ÿÿÿÿÿ !!"
`#$%&#ÿ'(#ÿ)*'#+'ÿ&,*-ÿ*+.ÿ//#*-ÿ%*&.
`012ÿ4565ÿ789:5;<ÿ02=1;8>8?@2AÿB;=C
`D)#',',%+#&EFC
`GH@?16ÿ4565ÿI6JC
`D)*'#+'ÿ K+#&E
`LMNOPÿRSPNOT#U,#Kÿ
`%Vÿ )WXWWYXXZ[\]ÿ^^ÿÿ_`^ÿabcdedcfabÿ
`ghijijklhmnoÿqhrkloimsijthÿuvwjxjio
`y#z&{*&|ÿZX}ÿWXW[
`
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`~€ÿ‚ƒÿ„…†‡ˆ‡€ÿ‰‰‰Š
`~€‚ƒ‹ŒŽ‡†€~€
`‘’“”““•””‰–—
`
`Z
`
`

`

`ÿ !
`
`ÿÿÿ ! ÿ"#$ÿ
`
` ! ÿ!PÿQRS ÿTUÿVWX!
`&'()ÿ)*+,-,./0(ÿ1 23ÿ44567ÿ,.ÿ844
`9:;<ÿ>?@ABCDÿEFAÿGAAEHGHIEADJÿ9KIHBLÿ>BMN@ÿGHÿOJ
`&'()ÿ)*+,-,./0(ÿ1 23ÿ44567ÿ,.ÿ844ÿ1*/.)Yÿ)Z+'ÿ,.ÿ67
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`]^_`
`
`a
` 23ÿ4554ÿ1*/.)Yÿ[).3ÿ,.ÿ\7
`
`%
`
`

`

` !ÿ#$$
`%&&!'ÿ()*ÿ*+!ÿ,*!'ÿ-.ÿ%/ÿ0
`2/-3-
`NONÿQROSÿTUVOSNÿWSXÿYZ[O
`
` 45ÿ6767ÿ89:;<5ÿ6ÿ8>>?989@AÿBC;9@AÿD@95ÿ896GF
`
`Device
`s
`t
`
` device
` Second
`u
`v
`HI>@ÿ@CJ8K89;?>ÿB 45ÿ667GFÿ89ÿL66
`\]^_ÿabcdefgÿhidÿjddhkjklhdgmÿ\nlkeoÿaepqcÿjkÿrm
`
`
`HI>@ÿ@CJ8K89;?>ÿB 45ÿ667GFÿ89ÿL66ÿBC;9@Aÿ@MJIÿ89ÿGF
` 45ÿ6767ÿ89:;<5ÿ=ÿ8>>?989@AÿBC;9@AÿD@95ÿ89E7F
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
` NSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`—_— Response:statusand/
`SS
`or updated version of
`Step 625
`object
`Step
`615
`_
`D
`Toillustrate the steps required by independent claim | of the °319 and ’510 Patents,
`respond to requestor
`in light ofthe claim language and the abovedisclosures from the common specification,the“client
`with cached object
`Appliance 200
`or client 102
`
`B
`
`Step 605 Requestfor object
`
`>
`
`Plamondon’s Appliance 200
`Carries Out the Steps of Claim 1
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Rhyne
`Plamondon
`
`gc
`
`
`Web Server
`
`Appliance
`WAN
`Optimization
`
`First Client
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated (cited Pet. at 18)
`
`Rhyne Declaration (Ex. 1108) at 711
`(Dr. Rhyne’s own annotations) (cited Reply at 8)
`
`corresponding with the bracketed letters identifying the elements of the claims as shownin the
`
`Cc
`
`parallel revalidation:
`conditional requestfor
`objector request for
`status
`
`Step 620
`
`1
`
`

`

`$%&'()*()+,-..%/&)01ÿ344ÿ5,ÿ&ÿ60%/1)7ÿ*18/019ÿ
`:)*1;ÿ7<1ÿ=(>;7+,ÿ?(%1@ABCDEÿGHICJKLMJNHI
`^VBPHIEHI
`ODMDPQDKÿRSÿTUTUÿGVBNPÿGHICJKLMJNHIÿWKEDK
`Plamondon’s Appliance 200 Is a “client device” Under the Court’s Role-Based Construction
`YDQKLBKZÿ[SÿTUT\ÿGVBNPÿGHICJKLMJNHIÿWKEDK
` ÿÿÿÿÿcÿÿXhijÿ !ÿÿ#
` ÿÿ_`ÿÿaabÿÿcÿX#
`d
`e
`
`
`
`f
`]BZÿ\USÿTUTTÿGVBNPÿGHICJKLMJNHIÿWKEDK
`g
` ÿXÿÿÿÿ !ÿÿ#
`
`
`
`
` ÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿÿ"#
` ÿÿ_`ÿÿaabÿÿcÿ#
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`E gs=Response: status andi!
`
`a
`or updated version of
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`Step 625
`object
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`Plamondon
`
`construction and construes:
`
`The Court therefore adoptsits preliminary
`
`
`
`
`
`“client deve” as“communicationdevicethatisoperatingintheolefacient.”
`
`Ex. 1006 at 12 (cited Pet. at 8-9, Reply at 3)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`Specifically,the
`
`Appliance
`WAN
`Optimization
`device
`
`Server
`
`106
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated (cited Pet. at 18)
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes “client device” as follows:
`
`B
`
`Step 605 Requestfor object
`—_—_—_—=p>
`
`parallel revalidation:
`conditional requestfor
`object or request for
`Step 620 status—
`
`
`
`D
`respond to requestor
`The Court therefore hereby construes “client device” to mean “communicationdevice
`with cached object
`Appliance 200
`or client 102
`
`Step 615
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"
`
`

