`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; AND
`OXYSALES, UAB,
`Petitioners
`v.
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2020-01266
`
`Patent 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. V. THOMAS RHYNE
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 1 of 17
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 001
`
`
`
`1
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Dr. V. THOMAS RHYNE, declare the following:
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`
`1. I have been retained as an independent expert in this matter by counsel for
`
`Patent Owner Luminati Networks Ltd. (“Luminati”). I have been asked to
`
`provide my opinions on certain references in the above-identified IPR
`
`proceedings (IPR2020-01266) involving US Patent 10,257,319 (“the ’319
`
`patent hereafter). Those references are:
`
`a. Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions (“Crowds” (Ex.
`
`1011));
`
`b. United States Patent 6,795,848 (“Border” (Ex. 1017)); and,
`
`c. MorphMix - A Peer-to-Peer-based System for Anonymous
`
`Internet Access (“MorphMix” (Ex. 1013))
`
`2. I have reviewed each of these references.
`
`3. I am being paid for my work preparing this declaration at my normal
`
`consulting rate plus reimbursement of direct expenses. My compensation is
`
`not tied to the outcome of this matter and is not based on the substance of the
`
`opinions that I provide.
`
`1.1 My Qualifications
`
`4. My background and qualifications as a technical expert for this matter are
`
`summarized below.
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 2
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 002
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`5. I hold degrees from Mississippi State University (Bachelors of Science in
`
`Electrical Engineering with Honors, 1962), the University of Virginia
`
`(Masters of Electrical Engineering in 1964), and the Georgia Institute of
`
`Technology (Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering, 1967). I have been a
`
`Registered Professional Engineer in the State of Texas since 1969. I have
`
`also been a Registered Patent Agent with the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office (the “USPTO”) since 1999.
`
`6. I taught electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer architecture,
`
`and computer science at the undergraduate and graduate levels full-time at
`
`Texas A&M University from 1967 to 1983 and part-time at the graduate level
`
`at the University of Texas from 1983 to 1991. My twenty-plus years of
`
`industrial experience include work at the Electric Power Research Institute,
`
`Texas Instruments, Control Data Corporation, NASA, Texas Digital
`
`Systems, Inc. (a company I co-founded to produce microprocessor-based
`
`computer peripherals in 1976), the Microelectronics and Computer
`
`Technology Corporation (MCC), and Motorola, Inc.
`
`7. I have extensive experience with computer technology, including design and
`
`teaching experience with a variety of computer systems, microcomputer
`
`systems, and microcontrollers. I have participated in the design of several
`
`computer systems and microprocessors and have designed systems which
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 3
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 003
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`made use of those devices as controllers. I am familiar with a variety of
`
`computer architectures and am an experienced programmer in a variety of
`
`programming languages as well as assembly-level language on a number of
`
`different computers and microprocessors. I have been an Internet user since
`
`the early 1990’s.
`
`8. Based on my academic and consulting experience, I am familiar with a variety
`
`of computer interfaces, website operations, and data-communications
`
`protocols. I have managed large and complex software-development
`
`programs, and I have been and am familiar with the Internet and its use for
`
`providing both data and services to its users. Prior to joining MCC, I was
`
`responsible for bringing access to the ARPANET to Texas A&M University,
`
`an activity which gave me insight and experience with the exchange of
`
`information over wide-area networks.
`
`9. My experience has also included the use of a variety of networked
`
`communications systems, including use of the ARPANET and extensive use
`
`of the Internet itself as that system came into being in the early 1990s. I also
`
`coordinated MCC’s initial access to the ARPANET, and later to the Internet.
`
`I am an experienced user of numerous search engines, including Google
`
`Chrome, Internet Explorer, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla Firefox. In
`
`addition, in the early 1990s, MCC researchers developed “EINet Galaxy,”
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 4
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 004
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`one of the first web browsers with search engine capabilities; I was one of
`
`the alpha testers for that effort.1
`
`I also managed distributed database
`
`development for several years at MCC, as well as MCC’s successful research
`
`and development program on Internet-based credit card fraud detection using
`
`neural networks.
`
`10. I have worked as a technical expert on patent cases dealing with complex
`
`software systems, the provision of secured communication using SSL/TLS
`
`during web sessions conducted with cellular telephones, and with remotely
`
`accessed home security systems. My litigation work has also included cases
`
`dealing with XML and HTTP.
