throbber

`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket