United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc.
`(Petitioner)
`v.
`Bright Data Ltd.
`(Patent Owner)
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`No. IPR2022-00135 | U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstrative Exhibit
`
`March 1, 2023
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1117
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`1
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`Overview of ’319 Patent Claims 1 and 24
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Rhyne
`
`’319 Patent
`
`B C D E
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11
`(Dr. Rhyne’s own annotations) (cited Reply at 8)
`
`A
`
`Ex. 1001 (cited Pet. at 6)
`
`Ex. 1001 (cited Pet. at 5, 31-32)
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11 (cited Reply at 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`

`Plamondon’s Appliance 200
`
`Carries Out the Steps of Claim 1
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Rhyne
`
`Plamondon
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated (cited Pet. at 12)
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11
`(Dr. Rhyne’s own annotations) (cited Reply at 8)
`
`E
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11 (cited Reply at 8)
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 6A annotated (cited Pet. at 14)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`

`Plamondon’s Appliance 200 Is a “client device”
`
`Under the Court’s Role-Based Construction
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`Plamondon
`
`Ex. 1006 at 12 (cited Pet. at 8-9, Reply at 3)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`E
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated (cited Pet. at 12)
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`Ex. 2013 at 16 (cited Reply at 4)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 6A annotated (cited Pet. at 14)
`
`4
`
`

`

`PO’s “exclusivity” Reinterpretation
`
`Contradicts the Court’s Construction
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Plamondon
`
`B
`
`E
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`C
`
`D
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 6A annotated (cited Pet. at 14)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Paper 16 at 36-37
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`No Response
`
`Paper 23 at 20
`
`Paper 29
`
`5
`
`

`

`PO’s “exclusivity” Reinterpretation
`
`Contradicts PO’s Own Trial Strategy
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`’319 Patent
`
`B C D E
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Ex. 1001 (cited Pet. at 6)
`
`Paper 23 at 20
`
`No Response Under
`Court’s Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 29 at 24
`
`6
`
`

`

`The PTO Repeatedly Rejected PO’s
`
`“Exclusivity” Reinterpretation
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`’510 Patent Reexamination
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`’511 Patent Reexamination
`
`Ex. 1110 at 3 (cited Reply at 16)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1111 at 70 (cited Reply at 16)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Ex. 2013 at 13 (cited Reply at 4)
`
`

`

`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 1
`
`Under PO’s Constructions
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Paper 16 at 30
`
`Plamondon
`
`Paper 16 at 13
`
`Plamondon [0238]
`
`Plamondon [0229]
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated
`(cited Pet. at 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0238] (cited Pet. at 12)
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0229] (cited Pet. at 12)
`
`

`

`The “at once envisage” Concept
`
`Does Not Apply Here
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.,
`878 F.3d 1070,1072 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(cited Sur-Reply at 20)
`
`In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1961)
`(cited Reply at 22)
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon [0238]
`
`Plamondon [0229]
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated
`(cited Pet. at 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0238] (cited Pet. at 12)
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0229] (cited Pet. at 12)
`
`

`

`The Court Rejected PO’s “consumer computer”
`
`Construction of “client device” Five Times
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`September 9, 2021 Order on Pretrial Motions
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1084 at 4 (cited Reply at 4)
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`Judge Gilstrap’s Adoption of
`MJ Payne’s Claim Construction
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Ex. 2013 at 13 (cited Reply at 4)
`
`Ex. 1083 at 2 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`

`

`Both MJ Payne and Judge Gilstrap Adopted the
`
`Role-Based Construction of “second server”
`
`MJ Payne’s August 6, 2021
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1009 at 8,11 (cited Pet. at 9, Reply at 4)
`
`Judge Gilstrap’s Adoption of
`MJ Payne’s Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1074 (cited Pet. at 9, Reply at 4)
`
`11
`
`

`

`The Court’s Constructions
`
`Are Entitled to Deference
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`USPTO Claim Construction Guidance
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51344, 51348
`(cited Reply at 5)
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`PO Did Not Submit
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51344, 51356
`(Cited Reply at 3)
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2013 at 13 (cited Reply at 4)
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51344, 51355
`(Cited Reply at 6)
`
`12
`
`

`

`The Board Has Adopted the Court’s
`
`Role-Based Constructions in Ten IDs
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Paper 23 at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2013 at 13 (cited Reply at 4)
`
`Paper 23 at 5
`
`13
`
`

`

`Role-Based Constructions Are
`
`Consistent With the Specification
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:12-26 (cited Reply at 11)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 23 at 11
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`No Response
`
`Paper 29
`
`14
`
`

`

`Other Intrinsic Evidence Confirms the
`
`Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`RFC 2616
`
`Ex. 1018 at 9 (cited Reply at 11):
`Cited in ’319 patent (Ex. 1001) at 16:22 & claim 15
`
`Harrow
`
`Ex. 1080 at [0057] (cited Reply at 12): Cited
`on face of ’319 patent (Ex. 1001 page 2) and
`in ’936 patent file history (Ex. 1072 at 624)
`
`Powell v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`(cited Reply at 11-12)
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`No Response
`
`Paper 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`

`The Inventors Themselves Confirmed the
`
`Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`’614 Patent
`
`’614 Patent
`
`Ex. 2002 at 83:4-10 (cited Reply at 14)
`
`Ex. 2002 at 95:53-61 (cited Reply at 14)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 23 at 14
`
`Paper 29 at 18
`
`16
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Own Expert Confirmed the
`
`Court’s Role-Based Constructions Are Correct
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Rhyne
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11 (cited Reply at 8)
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11
`(Dr. Rhyne’s own annotations) (cited Reply at 8)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 29 at 16
`
`17
`
`

`

`PO’s Construction Improperly Limits the
`
`Claim to a Disparaged Embodiment
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Rhyne
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Paper 16 at 8
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at ¶11
`(Dr. Rhyne’s own annotations) (cited Reply at 8)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`’319 Patent
`
`Paper 16 at 8
`
`Paper 23 at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:24-32 (cited Reply at 21)
`
`18
`
`

`

`The Court Correctly Rejected
`
`PO’s Lexicography Argument
`
`’319 Patent
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`* * *
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 13)
`
`Ex. 1001 at 2:40-51, 2:59-3:3, 4:1-2 (cited POR at 10, Reply at 13)
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`No Response
`
`Paper 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Paper 23 at 13
`
`19
`
`

`

`PO’s “communication device” Argument
`
`Misrepresents the Court’s Decision
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:41-50 (cited Reply at 12)
`
`MJ Payne’s August 6, 2021
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:20-26 (cited Reply at 12)
`
`Paper 23 at 12, 13
`
`Ex. 1009 at 10 (cited Pet. at 9, Reply at 5)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`

`The Alice Order Did Not Change the
`
`Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`Dec. 7, 2020 – 2:19-cv-00395 Claim Construction Order
`
`The Court…construes: “client device” as
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client.”
`
`Feb. 8, 2021 – 2:19-cv-00396 Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 1006 at 12 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`Specifically, the client device is defined by the role of the
`communication device as a client rather than by the
`components of the device and regardless of any additional
`role the device may serve, including as a server.
`Accordingly, the Court…construes “client device” as follows:
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client.”
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`Feb. 12, 2021 – 2:19-cv-00395 Alice Order
`
`May 10, 2022 – 2:21-cv-00225
`Claim Construction Order
`
`The Court hereby construes
`“client device” to mean
`“communication device that is
`operating in the role of a client.”
`
`Aug. 6, 2021 – 2:19-cv-00395
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order
`
`Ex. 2013 at16
`(cited Reply at 4)
`
`Term
`
`Construction
`
`Requested Clarification
`
`“second server”
`’319/510
`Patents
`
`“server that is
`not the client
`device”
`
`“a device that is operating in
`the role of a server and that
`is not the first client device”
`
`“the Defendants’ understanding of the scope of the construction,
`as represented by the requested clarification…is correct”
`
`The term “client device” in the ’319 and ’510 Patents is construed as
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client.”
`
`[T]he methods claimed in this case, while including generic
`computers and common Internet communication protocols, recite a
`broader network that is itself the claimed improvement.
`
`The Court finds that the Patents-in-Suit are not abstract because they
`make use of general-purpose computers, given that the specifications
`of the Patents-in-Suit describe the functionality as being “provided by
`software stored within each communication device.”
`
`Ex. 1009 at 8, 11
`(cited Pet. at 9, Reply at 4)
`
`2020
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2007 at 5, 8, 11 (cited POR at 44, Reply at 14)
`
`2021
`
`2022
`
`21
`
`

