Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 1955
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NETNUT LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`(LOCAL PATENT RULE 4-5(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1103
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 1956
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................... 2
`A. The Patents-in-Suit........................................................................................................... 2
`B. The Asserted Claims ........................................................................................................ 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ........................................... 8
`III.
`LEVEL OF ONE OR ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 9
`IV.
`AGREED UPON TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION ................................................... 10
`V.
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................. 10
`A. Client / Client Device..................................................................................................... 10
`B. First Server (’319, 713 and ’852 Patents) ...................................................................... 15
`C. Server / Second Server ................................................................................................... 16
`D. Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) / HTTP Request / Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`Secure (HTTPS) / HTTPS Request .............................................................................. 18
`E. From the [first/web] server over the Internet in response to the sending ...................... 21
`F. Geographical Location Terms ........................................................................................ 22
`G. Via a First Client Device................................................................................................ 24
`VII. THE “INDEFINITENESS” ARGUMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANTS DO NOT
`REALLY RELATE TO INDEFINITENESS AND ARE NOT CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES ..................................................................................... 26
`A. Not Indefinite: “Geographical Location” ....................................................................... 27
`B. Not Indefinite: “anonymously fetching” ........................................................................ 29
`C. Not Indefinite: “wherein the content is identified over the Internet using a distinct
`URL” ............................................................................................................................ 30
`VIII. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 1957
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................... 26
`
`BASF Corp. v. Johnson Matthey Inc., 875 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................ 30
`
`Danco, Inc. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-73-JRG-CMC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155936
`(E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2017) ............................................................................................................ 9
`
`Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................... 26
`
`Gilead Scis. v. Mylan Inc., No. 1:14CV99, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44558 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 6,
`2015).......................................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00057-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`96097 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017) .......................................................................................... 9, 16
`
`Markman v. Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ................................................................. 8
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................... 26
`
`On-Line Tech. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............... 9
`
`SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................. 30
`
`Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc. 279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ... 27
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................... 26
`
`Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2015) ................................................ 8
`
`Traxxas LP v. Hobby Prods. Int’l, No. 2:14-CV-945-JRG-RSP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114148
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2015) ................................................................................................... 26, 29
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed Cir. 2014) .................................................... 9
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................... 8, 9
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ............................................................................................................................. 19
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 1958
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski, founders of Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd. (“Bright Data”),
`
`invented new methods for fetching content from a target server over the Internet using intermediary
`
`proxies including third-party client devices, such as an individual’s cell phone, in order to make
`
`the request from the intermediary proxy instead of the original requestor. These inventions are
`
`claimed in U.S. Patent Nos. 10,257,319 (the “’319 Patent”, Ex. A), 10,484,510 (the “’510 Patent,”
`
`Ex. B), 10,491,713 (“the ’713 Patent,” Ex. C), 11,050,852 (“the ’852 Patent,” Ex. D) and
`
`11,044,346 (“the ’346 Patent,” Ex. E) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit” or “asserted patents”).
`
`Using this novel service permits a user to access content from a web server that might otherwise
`
`block the request or return a fake response. For example, a retailer can use this service to request
`
`pricing data from a competitor by appearing to that competitor as a potential customer.
`
`The parties in this case have agreed to adopt certain findings from this Court’s previous
`
`claim construction order issued in Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`
`00395 (E.D. Tex.)(the “Teso Action” hereafter) relating to a number of terms that the Court has
`
`previously found not indefinite. Ex. H, Dkt. 93 at 2; Teso Action at Dkt. 191. In some cases,
`
`however, Defendant is seeking to modify the Court’s previous Claim Construction Order and
`
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order (Ex. I, Teso Action at Dkt. 191 and Dkt. 453) in an
`
`attempt to treat client devices and servers as interchangeable such that for example a “client
`
`(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:69)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:3)a (cid:179)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)
`
`(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:69)(cid:92)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)
`
`pathway. As used in these patent claims, they are not. Defendants also assert indefiniteness as to a
`
`variety of claim terms, but such arguments are baseless as these claims were properly issued by
`
`the Patent Office and entitled to the presumption of validity.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 1959
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are titled: “System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data
`
`Communication” and are directed to architecture and methods for fetching content over the
`
`Internet. Each of the Patents-in-Suit are in the same family with a shared specification claiming
`
`priority to the same provisional application filed on October 8, 2009. The Patents-in-Suit create a
`
`“system designed for increasing network communication speed for users….” Ex. A at Abstract.1
`
`The asserted patents claim novel methods for communication over the Internet utilizing a novel
`
`architecture including, for example, proxy “client device” intermediaries.
`
`In the background, the Patents-in-Suit disclose “[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 the which they are requesting the data. The proxy server 4, 6, 8 requests the data from the
`
`Web servers 30, 32, 34 on [the requesting client devices’] behalf….” Id. at 2:8-16 (emphasis
`
`added). The below figure 1 has been annotated to highlight the requesting client device, proxy
`
`server and web server and arrows indicating the flow of requests and content returned in response.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit disclosed 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.” Id. at 2:24-27; see also 2:8-23.
`
`
`1 For simplicity, all references to the shared specification of the Patents-in-Suit will be made to the
`specification of the ’319 Patent at Ex. A, but will be understood to include the corresponding
`citations from the other Patents-in-Suit.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 1960
`
`1
`
`4
`
`2
`
`3
`
`The Patents-in-Suit also disclose “computers of consumers, referred to herein as client
`
`devices.” Id. at 2:45-46. In the detailed description section, the Patents-in-Suit further discloses
`
`a new type of consumer-based network that never existed before, employing intermediaries
`
`including “client devices” that operate as proxies. Id. at 3:13-55.
`
`The network 100 of FIG. 3 contains multiple communication devices. Due to
`functionality provided by software stored within each communication device,
`which may be the same in each communication device, each communication
`device may serve as a client, peer, or agent, depending upon requirements of the
`network 100, as is described in detail herein. It should be noted that a detailed
`description of a communication device is provided with regard to the description of
`FIG. 4.
`
`Returning to FIG. 3, the exemplary embodiment of the network 100 illustrates that
`one of the communication devices is functioning as a client 102. The client 102 is
`capable of communication with one or more peers 112, 114, 116 and one or more
`agents 122…
`
`The communication network 100 also contains a Web server 152. The Web server
`152 is the server from which the client 102 is requesting information and may be,
`for example, a typical HTTP server, such as those being used to deliver content on
`any of the many such servers on the Internet. It should be noted that the server 152
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 1961
`
`is not limited to being an HTTP server. In fact, if a different communication
`protocol is used within the communication network, the server may be a server
`capable of handling a different protocol. It should also be noted that while the
`present description refers to the use of HTTP, the present invention may relate to
`any other communication protocol and HTTP is not intended to be a limitation to
`the present invention.
`
`The communication network 100 further contains an acceleration server 162 having
`an acceleration server storage device 164.
`
`Ex. A at 4:44-5:10 (emphasis added).
`
`“As each communication device is configured to operate as a client, agent or peer as
`
`necessary, in [Dr. Williams’] opinion a POSA would understand client 102 and agent 122 to both
`
`be client devices.” Ex. F, Williams Declaration at 11. In light of the express text from the patent
`
`specification, a proxy server may be “placed between one or more clients.” See Ex. A, Fig. 1, 3
`
`and 6, 2:8-16, 4:44-5:10 and 5:55-57. That placement is demonstrated in the annotated Figure 3
`
`between requesting client 102 and agent 122 (which the specification discloses may also be a
`
`client), both of which are communication devices. The figure also shows the web server 152.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. A at Fig. 3. (annotated). As shown by the above lines between the client, proxy server, agent,
`
`and web server indicating communication pathways, the agent (a second client device), can receive
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 1962
`
`a request from the originally requesting client and send that request to the web server before
`
`receiving the requested content back from the web server and sending the content to the requesting
`
`client device via the proxy server. See e.g. id. at 2:8-16, 3:13-34; 5:21-34, 14:62-67.
`
`
`
`Second, in addition to this express specification text that a proxy server maybe placed
`
`between two clients, other aspects of the disclosure of the Patents-in-Suit, including the above
`
`Figures 1 and 3 and associated discussion in the specification, show that asserted patents disclose
`
`a network architecture of a requesting client device (cid:316)(cid:3)proxy server (cid:316)(cid:3)client device (cid:316)(cid:3)web
`
`server. See e.g. (cid:40)(cid:91)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:41)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:4161)(cid:4161)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:25)-28. For example, a POSA would see from Figure 1 that it was
`
`known in the art that a client device can be paired with proxy. See, e.g., Fig. 1 (client 16 and proxy
`
`server 6); 3:66-67, 2:8-15. Thus, client 102 of Figure 3 can be replaced by requesting client device
`
`16 and proxy server 6 of Figure 1 as shown the below:
`
`
`
`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 obstruct their competitors from accessing the otherwise publicly available
`
`pricing information by blocking requests from known client devices. To overcome these artificial
`
`hinderances, the proxy service of the Patents-in-Suit sends requests through one or more agents,
`
`which in some of the asserted claims include a large group of proxy client devices, such as
`
`individual cell phone devices. As the proxy client devices belong to real people who otherwise
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 1963
`
`send such requests to target web servers as customers, the target will allow the queries and not
`
`artificially block them.
`
`B.
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`In the present action, Bright Data asserts infringement of independent claim 1 and
`
`dependent claims 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the ’319 Patent, independent
`
`claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the ’510 Patent,
`
`independent claim 1 and dependent claims 11, 24, and 27 of the ’713 Patent, independent claim 1
`
`and dependent claims 14, 25, and 28 of the ’852 Patent, and independent claim 1 and dependent
`
`claims 15, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 of the ’346 Patent. As described above, the Patents-in-
`
`Suit disclose different proxy network architectures.
`
`The ’319 and ’510 Patents recite a second server (cid:316) first client device (cid:316) first/web server
`
`architecture, whereby the claimed methods are performed by the first client device which serves
`
`as a proxy between the server and web server as shown in the below annotated claims with terms
`
`submitted for claim construction underlined:
`
`Representative independent claim 1 of the ’319 Patent claims as follows:
`
`1. A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that
`comprises a web server that is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server that
`responds to HTTP requests, the first server stores a first content identified by a
`first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method by the first
`client device comprising:
`[B] receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`[C] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier;
`[D] receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`[E] sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server,
`in response to the receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`Representative independent claim 1 of the ’510 Patent claims as follows:
`
`1. A method for use with a web server that responds to Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 1964
`
`(HTTP) requests and stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, the
`method by a first client device comprising:
`[A] establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection with a
`second server;
`[C] sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first content identifier;
`[D] receiving, the first content from the web server over the Internet in
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`[E] sending the received first content, to the second server over the
`established TCP connection, [B] in response to the receiving of the first content
`identifier.
`
`The ’713 and ’852 Patents recite a requesting client device (cid:316)(cid:3)second server (cid:316)(cid:3)first
`
`client device (cid:316)(cid:3)first/web server architecture whereby the claimed methods are performed by the
`
`requesting client device as shown in the below annotated claims with terms submitted for claim
`
`construction underlined:
`
`Representative independent claim 1 of the ’713 Patent claims as follows:
`
`1. A method for use with a requesting client device that comprises an HTTP client
`and is identified over the Internet by a first Internet Protocol (IP) address, for use
`with a first server that is a web server that is Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`or Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) server that respectively responds
`to HTTP or HTTPS requests and stores a first content identified by a first content
`identifier, for use with a second server distinct from the first web server and
`identified in the Internet by a second IP address, the method by the requesting
`client device comprising:
`[A] identifying, an HTTP or HTTPS request for the first content;
`[B] sending, to the second server using the second IP address over the
`Internet in response to the identifying, the first content identifier and a geographical
`location; and
`[C] receiving, over the Internet in response to the sending, from the second
`server via a first client device, the part of, or the whole of, the first content.
