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
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00135
`
`Patent No. 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
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`1 of 67
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00135
`
`Patent No. 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
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`1 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I, Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne, declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert in this matter by
`
`provide my opinions on certain references in the above-identified inter partes
`
`proceeding, IPR2022-00135, involving U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`319
`
`1
`
`2.
`
`I have also reviewed the Petition (Paper 2) and the exhibits submitted
`
`with the Petition as discussed herein. I have also reviewed U.S. Patents
`
`Nos. 10,469,614 (EX. 2002); 10,491,712 (EX. 2003); 10,491,713 (EX. 2004); and
`
`11,050,852 (EX. 2005) all of which are assigned to Bright Data. I have also
`
`reviewed U.S. Patent No. 8,972,602 (EX. 2006) which is assigned to Citrix
`
`Systems, Inc. I have also reviewed the Court Alice Order (Dkt. 303) (EX. 2007)
`
`in the case of Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB a/k/a
`
`UAB Teso LT, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021) (the
`
`.
`
`3.
`
`I am being paid for my work preparing this declaration at my normal
`
`consulting rate plus reimbursement of any direct expenses. My compensation is not
`
`1 I also submitted a similar declaration in the related IPR proceeding, IPR2022-
`00138, involving U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510. See The Data Company Technologies,
`Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00138, Exhibit 2001 (PTAB February 16, 2022).
`
`1
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`2 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`tied to the outcome of this matter and is not based on the substance of the opinions
`
`that I provide.
`
`II. MY QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`My background and qualifications as an expert are detailed in my
`
`curriculum vitae, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. I was also designated and
`
`recognized by the Court as a qualified expert in computer and network technology
`
`during trial in the Teso Litigation.
`
`5.
`
`I hold degrees from Mississippi State University (Bachelor of Science
`
`in Electrical Engineering with Honors, 1962), the University of Virginia (Master 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
`
`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
`
`2
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`3 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`in
`
`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 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 b
`
`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 as that system came into being in the early 1990s. I also coordinated
`
`3
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`4 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I am an
`
`experienced user of several search engines, including Google Chrome, Internet
`
`Explorer, Microsoft Edge, and Mozilla Firefox. In addition, in the early 1990s
`
`search engine capabilities; I was one of the alpha testers for that effort.2
`
`10.
`
`I managed distributed database development for several years at
`
`uccessful research and development program on
`
`Internet-based credit card fraud detection using neural networks. I have also
`
`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
`
`2 See, for example, page 10 of the Proceedings of the Computer and Information
`Sciences
`ICIS 2003, International Symposium, Antalya, Turkey, November 3-5,
`
`for searching ftp and gopher directories. 1994 was a busy year for the launch of a
`number of search engines. In January 1994, MCC Research introduced EINet
`
`4
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`5 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`of the planning eff
`
`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 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 familiar with the program curricula,
`
`faculties, and graduates from a large number of U.S. and international colleges and
`
`5
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`6 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`universities. I represented the IEEE for five years on the Engineering Accreditation
`
`Commission and for six years on the Board of Directors of the Accreditation Board
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE Fellow, 1990, recognizing
`
`ngineering education ),
`
`the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET Fellow, 1992),
`
`and the IEEE Computer Society (Golden Core Awardee, 2000).
`
`6
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`7 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 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 as attached hereto, 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 litigation.
`
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`A.
`
`19. When interpreting a patent, it is my understanding that it is important
`
`to view the disclosure and claims of that patent from the level of ordinary skill in
`
`that art at the time of the invention. My opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is based on my personal experience working and teaching in the technical field
`
`of Internet communications, my knowledge of colleagues and others working in
`
`that field, my study of the
`
`Patent and its file history, and my knowledge of:
`
`The level of education and experience of persons actively working in the
`
`field at the time the subject matter at issue was developed;
`
`The types of problems encountered in the art at the time the subject
`
`matter was developed;
`
`The relevant prior art patents and publications;
`
`The activities of others working in that field;
`
`The prior art solutions to the problems addressed by the relevant art; and,
`
`7
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`8 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`The sophistication of the technology at issue in this case.