`

`(!"ÿ)*+&,"-'.ÿ$ % /
`0 /1+"ÿ2ÿ0, !"ÿ0" ,+
`E;F@G9@HÿIJÿKLKMÿNO9PQÿND<B:@GR:PD<ÿ>@S;@
`89:;<:ÿ>?<;@ÿA;BCD<B;
`8O9QD<SD<
` TUÿ3Vÿÿ35ÿWXYZÿ[\ÿÿ5]
`e
`f
` !"ÿ$%&'
`g
`h
``DÿA;BCD<B;
`89:;<:ÿ>?<;@ÿ^G@_A;COH
` TUÿ33ÿaYbUÿ4ÿccdZÿWXYZÿUÿ]
`
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`ÿ34ÿÿ54657
`ÿ
`ÿ5
`
`
`
`

`

`PO’s “exclusivity” Reinterpretation
`
`Contradicts PO’s OwnTrial Strategy
`
`"510 Patent
`
`Specifically,the
`
`Accordingly, the Court construes “client device” as follows:
`
`“client device” means
`
`the first
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`PO applied the court’s
`
`Ex. 1001 (cited Pet. at 6)
`
`ÿ ÿ!"#$#%&"
`'&"#%(ÿÿ)"ÿ*#%ÿ+#%,
`./012314ÿ67ÿ898:ÿ;<3=>ÿ;?@AB12CB=?@ÿD1E/1
`YZ[ÿ%"
`\;]^
`&"#ÿ!$
`_
`
`
` FGÿHIJKÿLMÿHNÿOPQMRSÿRTUVÿLMÿNW
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`c3B/@BÿDd@/1ÿe21fg/h<4
` FGÿHIIHÿOPQMRSÿXRMGÿLMÿ-W
`i?ÿg/Ah?@A/ÿj@E/1ÿ
`'&#ÿ'&"#&"
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`XLTR`KaÿLMKI
`
`XLTR`ÿNIÿLMÿKb
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`Court’s Construction
`
`
`1. A method for use with a webserver that responds to
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and stores a
`first content
`identified by
`a first content
`identifier,
`the
`
`
`method by afirstclientdevicecomprising:
`A ™® establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) con-
`nection with a secondserver;
`C “3MD sending,
`to the web server over an Internet,
`content identifier;
`D YM receiving, the first content from the web server over the
`Internet in response to the sending of the first content
`
`identifier; and
`
`the established TCP connection, in responseto the
`
`receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`construction to a product behaving just like Plamondon’s appliance 200. Ex. 1116.
`
`‘infringe. Id., 186:3-18. “Claim terms must be construed the same way
`
`for...invalidity and infringement.” 7V1/M, 851 F.3d at 1362.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`server and corresponds to the “second server”of the claims.
`
`
`
`correspondto the “first client device” of the claims, while the “Supernode”is a
`
`Paper 25 at 20
`
`No Response Under
`
`-
`
`

`

`ÿÿÿÿ !
`"#$%!&'&(ÿ&)**&+)
`-./.01.2ÿ45ÿ6767ÿ89:;0ÿ8<=>?2@/?;<=ÿA2B.2
`TÿÿÿTÿÿÿT
`The PTO Repeatedly Rejected PO’s “Exclusivity” Reinterpretation
`W.12@:2XÿY5ÿ676Zÿ89:;0ÿ8<=>?2@/?;<=ÿA2B.2
` CDÿEFFGÿHIÿEEÿJKLIMNÿMOPQÿHIÿRS
`
`
`
`\:XÿZ75ÿ6766ÿ89:;0ÿ8<=>?2@/?;<=ÿA2B.2
`
`
` CDÿEFUVÿHIÿERÿJKLIMNÿMOPQÿHIÿRS
`
` CDÿVFERÿHIÿERÿJKLIMNÿMOPQÿHIÿ[S
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`
` ]^`ÿ)ÿ$_&)&+) CDÿEEEFÿHIÿRÿJKLIMNÿMOPQÿHIÿEGS
` ]^^ÿ)ÿ$_&)&+) CDÿEEEEÿHIÿ,FÿJKLIMNÿMOPQÿHIÿEGS
`
`
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order "510 Patent Reexamination
`
`Beginning with Luminati’s lexicographical argument, the Court finds
`
`Consistent with the Request for Reexamination of 10/05/2021,the claim languageis viewed
`
`some
`are of
`har
`require
`ms that
`1 number of
`use
`patents
`Th
`Ex. 1110 at 3 (cited Reply at 16)
`SA TONE NESEY)
`
`9544 Patent Reexamination
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation is a device that acts, at least at some point, as a server.
`
`interpretation is a device that acts, at least at some point, as a client. And in the case of a “server”, the
`
`using the broadest reasonable interpretation. In the case ofa “client device”, the broadest reasonable
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`
`largely parallel the issues addressed in the 7eso Markman Orderand the Court here reiterates and
`
`These issues
`
`A computer can be both a client and a server depending on
`what role it is playing at a particular time. For example,
`jondo
`
`4 can be a server with respect to jondo 5 because jondo 4
`
`provides (or serves)
`
`requested content to jondo 5 when the
`
`replies are traversing the same jondo path as the request.
`adopts the reasoning and ruling of that order. 7eso Markman Order at 10-12. Specifically, the
`
`Ex. 1111 at 70 (cited Reply at 16)
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`For example,
`
`See Teso CC Order at 11. Neither the
`
`,
`
`