`
`11. While working at MCC in 1994 I was assigned to represent MCC and
`
`its participating companies in the planning efforts of the U.S. Technology
`
`Policy Working Group addressing the technical challenges associated with
`
`the planned National Information Infrastructure (NII). In that role I
`
`1 The EiNet program was spun-out of MCC in April of 1995. See, for
`example, https://www.einet.net/static/history.htm (“Launched in January
`1994, Galaxy/EiNet was the first searchable Internet directory. Galaxy was
`created as part of the EiNet division at the MCC Research Consortium at
`the University of Texas, Austin. The original initiative was to develop tools
`for large-scale directory services to support electronic commerce.”) Also
`see the webpages available at
`http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/stories/2000/06/12/story7. Many of the
`researchers who worked in the EINet Program had previously worked for
`me as part of the MCC CAD Program.”
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 5
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 005
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`contributed to the portion of planning effort dealing with “Security and
`
`Privacy Challenges” within the NII.
`
`12. I have chaired and otherwise participated in a number of national and
`
`international IEEE and ISO/IEC standards committees.
`
`13. During my academic career I authored thirty technical papers. I have also
`
`presented papers at thirty-seven conferences and authored an award-winning
`
`textbook, Fundamentals of Digital System Design, published by Prentice-
`
`Hall in 1973 and adopted at over thirty-five U.S. and international
`
`universities during its lifetime. My textbook has been cited as a reference by
`
`the USPTO. I have also served as a technical reviewer for Prentice-Hall, the
`
`IEEE Transactions on Computers, and IEEE Spectrum.
`
`14. I was elected to serve on the IEEE Board of Directors for two terms
`
`representing the engineering education community and the IEEE Computer
`
`Society. I was also elected to two terms as the IEEE Treasurer and served one
`
`term on the Board of Governors of the IEEE Computer Society.
`
`15. I have extensive experience with the accreditation of engineering and
`
`computer science programs in the U.S. and abroad, an activity which has
`
`provided me an excellent opportunity to become and remain familiar with the
`
`program curricula, faculties, and graduates from a large number of U.S. and
`
`international colleges and universities. I represented the IEEE for five years
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 6
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 006
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`on the Engineering Accreditation Commission and for six years on the Board
`
`of Directors of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
`
`(ABET). In 2004, I completed a three-year pro bono assignment, assisting
`
`Japanese universities and industries in the establishment of the Japanese
`
`Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE), and have led
`
`several other international accreditation missions.
`
`16. I was appointed by the U.S. National Research Counsel to the Panel of
`
`Assessment for the Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory of the
`
`U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. I served on that Panel
`
`for seven years, including three terms as its chair, and I provided invited
`
`testimony before the U.S. Congress regarding the status of the Laboratory.
`
`17. My experience and qualifications have been recognized by the Texas Society
`
`of Professional Engineers (Young Engineer of the Year in Texas, 1973), the
`
`American Society for Engineering Education (Terman Awardee as the
`
`“Outstanding Young Electrical Engineering Educator in the U.S.,” 1980), the
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE Fellow, 1990,
`
`recognizing my contributions to “computer engineering and computer
`
`engineering education), the Accreditation Board for Engineering and
`
`Technology (ABET Fellow, 1992), and the IEEE Computer Society (Golden
`
`Core Awardee, 2000).
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 7
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 007
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`18. I retired from full-time work as of 1997 and draw retirement benefits from
`
``Texas A&M University. In addition to the full-time work described above,
`
`and in my CV, I have worked part-time as a consulting engineer for the past
`
`thirty years doing computer systems design, application-specific system
`
`design, and expert witness work in intellectual property matters.
`
`2
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`19. As I stated in my declaration submitted in the district court case, I believe the
`
`qualifications of a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSA”) in the field
`
`of the ’319 patent would be an individual who, as of October 8, 2009, the
`
`filing date of the provisional application to which the ‘319 patent claims
`
`priority, 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.
`
`20. Based on the foregoing, I believe that I am qualified to provide reliable
`
`opinions in the field of the ’319 Patent, including what a POSA would have
`
`understood from the ’319 Patent and the prior art in the field at the time of
`
`the invention (October 8, 2009).
`
`21. Set forth below is a brief summary of each of the references based on my
`
`review of them.
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 8
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 008
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`3 CROWDS
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`
`22. Crowds (Ex. 1011) describes a system comprised of groups (“crowds”) of
`
`user computers that can interact with one or more web servers. (Crowds at 8-
`
`9). In order to participate in a crowd, a user installs software on his/her
`
`computer to initiate a process called a “jondo.” (Crowds at 8.) “When the
`
`jondo is started, it contacts a server called the blender to request admittance
`
`to the crowd.” (Id.)(emphasis in original) If a jondo gets admitted to a crowd,
`
`“the blender reports to [the new] jondo the current membership of the crowd
`
`and information that enables this jondo to participate in the crowd.” (Id.)
`
`23. The user can “select[] this jondo as her web proxy by specifying its host name
`
`and port number in her web browser as the proxy for all services. Thus, any
`
`request coming from the browser is sent directly to the jondo.” (Id.) “Upon
`
`receiving the first user request from the browser, the jondo initiates the
`
`establishment of a random path of jondos that carries its users’ transactions
`
`to and from their intended web servers.” (Id.) (emphasis in original) “More
`
`precisely, the jondo picks a jondo from the crowd (possibly itself) at random,
`
`and forwards the request to it.” (Id.) (emphasis added) “When this jondo
`
`receives the request, it flips a biased coin to determine whether or not to
`
`forward the request to another jondo; the coin indicates to forward with
`
`probability pf.” (Id.) “So, each request travels from the user’s browser,
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 9
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 009
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`through some number of jondos, and finally to the end server.” (Id.) “[S]erver
`
`replies traverse the same path as the requests, only in reverse.” (Id.)
`
`24. Figure 2 of Crowds depicts various members of a “crowd” and a possible set
`
`of paths:
`
`
`
`25. Each jondo is merely a process running on a user’s computer. Thus, the
`
`only disclosed architecture(s) in Crowds is/are as follows:
`
`Crowds:
`
`(i) User Computer <-> Web Server
`
`
`
`
`
`(ii) User Computer <-> User Computer <-> Web Server
`
`26. As explained above, because when it “flips the coin,” a user’s jondo may
`
`decide to transmit the user’s request directly to the appropriate web server
`
`(without sending the request to another jondo), the identity(ies) of the
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 10
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 010
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`members of the crowd do not necessarily remain anonymous to the web
`
`server. Rather, the system of Crowds offers a user “some degree of
`
`deniability” that it originated a particular request – but not necessarily
`
`anonymity. (Crowds Exhibit 1011 at 2).
`
`27. In addition to the numerous security risks described in Crowds, the system
`
`suffers from a number of additional weaknesses such as: (i) unpredictable or
`
`“particularly pronounced” latency (Id. at 19) and (ii) inability to handle
`
`firewalls (“Firewalls present a problem for Crowds.”) (Id. at 25). Because of
`
`these limitations necessarily associated with the Crowds architecture and
`
`implementation, “Crowds will be most useful across academic institutions,
`
`as a service provided by Internet service providers, and within large
`
`corporations.” (Id. at 25.)
`
`4 BORDER
`
`28. Border (Ex. 1017) describes “a communication system for receiving web
`
`content.” (Border at Abstract) As shown in Border’s Figs. 1 and 2 (copied
`
`below), “[a] downstream proxy server receives a URL request message from
`
`a web browser, in which the URL request message specifies a URL content
`
`that has an embedded object.” (Id. at 3:34-38) “An upstream proxy server
`
`receives the URL request message from the downstream proxy server.” (Id.)
`
`“The upstream proxy server selectively forwards the URL request message
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 11
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 011
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`to a web server and receives the URL content from the web server. (Id.) “The
`
`upstream proxy server forwards the URL content to the downstream proxy
`
`server and parses the URL content to obtain the embedded object prior to
`
`receiving a corresponding embedded object request message initiated by the
`
`web browser.” (Id.) (emphasis added.)