`
`20.
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, I have also
`
`considered, among other things: (1) the sophistication of the relevant
`
`technology; (2) the rapidity with which innovations are made in that field; and (3)
`
`the educational level of active workers in that field. I also understand that these
`
`factors are not exhaustive and are merely a useful guide to determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`21.
`
`Taking the above factors into account, in my opinion a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art of the
`
`Patent
`
`would be an
`
`individual who, as of October 8, 2009, the filing date of the Provisional
`
`Application that led to the issuance of the
`
`higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer
`
`Science
`
`more years of experience in Internet communications. I exceeded that level of skill
`
`in the relevant time frame.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that for purposes of this IPR, Petitioner has adopted this
`
`proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petition at 7. Based on the
`
`foregoing, I believe that I am qualified to provide reliable opinions in the technical
`
`field of the 319 Patent, including regarding what a POSA would have understood
`
`8
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`9 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`from the specification, drawings, claims, and file history of 319 Patent. as well as
`
`from the prior art in the field at the time of the invention (October 8, 2009).
`
`23. When offering opinions about how a POSA would evaluate or
`
`understand a particular issue, I have placed myself in the mindset of such a POSA,
`
`basing my opinions on the relevant education and skillset of such a POSA.
`
`B. ANTICIPATION
`
`24.
`
`alleged prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claim at issue,
`
`either expressly or inherently. In other words, every limitation of the claim must
`
`appear in a single prior art reference for the reference to anticipate that claim. I also
`
`understand that all limitations of the claim must be disclosed in the reference as
`
`they are arranged in the claim. I also understand that a requirement of a claim that
`
`is missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed inherently if that missing
`
`requirement is necessarily present in the prior art. I also understand that to be
`
`considered anticipatory, the prior art reference must be enabling and must describe
`
`invention with sufficient specificity to have placed it in the
`
`possession of a POSA. I also understand that a POSA must be able to at once
`
`envisage the claimed invention based on the prior art reference without any need
`
`for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures.
`
`9
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`10 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`C. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`25.
`
`alleged prior art reference or a combination of such references plus what a POSA
`
`would understand based on his or her knowledge and those references. I
`
`understand that a patent cannot be properly granted for subject matter that would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. It is also my
`
`understanding that in assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter a POSA
`
`should evaluate obviousness over the prior art from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (and not from the
`
`perspective of either a layman or a genius in that art).
`
`26.
`
`It is my further understanding that the question of obviousness is to be
`
`determined based on:
`
`The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`The difference or differences between the subject matter of the claim and
`
`the prior art (whereby in assessing the possibility of obviousness one
`
`should consider the manner in which a patentee and/or a Court has
`
`construed the scope of a claim);
`
`The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the subject matter of the claim; and,
`
`10
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`11 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 ofPatent No. 10,257,319
`
`e Anyrelevant objective factors (the “secondary indicia”) indicating non-
`
`obviousnessas I discuss further below.
`
`27.
`
` Itis also my understandingthat the United States Supreme Court
`
`clarified the law of obviousness in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 398
`
`and 419 (2007) case (“KSR”), which I have read and incorporate herein by
`
`reference. Based on KSR,it is my understanding that to determine whetherit
`
`would have been obvious to combine knownlimitations in a mannerclaimed in a
`
`patent, one may consider such thingsastheinterrelated teachings of multiple
`
`patents, the effects of demands knownto the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge of a POSA.
`
`28.
`
`[tis my further understandingthat for a claim to be foundinvalid as
`
`obvious, it must be obvious to a POSAat the relevant time. I also understandthat
`
`the existence of each and every limitation of the claimed invention in multiple
`
`prior art references/systems does not necessarily prove obviousness since most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocksofprior art. Obviousness maybe found
`
`where, for example, the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented andtheprior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obviousat the time the invention was made to a POSAto whichsaid subject
`
`matter pertains.
`
`ll
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`12 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`29.
`
`It is my further understanding that I should consider whether there
`
`was a reason that would have prompted a POSA to combine the known limitations
`
`in a way the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as: (1)
`
`whether the claimed invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art
`
`limitations according to their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention
`
`provides an obvious solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether
`
`the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining limitations claimed
`
`in the invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining limitations
`
`in the claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the
`
`combinations of limitations, such as when there is a design need or market pressure
`
`to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions; and (6) whether the change resulted more from design incentives or
`
`other market forces. I also understand that to render a claim obvious, the cited
`
`combination of prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success for the
`
`proposed combination.
`
`30.
`
`It is also my understanding that in developing opinions as to whether
`
`or not certain claimed subject matter would have been obvious, each claim of a
`
`given patent should be considered in its entirety and separately from any other
`
`claims. In so doing, it is my understanding that while I should consider any
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, I should also assess the
`
`12
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`13 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the entirety of a claim covering an alleged
`
`invention, not merely some portion of it.
`
`31.
`
`It is also my understanding that I should consider any objective
`
`evidence (sometimes called the
`
`at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light on the possible
`
`obviousness of the claims, such as:
`
`Whether the invention was commercially successful as a result of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention (rather than the result of design needs or
`
`market-pressure advertising or similar activities);
`
`Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`Whether others had tried and failed to make the invention;
`
`Whether others invented the invention at roughly the same time;
`
`Whether others copied the invention;
`
`Whether there were changes or related technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention;
`
`Whether the invention achieved unexpected results;
`
`Whether others in the field praised the invention;
`
`Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention
`
`expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the invention;
`
`13
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`14 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent from the patent
`
`holder; and,
`
`Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom in the field.
`
`32.
`
`It is my further understanding that although the KSR decision I
`
`for the purposes of an
`
`is still inappropriate when making such an assertion. I note, for example,
`
`the prior art can be combined
`
`that §
`
`specific direction to Patent Examiners that:
`
`based upon applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature
`
`of the examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided
`
`and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the
`
`who assert that the general knowledge of a POSA and/or a combination of
`
`references invalidates a patent claim through obviousness.
`
`33.
`
`I have also been informed that in cases such as the decision In re
`
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit (the
`
`that
`
`reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art
`
`14
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`15 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the
`
`In my opinion, this is also important because, as the
`
`Supreme Court stated in KSR at pp. 418-
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to
`
`look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of
`
`two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to
`
`identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.
`
`This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building
`
`blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
`
`combina
`
`34. Additionally, and also relevant to the above caution to avoid
`
`hindsight, it is my understanding that it is not enough to find that prior art
`
`references could be combined, and that to show obviousness one must prove that a
`
`POSA would actually combine the multiple references to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention, including showing that a POSA would be motivated to do so. For
`
`example, I note that in the case PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc., 848 F.3d 98
`
`concerns whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been
`
`15
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`16 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`motivated to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the
`
`original.)
`
`D. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`35.
`
`It is my understanding that the first step in a proper invalidity analysis
`
`requires construing the relevant claims to determine their scope and meaning in
`
`g of a POSA. I
`
`understand the Court previously construed certain terms of the 319 Patent and
`
`entered a Claim Construction Oder (EX. 1006) and a Supplemental Claim
`
`Construction Order (EX. 1009) in the Teso Litigation. In forming the opinions set
`
`forth herein, I have applied the claim constructions from the Teso Litigation, a
`
`litigation I was involved in. Those constructions are:
`
`The preamble of claim 1 is limiting. (EX. 1006 at 9);
`
`operating in
`
`(EX. 1006 at 14); and,
`
`All other terms have their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`36.
