throbber
IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`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 IPR2022-00138
`Patent No. 10,484,510
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1085
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ............................................................................. 3
`A. FINTIV ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 4
`B. GENERAL PLASTIC ANALYSIS ................................................................... 9
`C. ADVANCED BIONICS ANALYSIS ..............................................................10
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘510 PATENT ..............................................................12
`A. THE CHALLENEGED CLAIMS ..................................................................15
`B. PRIORITY DATE ..........................................................................................15
`C. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .........................................15
`D. PETITIONER’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE ‘510 PATENT .....18
`E. PETITION’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE COURT’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................23
`F. PETITIONER’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION FOR “ESTABLISHING A
`TCP CONNECTION” ..........................................................................................26
`III. OVERVIEW OF PLAMONDON ..................................................................29
`A. MIXING AND MATCHING EMBODIMENTS OF PLAMONDON ..........30
`B. THE EMBODIMENTS OF SECTION A (FIGS. 1A-C) DO NOT
`DISCLOSE USE OF A “FIRST CLIENT DEVICE” BETWEEN A “SECOND
`SERVER” AND A “WEB SERVER” AS CLAIMED IN THE ‘510 PATENT..34
`C. THE EMBODIMENTS OF SECTION F (FIGS. 6A-B) DO NOT
`DISCLOSE USE OF A “FIRST CLIENT DEVICE” BETWEEN A “SECOND
`SERVER” AND A “WEB SERVER” AS CLAIMED IN THE ‘510 PATENT..39
`D. THE EMBODIMENTS OF SECTION B (FIGS. 2A-B) DO NOT
`DISCLOSE USE OF A “FIRST CLIENT DEVICE” BETWEEN A “SECOND
`SERVER” AND A “WEB SERVER” AS CLAIMED IN THE ‘510 PATENT..41
`E. THE EMBOIDMENTS OF SECTION E (FIGS. 5A-B) DO NOT
`DISCLOSE USE OF A “FIRST CLIENT DEVICE” BETWEEN A “SECOND
`SERVER” AND A “WEB SERVER” AS CLAIMED IN THE ‘510 PATENT..43
`F. THE EMBODIMENTS OF SECTION G (FIGS. 7A-B), SECTION H (FIGS.
`8A-B), AND SECTION O (FIGS. 15A-B) DO NOT DISCLOSE USE OF A
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`“FIRST CLIENT DEVICE” BETWEEN A “SECOND SERVER” AND A
`“WEB SERVER” AS CLAIMED IN THE ‘510 PATENT .................................44
`G. THE EMBODIMENTS OF SECTION C (FIG. 3), SECTION K (FIGS. 11A-
`D), SECTION L (FIGS. 12A-B), SECTION N (FIGS. 14A-C) DO NOT
`DISCLOSE USE OF A “FIRST CLIENT DEVICE” BETWEEN A “SECOND
`SERVER” AND A “WEB SERVER” AS CLAIMED IN THE ‘510 PATENT..45
`IV. APPLIANCE 200 OF PLAMONDON DOES NOT PERFORM ALL STEPS
`OF CLAIM 1 OF THE ‘510 PATENT ....................................................................46
`A. THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1 ...................................................................47
`1. Petitioner takes contradictory positions from the Teso defendants regarding
`appliance 200 .....................................................................................................48
`2. Petitioner takes contradictory positions from the examiner regarding
`appliance 200 .....................................................................................................49
`B. STEP 1 OF CLAIM 1 .....................................................................................50
`C. STEP 2 OF CLAIM 1 .....................................................................................52
`D. STEP 3 OF CLAIM 1 .....................................................................................56
`E. STEP 4 OF CLAIM 1 .....................................................................................57
`V. ALLEGED ANTICIPATION OF DEPENDENT CLAIMS 10, 12, 15-23 BY
`PLAMONDON ........................................................................................................61
`VI. BECAUSE PLAMONDON DOES NOT ANTICIPATE CLAIM 1, AND
`BECAUSE PETITIONER PROVIDES NO OBVIOUSNESS ANALYSIS OF
`CLAIM 1, GROUNDS 2-7 AUTOMATICALLY FAIL ........................................61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Declaration of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,491,712
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,491,713
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,050,852
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,972,602
`
`Order (Dkt. 303) 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)
`
`Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply (Dkt. 47) 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. May 5, 2020)
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply (Dkt. 145) 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. Oct. 20, 2020)
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`EX. 2001
`
`EX. 2002
`
`EX. 2003
`
`EX. 2004
`
`EX. 2005
`
`EX. 2006
`
`EX. 2007
`
`EX. 2008
`
`EX. 2009
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Patent Owner Bright Data Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or “Bright Data”)
`
`respectfully requests the Board deny institution of the requested inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-12 and 15-24 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,484,510 (“the ‘510 Patent”).1
`
`Patent Owner primarily relies on the lack of merit in the Petition to argue
`
`that the Board should deny institution for at least five reasons:
`
`First, Petitioner mischaracterizes the claimed inventions of the ‘510 Patent.