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 12
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 012
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`
`29. As described in its specification, the system of Border relates to obtaining
`
`“embedded objects” from a web server (or from a local cache) “prior to
`
`receiving corresponding embedded object requests initiated by [a] web
`
`browser.” (Id. at 5:45-49)
`
`30. To that end, the Border system as disclosed incorporates two servers, each
`
`having its own cache (“downstream server 105 checks its cache 115 to
`
`determine whether the requested URL has been previously visited” (Id. at
`
`5:19-21) and “upstream server 117 in turn searches for the URL HTML in its
`
`cache 117”). Then, “if the HTML page is not found in cache 117, the server
`
`117 issues the GET URL HTML request [to] web server 109 for the HTML
`
`page.” (Id. at 5:34-36) “[U]pstream server 117 parses the HTML page and
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 13
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 013
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`requests the embedded objects within the HTML page from the web server
`
`109; the embedded objects are requested prior to receiving corresponding
`
`embedded object requests initiated by the web browser 103.” (Id. at 43-48)
`
`31. “[D]ownstream proxy server 105 initiates and maintains a TCP connection
`
`to the upstream proxy server 107 as needed to carry HTTP transactions.” (Id.
`
`at 7:50-53) “The persistent TCP connection may also be set up when the first
`
`transaction is required and torn down after the connection has been idle for
`
`some period.” (Id. at 7:56-58)
`
`32. Thus, the disclosed architecture over which the Border system operates is:
`
`Border:
`
`User Computer <-> Downstream Server <-> Upstream Server <-> Web Server
`
`5 MORPHMIX
`
`33. MorphMix discloses “a peer-to-peer-based dynamic mix network …”
`
`(MorphMix at 115) As copied below, Fig. 5 of MorphMix depicts the “Basic
`
`Idea of MorphMix”:
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 14
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 014
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`
`34. In the disclosed system, “[a]t any time, MorphMix [Ex. 1013] consists of a
`
`set of participating nodes.” (Id. at 118) Those nodes can join and leave the
`
`system at any time and must therefore not necessarily participate in the
`
`MorphMix protocol all the time.” (Id.) “We assume that at any time, a node
`
`knows about some other nodes, i.e., their IP addresses, the ports on which the
`
`MorphMix application is listening for incoming connection requests, and
`
`their public keys.” (Id.) “Learning about other nodes requires a peer
`
`discovery mechanism …” (Id.)
`
`35. Further, “[a] node that is participating in MorphMix has established a virtual
`
`link to one or more other MorphMix nodes at any time.” (Id. at 119)
`
`(emphasis in original) “In MorphMix, a virtual link means that (1) there is a
`
`TCP connection between the two nodes and (2) they share a symmetric key
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 15
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 015
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`that is only known to these two nodes.” (Id.) “In Figure 5.1, a has five
`
`neighbors because it has established virtual links to five other nodes.” (Id.)
`
`36. “Since MorphMix is basically a circuit-based mix network, a node
`
`establishes a circuit via some other nodes to access servers in the Internet
`
`anonymously.” (Id). A node can be established by “[a]nyone who has access
`
`to a computer that is connected to the Internet should be able to join and use
`
`MorphMix after having installed the MorphMix software.” (Id. at 116)
`
`37.
`
`MorphMix operates by creating one or more anonymous tunnels –
`
`“[A]n anonymous tunnel is set up hop-by-hop in the sense that the initiator
`
`picks the first intermediate node and establishes the layer of encryption with
`
`it.” (Id. at 134) “Then the initiator tells the first intermediate node to
`
`append another node to the tunnel and establishes the layer of encryption
`
`with the second intermediate node.” (Id.) “This continues until the initiator
`
`decides the tunnel is long enough.” (Id.) “The key is that the initiator selects
`
`only the first intermediate node and each node along the anonymous tunnel
`
`then picks the following node.” (Id.)The architecture and configuration of
`
`MorphMix suffers from a number of problems. For example, “a centralized
`
`lookup service that keeps track of the nodes that are currently participating
`
`in MorphMix is out of the question.” (Id. at 135.) “Free riding” is also a
`
`problem in MorphMix, where “users only consume but do not provide the
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 16
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 016
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01266
`PATENT 10,257,319
`files that they download to others.” (Id. at 143) “MorphMix suffers from
`
`the same problem.” (Id.)
`
`38. The disclosed architecture over which MorphMix operates is:
`
`MorphMix: Peer < - > Peer < - > Server
`
`I declare that the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of perjury of the
`
`laws of the United States of America.
`
`Signed in Austin, TX on October 25, 2020
`
`Luminati Exhibit 2012
`Page 17
`Code200 et al. v. Luminati Networks LTD.
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2020-01266 Page 017
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 2006
`Page 17 of 17
`
`