`

`The Grandparent ’936 Patent’s File History
`
`Does Not Support PO’s Constructions
`
`Nov. 30, 2016 Claim Amendment
`
`Sept. 8, 2016 Office Action
`
`Ex. 1072 at 339 (cited Reply at 15)
`
`Jan. 10, 2017 Office Action
`
`Ex. 1072 at 314 (cited Reply at 15)
`
`Ex. 1072 314(cited Reply at 15)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Ex. 1072 at 593 (cited Reply at 15)
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`No Response
`
`Paper 29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Paper 23 at 15
`
`

`

`The Reexamination File History Confirms
`
`the Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`’510 Patent Reexamination
`
`’511 Patent Reexamination
`
`Ex. 1110 at 3 (cited Reply at 16)
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1111 at 70 (cited Reply at 16)
`
`* * *
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335, 1343
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (cited Reply at 19)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`In re Garrido, 646 F. App’x 942, 945-946
`(Fed. Cir. 2016) (cited Reply at 16)
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc.
`v. Canon Inc., 412 F. App’x 270, 276-277
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (cited Reply at 16)
`
`23
`
`

`

`The Board Should Not Rewrite
`
`PO’s Claims to Preserve Validity
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`USPTO Claim Construction Guidance
`
`Paper 23 at 18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340, 51343 (cited Reply at 5)
`
`24
`
`

`

`Remaining Disputes
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`

`Remaining Issues
`
`GROUND
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`BASIS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon, RFC 2616
`
`Plamondon, RFC 1122
`
`1, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
`
`§102
`
`28, 29
`
`15, 16, 17
`
`17, 18
`
`Plamondon, IEEE 802.11-2007
`
`2
`
`Plamondon, Price
`
`Plamondon, Kozat
`
`2, 3, 4, 5, 19, 20
`
`6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
`
`§103
`
`Petition at 2
`
`No separate dispute
`that grounds meet
`claim limitations
`
`No separate
`challenge to
`combination
`
`Reasons to
`combine disputed
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`

`Grounds 2-5 Not Separately Disputed
`
`Grounds
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`GROUND
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`BASIS
`
`1, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22,
`23, 24, 25, 26, 27
`
`§102
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon, RFC
`2616
`
`Plamondon, RFC
`1122
`
`Plamondon,
`IEEE 802.11-2007
`
`28-29
`
`15-17
`
`17-18
`
`2
`
`Plamondon, Price
`
`2-5, 19-20
`
`Plamondon, Kozat
`
`6-11
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`POR at 52-53
`
`§103
`
`Petition at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`

`Ground 1: Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`GROUND
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`Plamondon
`
`1, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22,
`23, 24, 25, 26, 27
`
`Plamondon
`
`28, 29
`
`Plamondon, RFC
`2616
`
`Plamondon, RFC
`1122
`
`Plamondon,
`IEEE 802.11-2007
`
`15, 16, 17
`
`17, 18
`
`2
`
`Plamondon, Price
`
`2-5, 19-20
`
`Plamondon, Kozat
`
`6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
`
`BASIS
`
`§102
`
`§103
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 2
`
`28
`
`