`

`ÿ ÿ!
`"#$%&ÿ()*+ÿ,-#+.&/0.1-#+ÿ
`ÿ<=>ÿ?
`ÿ<=>ÿ?
`
`
`34567ÿ89ÿ4:ÿ;M
`34567ÿ89ÿ4:ÿ8;
`
`
`
` @Aÿ8B8Bÿ4:CDEAÿ8ÿ4FFG:4:6Hÿ
`OPQQRS
`OPQUVS
`IJD:6Hÿ36:Aÿ4:82K
`
`
`device Server
` @Aÿ8B8Bÿ4:LB;;MNÿIJD:6H36:Aÿ4:ÿ82K
` @Aÿ8B8Bÿ4:LB;T2NÿIJD:6H36:Aÿ4:ÿ82K
` NSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`
`the computingdevice100canbeanyworkstation, desktop computer, laptopReasearch Triangle Park, N.C. Moreover,
`
`
`ting device, such as a computer, network device or
`appliance capable of communicating on any type and form of
`
`
`network and performing the operations described herein.
`
`Appliance
`WAN
`Optimization
`
`106
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated
`(cited Pet. at 18)
`
`IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
`
`PlamondonAnticipates Claim 1
`Under PO’s Constructions
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Response Patent Owner Response
`
`A POSAwould understandthe “second server” recited in the claims to be a
`
`Thus,in the context of the specification, a client device would be understood
`
`(server}that is nota client device. EX.2044 at 4116.
`
`to be, more specifically, a consumer computerlike a laptop, desktop,tablet, or
`
`Paper16 at 29
`
`=~ smartphone.
`
`Plamondon
`
`Paper 16 at 12
`
`
`
`Plamondon[0238] Plamondon[0229]
`
`
`
`handheld computer, mobile
`or notebook computer,
`telephone, smart phone, any other computer, or other form of
`computing or telecommunications device that is capable of
`
`_!
`
`2
`
`

`

`The “at once envisage” Concept
` [10]
`
`234ÿ678ÿ9:;4ÿ4:<=>7?4@ÿA9:;4B8
`C'DEÿG'HÿIJJ$KÿLDMD
`
`
`bYcUdedfXÿgdUhiÿjiÿkYecdXXY[ÿRSci[ÿ
`
`
`!]!ÿN/ÿ]^]ÿNÿlÿ]"
`ÿmln_`aÿÿ"
`#$%&'()'(
`
`RSÿUVÿWVXVUYSZ[ÿ/ÿNÿ\]\^ÿ\!ÿ ÿ\"ÿ
`ÿ_`aÿÿ"ÿ
`#$%&'()'(*+,,-.
`#$%&'()'(*+,01.
` ÿÿNOÿÿPPQÿ
`ÿ ÿ!"
` ÿÿÿ ÿÿ!"
` ÿÿ/!ÿ ÿÿ!"
` NSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1010 at Fig. 1C annotated
`(cited Pet. at 18)
`
`Plamondon[0238]
`Plamondon[0229]
`
`
`the computing
`Reasearch Triangle Park, IN.C. Moreover,
`device 100 can be any workstation, desktop computer, laptop
`or notebook computer,
`handheld computer, mobile
`telephone, smart phone, any other computer, or other form of
`computing or telecommunications device that 1s capable of
`
`[0229]
`The client 102, server 106, and appliance 200 and
`205 may be deployed as and/or executed on any type and form
`of computing device, such as a computer, network device or
`appliance capable of communicating on any type and form of
`network and performing the operations described herein.
`
`
`
`Does Not Apply Here
`
`We think the Karrer patent, as a
`rinted publication, describes
`to one
`skilled in this art not only the broad class
`but also this much more limited class
`within that broad class, and we think it
`is immaterial that Karrer did not ex-
`pressly spell out the limited class as we
`have done here.
`It is our opinion that
`one skilled in this art would, on reading
`the Karrer patent, at once envisage each
`member of this limited class, even though
`this skilled person might not at once
`define in his mind the formal boundaries
`of the class as we have done here.
`
`A simple calculation will show that,
`excluding isomerism within certain of
`the R groups," the limited class we find
`in Karrer contains only 20 compounds.
`
`
`In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681 (CCPA 1961)
`(cited Reply at 22)
`
`beccecccccee
`
`In addressing claim 6, the primary
`dispute on appeal is whether Kenoyerdis-
`closes a storage medium with four types of
`program instructions. This dispute hinges
`on the meaning of a sentence found near
`the end of the specification in Kenoyer.
`That sentence reads: “[e]mbodiments of a
`subset or all (and portions or all) of the
`above may be implemented by program
`instructions stored in a memory medium
`or carrier medium and executed bya pro-
`cessor.” Kenoyer, col.
`15 Il. 21-24. The
`parties dispute whether this sentence re-
`fers only to Figure 22, which was de-
`scribed in the lines immediately preceding
`this sentence, or instead to all previous
`figures and embodiments of the patent.
`
`The Board found further support forits
`conclusion in the fact
`that Kenoyer’s al-
`leged disclosures of a storage medium with
`instructions in accordance with the limita-
`tions of claim 6 “are unrelated to each
`
`other in [the] disclosure.” Jd. at *10, 2016
`Pat. App. LEXIS 7571, at *29. The disclo-
`sure therefore, at most, amounted to “dis-
`tinct
`teachings
`that
`the artisan might
`somehow combine to achieve the claimed
`invention.”
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Biscotti, Inc.,
`878 F.3d 1070,1072 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(cited Sur-Reply at 20)
`
`Plamondon
`
`
`
`
`Client 102
`
`Appliance
`WAN
`Optimization
`
`
`
`

`

`September 9, 2021 Order on Pretrial Motions
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`Beginning with Luminati’s lexicographical argument, the Court findsthelanguageon
`
`ÿÿÿ !ÿ"#!$ÿ$%&ÿ
`#!'#ÿ(ÿ")'#ÿ*'&ÿ+'*ÿ'$!
`./0/12/3ÿ56ÿ7878ÿ9:;<1ÿ9=>?@3A0@<=>ÿB3C/3
`c/d@/12/3ÿe6ÿ787YÿB3C/3ÿ=>ÿf3/@3<;:ÿ[=@<=>?
`SÿÿÿSÿÿÿS
` DEÿ,-TZÿGHÿZÿIJKHLMÿLNOPÿGHÿQR
`The Court Rejected PO’s “consumer computer” Construction of “client device” Five Times
`V/23A;3WÿX6ÿ787Yÿ9:;<1ÿ9=>?@3A0@<=>ÿB3C/3
` DEÿ,--FÿGHÿ,,ÿIJKHLMÿLNOPÿGHÿQR
`
`
`\]ÿ^')!_% !ÿ`%'#ÿ(ÿ
`a\ÿ_b# !ÿ)_'$ÿ#!'#
`[;WÿY86ÿ7877ÿ9:;<1ÿ9=>?@3A0@<=>ÿB3C/3
` DEÿ,-TUÿGHÿ,QÿIJKHLMÿLNOPÿGHÿQR
`MJ Payne’s Claim Construction
`
`
` DEÿU-,QÿGHÿ,QÿIJKHLMÿLNOPÿGHÿZR
` DEÿ,-TQÿGHÿUÿIJKHLMÿLNOPÿGHÿQR
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
` NSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`For example,
`
`See Teso CC Order at 11. Neither the
`
`
`
`Ex. 1084 at 4 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`The patents use
`
`a number of
`
`terms that require hardware of
`
`some
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`largely parallel the issues addressed in the 7eso Markman Order and the Court here reiterates and
`
`adopts the reasoning and ruling of that order. 7eso Markman Order at 10-12. Specifically, the
`
`These issues
`
`Judge Gilstrap’s Adoption of
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`Accordingly,
`
`the Court OVERRULES
`
`Plaintiff's Objections and Defendants’
`
`,-
`
`

`

`ÿÿÿÿÿ !"#$%ÿ&%ÿÿ
`'"()*+,-ÿ/01+23452601ÿ07ÿ8+,501-ÿ+,39,3:
`C<ÿD*E1,A+ÿB4=4+2ÿ[\ÿ]^]_
``%%"a"ÿb"!aÿb#$c!ÿd$$
`Both MJ Payne and Judge Gilstrap Adopted the Role-Based Construction of ‘“‘second server”
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order
`<4-=,ÿ>6?+23*@A+ÿB-0@2601ÿ07ÿ
`
` first server and secondserver. Said previousfindings have already been stated with respect to the
`C<ÿD*E1,A+ÿ/?*6Fÿ/01+23452601
` GHÿ;IITÿSOÿZU;;ÿLMNOPQÿRPOHÿSOÿTUÿPVWXÿSOÿKY
` constructions as they stand. Accordingly,
`MJ Payne’s Claim Construction Data Co v. Bright Data
`
` GHÿ;IJKÿLMNOPQÿRPOHÿSOÿTUÿPVWXÿSOÿKY
`
`forHearing,iscorrect.The Court is not changing the construction of “first server” and “second
`
`server,” as this understanding is already embedded in those terms’ construction. Further, the Court
`
`MJ Payne’s August6, 2021
`
`Defendants’ Motion for Hearing requests clarifications for the server terms but presents
`
`Term___| Construction_| Requested Clarification
`
`“second server”|“server that is not the client
`
`inconsistent with the Court’s previous findings about the nature of the client device, web server,
`319/510 Patents|device”
`
`them as new constructions. The Court finds that
`
`the clarifications Defendants seek are not
`
`
`
`is not now changing the scope of the terms in any way, but merely providingaclarification of the
`
`scope of the terms as they stand.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1009 at 8,11 (cited Pet. at 9, Reply at 4)
`
`Judge Gilstrap’s Adoption of
`
`So ORDEREDand SIGNEDthis21stdayofSeptember,2021
`
` RODNEY GILSTRAP
`
`UNITED STATES
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`;;
`
`