`
`Most notably, both client 102 and agent 122 of the ‘510 Patent are client devices.
`
`Second, Petitioner also mischaracterizes the Court’s claim construction of
`
`the term “second server” used in the ‘510 Patent. The Court construed “second
`
`server” as meaning a “server that is not the client device.” (EX. 1006 at 14).
`
`Petitioner seeks and applies a broader construction, removing the requirement that
`
`the “second server” must be a server.
`
`
`1 In this Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“POPR”), Bright Data is only
`
`addressing select issues demonstrating that review should not be instituted. In so
`
`doing, Bright Data is not acquiescing to other issues raised by Petitioner and
`
`reserves the right to address all issues and to challenge all points raised by
`
`Petitioner in any future response if proceedings are instituted. (See U.S.P.T.O.
`
`Trial Practice Guide, November 2019 Update, at 49-52).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Third, Petitioner also mischaracterizes the disclosure of at least primary
`
`reference U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0228938 (“Plamondon”)(EX. 1010). Most notably,
`
`the appliance 200 of Plamondon is not a client device.
`
`Fourth, both parties agree that all steps of claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent are
`
`performed by the “first client device.” Appliance 200 of Plamondon does not
`
`perform all steps of claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent and therefore, Plamondon cannot
`
`anticipate claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent.
`
`Fifth, claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ‘510 Patent and, in
`
`Ground 1, Petitioner alleges anticipation of claim 1 based on Plamondon. In
`
`Grounds 2-7, Petitioner alleges obviousness of dependent claims of the ‘510
`
`Patent. However, Petitioner provides no obviousness analysis of the steps of claim
`
`1 which are necessarily incorporated into each and every dependent claim that
`
`ultimately depends on claim 1. Thus, if Petitioner fails to meet its burden with
`
`respect to claim 1, then all Grounds must fail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`I. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL
`
`Petitioner raised arguments regarding the Fintiv2 factors (see Paper 2 at 68-
`
`71); the General Plastic3 factors (see Paper 2 at 71-73); and the Advanced Bionics4
`
`factors (see Paper 2 at 73-76) with respect to discretionary denial, which Patent
`
`Owner briefly responds to in this section. Patent Owner respectfully submits its
`
`responses are relevant because there are six other proceedings involving the ‘510
`
`Patent which only has one independent claim. Patent Owner respectfully submits
`
`that it is not an efficient use of the Board’s resources to continuously re-evaluate
`
`the validity of the ‘510 Patent. As explained by the Board:
`
`“The Board weighs petitioners’ desires to be heard against the
`interests of patent owners who seek to avoid harassment. See H.R.
`Rep. No. 112–98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) (explaining that post-grant
`review proceedings “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a
`means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and
`administrative attacks on the validity of a patent,” and that “[d]oing so
`would frustrate the purpose of the section as providing quick and cost
`effective alternatives to litigation”).”
`
`
`
`2 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20,
`
`2020)(precedential)(“Fintiv”)
`
`3 General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357,
`
`Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017)(precedential)(“General Plastic”)
`
`4 Advanced Bionics v. MED-EL, IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020)
`
`(precedential)(“Advanced Bionics”)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Adobe v. RAH Color Techs., IPR2019-00627, Paper 41, 16-17 (Sept. 10,
`
`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`2019)(cited by Petitioner, Paper 2 at 76).
`
`A. FINTIV ANALYSIS
`
`
`There are six other proceedings involving the ‘510 Patent:
`
`
`1. The Teso Litigation5 in which the jury entered a verdict finding claims
`
`1 and 22 of the ‘510 Patent were not invalid;
`
`2. The Tefincom Litigation6 which is currently awaiting trial;
`
`3. The NetNut Litigation7 which is currently awaiting trial;
`
`4. The Code200/Teso IPR8 which was denied institution;
`
`5. The NetNut IPR9 which is currently awaiting an institution decision;
`
`
`5 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.)(“Teso Litigation”).
`
`6 Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom SA d/b/a NordVPN,
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.)(“Tefincom Litigation”).
`
`7 Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.)(“NetNut Litigation”).
`
`8 Code200, UAB et al., v. Luminati Networks Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`
`IPR2020-01358 (PTAB).
`
`9 NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01493 (PTAB).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`6. The Teso Reexamination10 in which reexamination was ordered.
`
`Most notably, in the NetNut Litigation, the defendant NetNut Ltd. identified
`
`Plamondon as allegedly anticipating or rendering obvious claims 1, 2, 8-11, 13, 15,
`
`16, 18-20, and 22-23 in its invalidity contentions served on 12/17/2021. The
`
`NetNut Litigation is currently at an advanced stage and has jury trial scheduled for
`
`9/12/2022 in the Eastern District of Texas. See, e.g., NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data
`
`Ltd., IPR2021-01493, Paper 8 at 18-22 (PTAB Dec. 27, 2021)(Patent Owner’s
`
`analysis of certain Fintiv factors in its preliminary response in the NetNut IPR
`
`involving the ‘510 Patent). Therefore, the district court will resolve invalidity
`
`issues involving Plamondon, at least as to independent claim 1, in September 2022;
`
`long before a final written decision is due in this proceeding in May 2023.
`
`Additionally, on 12/20/2021, Bright Data submitted an information
`
`disclosure statement (“IDS”) identifying Plamondon in the pending Teso
`
`Reexamination proceeding. Therefore, that examiner will consider the materiality
`
`of Plamondon long before a final written decision is due in this proceeding in May
`
`2023.
`
`Also, in the Teso Litigation, a jury found that the asserted claims of related
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614 were not invalid based on Mithyantha (U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`10 Teso LT, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., Control No. 90/014,876.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`8,972,602)(EX. 2006).11 The claimed methods of both U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614
`
`(“the ‘614 Patent”)(EX. 2002)12 and the ‘510 Patent operate within the unique
`
`second server ↔ first client device ↔ web server architecture. [CITE RHYNE].
`
`In contrast, Mithyantha discloses the exact same computer ↔ computer ↔
`
`computer architecture as Plamondon. (EX. 2001 at ¶ 85 (compare, e.g., EX. 1010,
`
`Plamondon, FIG. 1A and EX. 2006, Mithyantha, FIG. 1B)). Neither Mithyantha
`
`nor Plamondon disclose the use of “client devices” as claimed in the ‘614 and ‘510
`
`Patents. During the Teso trial, the jury found in favor of Bright Data, properly
`
`recognizing the differences between a “client device” and “second server”. As will
`
`be discussed further below, the Teso defendants did not allege appliance 200 of
`
`Plamondon/Mithyantha is a client device, but rather some type of server.13
`
`
`11 The jury also found that the asserted claims of the ‘510 Patent were not invalid
`
`based on a different reference.
`
`12 There is only one independent claim in U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614. (See EX.
`
`2002).
`
`13 The Teso defendants alleged that appliance 200 is the “second server” and that
`
`appliance 200’ is the “client device.” Teso’s designations were purely arbitrary and
`
`failed to distinguish or otherwise explain any differences between appliance 200
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Petitioner now takes a contradictory position from the Teso defendants with
`
`respect to appliance 200. The Board need not expend resources conducting an
`
`entire trial in order to conclude that appliance 200 of Plamondon/Mithyantha does
`
`not correspond to the “first client device” in claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent.
`
`Although Petitioner is not a defendant in any pending district court litigation
`
`involving the ‘510 Patent, Petitioner’s ambiguous statement regarding the real-
`
`parties-in-interest (“RPIs”) leaves Patent Owner unsure whether Petitioner is or is
`
`not in any way related to any defendant in active district court litigation.14 As of
`
`the filing of this POPR, Patent Owner is not currently aware of any relationship
`
`that would result in denial of institution due to, for example, the time bar under §
`
`315(b).
`
`Nonetheless, the Board has explained:
`
`“Even when a petitioner is unrelated to a defendant, however, if
`the issues are the same as, or substantially similar to, those already or
`about to be litigated, or other circumstances weigh against redoing
`the work of another tribunal, the Board may, nonetheless, exercise
`the authority to deny institution. An unrelated petitioner should,
`therefore, address any other district court or Federal Circuit
`proceedings involving the challenged patent to discuss why
`
`and appliance 200’. The jury rejected Teso’s arguments characterizing appliances
`
`200, 200’.
`
`14 Patent Owner intends to further investigate this RPI issue in the event the Board
`
`decides to institute this proceeding.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`addressing the same or substantially the same issues would not be
`duplicative of the prior case even if the petition is brought by a
`different party.”
`
`Fintiv at 14 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis added).15 Based on the foregoing,
`
`Patent Owner disagrees that “there is no meaningful overlap between this IPR and
`
`the EDTX cases” (see Paper 2 at 68) especially given that there is only one
`
`independent claim in the ‘510 Patent.
`
`Patent Owner further disagrees that the Petition presents a “strong showing
`
`on the merits” (see Paper 2 at 71). The Board need not expend resources
`
`conducting an entire trial in order to conclude that Plamondon does not anticipate
`
`claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent. Petitioner made a strategic decision to allege only
`
`anticipation of claim 1. Petitioner did not allege obviousness of claim 1 and the
`
`
`15 Additionally, the Board has explained that an objective of the AIA was to
`
`provide “an effective and efficient alternative to district court litigation.” (NHK
`
`Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12,
`
`2018)(precedential)(“NHK”) at 20). “[W]here no such alternative is needed in view
`
`of a district court’s just and speedy adjudication of the same issue, there is no need
`
`for the Board to unnecessarily duplicate the district court’s efforts at the expense of
`
`the Board’s time and resources, which are appropriately and best applied
`
`elsewhere.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Board cannot institute an IPR on a ground not found in the petition. See
`
`Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, 2019-1177 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 30, 2020). Also,
`
`Petitioner did not set forth any obviousness analysis of claim 1 in the other
`
`Grounds challenging the dependent claims of the ‘510 Patent. Therefore, if
`
`Petitioner is unsuccessful regarding claim 1, then all Grounds must fail.
`
`B. GENERAL PLASTIC ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is not presently aware of a significant relationship between
`
`Petitioner and NetNut, Code200, or Teso.16 However, Petitioner had access to
`
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response to the Code200/Teso Petition against the
`
`‘510 Patent as of December 2020. Petitioner also had access to various docket
`
`entries in the district court litigations involving the ‘510 Patent prior to the filing of
`
`the Petition. Patent Owner respectfully submits that Petitioner has received a
`
`benefit from having the opportunity to study Bright Data’s arguments regarding the
`
`‘510 Patent.
`
`
`16 Patent Owner is mindful of the Board’s guidance regarding application of the
`
`General Plastic factors in its institution decisions in IPR2021-00458 and IPR2021-
`
`00465.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`As discussed above with respect to Fintiv as well as General Plastic, Patent
`
`Owner is mindful of the finite resources of the Board and respectfully submits that
`
`instituting this IPR would not be an efficient use of those resources.
`
`C. ADVANCED BIONICS ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`Petitioner mischaracterizes the Board’s precedent which clearly states:
`
`“[p]reviously presented art includes . . . art provided to the Office by an applicant,
`
`such as on an [IDS].” Advanced Bionics, Paper 6 at 7–8. When a reference is
`
`identified on an IDS during prosecution, that reference qualifies as art that was
`
`“previously presented” to the Office under step 1.
