`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 No. IPR2022-00135
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Fintiv Factors 5 and 4 Strongly Favor Institution ........................................... 1
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Factor 5: Overlap—or Lack Thereof—of Parties ................................. 1
`
`Factor 4: Overlap—or Lack Thereof—of Issues .................................. 2
`
`2.
`
`Fintiv Factors 1-3 Strongly Favor Institution .................................................. 3
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Factor 1: Possibility of a Stay ............................................................... 3
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial Date and
`Factor 3: Investment by District Court .................................................. 3
`
`Fintiv Factor 6 (Merits) Strongly Favors Institution ....................................... 4
`
`PO’s Remaining Arguments Are Irrelevant Under Fintiv ............................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Adobe v. RAH Color Techs.,
`IPR2019-00627, Paper 41 (Sep. 10, 2019) ............................................................. 1
`
`Advanced Bionics v. MED-EL,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ............................................................... 5
`
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ................................................... 1, 3, 5
`Applied Materials v. Ocean Semiconductor,
`IPR2021-01339, Paper 14 (Feb. 9, 2022) ............................................................... 2
`Bose v. Koss,
`IPR2021-00680, Paper 15 (Oct. 13, 2021) ............................................................. 2
`Group III Int’l v. Targus Group Int’l,
`IPR2021-00371, Paper 21 (July 9, 2021) ............................................................... 5
`Kavo Dental Techs. v. Osseo Imaging,
`IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 (June 10, 2020) ............................................................ 1
`Lab. Corp. Am. Holdings v. Ravgen,
`IPR2021-01026, Paper 11 (Dec. 14, 2021) ............................................................ 2
`Mueller Sys. v. Rein Tech.,
`IPR2020-00099, Paper 9 (May 20, 2020) .............................................................. 5
`
`NetNut v. Bright Data
`IPR2021-01492, Paper 12 (Mar. 21, 2022) ............................................................ 3
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................................................... 1
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 1.56 ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Plamondon, which the Petition shows renders every challenged claim
`
`unpatentable, is not at issue in any other IPR, and there is no evidence it will be at
`
`issue in any jury trial. Accordingly, there is no basis for discretionary denial.
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) elected not to address the Fintiv factors individually.
`
`Instead, Patent Owner broadly suggests that the ’319 patent has been challenged
`
`too many times, citing Adobe v. RAH Color Techs., IPR2019-00627, Paper 41
`
`(Sep. 10, 2019). Adobe, however, did not even address the Fintiv factors—it
`
`instituted trial over a patent owner’s objection under Section 325(d). Id., 16-20.
`
`There is no bright-line test for the number of proceedings in which a patent
`
`can be challenged—particularly here, since PO has sued on the ’319 patent
`
`repeatedly. Rather, discretionary denial is evaluated based on the Fintiv factors.
`
`1. Fintiv Factors 5 and 4 Strongly Favor Institution
`a.
`
`Factor 5: Overlap—or Lack Thereof—of Parties
`
`Petitioner reiterates that it is a new startup, incorporated in June 2021, and is
`
`an independent company with no involvement in any of the pending litigations
`
`concerning the ’319 patent. Patent Owner admits Petitioner is not a defendant and
`
`admits it is “not currently aware of any relationship that would result in denial of
`
`institution.” POPR (Paper 7), 7. Accordingly, there is no dispute that this factor
`
`“strongly weighs against…exercising discretion to deny institution.” Kavo Dental
`
`Techs. v. Osseo Imaging, IPR2020-00659, Paper 10, 18 (June 10, 2020).
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`Factor 4: Overlap—or Lack Thereof—of Issues
`
`Patent Owner focuses on the NetNut case (“the 225 case,” Petition, xv). In
`
`particular, Patent Owner emphasizes NetNut’s purported inclusion of Plamondon
`
`in its invalidity contentions after this Petition was filed—but PO declined to file a
`
`copy of those contentions. POPR, 5. This Board has repeatedly found that mere
`
`inclusion of a reference in invalidity contentions does not make overlap at trial
`
`likely enough to favor discretionary denial. In Bose v. Koss, IPR2021-00680,
`
`Paper 15 (Oct. 13, 2021), Koss argued, as Patent Owner does here, that a different
`
`party (Apple) had cited Bose’s primary reference in its invalidity contentions, with
`
`a district court trial scheduled before the FWD. Id., 17-18. The Board recognized
`
`that “Apple’s invalidity theories are subject to narrowing so that Apple may not
`
`rely on [the overlapping reference]” at trial—and also noted that, as here, the IPR
`
`challenged claims not asserted in the litigation. Id., 18. The Board thus found that
`
`Factor 4 “weighs against exercising our discretion to deny institution.” Id. See
`
`also Applied Materials v. Ocean Semiconductor, IPR2021-01339, Paper 14, 11-12
`
`(Feb. 9, 2022) (Factor 4 weighed against exercising discretion: “Considering that
`
`Petitioner is a non-party to the litigation … even if Breka is identified as prior art
`
`in the invalidity contentions, there is no evidence that Petitioner has had or will
`
`have any control over whether and how Breka will be presented to the jury.”); Lab.
