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. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`1 of 114
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`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. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`1 of 114
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 5
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ............................................................................................ 8
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES .......................................................................................10
`
`A. ANTICIPATION .........................................................................................13
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS ..........................................................................................13
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TO THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY .................................20
`
`V. INTRODUCTION TO THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘319 AND ‘510 PATENTS ..22
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE COMMON SPECIFICATION ..............................27
`
`VII. .......................................................... REVIEW OF THE COMMON SPECIFICATION
`
`
`
`28
`
`VIII. ..................................................................................................... CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`33
`
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR “CLIENT DEVICE” .............................34
`
`1. REVIEW OF FIGURES IN THE SPECIFICATION ..............................40
`
`a. REVIEW OF FIGURE 1.......................................................................41
`
`b. REVIEW OF FIGURE 3.......................................................................43
`
`c. COMPARISON OF FIGURES 1 AND 3 .............................................45
`
`2. REVIEW OF PROSECUTION HISTORIES ..........................................46
`
`
`
`2
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`2 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`a. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE GRANDPARENT PATENT
`
`NO. 10,069,936 ............................................................................................47
`
`b. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE ‘319 PATENT .........................49
`
`c. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF THE CHILD ‘510 PATENT ............51
`
`B. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR “SECOND SERVER” ...........................51
`
`IX. BRIGHT DATA PRACTICES THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .....................56
`
`X. OVERVIEW OF PLAMONDON .....................................................................62
`
`XI. GROUND 1 (ALLEGED ANTICIPATION BY PLAMONDON) FAILS ......65
`
`A. NO DISCLOSURE OF CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER ROLE-BASED
`
`CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................66
`
`B. NO DISCLOSURE OF CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER ROLE-BASED
`
`CONSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................67
`
`C. NO DISCLOSURE OF ARCHITECTURE OF CLAIM 1 UNDER
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS ...................................69
`
`1. CLIENT 102 .............................................................................................71
`
`2. APPLIANCE 200 .....................................................................................76
`
`D. NO DISCLOSURE OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS .......................................78
`
`1. CLAIM 14 ................................................................................................78
`
`2. CLAIM 24 ................................................................................................82
`
`
`
`3
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`3 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`E. PETITIONER’S EXPERT REPEATEDLY TAKES A FALLBACK
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`POSITION REGARDING PLAMONDON ........................................................86
`
`XII. .... GROUNDS 2-7 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS)
`
`
`
`87
`
`A. GROUND 2 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER PLAMONDON) FAILS
`
`
`
`88
`
`B. GROUND 3 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER PLAMONDON AND
`
`RFC 2616) FAILS ................................................................................................88
`
`C. GROUND 4 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER PLAMONDON AND
`
`RFC 1122) FAILS ................................................................................................93
`
`D. GROUND 5 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER PLAMONDON AND
`
`IEEE 802.11-2007) FAILS ..................................................................................93
`
`E. GROUND 6 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER PLAMONDON AND
`
`PRICE) FAILS .....................................................................................................94
`
`F. GROUND 7 (ALLEGED OBVIOUSNESS OVER PLAMONDON AND
`
`KOZAT) FAILS ...................................................................................................99
`
`XIII. ......................... SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS
`
`101
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`4 of 114
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I, Dr. Tim A. Williams, declare as follows:
`
`2. My full name is Tim Arthur Williams.
`
`3.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert in this matter by
`
`counsel for Patent Owner Bright Data Ltd. (“Bright Data”). I have been asked to
`
`provide my opinions on certain references in the above-identified inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceeding, IPR2022-00135, involving U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`(“the ’319 Patent”).
`
`4.
`
`In IPR2022-00138 (the related proceeding) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,484,510 (“the ‘510 Patent”): I reviewed the Petition (Paper 2) and the exhibits
`
`submitted with the Petition (EXS. 1001-1079); I reviewed the Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Response (“POPR,” Paper 6) and the exhibits submitted with the
`
`POPR (EXS. 2001-2009); I reviewed Petitioner’s Reply to the POPR (Paper 8) and
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to the POPR (Paper 9); and I reviewed the Institution
`
`Decision (Paper 12) dated May 11, 2022.
`
`5.
`
`In IPR2022-00135 (this proceeding): I reviewed the Petition (Paper 2)
`
`and the exhibits submitted with the Petition (EXS. 1001-1078); I reviewed the
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“POPR”, Paper 7) and the exhibits submitted
`
`with the POPR (EXS. 2001-2009); I reviewed Petitioner’s Reply to the POPR
`
`
`
`5
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`5 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`(Paper 8) and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to the POPR (Paper 9); and I reviewed the
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Institution Decision (Paper 12) dated June 1, 2022.