`
`Petitioner attempts to disqualify the disclosure of U.S. Patent No. 7,865,585
`
`(“Samuels”)(EX. 1054) from the Advanced Bionics framework. However,
`
`Petitioner makes three relevant admissions.
`
`First, Petitioner admits Samuels shares overlapping material with
`
`Plamondon, including FIGS. 1A-1E, 2A-2B, 3 and paragraphs [0202]-[0362] of
`
`Plamondon. (See Paper 2 at 74).
`
`Second, Petitioner admits Samuels was cited on the IDS and initialed by
`
`Examiner during prosecution of the ‘510 Patent. (See Paper 2 at 74).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Third, Petitioner admits Samuels was applied in related patent applications,
`
`Nos. 12/836,05917 and 14/025,10918. (See Paper 2 at 75). These patent applications,
`
`as well as the ‘510 Patent, had the same examiner, Minh Chau Nguyen.
`
`Petitioner argues that the Petition relies only on the new disclosure of
`
`Plamondon, including paragraphs [0363]-[0682]. “Plamondon’s new, non-
`
`overlapping subject matter describes functionality— including the parallel
`
`revalidation methods [in FIGS. 6A-6B and paragraphs [0442]-[0453]] described
`
`above—that anticipates the steps in challenged claim 1. The Patent Office never
`
`considered this functionality when discussing Samuels.”(Paper 2 at 74).
`
`However, Samuels and Plamondon (as well as Mithyantha) disclose the
`
`same network architecture, even if additional functionality is disclosed in
`
`Plamondon. The examiner considered (a) the same network architecture and (b) the
`
`same, overlapping functionality in Samuels/Plamondon during prosecution of the
`
`‘510 Patent. Petitioner does not identify any error by the examiner based on, for
`
`example, the examiner’s interpretation of the network architecture in both Samuels
`
`and Plamondon. As will be discussed further below, the examiner did not
`
`understand appliance 200 of Samuels/Plamondon to be a client device, but rather a
`
`
`17 Issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604
`
`18 Issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,069,936
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`type of server. Petitioner now takes a contradictory position from the examiner, as
`
`well as the Teso defendants, with respect to appliance 200. The Board need not
`
`expend resources conducting an entire trial in order to conclude that appliance 200
`
`of Samuels/Plamondon/Mithyantha does not correspond to the “first client device”
`
`in claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent.
`
`As explained herein, the computer ↔ computer ↔ computer architecture
`
`disclosed in Samuels/Plamondon/Mithyantha is different from the novel and
`
`unique second server ↔ first client device ↔ web server architecture disclosed
`
`in the ‘510 Patent.
`
`
`
`II. OVERVIEW OF THE ‘510 PATENT
`
`The ‘510 Patent describes a novel “system designed for increasing network
`
`communication speed for users …” (EX. 1001 at Abstract). To achieve the
`
`advantages described in the specification, the ‘510 Patent claims methods utilizing
`
`a novel “second server ↔ first client device ↔ web server” architecture, whereby
`
`a “first client device” serves as a proxy between the “second server” and “web
`
`server.”
`
`A problem in the art was the fact that certain websites with public information
`
`nevertheless create technological roadblocks to obtaining that information from
`
`certain requesting devices. For example, companies often make many thousands of
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`requests or more when they are trying to maintain current data from other company
`
`websites, such as a travel website searching airlines for up-to-the-minute ticket
`
`prices, and those requests will be blocked if the target web server identifies the user
`
`as a competitor, which often occurs when they come from a commercial IP address
`
`and/or if too many requests are made from the same IP address.
`
`To overcome these challenges, the proxy service of the claims sends requests
`
`through one or more of a large group of proxy “client devices,” such as individual
`
`cell phone devices configured with software to function as proxies. As the proxy
`
`devices belong to real people who otherwise send such requests to target web servers
`
`as customers, the targets will allow the queries and not artificially block them.
`
`The ‘510 Patent explains that previous “proxy servers” fail to provide a
`
`“comprehensive solution for Internet surfing,” in part because they “would need to
`
`be deployed at every point around the world where the Internet is being consumed.”