`

`ÿÿ
`
` !ÿ#$%&%'!(ÿ%)ÿ*!+! !$,!
`RSTU9ÿ5'6&/ÿ5)$7% 8,%&)$ÿV8&(6$,!
`*!,!/0! ÿ12ÿ3434ÿ5'6&/ÿ5)$7% 8,%&)$ÿ9 (!
`JÿÿÿJÿÿÿJ
`
`L!0 86 MÿN2ÿ343Oÿ5'6&/ÿ5)$7% 8,%&)$ÿ9 (!
` :;ÿ-<<=ÿ>?ÿ--ÿ@AB?CDÿCEFGÿ>?ÿHI
`KHÿWCD;ÿCX;ÿY-HPPZÿY-HPKÿ
`@AB?CDÿCEFGÿ>?ÿYI
`T6%!$%ÿ9[$! ÿ\!7])$7!
`
`
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`T9ÿ*&(ÿ^)%ÿS80/&%
`Q6MÿO42ÿ3433ÿ5'6&/ÿ5)$7% 8,%&)$ÿ9 (!
`KHÿWCD;ÿCX;ÿY-HPPZÿY-HY=ÿ
` :;ÿ-<K.ÿ>?ÿ-Hÿ@AB?CDÿCEFGÿ>?ÿHI
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`@B?CDÿCEFGÿ>?ÿHI
`
`
`KHÿWCD;ÿCX;ÿY-HPPZÿY-HYYÿ
` :;ÿ.<-Hÿ>?ÿ-Hÿ@AB?CDÿCEFGÿ>?ÿPI
`@B?CDÿCEFGÿ>?ÿ=I
`-.
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
` NSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`Adoptionof the Phillips standard
`will reduce the potential for
`inconsistent results between different
`fora. Wefurther agree that consistency
`leads to a more uniform, reliable, and
`predictable patent system. Specifically,
`as discussed above, the adoption ofthe
`federal court claim construction
`standardis consistent with “uniform
`interpretation of the patent laws,”
`whichis a well-recognized goal of the
`patent system asit allows the strength
`of patents to be meaningfully and
`positively predicted. Hearings on H.R.
`6033, H.R. 6934, H.R. 3806 and H.R.
`2414, Before the Subcomm. on Courts,
`Civil Liberties and the Admin. ofJustice
`of the House Comm. ontheJudiciary,
`96th Cong., 797 (1980).
`
`The Court’s Constructions
`
`Are Entitled to Deference
`
`USPTO Claim Construction Guidance
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51344, 51348
`(cited Reply at 5)
`
`
`Beginning with Luminati’s lexicographical argument, the Court finds the language on
`
`which Luminatirelies is not sufficient to redefine the meaning ofthe termto “consumer computer.”
`*
`*
`*
`
`Luminati’s second argument—that a client device is specifically not a server—is not
`
`supported by the specification.
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`There appear to be twoissues in dispute. First, whether a client device is necessarily a
`
`“consumer computer.” Second, whether a client device is necessarily not a server. These issues
`
`largely parallel the issues addressed in the 7eso Markman Orderand the Court here reiterates and
`
`adopts the reasoning and ruling of that order. 7eso Markman Order at 10-12. Specifically, the
`
`client device is defined by the role of the communication device as a client rather than by the
`
`componentsof the device and regardless of any additional role the device mayserve, including as @ ==
`
`Patent Owner Response
`
`
`
`
` PO Did Not Submit ----0
`
`Comment 38: One comment asked
`whetherdisclosureof prior claim
`construction determinationsis optional
`or subject to mandatorydisclosure
`under 37 CFR 42.51(b).
`Response: Submissionof prior claim
`construction determinationsis
`mandatory under 37 CFR 42.51(b), ifit
`is “relevant information that is
`inconsistent with a position advanced
`bythe party during the proceeding.” In
`suchcases, the determinations should
`be submitted “concurrent with the filing
`of the documents or things that contains
`the inconsistency.” Id.
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 51344, 51356
`(Cited Reply at 3)
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`For example, Plaintiff does not justify revisiting the Court’s rejection of a proposal to
`
`construe a “client device” to be a “consumer” device. See Zeso CC Order at 11. Neither the
`
`Response: Thesuggestionsthat the
`PTAB mustnecessarilydefer to prior
`claim constructions are not adopted.
`The PTAB will consider prior claim
`constructions from courts or the ITC, if
`timely made of record, and give them
`appropriate weight. Non-exclusive
`factors to be considered mayinclude,
`
`

`

`()ÿ*+ ,ÿ-+"ÿ.,%,ÿ)ÿ/0 !"
`1234567849ÿ;2<8=>?@=A2<8ÿA<ÿB4<ÿCD8
` !"ÿ$%&'
`D4@4GH4>ÿIJÿKLKLÿ;37AGÿ;2<8=>?@=A2<ÿM>94>
`YÿÿÿYÿÿÿY
`
`[4H>?7>\ÿ]JÿKLK^ÿ;37AGÿ;2<8=>?@=A2<ÿM>94>
` NOÿEPPQÿÿEEÿRSTUÿVWÿÿFX
`
`
`
` !"ÿ$%&'
`_7\ÿ^LJÿKLKKÿ;37AGÿ;2<8=>?@=A2<ÿM>94>
` NOÿEPZÿÿEFÿRSTUÿVWÿÿFX
` NOÿPEFÿÿEFÿRSTUÿVWÿÿX
`
`
`The Board Has Adopted the Court’s
`Role-Based Constructions in Ten IDs
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`December 7, 2020 Claim Construction Order
`
`Beginning with Luminati’s lexicographical argument, the Court finds the language on
`
`Construction of “client device” arose in 14 IPRs: this and four others on the
`
`which Luminati relies is not sufficient to redefine the meaning ofthe termto “consumer computer.”
`*
`*
`*
`
`Luminati’s second argument—that a client device is specifically not a server—is not
`
`supported by the specification.
`
`*510 patent (IPR2021-01493, IPR2022-00862, IPR2022-00916, IPR2022-01110),
`
`five on the parent °319 patent (IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00135, IPR2022-00861,
`
`IPR2022-00915, IPR2022-01109), and four on other relatives (IPR2022-00103,
`
`Ex. 1006 at 11 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`IPR2022-00353, IPR2022-00687, IPR2022-00936).
`
`PO hastaken conflicting positions.
`
`In several POPRs, PO ostensibly
`
`February 8, 2021 Claim Construction Order
`
`endorsed the court’s construction. POPR, 23-24; Exs. 1085-1089. Elsewhere, PO
`
`There appear to be twoissues in dispute. First, whether a client device is necessarily a
`
`reversed and asked Boardto reject the court’s construction and construe “client
`
`“consumer computer.” Second, whether a client device is necessarily not a server. These issues
`
`device” as “consumer computer.” /.g., POR, 10.
`
`In all ten IDs that addressed
`
`largely parallel the issues addressed in the 7eso Markman Orderand the Court here reiterates and
`
`claim construction, the Board adopted the court’s construction: “communication
`
`adopts the reasoning and ruling of that order. 7eso Markman Order at 10-12. Specifically, the
`
`device that is operating in the role of a client.” ID, 25; Exs. 1090-1098.
`
`client device is defined by the role of the communication device as a client rather than by the
`
`componentsof the device and regardless of any additional role the device mayserve, including as
`
`Paper25 at 4
`
`the court’s construction, includingits clarification that a server is “a device that is
`
`Ex. 1082 at 13 (cited Reply at 3)
`
`May 10, 2022 Claim Construction Order
`
`For example, Plaintiff does not justify revisiting the Court’s rejection of a proposal to
`
`construe a “client device” to be a “consumer” device. See Zeso CC Order at 11. Neither the
`
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`Petitioner’s Reply All ten IDs that addressed claim construction rejected PO’s arguments and adopted
` NSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`ÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`
`EF
`
`