`

`Plamondon’s Appliance 200 & ’319 Patent Client
`
`Determine Content Validity The Same Way
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`POR at 48
`
`Sur-Reply at 25
`
`Reply at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`

`

`Plamondon Appliance 200 Replicates Both
`
`Ways the ’319 Patent Determines Validity
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Petition
`
`’319 Patent
`
`* * *
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 16:12-14 (cited Reply at 23)
`
`Plamondon
`
`Petition at 28
`
`’319 Patent Fig. 12
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0451] (cited Pet. 28, Reply 23)
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`

`

`Plamondon’s Appliance 200 & ’319 Patent Client
`
`Determine Content Validity The Same Way
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 16:12-14 (cited Reply at 23)
`
`Plamondon Fig. 6A
`
`’319 Patent Fig. 12
`
`Plamondon (Ex. 1010) at Fig. 6A (discussed in Plamondon [0450]-[0451],
`cited Pet. 28, Reply 23)
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`

`

`Plamondon’s Appliance 200 & ’319 Patent Client
`
`Determine Content Validity The Same Way
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 16:12-14 (cited Reply at 23)
`
`Plamondon Fig. 9A
`
`’319 Patent Fig. 12
`
`Plamondon (Ex. 1010) at Fig. 9A (cited in Plamondon [0508],
`cited Petition at 28-29)
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`

`Plamondon Describes Appliance 200
`
`Determining Content Validity
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon Fig. 9A
`
`Plamondon (Ex. 1010) at Fig. 9A (cited in Plamondon [0508],
`cited Petition at 28-29)
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0508] (cited Pet. at 28-29, Reply at 23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`

`Nothing In Claim 14 Limits When
`
`First Client Device Determines Validity
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`“determining” not qualified by
`“in response to”
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`Claim 1
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`POR at 49
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 1 (cited Pet. at 32-33)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`

`

`Nothing In Claim 14 Limits When
`
`First Client Device Determines Validity
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`“determining” not qualified by
`“in response to”
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Plamondon
`
`POR at 49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0451] (cited Pet. 28, Reply 23)
`
`

`

`Both Plamondon and ’319 Patent Client
`
`Validate Cached Content
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 14
`
`Petition 28-29
`
`Reply 22-23
`
`POR 47-50
`
`Sur-Reply 24-25
`
`Claim 14
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Claim 14 (cited Pet. at 28)
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at 16:12-14 (cited Reply at 23)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply
`
`’319 Patent Fig. 12
`
`Sur-Reply at 25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’319 Patent (Ex. 1001) at Fig. 12
`
`36
`
`

`

`Ground 6 Plamondon+Price
`
`GROUND
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`BASIS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`1, 12-14, 21-27
`
`§102
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon, RFC 2616
`
`Plamondon, RFC 1122
`
`28-29
`
`15-17
`
`17-18
`
`Plamondon, IEEE 802.11-2007
`
`2
`
`Plamondon, Price
`
`Plamondon, Kozat
`
`2-5, 19-20
`
`6-11
`
`§103
`
`Petition at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`

`Reasons to Combine Plamondon and Price
`
`Not Genuinely Disputed
`
`Plamondon+Price Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 19-20
`Petition 45-57
`POR 53-55
`
`Reply 24-25
`
`Sur-Reply 26
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Software versioning
`
`Cybersecurity
`
`Reply at 25
`
`No Response
`
`No Relevant
`Response
`
`Known elements, known methods
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Reply at 25
`
`No Explanation
`
`POR at 55
`
`Reply at 25
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2044 at ¶223 (cited POR, 55)
`
`38
`
`

