93 at 1), in their briefing (Dkt. No. 106 at 10), and in their March 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Rule 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 123, Ex. A at 1, 8 & 14), the parties
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submit the following agreed-upon construction:
`
`
`
`Term
`
`
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`Preamble
`
`Limiting
`
`'319 Patent, Claim 1
`
`
`'510 Patent, Claim 1
`
`'713 Patent, Claim 1
`
`IV.DISPUTED TERMS
`
`
`
`
`
`The parties present competing proposals for the level of ordinary skill in the art. "Factors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that may be considered in determining [the] level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field."
`
`Daiichi Sankyo Co.,
`
`
`
`quotation marks Ltd v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citation and internal
`
`
`
`
`
`omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff proposes: "Consistent with Plaintiffs P.R. 4-3 disclosures, with regard to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patents-in-Suit, 'a person of ordinary skill in the art ('POSA') would be an individual who, as of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 8 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 9 of 55 PagelD #: 4281
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`October 8, 2009, the filing date of the shared provisional application, had a Master's Degree or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of that time had a Bachelor's Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Internet communications.' Ex. F, Williams Declaration at ,r 18." Dkt. No. 106 at 9.
`
`
`
`Defendant proposes: "A POSITA would have had (1) at least a bachelor's degree in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a similar field; (2) at least two
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`years of practical academic or industry technical experience in the computer network field, such
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as serving as an engineer for an Internet service provide[r] performing network design,
`
`
`
`
`
`development, or configuration tasks, or as a software developer for network communications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`software or related utility software, and would be familiar with the underlying principles of Web,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Internet, and network communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`including protocols such as the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols, and the pertinent Internet RFCs; or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(3)at least three years' full-time technical experience as stated (or an equivalent combination of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`academic study and work experience)." Dkt. No. 115 at 3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Because the Court's analysis herein would remain the same under either proposal (and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`because the parties' proposals are largely equivalent to one another), the Court does not herein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`further address the parties' submissions regarding level of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 9 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 10 of 55 PagelD #: 4282
`
`
`
`A."client" and "client device"
`
`"client device"
`
`
`('319 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 14, 17, 22, 24, 25;
`
`'510 Patent, Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19;
`
`'713 Patent, Claims 1, 11, 24, 27;
`
`'852 Patent, Claims 1, 14, 25, 28;
`
`'346 Patent, Claims 1, 15, 20)
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Proposed Construction Defendant's Proposed Construction
`
`
`
`
`
`"Consumer computer" or, in the alternative,
`
`
`"a device operating in the role of a client";
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"communication device that is operating in the some devices can be configured to operate in
`role of a client"
`
`
`
`multiple roles including as a client or a server
`
`Dkt. No. 93, App'x A at 1; Dkt. No. 123, Ex. A at 1, 14, 19 & 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the April 21, 2022 hearing, the Court provided the parties with
`
`
`
`the following preliminary construction: "communication device that is operating in the role of a
`
`
`
`
`
`client."
`
`
`
`(1)The Parties' Positions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff argues: "[T]he term 'client device' is defined in the patent specification of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patents-in-Suit: 'In the network 50, files are stored on computers of consumers, referred to herein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`argues that Dkt. No. 106 at 10. Plaintiff also at 2:4446." as client devices 60.' ['319 Patent]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant's proposal "would overly broaden the meaning of the term in a manner inconsistent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`urges: with" the Court's construction in Teso. Id. Plaintiff
`
`NetNut' s proposed construction of "a device operating in the role of a client"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`would remove any meaningful distinction between a client device and server such
`
`
`
`
`+-+ computer that any intermediary or device in a computer +-+ computer
`computer
`
`
`
`
`
`pathway satisfies both the requirements of a client device and server. This is
`
`
`
`
`contrary to (a) the patent claims; (b) common specification, which as discussed
`
`
`
`
`devices and further contrasts above defines client devices as consumer
`
`
`
`
`communication devices with servers; ( c) the prosecution history of for example
`
`
`
`
`
`the '319 Patent; and ( d) extrinsic evidence including this Court's previous claim
`
`
`
`construction orders issued in the Teso Action.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 10 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 11 of 55 PagelD #: 4283
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant responds that "the word 'communication' in the Court's previous construction
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`is unnecessary, because all devices that communicate over a network, whether clients, servers, or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`other devices, are understood to be 'communication devices."' Dkt. No. 115 at 5 (citation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`omitted). Defendant also argues that "[t]he generic nature of the 'client device' is confirmed by
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`omitted). the specification .... " Id. (citation
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, Defendant argues that "NetNut's
`
`
`
`
`
`construction is further confirmed by then-existing IETF RFCs, such as RFC 2616, which is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`submits that omitted). Finally, Defendant referenced in the Asserted Patents." Id. at 7 (citations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"NetNut's construction is that the device can be configured to operate in different roles,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`consistent with the Court's previous claim construction orders." Id. at 8.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies: "Ignoring the clear distinctions between client devices and servers that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`were made in the common specification and patent prosecution history, Defendant does not
`
`
`
`
`
`dispute that its proposed constructions of these terms would cause any computer intermediary in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of a client both the requirements to satisfy pathway computer a generic +-+ computer +-+ computer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device and server in an improper attempt to broaden these claim terms so as to be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interchangeable." Dkt. 118 at 1. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's proposal is inconsistent with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`common specification "[t]he the Court's claim construction also argues that in Teso, and Plaintiff
`
`
`
`references but in no way limits the client device or server in reference to any RFC or protocol."