`

`
` FIG.6is a schematic diagram furtherillustrating elements beers
`
`
`of the acceleration application 220, as well as communica-
`20
`
`tion paths of the acceleration application 220. The accelera-
`
`ACCELERATION
`tion application 220 contains an acceleration system initial-
`SYSTEM INITIALIZER
`izer module 222, which is called when the acceleration
`MODULE
`application 220 is started. The acceleration system initializer
`module 222 is capable of initializing all elements of the
`communication device 200 The acceleration application 220
`also contains
`tk
`é
`j
`
`ÿ !ÿ"
`!ÿ#!$ÿ$ÿ%& !'! ! ()*+ÿ-./01/
`()*+ÿ-./01/
`
`
`
`
`-0/O/OP10Q(RÿS0TUV
`
` 23ÿ4554ÿ67ÿ<=4>?@AÿBC97DEÿDFGHÿ67ÿ44Iÿ
`Nÿ&
`
`JÿKLÿ%&M
` 23ÿ4554ÿ67ÿ89:3ÿ;ÿ
`
`W6FDXÿZ5
`W6FDXÿ@Yÿ67ÿ44
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`No Response Paper 30
`
`Role-Based Constructions Are Consistent With the Specification
`
`
`
`510 Patent 510 Patent
`
`The role of each module is further described herein.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:14-27 (cited Reply at 11)
`’s Repl
`etrtioner Ss Reply
`
`The specification depicts a communication device 200 with generic
`
`components (processor, memory, input/output), and “acceleration application 220.”
`
`CONFIGURATION
`DATABASE
`
`
`
`STORAGE DEVICE
`208
`
`FIG. 6
`
`Ex. 1001 at Fig. 6
`
`4>
`
`

`

`ÿÿÿ !"ÿÿ
`#$%&'()ÿ+$,-./0ÿ 1 
`45ÿ6787ÿ
` 9:ÿ2;2<ÿ=>ÿ?ÿ@AB>CDÿCEFGÿ=>ÿ22HI
`†0 d
`JKLMNÿKPÿQRSTÿUVLMPLÿWXYZÿSTTS[ÿVLÿS\]^^ÿ_ÿ`aVKbÿSS
`i ÿ4f jklmnnÿpqÿrksmÿtmukvÿwqxqyqzÿ{|}qzÿ
`c0ÿdÿe1.4fgh
`~~ÿ€:Dÿ22‚ÿ22ÿ@€CD:ÿBƒ:ÿ;22Hÿ
`@AB>CDÿÿCEFGÿ=>ÿ22„2H
` 9:ÿ2;<;ÿ=>ÿ‡;;3ˆ‰ÿ@AB>CDÿCEFGÿ=>ÿ2HIÿ
`JKLMNÿŠPÿ‹V`MÿŠ‹ÿQRSTÿUVLMPLÿWXYZÿSTTS[ÿVPNÿ
`KPÿQŒ\ÿUVLMPLÿ‹KaMÿŽKLŠ‘ÿWXYZÿST’^ÿVLÿ\^“[
`…=ECƒÿ;
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`23
`
`

`

`ÿÿÿ !ÿÿ
`"#$%&'(ÿ*#+,-./!ÿ01 
`'JKLÿMN&,O&
`'JKLÿMN&,O&
`Court’s Role-Based Constructions
` 45ÿ6776ÿ89ÿ:;<=>27ÿ?@A9BCÿBDEFÿ89ÿ2=G
`M,&R&R#O,%'(ÿ*,S+T
`U/ÿVWÿX0-YZ[
`
`
`
` 45ÿ6776ÿ89ÿHI<I;>32ÿ?@A9BCÿBDEFÿ89ÿ2=G
`
`
`P8DBQÿ;7ÿ89ÿ2:
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`°614 Patent
`’614 Patent
`
`Similarly, any device referred to herein as a ‘client
`device’, such as client device #1 31a, client device #2 316,
`and client device #3 31c, may be implemented as a computer
`serving as a client device in the server/client sense, and may
`be executing client applications or software. In particular,
`such a client device may execute a web browserapplication.
`Similarly, any client device may be implemented_as a
`--®computer serving as a server device in the server/client
`sense.
`
`The Inventors Themselves Confirmed the
`
`Each of devices herein may consist of, include, bepart of,
`or be based on,a part of, or the whole of, the computer 11
`or the system 100 shown in FIG. 1. Each of the servers
`herein may consist of, may include, or may be based on, a
`part or a whole of the functionalities or structure (such as
`software) of any server described in the ’604 Patent, such as
`the web server, the proxy server, or the acceleration server.
`
`Ex. 2002 at 83:4-10 (cited Reply at 14)
`
`Ex. 2002 at 95:53-61 (cited Reply at 14)
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`The *614 patent names the sameinventors as the °510 patent and
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes the ‘614 Patent which doesnotsay that a “client
`
`device” can also be a server. See Paper 25 at 14. As already disclosed in the ‘510
`
`Patent, the ‘614 Patentstates that a “client device” may operate in the role ofa
`
`server (for example, as discussed regarding intermediary agent 122) and that a
`
`“server” may operate in the role of a client (for example, as discussed regarding
`
`incorporates the °510’s great-grandparent, the °604. Ex. 2002, 31:59-64.
`
`It
`
`explains: “Each of the clients or devices herein may consist of...any client or
`
`device described in the ’604 Patent.” Id., 83:11-14. Further, “any device referred
`
`to herein as a ‘client device’...may be implemented as a computer serving as a
`
`server device.” Id.,95:53-60. Since the °510 and °604 patents have the same
`
`specification, the net result is: The inventors clearly explained the *510 patent’s
`
`“client device” can also be a server. This supports the court’s construction.
`
`intermediary proxy server 6). See EX.2002 at 83:11-14; 119:19-20.
`
`
`
`Paper30 at 18
`
`P8DBQÿ6Iÿ89ÿ2=
`
`23
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Own Expert Confirmed the
`Court’s Role-Based Constructions Are Correct
`
`ÿÿÿÿ !"#$ÿ%ÿ
` &ÿ' ()*+,-.ÿ012,34563712,ÿ84-ÿ0144-63
`ÿÿÿ;<ÿ'%=
`
`l+3-23ÿmn2-4ÿo54)p-qrs
`>?@AÿABCDEDFGH@ÿI JKÿ99LMNÿDFÿO99ÿIBGFAgÿAhC?ÿDFÿMN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper30 at 16 First Client
`>?@AÿABCDEDFGH@ÿI JKÿ99LMNÿDFÿO99ÿ
`PQRSÿUVWXYZ[ÿ\]Xÿ^XX\_^_`\X[aÿPb`_YcÿUYdeWÿ^_ÿfa
`Device
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`iDhAEÿjLÿDFÿ9k
`
`9:
`
`Patent Owner’s Expert Dr. Rhyne
`
`
`11.—Toillustrate the steps required by independentclaim 1 of the 319 and *510 Patents,
`
`in light ofthe claim language and the abovedisclosures from the commonspecification,the“client
`
`corresponding with the bracketed letters identifying the elements of the claims as shown in the
`
`annotated table following thefigure.
`
`Patent Owner Sur-Reply
`
`C. RhyneTestimony
`
`

`

`ÿÿ  !"#ÿ$ÿ%!
`&'()*ÿ,-ÿ(ÿ.)/0(1(234ÿ5*6-4)*37,
`U(,37,ÿVW731ÿX3/0-7/3
`D!ÿv!ÿwx !ÿyzÿZ%#!
`!!ÿZ! "#[S\=ÿ=OR;>;@P]\ÿN EFÿ88G9Tÿ;@ÿ^88ÿ
`ABCÿD!
`_`abÿdefghijÿklgÿmggknmnokgjpÿ_qonhrÿdhstfÿmnÿup
`:;<=>HMÿ;@Y
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`:;<=>ÿ8?ÿ;@ÿJ
`:;<=>ÿ8?ÿ;@ÿ9
` EFÿ8GG8ÿ;@ÿHIHJKLMÿNOP@=Qÿ=<RSÿ;@ÿ88Tÿ
`
`89
`
`

`

`ÿÿÿ
` !"#ÿ%&'()*+,-./0ÿ1,+23&45
`"IJKÿ -5&45
`dÿÿÿdÿÿÿd
`^ÿV]UV
`YSUÿWZUÿ[\]
` 89ÿ6::6ÿ;<=>?@ÿA ÿB>ÿ6:Cÿ?DEFÿB>ÿ6GH
`ABD?_ÿG:
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`LMNÿOPÿQRQRÿSTMÿUVTUÿW
` &5(5(*4&,"#ÿb&.c0
` 89ÿ6::XÿB>ÿ66ÿ;<=>?@ÿ?DEFÿB>ÿ6GH
`ABD?_`aÿB>6G
`
`67
`
`

`

`ÿÿ ! "ÿ#$% ÿ
`&$ '$  ÿ( ÿ)$ÿ* 
`-./ÿ 
`-./ÿ 
`PO’s “communication device” Argument Misrepresents the Court’s Decision
`&KÿJ ÿ#%ÿLMÿN/N.
` 01ÿ2,,2ÿ34ÿ56+27+8ÿ9:;4<=ÿ<>?@ÿ34ÿ2+Aÿ
`OPQQRSTSUVWRÿYRWZTÿY[U\V]P^VZ[Uÿ_]`S]
`  $ÿH 'IJ
`
` "510 Patent
`
` 01ÿ2,,2ÿ34ÿB6BC7D8ÿ9:;4<=ÿ<>?@ÿ34ÿ2+Aÿ
` 01ÿ2,,5ÿ34ÿ2,ÿ9:;4<=ÿE<41ÿ34ÿ5Gÿ<>?@ÿ34ÿDA
`
`
`
`
`E3><Fÿ+Dÿ34ÿ2+Gÿ2C
`  
` ÿ

 ÿ ÿ
` 
`
`
`
`The present system and method provides for faster and
`more efficient data communication within a communication
`network. An 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.
`Dueto 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 require-
`ments of the network 100, as is described in detail herein
`
`In arguing clients and servers are mutually exclusive hardware types, PO
`
`says clients are “communication devices,” while “a server is not a communication
`
`bythe specification.” Jd. The Court found “[t]he patents do not include servers as a type of
`
`device.” POR, 28. This statement is nonsensical. Communicating with other
`
`“communication device,’ but that is not sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a
`
`ox
`<
`:
`devices is a server’s raison d’étre. Per Harrow,
`
`ar
`“clients maybe servers...or any
`
`server in all cases.” /d. at 12.
`
`other device capable ofcommunicating with other devices.” Ex. 1080, [0057].
`A server “accepts connections in order to service requests by sending back
`
`Ex. 1009 at 10 (cited Pet. at 9, Reply at 5)
`
`responses.” Ex. 1018, 9.
`
`By arguing the court “acknowledgedthat a server is not a communication
`
`Paper 25 at 12, 13
`
`device” (POR, 28), PO misrepresents the court’s decision. The court merely
`
`recognizedthat the patent’s “communication device” underlies clients, peers and
`
`+,
`
`"510 Patent
`
`communication device 200 The acceleration application 220
`also contains three separate modules that run in parallel,
`namely, a client module 224, a peer module 226, and an
`agent module 228, each of which comesinto play according
`to the specific role that the communication device 200 is
`partaking in the communication network 100at a given time.
`The role of each module is further described herein.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 9:21-27(cited Reply at 12)
`
`MJ Payne’s August6, 2021
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order
`
`The Court’s Claim Construction Order in the 7eso Action states that
`
`.
`— .
`.
`.
`“[Plaintiff’ s] second argument—thata client device is specifically not a server—is not supported
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:43-57 (cited Reply at 12)
`
`
`
`

`

`ÿÿÿ !ÿ"#$%ÿ!
`&'()*+,ÿ.'/012#3ÿ" $3!45! $3
`58ÿ9:ÿ;<;<ÿ=6>7?@AB@CCD?EÿFGHIÿJKLMNOAMHJKÿ NPQN
`˜#™ÿu<:ÿ;<;;ÿ=6>67@AB@CC66Eÿ
`FGHIÿJKLMNOAMHJKÿ NPQN
`RSTÿVWXYZ[\W]^ZYXT^_ÿ`\abT]ZÿcTdb\Teÿf^ÿ
``AJIIOKHAGMHJKÿPQBHAQÿMgGMÿHLÿJhQNGMHKiÿHKÿMgQÿNJFQÿJjÿGÿAFHQKMke
`gQÿJONMÿgQNQwpÿAJKLMNOQLÿ
``\abT]ZÿcTdb\TeÿZWÿ„Tf]ÿ
``AJIIOKHAGMHJKÿPQBHAQÿMgGMÿHLÿ
`rs8ÿt:ÿ;<;uÿ=6>7?@AB@CCD?nÿFGHIÿJKLMNOAMHJKÿ NPQN
`JhQNGMHKiÿHKÿMgQÿNJFQÿJjÿGÿAFHQKMke
` lmÿ7CCnÿGMÿ76ÿoAHMQPÿQhFpÿGMÿDq
`–4%8ÿ—:ÿ;<;uÿ=6>7?@AB@CCD?Eÿ
`OhhFQIQKMGFÿFGHIÿJKLMNOAMHJKÿ NPQN
`hQAHjHAGFFpvÿMgQÿAFHQKMÿPQBHAQÿHLÿPQjHKQPÿwpÿMgQÿNJFQÿJjÿMgQÿ
` lmÿ6C7DÿGM7nÿ
`AJIIOKHAGMHJKÿPQBHAQÿGLÿGÿAFHQKMÿNGMgQNÿMgGKÿwpÿMgQÿ
`oAHMQPÿQhFpÿGMÿDq
`AJIhJKQKMLÿJjÿMgQÿPQBHAQÿGKPÿNQiGNPFQLLÿJjÿGKpÿGPPHMHJKGFÿ
`š
`" $3!45! $›œ43!ÿ"#ž5#! $
`NJFQÿMgQÿPQBHAQÿIGpÿLQNBQvÿHKAFOPHKiÿGLÿGÿLQNBQNm
`x\\WYcb]yaz{ÿZSTÿVWXYZ[\W]^ZYXT^ÿ`\abT]ZÿcTdb\Teÿf^ÿ|WaaW}^_ÿ
``^TYdTYÿZSfZÿb^ÿ
``^T\W]cÿ^TYdTYe
``GÿPQBHAQÿMgGMÿHLÿJhQNGMHKiÿHKÿ
``AJIIOKHAGMHJKÿPQBHAQÿMgGMÿHLÿJhQNGMHKiÿHKÿMgQÿNJFQÿJjÿGÿAFHQKMke
`MgQÿNJFQÿJjÿGÿLQNBQNÿGKPÿMgGMÿ
`KJMÿMgQÿAFHQKMÿ
`…†‡ˆŸ‰‡Šÿ
`HLÿKJMÿMgQÿjHNLMÿAFHQKMÿPQBHAQe
`cTdb\Te
`GMQKML
``ZSTÿ T|T]cf]Z^…ÿX]cTY^Zf]cb]yÿW|ÿZSTÿ^\W“TÿW|ÿZSTÿ\W]^ZYX\ZbW]{ÿ
`rs8ÿu;:ÿ;<;uÿ=6>7?@AB@CCD?Eÿ€‚ƒ NPQN
` lmÿ7C~6ÿGMÿ7DÿoAHMQPÿQhFpÿGMÿDq
`GLÿNQhNQLQKMQPÿwpÿZSTÿYT¡XT^ZTcÿ\afYb|b\fZbW][b^ÿ\WYYT\Ze
`RSTÿZTY„ÿ`\abT]ZÿcTdb\Teÿb]ÿZSTÿ…†‡ˆÿf]cÿ…‰‡Šÿ‹fZT]Z^ÿb^ÿ\W]^ZYXTcÿf^ÿ
` lmÿ7CC?ÿGMÿ~vÿ77ÿ
``AJIIOKHAGMHJKÿPQBHAQÿMgGMÿHLÿJhQNGMHKiÿHKÿMgQÿNJFQÿJjÿGÿAFHQKMke
`oAHMQPÿQMmÿGMÿ?vÿQhFpÿGMÿ•q
`ŒgQÿIQMgJPLÿAFGHIQPÿHKÿMgHLÿAGLQvÿŽgHFQÿHKAFOPHKiÿiQKQNHAÿ
`AJIhOMQNLGKPÿAJIIJKÿ KMQNKQMÿAJIIOKHAGMHJKÿhNJMJAJFLvÿNQAHMQÿGÿ
`wNJGPQNÿKQMŽJNÿMgGMÿHLÿHMLQFjÿMgQÿAFGHIQPÿHIhNJBQIQKMmÿ
`gQÿJONMÿjHKPLÿMgGMÿMgQÿGMQKML@HK@OHMÿGNQÿKJMÿGwLMNGAMÿwQAGOLQÿMgQpÿ
`IGQÿOLQÿJjÿiQKQNGF@hONhJLQÿAJIhOMQNLvÿiHBQKÿMgGMÿMgQÿLhQAHjHAGMHJKLÿ
`JjÿMgQÿGMQKML@HK@‘XbZÿcT^\Yb’TÿZSTÿ|X]\ZbW]fabZzÿf^ÿ’Tb]yÿ`“YWdbcTcÿ’zÿ
`;<;<
`;<;u
`;<;;
`^W|Z}fY