`
`The Supplemental Claim Construction Order stated further that:
`
`[[t]
`
`Further,
`
`16
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`17 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`the Court is not now changing the scope of the terms in any way, but merely
`
`prov
`
`The Court also emphasized
`
`The Court also clarified that a
`
`onfigured to operate in different roles
`
`so long as it does not
`
`simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client device, the first/second
`
`server, and the web server.
`
`37.
`
`he
`
`terms
`
`319 claims to mean what I believe a POSA would have considered
`
`each of those terms to mean in the context of the 319 Patent at the time of
`
`invention.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE 319 PATENT
`
`38.
`
`The 319 Patent claims methods for use within a novel second
`
`server
`
`first client device
`
`web server architecture, where all the steps are
`
`performed by the first client device.3 Claim 1 of the patent is shown below, with
`
`the steps of the claim being represented by bracketed numbers corresponding with
`
`the numbered linkages shown in the illustrative flow diagram that follows the
`
`table:
`
`3 Note that I have used colorized text to show the linkage between my discussion of
`the claims and the charts showing the claim language.
`
`17
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`18 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 ofPatent No. 10,257,319
`
`in responseto the receiving ofthe first content identifier.
`
`°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 secondserver, the methodby the
`first client device comprising:
`[1] receiving, from the second server,the first content identifier;
`[2] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol (HTTP) request that comprisesthe first content identifier;
`[3] receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in
`response to the sending ofthe first content identifier; and
`[4] sending,the first contentby thefirst client device to the second server,
`
`1
`Second —v"
`Servei a
`
`
`
`
`First
`
`
`Device
`
`Client
`
`39. As the Field of the Invention of the ’319 Patent explains: “[t]he
`
`present inventionis related to Internet communication, and moreparticularly, to
`
`improving data communication speed and bandwidth efficiency on the Internet.”
`
`°319 Patent at 1:23-25.
`
`40.
`
`Asfurther described in the ’319 specification, “[t]he need for a new
`
`methodof data transfer that is fast for the consumer, cheap for the content
`
`distributor and does not require infrastructure investment for ISPs, has become a
`
`major issue whichis yet unsolved.” ’319 Patent at 1:54-57. The patent’s
`
`specification also explains that proxy servers fail to provide a “comprehensive
`
`18
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`19 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Id.
`
`at 2:24-27; also see id. at 2:8-23.
`
`41.
`
`The inventors
`
`319 patent created a new type of consumer-
`
`based network that had never existed before by employing
`
`devices that
`
`operate as proxies in requesting data from web servers. See, e.g., 319 Patent
`
`at 3:13-55. The
`
`specification provides several exemplary embodiments
`
`using communication devices and servers in a network. The specification indicates
`
`associated with using proxy servers, because using proxy servers would be too
`
`cumbersome and prohibitively expensive. See, e.g., 319 Patent at 2:24-39. The
`
`specification also explains how the claimed methods address problems
`
`present in peer-to-peer file sharing solutions. See, e.g.,
`
`Patent at 2:59-3:3.
`
`42.
`
`The
`
`specification also discloses the use of proxy servers between
`
`the client devices and the web servers. In Figure 1 (copied below), for example, a
`
`proxy server 6 is shown positioned between multiple client devices 14 and 16 on
`
`one side and multiple web servers 20, 22, and 24 on the other. The specification
`
`then explains that FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram providing an example of use of
`
`a proxy within a network 2. A proxy, or proxy server 4, 6, 8 is a device that is
`
`placed between one or more clients, illustrated in FIG. 1 as client devices 10, 12,
`
`19
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`20 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`14, 16, 18, 20, that request data, via the Internet 22, and a Web server or Web
`
`servers 30, 32, 34 from which they are requesting the data. The proxy server 4, 6,
`
`Patent
`
`at 2:8-16.
`
`43.