`

`Cybersecurity Reasons to Combine
`
`Not Genuinely Disputed
`
`Plamondon+Price Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 19-20
`Petition 45-57
`POR 53-55
`
`Reply 24-25
`
`Sur-Reply 26
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Ex. 1038
`
`Petition at 47
`
`Petitioner Expert Dr. Levin
`
`Plamondon
`
`POR at 54
`
`* * *
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0354] (cited POR at 54)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1003, ¶ 396 (cited Petition, 47)
`
`39
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s “inefficiencies” Argument
`
`Plamondon+Price Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 19-20
`Petition 45-57
`POR 53-55
`
`Reply 24-25
`
`Sur-Reply 26
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petition at 48 (discussing combination)
`
`Petition at 53 (discussing claim 5)
`
`POR at 55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s “inefficiencies” Argument
`
`Ignores the Facts and Misstates the Law
`
`Plamondon+Price Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 19-20
`Petition 45-57
`POR 53-55
`
`Reply 24-25
`
`Sur-Reply 26
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petitioner Expert Dr. Levin
`
`POR at 55
`
`Intel v. Qualcomm, 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`(cited Reply at 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2010 at 145:1-25 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`41
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s “inefficiencies” Argument
`
`Ignores the Facts Of Modularity / Suitability
`
`Plamondon+Price Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 19-20
`Petition 45-57
`POR 53-55
`
`Reply 24-25
`
`Sur-Reply 26
`
`Petitioner Expert Dr. Levin
`
`Petitioner Expert Dr. Levin
`
`Ex. 2010 at 146:1-19 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`Ex. 2010 at 146:20-147:15 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Waived New Arguments
`
`in Sur-Reply
`
`Plamondon+Price Renders Obvious
`Claims 2-5, 19-20
`Petition 45-57
`POR 53-55
`
`Reply 24-25
`
`Sur-Reply 26
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`▪ Waived because not raised in
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Sur-Reply at 26
`
`▪
`
`Irrelevant because Petitioner only
`has to show a suitable combination
`
`▪
`
`Intel, 21 F.4th at 800
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCEDEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`Intel v. Qualcomm, 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`(cited Reply at 25)
`
`

`

`Ground 7 Plamondon+Kozat
`
`GROUND
`
`REFERENCE(S)
`
`CLAIM(S)
`
`BASIS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`1, 12-14, 21-27
`
`§102
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon
`
`Plamondon, RFC 2616
`
`Plamondon, RFC 1122
`
`28-29
`
`15-17
`
`17-18
`
`Plamondon, IEEE 802.11-2007
`
`2
`
`Plamondon, Price
`
`Plamondon, Kozat
`
`2-5, 19-20
`
`6-11
`
`§103
`
`Petition at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`

`Ground 7 Dispute Limited to Reasons For
`
`Combining Plamondon and Kozat
`
`Plamondon+Kozat Renders Obvious Claims 6-11
`
`Petition 57-69
`
`Reply 26
`
`POR 55-56
`
`Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`Plamondon
`
`Petition
`
`Kozat
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition at 59
`
`45
`
`

`

`Undisputed That Combination
`
`Would Provide the Cited Benefits
`
`Plamondon+Kozat Renders Obvious Claims 6-11
`
`Petition 57-69
`
`Reply 26
`
`POR 55-56
`
`Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`Petition
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Petition at 59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur-Reply at 26
`
`POR at 56
`
`Reply at 26
`
`46
`
`

`

`Undisputed That Combination
`
`Would Provide the Cited Benefits
`
`Plamondon+Kozat Renders Obvious Claims 6-11
`
`Petition 57-69
`
`Reply 26
`
`POR 55-56
`
`Sur-Reply 26-27
`
`Petitioner’s Expert Dr. Levin
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`POR at 56
`
`Ex. 1003 at ¶¶468, 469 (cited Pet. at 59, Reply at 26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply at 26
`
`47
`
`

`

`Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`

`

`Every Secondary Consideration Depends
`
`On Unclaimed “Residential IP Address”
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`POR at 57
`
`* * *
`
`POR at 69
`
`POR at 72
`
`POR at 73
`
`POR at 75
`
`49
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`