`
`6.
`
`I reviewed the deposition transcript of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Dave
`
`Levin (EX. 2010) dated July 22, 2022, which I understand covered both IPR2022-
`
`00135 and IPR2022-00138.
`
`7.
`
`I reviewed related patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,560,604 (EX.
`
`2011) and U.S. Patent No. 10,069,936 (EX. 2012) and their file histories (EXS.
`
`1071 and 1072).
`
`8.
`
`In the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`
`00225 (E.D. Tex.)(the “NetNut Litigation” hereafter); I reviewed related patents,
`
`including U.S. Patent Nos. 10,491,713 (“the ’713 Patent,” EX. 2004) and
`
`11,050,852 (“the ’852 Patent,” EX. 2005) and 11,044,346 (“the ’346 Patent”), and
`
`their file histories. I reviewed the Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 191)(the “Teso
`
`C.C. Order,” EX. 1006), the Supplemental Claim Construction order (Dkt.
`
`453)(the “Teso Supplemental C.C. Order,” EX. 1009), the February 16, 2021
`
`Order denying defendants’ Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12(c) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. 303)(the “Teso Alice Order,” EX. 2007),
`
`the Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 126-5) and the Declaration of
`
`Dr. Michael J. Freedman (Dkt. 138-1) in the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`
`UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)(the “Teso Litigation” hereafter). I
`
`
`
`6
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`6 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`reviewed my prior declaration in support of Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.’s Claim
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Constructions (Dkt. 106-7), the Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Claffy in support of
`
`Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 115-1), and the Court’s
`
`Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 146)(the “NetNut C.C. Order,” EX. 2013) in the
`
`NetNut Litigation.
`
`9.
`
`As of the date of this declaration, I have reviewed the papers and
`
`exhibits submitted in related proceedings involving the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents,
`
`including IPR2021-01492 and IPR2021-01493 (together, the “NetNut IPRs”);
`
`IPR2022-00861 and IPR2022-00862 (together, the “Code200 IPRs”); and
`
`IPR2022-00915 and IPR2022-00916 (together, the “Major Data IPRs”). I
`
`submitted prior declarations in support of the Patent Owner Preliminary Responses
`
`in each of the Code200 IPRs and the Major Data IPRs.
`
`10.
`
`I have reviewed other exhibits submitted concurrently with this
`
`declaration, as cited and discussed herein.
`
`11.
`
`In preparing this declaration, I also had telephone conversations with
`
`Bright Data’s Chief Technology Officer, Mr. Ron Kol, and Bright Data’s
`
`consulting source code reviewer from the various Texas litigations involving the
`
`‘319 and ‘510 Patents, Mr. Matt McKune.
`
`12.
`
`I am being paid for my work preparing this declaration at my normal
`
`consulting rate plus reimbursement of direct expenses. My compensation is not
`
`
`
`7
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`7 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`tied to the outcome of this matter and is not based on the substance of the opinions
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`that I provide.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`13.
`
`I am an industry professional with over 45 years of experience in
`
`wireless communications, computer networking and telecommunications
`
`technology. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`14.
`
`I am currently active currently active as Chief Executive Officer at
`
`Beach Technologies, LLC (Danville, CA) a company related to intellectual
`
`property consulting.
`
`15.
`
`I am also currently active as a Member at Calumet Venture
`
`Management (Madison, WI) a company related to the investment into start-up
`
`companies.
`
`16. Beginning in 2004, I was the Founder and Chairman at DoceoTech
`
`Inc. (Danville, CA) which provides training for engineers in wireless, computer
`
`networking, and telephony technologies.
`
`17. From 2008 to 2010, I was Founder and Board Member of BitRail
`
`Networks, Inc (Miami, FL). This company designed and produced computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was edge devices for
`
`residential and community access.
`
`
`
`8
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`8 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`18. From 2006 to 2015, I was Founder and Board Member of BEEcube,
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Inc. (Freemont, CA). This company built high speed computing and computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was networking
`
`equipment for backhaul networks used in 5G cellular networks.
`
`19. From 2004 to 2008, I was Founder and CEO of SiBEAM, Inc. This
`
`company designed and produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`20. From 1999 to 2000, I was Interim CEO and Advisory Board Member
`
`of Atheros Communications, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) . This company designed and
`
`produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`21. From 1998 to 2000, I was CTO of Picazo Communications, Inc. (San
`
`Jose, CA). This company built computer networking equipment to provide VoIP
`
`PBX functionality.
