Patent Owner’s Presentation
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`March 1, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2054
`
`1
`
`

`

`Outline
`
`• Overview of Patent No. 10,257,319 (“the ‘319 Patent”)
`
`• Claim construction
`
`• Plamondon (EX. 1010) does not anticipate claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• If no anticipation of claim 1, all grounds fail
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Outline
`
`• Grounds (Petition at 2):
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Outline
`
`• Challenged dependent claims
`– Plamondon does not anticipate claim 14
`– Plamondon does not anticipate claim 24
`– A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine
`Plamondon + Price
`– A person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine
`Plamondon + Kozat
`– Secondary considerations of non-obviousness
`
`• Other (Joint Protective Order, Motions to Seal, Motion to Exclude)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Title: “System providing faster and more
`efficient data communication”
`
`• Priority date: October 8, 2009
`
`• Key aspects:
`– Claimed methods recite use of an intermediary
`“first client device” located between a “second
`server” and a “first server”
`– Claim 1 is the only independent claim
`
`• POR at 1 and 3; EX. 1001
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`1. A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that 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 client device comprising:
`
`[step 1] receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`[step 2] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`request that comprises the first content identifier;
`
`[step 3] receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the
`sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`[step 4] sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to
`the receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX. 1001
`
`7
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Prior art system – traditional use of an intermediary proxy server:
`– High infrastructure costs – “need to be deployed at every point around the world” and require large
`storage
`– Cannot handle dynamic content – typically retrieve cached content
`– Risk of blocking/spoofing by web server – recognition of IP address of proxy server and use of a
`commercial IP address (as opposed to a residential IP address)
`
`• POR at 3-4; EX. 1001 at 2:24-32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Use of a proxy server as an intermediary was well-known as of 10/8/2009 (see, e.g., EX.
`1001, Fig. 1 and 3:66-67 (“FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram providing a prior art example of
`use of a proxy within a network”) and 2:8-15 (reproduced below))
`– Petitioner’s expert appears to agree (e.g., EX. 2010 at 128:17-25; EX. 1003 at ¶193)
`
`• POR at 3-5 and 8-9 and 19-21; Sur-reply at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Use of a client device as an intermediary between a proxy server and a
`web server is novel and non-obvious
`– Instead of the proxy server, the proxy client device is the exit node that sends
`requests for content to the web server
`
`• Claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent is a method performed by a “first client device”
`located between a “second server” and a “first server”
`– Claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Claim 1 makes clear that the method operates within a specific
`server ↔ client device ↔ server architecture
`
`• POR at 3-9 and 16-17; Sur-reply at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Primary benefits of the claimed methods:
`– Lowers infrastructure costs – enabling millions of proxies worldwide
`– Handles dynamic content – fetching fresh content from a web server, not cached
`content
`– Prevents blocking/spoofing by web server – providing anonymity to the
`requestor and use of a residential IP address (as opposed to a commercial IP
`address)
`
`• POR at 3-4 and 57 and 69-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Relevant caselaw involving the interpretation of method claims:
`
`– Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(“[System claim 1 and method claim 22] specify a
`particular configuration of inertial sensors and a particular method of using the raw data from the sensors in order to more
`accurately calculate the position and orientation of an object on a moving platform. The mathematical equations are a
`consequence of the arrangement of the sensors and the unconventional choice of reference frame in order to calculate
`position and orientation. Far from claiming the equations themselves, the claims seek to protect only the application of
`physics to the unconventional configuration of sensors as disclosed.”)(emphasis added)
`
`– TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(“[Method claim 1] goes beyond managing access to objects
`using multiple levels of encryption, as required by "multilevel . . . security." Notably, it expressly requires, as well, accessing an
`"object-oriented key manager" and specified uses of a "label" as well as encryption for the access management … To
`disregard those express claim elements is to proceed at "a high level of abstraction" that is "untethered from the claim
`language" and that "overgeneraliz[es] the claim.“)(internal citations omitted)(emphasis added)
`
`– Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The [method] claims require a specific,
`structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's
`structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.”)
`
`– Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 101 S. Ct. 1048, 1057-58 (1981)(“…claims must be considered as a whole. It is
`inappropriate to dissect the claims into old and new elements and then to ignore the presence of the old elements in the
`analysis. This is particularly true in a process claim because a new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even
`though all the constituents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made.”)
`
`•
`
`Issue raised at oral argument in IPR2022-00138 and not previously disputed by the parties (see, e.g., In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(“the
`Board must base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond”); see also EX. 1007
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• A method claim is limited to specific recited structures and connections between those structures for
`purposes of anticipation, see, e.g., BlephEx, LLC v. Myco Indus., 24 F.4th 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2022):
`
`– Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,449,087 recites: “A method of treating an eye for an ocular disorder with a swab
`operably connected to an electromechanical device, wherein the eye has an eyelid margin and includes a removable
`debris, the method comprising: effecting movement of the swab relative to the electromechanical device, the swab
`having at least a portion thereof configured to access a portion of the eyelid margin; and while the swab is being
`moved by the electromechanical device, contacting a portion of the eyelid margin that includes the removable debris
`with the swab thereby impacting the debris with the swab to remove debris from the eye.” Id. at 1395.
`
`– “It is not enough for anticipation purposes to say that an "applicator/device/wand" may dispense a composition
`"directly to . . . an eye area tissue, from a dispenser" where the claims require a swab connected to an
`electromechanical device used to contact the eyelid margin.” Id. at 1401.
`
`– “None of the paragraphs identified by Myco on appeal describe a swab that is both operably connected to an
`electromechanical device and used to contact the eyelid margin, as required by claim 16.” Id. at 1402.
`
`•
`
`Issue raised at oral argument in IPR2022-00138 and not previously disputed by the parties (see, e.g., In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(“the
`Board must base its decision on arguments that were advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to respond”); see also EX. 1007
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• The Court agreed with Patent Owner in the Teso Alice Order that the ‘319
`Patent claims recite the use of non-traditional client devices (EX. 2007 at
`8-9):
`
`• POR at 3 and 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• The Court agreed with Patent Owner in the Teso Alice Order that the ‘319
`Patent claims recite the use of non-traditional network architecture with
`a client device acting as a proxy (EX. 2007 at 10):
`
`• POR at 3 and 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• The Court agreed with Patent Owner in the Teso Alice Order and focused
`on the network architecture as a whole (EX. 2007 at 9):
`
`• POR at 3 and 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Patent Owner had explained to the Court that the ‘319 Patent claims operate within a unique distributed
`architecture with specific components at specific locations relative to each other (EX. 1007 at 26 (citing
`Amdocs Isr. Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016)):
`
`• See also, e.g., POR at 1, 3, 8, 16-17, 23, 27-28, 44-45; Sur-reply at 7-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Patent Owner had explained to the Court that the proxy client devices of the ‘319 Patent claims operate
`in an unconventional manner (EX. 1007 at 30 (citing Amdocs Isr. Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d
`1288, 1300-1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016)):
`
`• See also, e.g., POR at 1, 3, 8, 16-17, 23, 27-28, 44-45; Sur-reply at 7-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Modified Figure 3 shows a requesting client device ↔ proxy server ↔
`proxy client device ↔ web server architecture:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR at 3 and 8-9; Sur-reply at 16-17
`
`19
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Proxy server 6 and web server 152 are both “servers”
`
`• Client 102 and agent 122 are both “client devices”
`–See, e.g., “…each communication device may serve as a client,
`peer, or agent…” (EX. 1001 at 4:48-49)
`
`• Claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent operates within a specific
`server ↔ client device ↔ server architecture
`
`• POR at 3-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Commercial Embodiment: Bright Data’s Residential Proxy Network
`
`Customers
`(Users)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SuperProxy
`
`Web Server
`
`Consumer Computers
`(Residential)
`
`POR at 57-59 and 68-69
`
`21
`
`

`

`Overview of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• Features driving commercial success:
`– (a) the proxy client devices have residential IP addresses which lowers the risk of
`blocking/spoofing by the web server
`– (b) the scalability of this architecture given the large number of proxy client
`devices having residential IP addresses
`
`• Compare Bright Data’s Residential Proxy Service (72 million+ IPs) to Bright
`Data’s Data Center Proxy Service (1.6 million IPs)
`
`• Bright Data’s Residential Proxy Service Revenue from 2021: $53.7 million
`
`• POR at 59-68 (Nexus) and 69-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Petitioner’s proposed terms/phrases for construction
`(Petition at 8-9):
`
`– Preamble of claim 1 is limiting – not in dispute
`
`– “client device” – disputed
`
`– “second server” - disputed
`
`• POR at 9-33
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Three competing constructions:
`
`– (1) Petitioner’s purely role-based constructions that refer to generic
`devices
`
`– (2) the district court constructions that refer to a communication device
`versus a server
`
`– (3) Patent Owner’s proposed constructions that refer to a consumer
`computer versus a server
`
`• POR at 9-33; Sur-reply at 3-8 and 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Petitioner argues for purely role-based constructions where any device
`“operating in the role of a client” is a “client device” and any device
`“operating in the role of a server” is a “server”
`– Improper in the context of the ‘319 Patent
`– Also inconsistent with the Teso Claim Construction Orders
`– Also inconsistent with the NetNut Claim Construction Order
`– Also inconsistent with the Teso Alice Order
`
`• See generally POR at 9-33; Sur-reply at 1 and 3-19 and 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• “[T]he Board's construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the
`record evidence” and “must be consistent with the one that those skilled in
`the art would reach.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`– “A construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect the
`plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.” Id. (citation and internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`
`• “The only meaning that matters in claim construction is the meaning in the
`context of the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
`2005).
`
`• POR 32-33; Sur-reply at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions are improper in the context of the ‘319
`Patent:
`
`• The specification distinguishes servers (proxy servers, acceleration servers,
`web servers) from client devices (clients, peers, agents)
`– E.g., EX. 1001 at 2:8-39 (describing prior art proxy servers and problems)
`– E.g., EX. 1001 at 2:40-43 (contrasting peer devices from servers)
`– E.g., EX. 1001 at 4:43-50 (server not included as communication device)
`– E.g., EX. 1001 at 5:8-34 (discussing different servers versus communications devices)
`– E.g., EX. 1001 at 4:6-13 (identifying Figs. 4-6 as illustrating “a communication device of
`the communication network of FIG. 3”)
`– E.g., EX. 1001, Fig. 6 (showing that client module 224 is loaded onto a communication
`device, not a server)
`
`• POR at 3-9 and 11-13 and 15-17 and 29-31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions are improper in the context of the ‘319
`Patent:
`
`• The figures distinguish servers (e.g., proxy server 6 of Fig. 1) from client
`devices (e.g., agent 122 of Fig. 3)
`
`• Under the purely role-based constructions, there would be nothing to
`distinguish intermediary proxy server 6 of Fig. 1 (prior art proxy server)
`from intermediary agent 122 of Fig. 3 (inventive proxy client device)
`
`• POR at 19-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Exemplary Figures 1 and 3:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX. 1001, Fig. 1 and 3:66-67
`
`EX. 1001, Fig. 1 and 4:3-5
`
`30
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• How do the purely role-based constructions account for differences
`between the prior art system using an intermediary proxy server (shown
`in Fig. 1) and the exemplary embodiment using an intermediary client
`device (shown in Fig. 3)?
`– THEY DO NOT
`
`• Any fair reading of the ‘319 Patent must account for the differences
`between proxy server 6 of Fig. 1 (which is a server) and agent 122 of Fig.
`3 (which is a client device)
`
`• POR at 19-23; Sur-reply at 1-2 and 5-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Under the purely role-based constructions:
`– FIG. 1 – Prior art proxy server 6 operates in the “role of a client” with respect to web
`server 32 and “role of a server” with respect to client device 16
`– FIG. 3 – Exemplary embodiment agent 122 operates in the “role of a client” with respect
`to web server 152 and “role of a server” with respect to client device 102
`
`REQUEST
`
`RESPONSE
`
`REQUEST
`
`RESPONSE
`
`REQUEST
`
`RESPONSE
`
`• POR at 19-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• The purely role-based constructions ignore the novel use of a non-
`traditional client device (e.g., agent 122)
`
`• The ‘319 Patent clearly distinguishes the prior art use of an intermediary
`proxy server 6 (which is a server) from the novel use of an intermediary
`agent 122 (which is a client device)
`
`• POR at 19-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Claims should be construed to preserve validity. See, e.g., Tate Access
`Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc. 279 F.3d 1357, 1367 (Fed.