`
`Representative independent claim 1 of the ’852 Patent claims as follows:
`
`1. A method by a requesting client device that is identified over the Internet by a
`first Internet Protocol (IP) address, for use with a first server that is a web server
`that is Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure
`(HTTPS) server that respectively responds to HTTP or HTTPS requests and stores
`a first content identified by a first Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and for use
`with a second server distinct from the first web server and identified in the Internet
`by a second IP address, the method by the requesting client device comprising:
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 1965
`
`[A] generating an HTTP or HTTPS request that comprises the first URL
`and a geographical location;
`[B] sending, to the second server using the second IP address over the
`Internet, the generated HTTP or HTTPS request; and
`[C] receiving, over the Internet in response to the sending, from the second
`server via a first client device, part of, or whole of, the first content,
`[D] wherein the first content comprises a web-page, an audio content, or a
`video content.
`
`The ’346 Patent recites a requesting client device (cid:316)(cid:3) first server (cid:316) web server
`
`architecture whereby the claimed methods are performed by the requesting client device as shown
`
`in the below annotated claims with terms submitted for claim construction underlined:
`
`Representative independent claim 1 of the ’346 Patent claims as follows:
`
`1. A method for fetching a content by a requesting client device from a web
`server, the content comprises multiple parts where each part is identified by a
`distinct Uniform Resource Locator (URL), for use with a first server that is
`configured for anonymously fetching the multiple parts from the web server using
`intermediate devices, the method by the requesting client device comprising:
`[A] executing an application;
`[B] identifying the multiple parts as part of executing the application;
`[C] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a geographical location
`and HTTP or HTTPS requests for the URLs of the multiple parts and;
`[D] receiving, over the Internet in response to the sending and the
`geographical location, from the first server, the content,
`[E] wherein each of the multiple parts consists of, or comprises, a web-page
`or a portion thereof.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Patent claim construction is exclusively within the province of the court. Markman v.
`
`Westview Instr., Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). Although the ultimate issue of claim construction
`
`is a question of law, claim construction may contain evidentiary underpinnings; thereby involving
`
`questions of fact. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831, 838 (2015).
`
`For claim construction courts will look to intrinsic evidence (claim language, specification,
`
`and prosecution history), and, if helpful and needed, extrinsic evidence (dictionaries, treatises,
`
`experts, and the like). Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 1966
`
`Courts may decline to adopt constructions that would instead cause juror confusion rather than
`
`help the jury. Huawei Techs. Co. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00057-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 96097, at *33 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2017).
`
`It is “entirely appropriate for a court, when conducting claim construction, to rely heavily
`
`on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
`
`“[W]e cannot look at the ordinary meaning of [a] term … in a vacuum. Rather, we must look at
`
`the ordinary meaning in the context of the written description and the prosecution history.” Id. at
`
`1313.
`
`Extrinsic evidence “may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable
`
`interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319. It “cannot be used to alter a claim construction dictated by a proper
`
`analysis of the intrinsic evidence.” On-Line Tech. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d
`
`1133, 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also VirnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed
`
`Cir. 2014). “Claim constructions that read out a preferred embodiment are rarely, if ever, correct.”
`
`Danco, Inc. v. Fluidmaster, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-73-JRG-CMC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155936, at
`
`*17 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 22, 2017) (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583-84).
`
`IV.
`
`LEVEL OF ONE OR ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Consistent with Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-3 disclosures, with regard to the Patents-in-Suit, “a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art (‘POSA’) 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 experience in Internet
`
`communications.” Ex. F, Williams Declaration at ¶ 18.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 1967
`
`V.
`
`AGREED UPON TERMS FOR CONSTRUCTION
`
`The parties jointly ask the Court to include these constructions in its order:
`
`Claim Term / Phrase
`
`Preamble
`
`Agreed Proposed Construction
`
`Limiting
`
`’319 Pat. Claim 1; ’510 Pat. Claim 1; ’713 Pat. Claim 1;
`’852 Pat. Claim 1; ’346 Pat. Claim 1;
`
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A.
`
`Client / Client Device
`
`Claim Term
`“Client” / “Client device”
`(’319 Pat., cl. 1, 2, 14, 17, 22, 24,
`and 25; ’510 Pat., cl. 1, 2, 8, 10,
`15, 18, and 19; ’713 Pat. Cl. 1,
`11, 24 and 27; ’852 Pat., cl. 1,
`14, 25 and 28; ’346 pat., cl. 1, 15
`and 20)
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`“Consumer computer” or,
`in the alternative,
`“communication device
`that is operating in the
`role of a client”
`
`
`Defendant’s Proposal
`“A device operating in the
`role of a client;” some
`devices can be configured
`to operate in multiple
`roles including as a client
`or a server.