`
`22. From 1991 to 1998, I was Co-Founder, CTO, VP Engineering of
`
`Wireless Access, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA). This company developed over the air
`
`communication protocols for communication between the subscriber device and
`
`the network.
`
`23. From 1979 to 1991, I was a Member of the Technical Staff at
`
`Motorola, Inc. (Schaumberg, IL and Austin, TX). In IL, I designed protocols for
`
`Digital voice communications. In TX, I designed ICs for communications
`
`including Telecom, Wireless, Cellular and Computer Networking.
`
`
`
`9
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`9 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`I have been engaged in over 200 patent related litigations since 1999.
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Many of these cases relate to computer networking technologies, including
`
`protocols for Internet communications and the architecture of computer networks.
`
`25.
`
`I hold degrees from Michigan Technological University (B.S.E.E.,
`
`1976) and the University of Texas at Austin (M.S.E.E., 1982 and Ph.D., Electrical
`
`Engineering, 1985 and M.B.A., 1991).
`
`26.
`
`I am the principal inventor on 28 U.S. Patents all of which relate to
`
`communications technologies.
`
`27.
`
`I have been a Registered Patent Agent since 2002.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`28. 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 ’319 Patent and its file history, and my knowledge of:
`
`a. The level of education and experience of persons actively working in
`
`the field at the time the subject matter at issue was developed;
`
`b. The types of problems encountered in the art at the time the subject
`
`matter was developed;
`
`10
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`10 of 114
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`c. The relevant prior art patents and publications;
`
`d. The activities of others working in that field;
`
`e. The prior art solutions to the problems addressed by the relevant art;
`
`and,
`
`f. The sophistication of the technology at issue in this case.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`30. Taking the above factors into account, based on my experience in the
`
`art and my study of the Internet communication systems disclosed in the ‘319 and
`
`‘510 Patents (which share the same inventors of Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski
`
`and a common specification), in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`“POSA” hereafter) would be an individual who, as of October 8, 2009, the filing
`
`date of the shared provisional application, had a Master’s Degree or higher in the
`
`field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as
`
`of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of
`
`
`
`11
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`11 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`experience in Internet communications. I exceeded that level of skill in the relevant
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`time frame.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that for purposes of this IPR, Petitioner and its expert
`
`have adopted this proposal for the level of ordinary skill in the art. Petition at 7;
`
`EX. 1003 at ¶ 34. 1 I understand that the Board applied this same definition in each
`
`of the Institution Decisions in IPR2022-00135 (Paper 12 at 17) and IPR2022-
`
`00138 (Paper 12 at 21).
`
`32. Based on the foregoing, I believe that I am qualified to provide
`
`reliable opinions in the technical field of the ’319 and ‘510 Patents, including
`
`regarding what a POSA would have understood from the specification, drawings,
`
`claims, and file histories, as well as from the prior art in the field at the time of the
`
`invention (October 8, 2009).
`
`33. 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.
`
`
`1 I understand Petitioner’s expert suggested some modifications to the level of
`ordinary skill in the art. EX. 1003 at ¶¶ 33-34. My analysis herein would not
`change even with these modifications.
`
`
`
`12
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`12 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`A. ANTICIPATION
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`34.
`
`It is my understanding that “anticipation” exists only if a single
`
`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
`
`the patentee’s claimed 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.
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`35.
`
`I also understand that a patent may be rendered “obvious” based on an
`
`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
`
`
`
`13
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`13 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`understanding that in assessing the obviousness of claimed subject matter a POSA
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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).
`
`36.
`
`It is my further understanding that the question of obviousness is to be
`
`determined based on:
`
`a. The scope and content of the prior art;
`
`b. 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);
`
`c. The level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
`
`invention of the subject matter of the claim; and,
`
`d. Any relevant objective factors (the “secondary indicia”) indicating
`
`non-obviousness as I discuss further below.
`
`37.
`
`It is also my understanding that 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 whether it
`
`would have been obvious to combine known limitations in a manner claimed in a
`
`
`
`14
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`14 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`patent, one may consider such things as the interrelated teachings of multiple
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge of a POSA.
`
`38.
`
`It is my further understanding that for a claim to be found invalid as
`
`obvious, it must be obvious to a POSA at the relevant time. I also understand that
`
`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 blocks of prior art. Obviousness may be found
`
`where, for example, the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`
`
`15
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`15 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`in the claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the entirety of a claim covering an alleged
`
`invention, not merely some portion of it.
`
`41.
`
`It is my further understanding that although the KSR decision I
`
`identified above has led to the elimination of the “teaching, suggestion or
`
`motivation” test as the sole test for judging whether the prior art can be combined
`
`for the purposes of an obviousness assertion, the use of “impermissible hindsight”
`
`is still inappropriate when making such an assertion. For example, § 2142 of the
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) includes a specific direction to
`
`
`
`16
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`16 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Examiners that: “[t]he tendency to resort to “hindsight” based upon
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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 prior
`
`art.” In my opinion, this direction to Examiners is equally applicable to experts
`
`who assert that the general knowledge of a POSA and/or a combination of
`
`references invalidates a patent claim through obviousness.
`
`42.
`
`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 “CAFC”) has stated that, “[c]are must be taken to avoid hindsight
`
`reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art
`
`references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the
`
`result of the claims in suit.” In my opinion, this is also important because, as the
`
`Supreme Court also stated in KSR at pp. 418-19, “a patent composed of several
`
`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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`17 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
`
`combinations of what, in some sense, is already known.”
`
`43. 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, in the case PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987,
`
`994 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit clarified that “obviousness concerns
`
`whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated
`
`to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.” (Emphasis in original.)
`
`44.
`
`It is also my understanding that I should consider any objective
`
`evidence (sometimes called the “secondary considerations”) that may have existed
`
`at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light on the non-
`
`obviousness of the claims, such as:
`
`a. 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);
`
`
`
`18
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`18 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`b. Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`c. Whether others had tried and failed to make the invention;
`
`d. Whether others invented the invention at roughly the same time;
`
`e. Whether others copied the invention;
`
`f. Whether there were changes or related technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention;
`
`g. Whether the invention achieved unexpected results;
`
`h. Whether others in the field praised the invention;
`
`i. Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention
`
`expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the invention;
`
`j. Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent from the patent
`
`holder; and,
`
`k. Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom in the
`
`field.
`
`45.
`
`It is my further understanding the Board has designated a precedential
`
`decision regarding the proper analysis of secondary considerations in the case of
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB Jan. 24,
`
`2020)(designated April 14, 2020)(“Lectrosonics” hereafter). I understand that for
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness to be accorded substantial weight,
`
`the patentee must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the
`
`
`
`19
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`19 of 114
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`claimed invention. Id. at 32. “There is no nexus unless the evidence presented is
`
`‘reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.’” Id. I understand that a
`
`patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus “when the patentee shows that the
`
`asserted objective evidence is tied to a specific product and that product ‘embodies
`
`the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.’” Id. I understand that “[a]
`
`patent claim is not coextensive with a product that includes a ‘critical’ unclaimed
`
`feature that is claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the
`
`product’s functionality.” Id.
`
`46.
`
`I understand that “a finding that a presumption of nexus is
`
`inappropriate does not end the inquiry into secondary considerations.”
`
`Lectrosonics at 33. “To the contrary, the patent owner is still afforded an
`
`opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary
`
`considerations is the ‘direct result of the unique characteristics of the claimed
`
`invention.’” Id. I understand that “there must be a nexus to some aspect of the
`
`claim not already in the prior art.” Id.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TO THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that network components,
`
`such as client devices and web servers, communicating over the Internet are
`
`identified by Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses. A web server, one type of network
`
`component, typically stores content that may be identified by a uniform resource
`
`
`
`20
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00135, EX. 2044
`20 of 114
`
`
`
`
`
`locator (“URL”). The IP address includes certain information that can be used to
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`geolocate the network component with a particular IP address.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that an IP packet sent over
`
`the internet to, for example, a web server includes an IP header and payload. The
`
`IP header includes the Source IP Address (the IP address of the sending network
`
`component) and the Destination IP Address (the IP address of the receiving
`
`network component, for example, the IP address of the web server). The payload
`
`includes the data being transmitted, such as a request for a content stored on the
`
`web server.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, normally, a request for
`
`content is sent from a client device (discussed in detail below) to a web server. For
`
`example, a customer that is considering buying a product from a store may request
`
`content associated with that particular product from the store’s website. That same
`
`customer may also request content associated with that same product at a different
`
`store’s website. As one example, a customer may request content to see if the
`
`product is on sale. Therefore, in my opinion, a POSA would understand that the IP
`
`packet would include the Source IP Address associated with the customer’s client
`
`device.
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, normally, the web
`
`server responds to a request for content by sending the requested content back to
`
`
`
`21
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.
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