`Cir. 2002).
`– See also Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1556
`(Fed. Cir. 1996) (“When claims are amenable to more than one construction, they
`should when reasonably possible be interpreted so as to preserve their validity.”).
`– See also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining a
`claim term should be construed to preserve validity when “it is reasonable to
`infer that the PTO would not have issued an invalid patent, and that the
`ambiguity in the claim language should therefore be resolved in a manner that
`would preserve the patent’s validity,” noting that this was “the rationale that gave
`rise to the maxim in the first place.”)
`
`• POR at 19; Sur-reply at 9-10 and 12, n. 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Figure 1 shows a prior art proxy server architecture known to a
`person of ordinary skill in the art:
`requesting client device ↔ proxy server ↔ web server
`
`– Use of a prior art proxy server offers certain benefits (e.g., provides
`anonymity)
`See, e.g., EX. 2044 at ¶¶ 47-51 and ¶230 (Patent Owner’s expert’s testimony);
`•
`EX. 1003 at ¶193 (Petitioner’s expert’s testimony)
`
`– However, use of a prior art proxy server has problems (e.g., high
`infrastructure costs)
`See, e.g., EX. 1001 at 2:24-39 (reproduced on the right)
`•
`
`• Figure 3 shows an inventive architecture:
`requesting client device ↔ proxy client device ↔ web server
`
`– Use of a proxy client device addresses the problems of using a prior art
`proxy server (e.g., infrastructure costs)
`
`•
`
`POR at 3-4 and 8 and 19-23 and 57 and 69-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Claim 1 requires the following architecture:
`proxy server ↔ proxy client device ↔ web server
`
`– Claim 1 keeps the benefits of using a prior art proxy server (e.g., provides
`anonymity)
`
`– Claim 1 avoids the problems of using a prior art proxy server (e.g., lowers
`infrastructure costs)
`
`– Claim 1 adds the benefits of enabling millions of proxy client devices
`
`• POR at 3-4 and 57 and 69-73
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Petitioner argues that a device need not operate “exclusively” in the
`client or server roles (Reply at 1)
`
`• Petitioner’s argument is inconsistent with the use of the terms “server”
`and “client device” in the claims
`– An intermediary would be both a “server” and a “client device” albeit at different
`points in time
`– Notably, the “second server” and “first client device” of the claims are both
`intermediaries
`
`• Sur-Reply at 1-2 and 5-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions are improper in the context of the ‘319
`Patent:
`
`• The purely role-based constructions contradict the express claim language
`
`• The preamble of claim 1 recites a “first client device” and must be read
`consistently with the rest of the claim
`
`• Under the purely role-based constructions, during steps 1 and 4, the “first
`client device” would be operating in the role of a server, not a client
`
`• Sur-reply at 6-7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions ignore the applicant’s prosecution history statements:
`
`• Client devices are NOT “dedicated device[s]”
`• Client devices use “client-related software”
`• Client devices are typically “consumer owned and operated”
`• Client devices typically “connect[] to the Internet via an ISP using a single connection”
`• Client devices are “inherently [re]sources limited, such as bandwidth and storage capability”
`
`• Client devices and servers are NOT “generic computer[s]”
`• Unlike the prior art, “the claims disclose a server receiving information from another server
`via a client device, which is unique and solves a specific problem such as anonymity when
`fetching information” (EX. 1002 at 164)(emphasis added)
`
`• POR at 23-28; Sur-reply at 13-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions are inconsistent with the Teso Claim
`Construction Orders:
`
`• A “client device” is a “communication device operating in the role of a client”
`(EX. 1006 at 12)(underline added)
`– The Court recognized that “communication device” has a special meaning in the context
`of the ‘319 Patent (see, e.g., EX. 1006 at 12)
`
`• A “second server” is a “server that is not the client device” (EX. 1006 at
`14)(underline added)
`– The Court recognized that a server is not a communication device and therefore not a
`client device (EX. 1006 at 12; EX. 1009 at 10)
`– The Court did not change its construction in the supplemental order (EX. 1009 at 11)
`
`• POR at 10-11 and 29; Sur-reply at 3-5 and 24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions are inconsistent with the NetNut Claim
`Construction Order:
`
`• The Court expressly rejected removing the word “communication” from its
`construction of “client device” (EX. 2013 at 14)
`– Not simply any generic device operating in the role of a client