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at 1-2 (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`At the April 21, 2022 hearing, Defendant argued that the term "client device" should not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`be limited to any particular type of hardware. Rather, Defendant argued, the role or functionality
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the device is driven by software.
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 11 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 12 of 55 PagelD #: 4284
`
`
`
`
`
`(2)Analysis
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant submits: "The parties originally proposed construing 'client' and 'client
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device' separately but agreed to construe only 'client device."' Dkt. No. 115 at 5 n.l. Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`similarly states that "[t]he same argument applies equally to 'client,' which is only recited in the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`context of a 'client device."' Dkt. No. 106 at 15.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the '319 Patent, for example, recites ( emphasis added):
`
`that1.A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`comprises a web server that is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server that
`
`
`
`
`
`responds to HTTP requests, the first server stores a first content identified by a
`
`
`
`
`first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first
`comprising:
`
`client device
`receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`
`
`
`(HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`content by the first
`to the second server, in
`
`sending, the first
`client device
`
`
`
`response to the receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The specification discloses, for example, that "[ d]ue to functionality provided by
`
`
`
`software stored within each communication device, which may be the same in each
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`communication device, each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent." '319
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent at 4:46--49; see also id. at Fig. 6.
`
`
`
`
`
`"client device" to mean "communication In the Teso CC Order, the Court construed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device that is operating in the role of a client." Teso CC Order at 10--12.
`
`
`
`The specification also discloses:
`
`
`
`
`to herein referred In the network 50, files are stored on computers of consumers,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`as client devices 60.
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 12 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 13 of 55 PagelD #: 4285
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this '319 Patent at 2:44-46 (emphasis added). In the Teso CC Order, the Court considered
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosure, among other evidence, and rejected a proposal that "client device" refers to a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"consumer computer." Teso CC Order at 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`a client the distinction between In the Teso Supplemental CC Order, the Court reinforced
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device and a server device by stating:
`
`
`
`
`
`The patents do not include servers as a type of 'communication device,' but that is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`not sufficient to construe 'client device' as unable to act as a server in all cases.
`
`Plaintiffs argument that Defendant seeks to treat client devices and servers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`interchangeably, citing to the Court's statement that "[Defendants] deny that they
`
`
`
`
`will claim client devices and servers are interchangeable general user computers"
`
`
`It is not that Defendants seek to "reduc[ e]
`
`is an oversimplification of the issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the recited server - client device - web server architecture . . . and the recited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`client device - server - web server architecture . . . as an indistinguishable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`computer - computer - computer architecture" as Plaintiffs argue. See Dkt.
`
`
`
`
`to operate in different No. 242 at 4. Rather, a component can be configured
`
`
`roles-so long as it does not "simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client
`
`
`
`
`device, the first server/second server, and the web server."
`
`
`
`Teso Suppl. CC Order at 10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant persuasively justifies departing from the Court's prior
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construction and analysis.
`
`
`
`
`
`The recital of a "client" accompanied by, and interacting with, the
`
`
`
`
`
`recited "servers" in above-reproduced Claim 1 of the '319 Patent reinforces that the recited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"client" is distinct from the "servers."
`
`
`
`For example, Plaintiff does not justify revisiting the Court's rejection of a proposal to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`construe a "client device" to be a "consumer" device. See Teso CC Order at 11. Neither the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`opinion of Plaintiffs expert nor the extrinsic evidence cited by Plaintiff compels otherwise.
`
`See
`
`
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 106, Ex. F, Feb. 9, 2022 Williams Deel. at ,i 24; see also id., Ex. G, Network
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that the argument that "it is indisputable Fundamentals Study Guide at p. 6 of 21. Plaintiffs
`
`Exhibit 1115
`Code 200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492
`Page 13 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 146 Filed 05/10/22 Page 14 of 55 PagelD #: 4286
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`device"' likewise does not justify as a 'communication specification never refers to a server
`
`
`
`
`
`
`limiting the Court's construction to "consumer" devices. Dkt. No. 106 at 13-14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant also asserts that "a POSITA would understand 'client' and the related terms
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`discussed here, to refer to a device operating in the r[ o ]le of a client but can also have the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`functions of a server." Dkt. No. 115 at 8. For example, Defendant cites deposition testimony of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dep. at 89:15-Plaintiffs expert in this regard. See Dkt. No. 115, Ex. E, Feb. 25, 2022 Williams
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18 ("Q. Can a personal computer or workstation also have installed on it software that is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`configured to perform server tasks? A. Yes.").
`
`
`
`To whatever extent this would amount to a
`
`
`
`device operating in the role of a server as well as operating in the role of a client, the Court has
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`previously found that "a component can be configured to operate in different roles--5o long as it
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`server/second device, the first does not 'simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`added). omitted; emphasis server, and the web server."' Teso Suppl. CC Order at 10 ( citation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The industry standard and the expert opinions relied upon by Defendant are extrinsic evidence
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and do not justify departing from the Court's prior analysis. See Dkt. No. 115 at 7-8 (discussing
`
`
`
`id., Ex. F, IETF RFC 2616 § 1.3; citing id., Ex. A, Feb. 9, 2022 Claffy Deel. at 127). Further,
`
`Defendant submits:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"Bright Data also suggests that NetNut's construction for 'client device'
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`includes the device simultaneously serving as more than one of the communication devices.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This is not what NetNut proposes. NetNut's construction is that the device can be configured to
`
`
`
`
`
`operate in different