`
`
`As discussed above, the term “client device” is defined in the patent specification of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit: “In the network 50, files are stored on computers of consumers, referred to herein
`
`as client devices 60.” Ex. A at 2:44-46.
`
`This Court has previously construed “client device” to mean a “communication device that
`
`is operating in the role of a client” in its December 8, 2020 claim construction order (Ex. H, Teso
`
`CC Order, Teso Action, Dkt. 191 at 12), whereas Defendant’s proposal would overly broaden the
`
`meaning of the term in a manner inconsistent with that ruling. In a Supplemental Claim
`
`Construction Order in Teso, the Court reinforced the distinctions between client devices and
`
`servers stating the following:
`
`The Court found “[t]he patents do not include servers as a type of ‘communication
`device,’ but that is not sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a
`server in all cases.”
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 1968
`
`Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant seeks to treat client devices and servers
`interchangeably, citing to the Court’s statement that “[Defendants] deny that they
`will claim client devices and servers are interchangeable general user computers”
`is an oversimplification of the issue. It is not that Defendants seek to “reduc[e] the
`(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:69)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85) architecture . . . and the recited client
`(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:69)(cid:3)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:81) indistinguishable computer
`(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:316)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:86)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:74)(cid:88)(cid:72)(cid:17)(cid:3)See Dkt. No. 242 at 4.
`Rather, a component can be configured to operate in different roles—so long as it
`does not “simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client device, the first
`server/second server, and the web server.”
`
`Ex. I, Teso Supp. C.C. Order, Teso Action, Dkt. at 10.
`
`Dr. Williams has provided his opinion that as to the claims of the Patents-in-Suit “a POSA
`
`would understand the term ‘client device’ to mean a ‘consumer computer.’” Ex. F at ¶ 24. “A
`
`POSA’s understanding of client device is further evidenced by extrinsic materials including the
`
`February 17, 2015 “Network Fundamentals Study Guide” with a definition of client as ‘an
`
`application that runs on a personal computer or workstation and relies on a server to perform some
`
`operations.’” Id.; Ex. G.
`
`As described above, figure 3 of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit illustrates a communication network 100
`
`showing “client” 100, “peers” 112, 114, and 116,
`
`“agent” 122, “web server” 152, and “acceleration
`
`server” 162, which has a “storage device” 164. Ex.
`
`A at Fig. 3. As shown in figure 6,2 each
`
`“communication device” may comprise a ‘client
`
`module,’ ‘peer module’ and ‘agent module.’ Id. at
`
`Fig. 6; see also Ex. A at 9:13-36. The Patents-in-
`
`
`2 Figure 6 is a schematic diagram illustrating elements of the acceleration application of Figure 5,
`which is a schematic diagram illustrating the memory of Figure 4, which is a schematic diagram
`illustrating a communication device of the communication network of Figure 3. Ex. A at 4:6-13.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document 106 Filed 02/23/22 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 1969
`
`Suit discloses configuring the communication device with these modules allowing the same client
`
`device to operate as a client, peer or agent depending upon the needs of the network. As opined
`
`by Dr. Williams, “[a]s each communication device is configured to operate as a client, agent or
`
`peer as necessary, in my opinion a POSA would understand client 102 and agent 122 to both be
`
`client devices.” Ex. F at ¶ 27.
`
`In Dr. Williams’ opinion “a POSA would understand that the mere inclusion of three or
`
`four interchangeable general use computers in pathway such as a generic computer (cid:316) computer
`
`(cid:316)(cid:3)computer architecture would not by itself disclose the recited architecture of the Asserted
`
`Patents.” Ex. F at ¶ 24. However, NetNut’s proposed construction of “a device operating in the
`
`role of a client” would remove any meaningful distinction between a client device and server such
`
`that any intermediary computer or device (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:3) (cid:68)(cid:3) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3) (cid:316)(cid:3) computer (cid:316)(cid:3) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3) (cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:92)(cid:3)
`
`satisfies both the requirements of a client