`– “Communication device” has a special meaning in the context of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• The Court expressly rejected removing the word “server” in its construction of
`“second server” (EX. 2013 at 20)
`– Not simply any generic device operating in the role of a server
`– The “second server” is indeed a server
`
`• POR at 11 and 29; Sur-reply at 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Purely role-based constructions are inconsistent with the Teso Alice Order:
`
`• Interchangeable, general use computers do not disclose specific server ↔ client device ↔ server
`architecture
`
`• The Court recognized the use of non-traditional client devices as a proxy (e.g., EX. 2007 at 8-9):
`
`• POR at 16-17 and 29-30; Sur-reply at 7-8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “client device” is “consumer
`computer”
`– Alternatively, “consumer communication device”
`
`• The “first client device” is a client device regardless of the role being
`performed at a given moment in time
`
`• As disclosed in the specification, client, peers, and agents are all “client
`devices”
`– The ‘319 Patent claims use a proxy client device instead of a prior art proxy server to
`obtain content from the web server, to avoid problems with the prior art
`
`• POR at 10-17; Sur-reply at 2 and 5-12 and 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Lexicography in the specification
`
`– The specification expressly states: “files are stored on computers of consumers, referred to
`herein as client devices” (EX. 1001 at 2:45-46)(emphasis added)
`
`– The Federal Circuit has found that the phrase “referred to herein as” defines a claim term
`• Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`– This definition is not incidental; it expressly sets forth a solution to the problem of using proxy
`servers as intermediaries
`• The ‘319 Patent describes proxy servers as useful, but too expensive and impractical to locate everywhere
`(EX. 1001 at 2:8-39)
`• The patent discloses the novel use of “computers of consumers, referred to herein as client devices” as
`“a new method of data transfer that is fast for the consumer, cheap for the content distributor and
`does not require infrastructure investment for ISPs…” (EX. 1001 at 2:45-46 and 1:54-56)
`
`• POR at 10-17; Sur-reply at 8-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Petitioner’s cited case re lexicography is not applicable:
`– In Hill-Rom, the Federal Circuit noted that “[t]here is no disclosure that, for
`example, the present invention “is,” “includes,” or “refers to” a wired datalink and
`there is nothing expressing the advantages, importance, or essentiality of using a
`wired as opposed to wireless datalink.” Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755
`F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`– In contrast, the ‘319 patent expressly “referred to” consumer computers as client
`devices and the use of a client device as recited in the claims overcomes the
`problems cited in the prior art
`
`• Sur-reply at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Attributes of a “client device” understood by a person of ordinary skill in
`the art:
`– Typically portable and easily moved, unlike a server
`– Typically uses relatively few connections, unlike a server
`– Typically processes limited number of requests (e.g., single user login), unlike a
`server
`– Not a dedicated network element, unlike a server
`– Resource-limited, unlike a server
`– Regularly switched off and taken offline, unlike a server
`– Lesser fault tolerance, reliability, scalability, unlike a server
`– Prioritizes value to user over network system, unlike a server
`
`• POR at 17-18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Patent Owner’s proposed construction for “second server” is “server
`that is not a client device”
`
`• The “second server” is a server (not a communication device) regardless
`of the role being performed at a given moment in time
`
`• As disclosed in the specification, proxy servers, acceleration servers, and
`web servers are all “servers”
`
`• A server is a not a client device in the context of the ‘319 Patent
`
`• POR at 29-31; Sur-reply at 2 and 5-8 and 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`

`

`Claim construction
`
`• Attributes of a “server” understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art:
`– Dedicated network element
`– Rarely switched off and taken offline
`– Efficiently processes multiple requests from multiple clients at the same time
`– Generates various logs associated with clients and traffic from/to clients
`– Primarily interfaces and responds to clients, often without a GUI
`– Greater fault tolerance and high reliability
`– Low failure rates
`– Higher scalability for increasing resources to serve increasing client demands
`
`• POR at 31-32
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`

`