`

`No Nexus For Unclaimed
`
`“Residential IP Address”
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Lectrosonics v. Zaxcom, IPR2018-01129, Paper 33, 34
`(Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) (cited Reply at 27)
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Reply at 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1081 at 60:12-25 (cited in Reply at 27)
`
`50
`
`Ex. 1081 at 61:11-22 (cited in Reply at 27)
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Argues Anticipated Claims
`
`Encompass Features Providing Nexus
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`POR at 57
`
`POR at 59
`
`* * *
`
`* * *
`
`Reply at 26-27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Admits No Nexus For Prior Art
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Features Under Court’s Claim Constructions
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`POR at 19
`
`POR at 22
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Reply at 26
`
`No Response Under
`Court’s Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur-Reply at 21
`
`52
`
`

`

`No Evidence Any 2018 or 2021 Product
`
`Practiced Any Claim
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Reply at 28
`
`No Response
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Sur-Reply at 22
`
`Ex. 1081 at 75:2-25 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`

`

`Alleged 2021 Revenue Entitled to No Weight
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Assembly Guidance Sys. v. Virtek Vision Int’l, IPR2021-00062,
`Paper 24, 63 (May 6, 2022) (cited Reply at 28)
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Reply at 28
`
`Sur-Reply at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1081 at 63:24-64:16 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`54
`
`

`

`Unclaimed Features Negate Nexus
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`POR at 69
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Reply at 27
`
`POR at 70
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 1081 at 88:2-12 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`55
`
`

`

`Unclaimed Features Negate Nexus
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`Reply at 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`Ex. 2014 at 1
`
`Ex. 1081 at 42:7-43:7 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`

`

`Unclaimed Features Negate Nexus
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`Reply at 27
`
`Ex. 1081 at 43:8-44:2 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`Ex. 2014 at 2
`
`

`

`Unclaimed Features Negate Nexus
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Ex. 2014
`
`Reply at 27
`
`Ex. 1081 at 44:3:18 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`Ex. 2014 at 2
`
`

`

`Unclaimed Features Negate Nexus
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`Ex. 2036
`
`Reply at 27
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2036 at 1
`
`59
`
`Ex. 1081 at 44:19-45:18 (cited in Reply at 28)
`
`

`

`No Evidence of Copying or Long-Felt Need
`
`Secondary Considerations—No Nexus
`
`Reply 26-28
`
`POR 57-75
`
`Sur-Reply 21-23
`
`Petitioner Reply
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Reply at 28
`
`Sur-Reply at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`

`

`Additional Slides
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`

`

`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 1
`
`Under PO’s Constructions
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Plamondon
`
`Paper 16 at 30
`
`Plamondon [0238]
`
`Paper 16 at 13
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated
`(cited Pet. at 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`Ex. 1010 at [0238]
`(cited Pet. at 12)
`
`

`

`The Board Should Not Rewrite
`
`PO’s Claims to Preserve Validity
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Phillips v. AWH
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Paper 16 at 19
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`Paper 23 at 18
`
`* * *
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Sur-Reply at 23
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 425 F.3d 1303, 1327-28
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (cited Reply at 18)
`
`63
`
`

`

`The Rule 807 Residual Exception Does Not
`
`Apply to the Hearsay Transcripts
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 807. Residual Exception.
`
`(a)
`
`In General. Under the following conditions, a hearsay statement is not excluded
`by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not admissible under a
`hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:
`
`(1)
`
`the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness—after
`considering the totality of circumstances under which it was made and
`evidence, if any, corroborating the statement; and
`
`(2)
`
`it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence
`that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts.
`
`Cited Paper 35 at 4-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`

`

`Rule 703 Does Not Apply to the
`
`Hearsay Transcripts
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 703. Bases of an Expert.
`
`An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made
`aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those
`kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the
`opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent
`of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury
`evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.
`
`Cited Paper 36 at 3
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Williams
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Ex. 2044, ¶232 (cited POR, 73-74)
`
`65
`
`Paper 16 at 73-74
`
`