`
`_________________________
`
`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