`Plamondon (EX. 1010) does not
`anticipate claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Plamondon discloses “a variety of techniques for accelerating and optimizing network
`traffic” (EX. 1010 at Abstract)
`
`– Plamondon describes that client 102 may be located at a branch office of a corporate enterprise
`communicating with a server 106 located at a corporate data center (EX. 1010 at [0203])
`
`– Plamondon also describes that appliance 200 may be located “between” or “on” networks such
`that “a corporate enterprise may deploy an appliance 200 at the branch office” or “at a
`corporate data center” (EX. 1010 at [0205])
`
`• POR at 33-36; EX. 1010, Fig. 1C
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Client 102, appliance 200, and server
`106 are predetermined components
`of a corporate network
`
`• Plamondon emphasizes that
`business entities desired to
`consolidate their computing
`infrastructure (see EX. 1010 at
`[0002] (reproduced on the right))
`
`• POR at 39-40; EX. 1010, Fig. 1C
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Standard for anticipation:
`–“[A] prior art reference must provide every element of
`the claimed invention arranged as in the claim in order
`to anticipate … [A] claim does not need to “expressly
`spell out” all limitations combined as in the claim if a
`[person of ordinary skill in the art] would “at once
`envisage” the arrangement or combination.” Microsoft
`Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc., 878 F.3d 1052, 1069 (Fed. Cir.
`2017)(emphasis added)
`
`• Sur-reply at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`1. A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that 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 client device comprising:
`
`[step 1] receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`[step 2] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`request that comprises the first content identifier;
`
`[step 3] receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the
`sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`[step 4] sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to
`the receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX. 1001
`
`53
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1 under the purely role-based
`constructions
`– Specifically, Plamondon does not anticipate at least steps 1 and 4 of claim 1
`under the purely role-based constructions
`
`• Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1 under Patent Owner’s proposed
`constructions
`– Specifically, Plamondon does not anticipate the specific server ↔ client device
`↔ server architecture of the ‘319 Patent under Patent Owner’s proposed
`constructions
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sending
`requests/receiving responses = “operating in the role of a client”
`
`• A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving
`requests/sending responses = “operating in the role of a server”
`
`• Petitioner ignores the role being performed at a particular point in time,
`for a particular connection
`– See also, e.g., EX. 1018 (RFC 2616) at 9 (“… our use of these terms [client and
`server] refers only to the role being performed by the program for a particular
`connection…”)(emphasis added)
`
`• POR at 19-22 and 36-38; Sur-reply at 1-2 and 5-7 and 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Plamondon does not anticipate step 1 of claim 1 under the purely-role based constructions:
`
`• Step 1 of claim 1 recites a first client device “receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier”
`
`• When client 102 sends a request, client 102 is operating in the role of a client, not a server
`
`• When appliance 200 receives a request, appliance 200 is operating in the role of a server, not a client
`
`• Petitioner’s expert agreed
`
`• POR at 36-37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Plamondon does not anticipate step 4 of claim 1 under the purely-role based constructions:
`
`• Step 4 of claim 1 recites “sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server … ”
`
`• When appliance 200 sends a response, appliance 200 is operating in the role of a server, not a client
`
`• When client 102 receives a response, client 102 is operating in the role of a client, not a server
`
`• Petitioner’s expert agreed
`
`• POR at 37-38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`

`

`Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1
`
`• Plamondon does not anticipate claim 1 under Patent Owner’s proposed
`constructions:
`
`• Plamondon discloses a client 102 ↔ appliance 200 ↔ server 106 architecture
`
`• Plamondon does NOT disclose the server ↔ client device ↔ server architecture of
`the ‘319 Patent under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions
`– Client 102 of Plamondon is NOT a server
`– Appliance 200 of Plamondon is NOT a client device
`
`• Unlike Plamond