`
`(EX. 1001 at 2:27-30; see also 2:11-26). Instead, to create a new type of consumer-
`
`based network that never existed before, the ‘510 Patent employs “client devices”
`
`that operate as proxies. (Id. at 3:16-57).
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent recites a method for use over the unique second
`
`server ↔ first client device ↔ web server architecture recited in the claim:
`
`“1. A method for use with a web server that responds to Hypertext Transfer
`
`Protocol (HTTP) requests and stores a first content identified by a first content
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`identifier, the method by a first client device comprising:
`
`establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection with a
`
`second server;
`
`sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first content identifier;
`
`receiving, the first content from the web server over the Internet in response
`
`to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`sending the received first content, to the second server over the
`
`established TCP connection, in response to the receiving of the first content
`
`identifier.”
`
`(EX. 1001 at 19:18-31 (emphasis added)).
`
`It is clear from Claim 1 that the method is performed “by the first client
`
`device” which is a communication device. The communication device can serve as
`
`a proxy in requesting content using the “second server ↔ first client device ↔ web
`
`server” architecture shown below:
`
`
`
`
`
`The unique arrangement of the devices recited in the claims, together with the
`
`specific steps that are recited, serve to differentiate the Challenged Claims from
`
`prior art systems and to achieve the advantages of the inventions.
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`A. THE CHALLENEGED CLAIMS
`
`
`
`The ‘510 Patent contains 24 claims, with only claim 1 being independent. In
`
`this proceeding, Petitioner challenges claims 1-12 and 15-24 of the ‘510 Patent.
`
`(Paper 2 at 2).
`
`B. PRIORITY DATE
`
`
`
`The ‘510 Patent claims priority back through the ‘319 Patent and earlier
`
`continuation and divisional applications to provisional application number
`
`61/249,624 filed October 8, 2009. Petitioner has not contested this priority date.
`
`(See, e.g., Paper 2 at 7).
`
`C. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSA”) is someone who, as of 10/8/2009, “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
`
`experience in Internet Communications.” (EX. 2001 at ¶ 21). Petitioner has
`
`adopted this POSA definition for purposes of this IPR. (Paper 2 at 7).
`
`Patent Owner relies on the expert declaration of Dr. Rhyne in this
`
`proceeding who satisfied the qualifications of a POSA as of 10/8/2009. Dr. Rhyne
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`was also designated and recognized by the Court as a qualified expert in the Teso
`
`Litigation involving the ‘510 Patent. (EX. 2001 at ¶ 4).
`
`Petitioner relies on the expert declaration of Dr. Levin in this proceeding.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that Petitioner has not affirmatively established
`
`that its expert, Dr. Levin, satisfied the qualifications of a POSA as of 10/8/2009.19
`
`In his declaration, Dr. Levin simply stated that “I have worked with many people
`
`who fit the characteristics of the POSA, and I am familiar with their level of skill
`
`in and around October 2009. When developing the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration, I assumed the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art,
`
`as set forth above.” (EX. 1003 at ¶ 35). Because Petitioner did not establish that
`
`Dr. Levin satisfied the qualifications of a POSA as of 10/8/2009, the expert
`
`declaration should be given less weight. See SCHOTT Gemtron Corp. v. SSW
`
`Holding Co., IPR2014-00367, Paper 62 at 11-13 (PTAB May 26, 2015)
`
`
`19 Dr. Levin does not have a Master’s degree and did not obtain his Ph.D. until
`
`2010. (EX. 1004 at 1). Under the alternative POSA definition, Dr. Levin obtained
`
`his B.S. in Computer Science in 2002 (EX. 1004 at 1), but Petitioner has not
`
`established Dr. Levin also had two or more years of experience in Internet
`
`Communications. Between 2002 and 2009, Dr. Levin was employed as a Software
`
`Engineer and had three summer internships. (EX. 1004 at 13).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`(“Petitioner’s witness … does not qualify as a person of ordinary skill” and
`
`accordingly “we accord the testimony ... regarding the alleged obviousness of the
`
`claims less weight.”).