`
`Corp. Am. Holdings v. Ravgen, IPR2021-01026, Paper 11, 24 (Dec. 14, 2021)
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`(third party’s contentions did not favor denying institution: “The notion that most,
`
`much less all, of Natera’s myriad invalidity bases listed in its contentions will be
`
`litigated at trial to a verdict and judgment is implausible … the risk of duplicating
`
`work or inconsistency between the Board resolving Petitioner’s challenge and the
`
`court resolving Natera’s invalidity arguments at trial is indeterminable.”).
`
`2. Fintiv Factors 1-3 Strongly Favor Institution
`a.
`
`Factor 1: Possibility of a Stay
`
`PO does not dispute that this factor is neutral. Petition, 72.
`
`b.
`
`Factor 2: Proximity of Trial Date and
`Factor 3: Investment by District Court
`
`Focusing on the NetNut district court trial currently scheduled for September
`
`2022, Patent Owner cites its own Fintiv analysis from an IPR filed by NetNut,
`
`IPR2021-01493. POPR, 5. Earlier this week, the Board disagreed with PO’s
`
`analysis and instituted a trial in the NetNut IPR. See IPR2021-01492, Paper 12
`
`(Mar. 21, 2022). Because the NetNut litigation has not even reached a Markman
`
`hearing, this Board should find, as the Board did in the NetNut IPR, that Factor 3
`
`“strongly favors not exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” Id., 12.
`
`In the NetNut IPR, the Board found the September 2022 NetNut district
`
`court trial “only slightly favors exercising our discretion to deny the Petition.” Id.,
`
`11. Here, Petitioner is not a party to the NetNut case, which means Factor 2
`
`weighs against discretionary denial. Petition, 72.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Fintiv Factor 6 (Merits) Strongly Favors Institution
`
`The district court’s claim constructions define “client” and “server” based on
`
`their functions (“device operating in the role of…” a client or server, respectively).
`
`Petition, 8-9. The Petition explained that Plamondon’s “appliance 200” operates in
`
`the role of a client (hence it is a “client device” per claim 1) and its “client 102”
`
`operates in the role of a server (hence it is a “server” per claim 1). Petition, 15-18.
`
`PO calls these identifications “arbitrary” but fails to address the devices’
`
`functions as outlined in the Petition. E.g., POPR, 35. In essence, PO argues,
`
`contrary to the district court’s constructions, that devices should be categorized
`
`based on their structures or labels, rather than their functions. PO’s erroneous
`
`approach is exemplified by its reversal on its own ’319 patent. PO told the court
`
`that “client 102” in Figure 3 in the ’319 patent is a “server.” Ex. 1005, 4
`
`(annotated figure). So did PO’s expert. See No. 2:19-cv-395-JRG, D.I. 126-5, 7
`
`(“the ‘client 102’ of Figure 3 is an example of the ‘second server’ of the claims”).
`
`Now, faced with Plamondon’s “client 102”— directly analogous to the ’319
`
`patent’s “client 102”—PO and its expert reversed themselves. POPR, 1, 18 (“both
`
`client 102 and agent 122 of the ’319 Patent are client devices”); Ex. 2001 ¶ 44
`
`(same). In the NetNut IPR, the Board found that PO had strayed from the district
`
`court’s claim constructions. IPR2021-01492, Paper 12, 18-20. The Board should
`
`institute this IPR for the same reason it instituted IPR2021-01492.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`PO’s Remaining Arguments Are Irrelevant Under Fintiv
`
`PO also seeks Fintiv-based denial on the basis that, after filing of the
`
`Petition, PO listed Plamondon on an IDS in Reexamination No. 90/014,875.
`
`POPR, 5. Under this logic, reexamination would always preclude IPR institution
`
`given that 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 requires a patent owner to submit the prior art raised in
`
`an IPR. In any event, reexamination is not a Fintiv issue. The Board considers
`
`reexamination under the Advanced Bionics framework. Mueller Sys. v. Rein Tech.,
`
`IPR2020-00099, Paper 9, 13 (May 20, 2020). Under that framework, merely
`
`listing Plamondon on an IDS (in this case, one of 19 IDS’s spanning 123 pages)
`
`does not raise a discretionary denial issue. Group III Int’l v. Targus Group Int’l,
`
`IPR2021-00371, Paper 21 (July 9, 2021) (Advanced Bionics Step 1 not met where
`
`petition relied on prior art in IDS not applied by Examiner to reject claims)
`
`Finally, PO urges discretionary denial based on presentation to the jury in
`
`the Teso trial of a different prior art reference (Ex. 2006) that was applied to a
`
`different patent (Ex. 2002), which received a different claim construction for
`
`“client device” (Ex. 1006, 23-24). The Teso trial plainly has no relevance to the
`
`Fintiv analysis with respect to Petitioner’s IPR against the ’319 patent, and the
`
`POPR cites no authority suggesting it should be considered.
`
`
`
`Date: March 25, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Michael N. Rader/
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4)
`I certify that on March 25, 2022, I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits filed therewith, to be served via electronic mail,
`
`as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tomd@ruyakcherian.com
`elizabetho@ruyakcherian.com
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Thomas M. Dunham
`
`Elizabeth A. O'Brien
`
`
`
`Date: March 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`