`
`Further, Figure 3
`
`319 Patent (copied below) shows an
`
`exemplary embodiment of a network 100 that can be used with the claimed
`
`invention(s). As described in the
`
`[a]n example of such a
`
`communication network 100 is provided by the schematic diagram of FIG. 3. The
`
`network 100 of FIG. 3 contains multiple communication devices. Due 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, depending upon requirements of the
`
`20
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`21 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`network 100, as is described in detail herein. It should be noted that a detailed
`
`description of a communication device is provided with regard to the description of
`
`319 Patent at 4:43-53.
`
`44.
`
`In Figure 3, an agent 122 is shown to be positioned between a
`
`client102 and a web server 152. As shown and described in detail, Figure 3 also
`
`includes multiple communication devices, each of which stores software providing
`
`functionality that allows
`
`See 319 Patent
`
`at 4:46-50; also see 9:12-50. In my opinion, therefore, a POSA would understand
`
`client 102 and agent 122 to both be client devices.
`
`45.
`
`Separate from the communication devices, the
`
`specification also
`
`discloses two servers (Acceleration Server 162 and Web Server 152) located
`
`with
`
`The communication network 100 also
`
`contains a Web server 152. The Web server 152 is the server from which the
`
`client102 is requesting information and may be, for example, a typical HTTP
`
`server, such as those being used to deliver content on any of the many such servers
`
`on the Internet
`
`further contains an
`
`Patent at 4:62-5:7. In my opinion, therefore, a POSA would understand web
`
`server152 and acceleration server 162 to both be servers.
`
`21
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`22 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`46. As shown in Figure 3, this exemplary embodiment of network 100
`
`illustrates that one of the communication devices is functioning as a client 102.
`
`Based on my review of Figures 1 and 3
`
`319
`
`specification, in my opinion a POSA would understand that
`
`Figure
`
`architecture.
`
`Figure 1,
`
`device web server
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, as shown for example in Figures 1 and 3, the 319
`
`specification clearly describes and supports the novel
`
`of the 319 Patent. In my further opinion,
`
`22
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`23 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Petitioner has mischaracterized this unique network architecture in the Petition.
`
`See, e.g., Petition at 5. Rather, in my opinion a POSA would understand that
`
`client102 and agent 122 are both client devices. My opinion is further supported in
`
`view of related U.S. Patents Nos. 10,491,713 and 11,050,852 which share the same
`
`specification as the 319 Patent. These two related patents both claim methods
`
`In my opinion,
`
`the related
`
`further demonstrate that a POSA would understand the
`
`second server
`
`is indeed a server and not a client device.
`
`V.
`
`OVERVIEW OF PLAMONDON
`
`48.
`
`Plamondon (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0228938, filed on Mar. 12, 2007
`
`by inventor Robert Plamondon) is the primary reference in the Petition. It is
`
`directed towards the problem of
`
`traffic.
`
`[0002].
`
`EX.1010. at [0002]. Plamondon
`
`and [0015].
`
`49.
`
`EX. 1010 at [Abstract]; also see
`
`E.g., EX. 1010 at [0014]
`
`respond to a user request with data stored in a cache, rather than requiring the user
`
`23
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2001
`24 of 67
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`to retrieve the requested file or object from the data center EX. 1010 at [0008].
`
`Plamondon also states that [i]n particular, the present invention relates to systems
`
`and methods for accelerat[ing] network traffic by prefetching objects for caching
`
`EX. 1010 at [0001]. Plamondon defines prefetching
`
`a file or object that is likely to be requested by a user and requesting that file or
`
`EX. 1010 at [0009].
`
`50.
`
`I note here that prefetching of content in a speculative manner, as
`
`described by Plamondon, is the opposite of the claimed method of the 319 Patent,
`
`which fetches fresh content directly from the targeted web server in response to a
`
`request for that content. Moreover, while Plamondon is primarily directed to
`
`returning previously cached content to a requesting client 102 in order to reduce
`
`the load on server 106; the 319 Patent is directed to fetching fresh content directly
`
`from the targeted web server. Therefore, in my opinion, a POSA would not be
`
`motivated to arrive at the claimed inventions of the 319 Paten
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