`
`Additionally, Dr. Levin’s analysis appears to be biased by hindsight. Dr.
`
`Levin seems to use hindsight in an attempt to line up the components of
`
`Plamondon with the claim language. For example, Petitioner, relying on Dr. Levin,
`
`“arbitrary calls client 102 a server.” (EX. 2001 at ¶ 64). It is improper to use
`
`hindsight to recharacterize the components of Plamondon, contrary to the way a
`
`POSA would understand the components of Plamondon.
`
`Also, Dr. Levin takes inconsistent positions on Grounds 5 and 6 with respect
`
`to claim 2, revealing his hindsight bias. For example, in Ground 5 (Plamondon +
`
`IEEE 802.11), Dr. Levin relies on IEEE 802.11 in his obviousness analysis to
`
`allege (a) appliance 200 is identified by a MAC address and (b) a first message to
`
`client 102 comprises the MAC address. (Paper 2 at 50-51; see also EX. 1004 at ¶
`
`366 and 370). In Ground 6 (Plamondon + Price), Dr. Levin makes the conclusory
`
`statement that:
`
`“All application messages sent on a WiFi or Ethernet link would
`include the source MAC address. This provides a first message from
`appliance 200 to client 102a, comprising the appliance 200 MAC
`address as the source in a packet header, as part of the start-up of
`appliance 200, as claimed.”
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`(EX. 1004 at ¶ 390). Ground 6 does not rely on IEEE 802.11 as an obviousness
`
`reference. Dr. Levin thus has no basis to allege (a) appliance 200 is identified by a
`
`MAC address or (b) a first message to client 102 comprises the MAC address in
`
`Ground 6. Dr. Levin’s hindsight bias in Ground 6 is objectively shown based on
`
`his earlier reliance on IEEE 802.11 in Ground 5.
`
`D. PETITIONER’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE ‘510
`PATENT
`
`
`
`In Fig. 3 of the ‘510 Patent, a POSA would understand that both client 102
`
`and agent 122 of the ‘510 Patent are client devices. (E.g., EX. 2001 at ¶ 44). To the
`
`contrary, Petitioner alleges that client 102 is a “second server” and that agent 122
`
`is a “first client device”. (See, e.g., Paper 2 at 5). Petitioner’s allegations
`
`mischaracterize the ‘510 Patent (see EX. 2001 at ¶ 47) as well as Patent Owner’s
`
`briefing20 in the Teso Litigation. (See Paper 2 at 4-7). The annotated Fig. 3 is taken
`
`out of context. Like Petitioner, the Teso defendants in the Teso Litigation
`
`attempted to use the annotated Fig. 3 from Patent Owner’s briefing to improperly
`
`limit the express language of the claims by mischaracterizing a server and a client
`
`
`20 Patent Owner’s Opposition (Dkt. 28)(EX. 1007) to the Motion to Dismiss and
`
`Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 126)(EX. 1005)
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`device as interchangeable. (See, e.g., EX. 2008 at 7-8). In its responsive briefing21,
`
`Patent Owner noted that the Teso defendants ignored the accompanying citations
`
`to the specification of the ‘510 Patent distinguishing between client devices and
`
`servers. (See, e.g., id. at 8 (citing EX. 1007 at 3-5 and 17-19)). In its responsive
`
`briefing; Patent Owner also explained that the annotated Fig. 3 was only used to
`
`illustrate the lines of communication showing the steps performed by the proxy
`
`client device. (See EX. 2008 at 7-8 and EX. 2009 at 1-3).
`
`The ’510 specification also discloses the use of proxy servers between the
`
`client devices and the web servers. (EX. 2001 at ¶ 42). 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. (EX. 2001 at ¶ 42). 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, 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, 8 requests the data from the
`
`
`21 Patent Owner’s Sur-reply to the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 47)(EX. 2008) and in
`
`Patent Owner’s Claim Construction Reply Brief (Dkt. 145)(EX. 2009)
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Web servers 30, 32, 34 on their behalf…” (EX. 1001 at 2:11-19; see also EX.
`
`IPR2022-00138 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`2001 at ¶ 42).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 3 (copied below) shows an exemplary embodimen

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket