1
`
`BRIGHT DATA, LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
` ( CAUSE NO. 2:19-CV-395-JRG
` )
` (
` )
` (
`vs.
` )
` ( NOVEMBER 2, 2021
`TESO, LT UAB, et al
` ) MARSHALL, TEXAS
` ( 8:45 A.M.
`Defendants.
`______________________________________________________________
`
`VOLUME 2
`
`______________________________________________________________
`TRIAL ON THE MERITS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`and a jury
`______________________________________________________________
`
`SHAWN M. McROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`100 E. HOUSTON STREET
`MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670
`(903) 237-7464
`shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1116
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA, LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
` ( CAUSE NO. 2:19-CV-395-JRG
` )
` (
` )
` (
`vs.
` )
` ( NOVEMBER 2, 2021
`TESO, LT UAB, et al
` ) MARSHALL, TEXAS
` ( 8:45 A.M.
`Defendants.
`______________________________________________________________
`
`VOLUME 2
`
`______________________________________________________________
`TRIAL ON THE MERITS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`and a jury
`______________________________________________________________
`
`SHAWN M. McROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`100 E. HOUSTON STREET
`MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670
`(903) 237-7464
`shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1116
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`159
`
`first server, to the first client device, and this claim set
`element says from the first client device, we're going to go
`back to the second server. We are headed eventually to the
`customers, but the claim doesn't say that. It basically says
`move it from the first client device, the so-called
`residential customer device, to the super proxy in -- in the
`Bright Data system.
`Q.
`So can we check this step off?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`All right. So based on your study and what you've
`testified here today, were you able to reach a conclusion
`about whether Bright Data practices '319 patent claim 1 with
`its products?
`A.
`Because I've got a check in every box, it's my opinion
`based on my study of the Bright Data system that every one of
`those limitations of this claim is met by the Bright Data
`system and it does -- this -- this system meets that claim.
`Q.
`Okay. So now I'd like -- before we leave this claim now
`that we've talked all about it, I'd like to talk about your
`opinion regarding Defendant Oxylabs' residential proxy network
`on the analysis you did on the same claim. Okay?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. What did you rely on for this analysis?
`A.
`Well, deposition testimony --
`Q.
`Actually can you hold on just one moment?
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`160
`
`MR. HARKINS: Your Honor, do you mind -- we are not
`talking about Bright Data anymore. May I change the board?
`THE COURT: You may change the board.
`MR. HARKINS: Thank you.
`THE COURT: And to the extent, Doctor Rhyne, he asks
`you a question about that board and you need to stand to see
`it, you have leave to do that.
`THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) Doctor Rhyne, why don't you go ahead
`Q.
`and stand up right now and just take a look at it and tell the
`jury if this board is at the level of detail that it shows
`accurate to what you found in the Oxylabs residential proxy
`network?
`A.
`Yes, it is.
`Q.
`Okay. And can you just --
`THE COURT: Doctor Rhyne, you need to be back at the
`witness stand. I didn't give you leave to walk around, just
`to stand up.
`THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
`THE COURT: If you can't see it, I'll have Mr.
`Harkins hold it up for you.
`THE WITNESS: Okay. If you can hold it up. I can't
`see the labels, I know what they are, but -- I'm sorry, sir.
`Q.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) No problem.
`A.
`Okay. That's fine. Okay. What I've got on the left is
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`161
`
`what is called -- they call, Oxylabs, calls a Supernode or
`Demon server, and the middle I've got the proxy devices which
`they call minions. I'll talk about that term in a minute.
`And, ultimately, we've got a web server. So that's the
`architecture of the Oxylabs systems as I understand it.
`Thank you.
`So, Doctor Rhyne, what are we looking at on slide 4.30?
`Q.
`This is a system diagram that was produced by Oxylabs for
`A.
`the interconnections between the devices in their systems.
`It's a little hard to see, but in the upper --
`MR. HARKINS: Actually, can we just bring up PTX 269
`for a moment, please?
`Q.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) And you want to look at the upper left?
`A.
`We've got the customers, this little stick person right
`here. Okay? And there's a path that ultimately leads, if we
`go back to the original, we've got a process that goes through
`this Supernode down to this -- the minion which they show as a
`person but really that's a representation for the fact that
`somebody owns that cell phone or whatever it's going to be,
`and ultimately down here we've got the target. Okay?
`So this is a diagram of how information flows from the
`customer through the Oxylabs system down to the target.
`Q.
`Okay.
`MR. HARKINS: And can we put that back up for a
`moment, please?
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`162
`
`(BY MR. HARKINS) So you've got customer on the top.
`Q.
`Supernode is that red box below it. Is that correct?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And then minion is the -- what you're saying is the proxy
`in this case?
`A.
`That's Oxylabs' name for the minion devices.
`Q.
`Okay. And then below where it says target, does that
`have relevance to the claims in this case?
`A.
`That's the ultimate web server where the customer up in
`the top left is seeking to get some information from the
`server.
`
`MR. HARKINS: We can close this, please.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) There's one other document mentioned
`Q.
`here which is PTX 576.
`MR. HARKINS: Can we bring that up?
`(BY MR. HARKINS) And what are we looking at here?
`Q.
`Well, it's just another way of arranging the user's
`A.
`ability to ultimately get what they need from the target
`website that they're trying to reach. Okay?
`They've got additional elements like a load band manager,
`but you can see -- a load balancer, but you can see that
`they've got multiple minions that play the role of getting you
`through to get the requested information.
`MR. HARKINS: You can close this. Let's go to the
`next slide. Hold on one second. Oh, I see.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`163
`
`(BY MR. HARKINS) We did the highlighting for the jury in
`Q.
`PDX 4.31. Is that correct?
`A.
`Yes. I showed that what we basically have got is
`the -- if you look at kind of clean-up, the important parts of
`this figure, at least in my opinion, we've got the customer
`that gets to the Supernode, also known as the Demon, works its
`way to the minion, which was that symbol of the little minion,
`it looks like a person but it's really like a smartphone, and
`then ultimately gets down to the web server that is for the
`target.
`Q.
`Okay. Now, graphically, we have on the board a slightly
`different looking representation. Did you find that those
`same elements that you found in Defendants' PTX 269
`appear -- are well represented by the board here?
`A.
`Yes. I've got the Supernode, which is the Demon server;
`I've got the minions which are the intermediate proxies; and
`I've got to target web server down at the bottom. Okay?
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`That's what the claim requires.
`Q.
`Okay. So in addition -- hold on one second, please. We
`talked about the software that gets loaded onto the proxies.
`Does Oxylabs control software that gets loaded onto these
`minions in this -- in its system?
`A.
`I believe -- we heard some testimony about that, but I
`believe that they do. There's another party called Globalhop
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`164
`
`involved. There was some testimony that they had sold their
`SDK, their software development kit, to another party. But
`it -- basically the testimony that I'm relying on here is
`that, although they provided it to this Globalhop party, that
`Oxylabs has worked with them and they are the ones, you can
`see the quote down here from Mr. Cerniauskas, that they are
`the ones that does the management of the exit nodes.
`Essentially, that's the minion.
`Q.
`Was there other evidence that you looked at and analyzed
`to reach your conclusions about the operation of Defendants'
`network?
`A.
`Yes. You can see the PTX means it's a Plaintiff's
`exhibit that was produced in this case. There's the source
`code for Oxylabs.
`Q.
`Is that PTX 18?
`A.
`Yes, sir.
`Q.
`So I have that with me right here. Is that going -- if
`we were to open this up and look at it, does it look like that
`computer code stuff we were talking about?
`A.
`Yes. It's complex statements in an arcane language that
`programmers would use to define the functionality they want
`the computer to perform.
`Q.
`And the printouts that are in this binder, is that all
`the code that you needed to point to to be able to --
`A.
`No. I'm sorry.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`165
`
`Sorry. -- to be able to make your assessment?
`Q.
`No. It's a subset of the overall code that contains the
`A.
`instructions that I felt like proved that their system met the
`requirements of claim 1.
`Q.
`Okay. What else did you do to do your analysis in this
`case?
`Well, the architectural diagram and others like it that I
`A.
`just showed the jury, there's some detailed timing diagrams
`showing the flow of information.
`Q.
`All right. I'd like to use the PTX numbers. We've
`already seen PTX 269.
`MR. HARKINS: Can we bring up PTX 313, please?
`(BY MR. HARKINS) Is this -- is that another one of
`Q.
`Defendants' documents that you used for your analysis?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`I think during some of the video deposition testimony,
`there was some discussion about pings and pongs. And this is
`the diagram that shows how that flow of control moves from
`element to element to initiate the ultimate performance of the
`claim.
`Q.
`Thank you.
`MR. HARKINS: Can we go back to the slide, please?
`(BY MR. HARKINS) All right. What else did you review?
`Some other technical information that was available
`
`Q.
`A.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`166
`
`generally on the internet and also produced as part of the
`discovery in this case.
`Q.
`And one of those is PTX 554. Can we look at that
`momentarily? And this one appears to talk about Oxylabs SDK.
`Is that right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. And did you look at Oxylabs' SDK as part of your
`analysis in this case?
`A.
`I did. And I looked at this document.
`Q.
`All right.
`MR. HARKINS: We can bring this one down.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) Okay. So was there other material that
`Q.
`you also reviewed to make sure that you did a proper analysis
`of infringement in this case?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Can you tell us what some of that is?
`A.
`Yes. I looked at the deposition testimony of several of
`these witnesses from Oxylabs. I looked at exhibits that were
`produced by the Defendants, including emails and other
`documents, and PTX 0381. I looked at --
`MR. HARKINS: Can we just bring up PTX 0381?
`THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. Yes, sir.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) That's okay. So this one is an
`Q.
`agreement for proxies. Is that right?
`A.
`Yes.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`167
`
`MR. HARKINS: Can we go back to the slide?
`(BY MR. HARKINS) Okay. So we were at PTX 381. What's
`Q.
`the next thing that you looked at?
`A.
`I looked at the license agreement between Oxylabs and
`this other party, Globalhop. It's PTX 0292.
`MR. HARKINS: Can we take a quick look at that?
`Okay. And can we go back, please? And then let's look at the
`next one.
`Q.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) What is the other information that you
`reviewed?
`A.
`It's an end user license agreement, sometimes called a
`EULA, which is Exhibit PTX 256 and Exhibit PTX 0267. That
`agreement controls what the users are going to have to do as
`part of their interaction --
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`-- with Tesonet and Oxylabs.
`Q.
`Okay. Thank you very much. And you also discuss one
`more line item here.
`A.
`Yes. Publicly available information that I found or that
`was produced in this case, and I think it's under PTX 0272.
`MR. HARKINS: And can we see that? Okay. Thank you
`
`very much.
`Q.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) So, now, in order to prove
`infringement, you have to show that each and every one of
`these five elements is in the -- you found it during this
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`168
`
`extensive analysis that you did. Is that right?
`A.
`I did. I had to do that.
`Q.
`Okay. Now, we put Oxylabs next to Bright Data so we
`don't have the same slides going up over and over -- different
`slides all the time, but when you did your analysis, were you
`just -- were you just trying to figure out if Oxylabs copied
`Bright Data?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`That was not -- I was independently looking at whether
`Oxylabs met the claim. I didn't consider whether or not they
`worked like Bright Data when they met the claim. I looked
`independent of that at Oxylabs, what I knew about it, and the
`limitations of the claim.
`Q.
`So to determine if Oxylabs infringed, does it matter
`whether or not they copied Bright Data's actual technology?
`MR. GOVETT: Excuse me, Your Honor, may we approach?
`THE COURT: Approach the bench.
`(The following was had outside the hearing of the
`jury.)
`MR. GOVETT: During the pretrial conference, the
`Court was very clear that Doctor Rhyne can only testify about
`copying with respect to obviousness, which is no longer in the
`case. These questions are targeted towards copying. They are
`improper.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`169
`
`MR. HARKINS: I think just the opposite. He's
`testifying that it has nothing to do with copying.
`THE COURT: Well --
`MR. GOVETT: You used the word.
`MR. HARKINS: He is saying he doesn't need to prove
`
`copying.
`
`THE COURT: I heard the testimony. I'm not going to
`sustain the objection because, substantively, I don't think it
`violates the Court's earlier instruction, but it is irrelevant
`in light of the dropping of obviousness. So we need to move
`on to something else.
`MR. HARKINS: Yes, Your Honor. I just wanted to
`make sure we had proper law framework for the rest of the
`testimony and that's it, that he wasn't doing an improper
`comparison.
`THE COURT: All right. Well --
`MR. HARKINS: Okay.
`THE COURT: Are you satisfied you've established
`
`that?
`
`MR. HARKINS: If he can answer this question, I am
`satisfied with that.
`THE COURT: What question are you asking?
`MR. HARKINS: I asked him, do you need to show that
`they copied Bright Data's technology to prove infringement.
`That's the pending question.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`170
`
`THE COURT: All right. And do you have an objection
`
`to that?
`
`MR. GOVETT: Same as I said before.
`THE COURT: All right. Let's get that question
`answered and then let's move on.
`MR. HARKINS: Okay.
`THE COURT: Let me ask you this while you're here,
`Mr. Harkins. The notes I have indicated about an hour and 40
`minutes for this witness. We are about an hour in. Are we
`going to stay close to that estimate?
`MR. HARKINS: I believe so.
`THE COURT: Okay. I'm just checking. All right.
`MR. GOVETT: What time are you anticipating this
`afternoon break?
`THE COURT: I can't tell you. If we can get him off
`in 40 minutes, then I'll break between the direct and the
`cross. If it goes longer or if the spirit moves me before
`then, we'll do it otherwise.
`MR. GOVETT: The spirit is moving, so I
`just -- whenever it's --
`THE COURT: Also while we're here, Mr. Harkins, at
`the next break, ask Mr. Cherian to keep his seat and to quit
`passing water bottles around to people in the gallery while
`the testimony is being taken. He's come and gone more than
`any person in this courtroom. He's up there pointing at
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`171
`
`people and doing this like, do you want a bottle of water.
`It may not be bothering the jury, but it's bothering me.
`He needs to sit still. Can you deliver that message?
`MR. HARKINS: Yes.
`THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel.
`MR. HARKINS: Thank you.
`(The following was had in the presence and hearing
`of the jury.)
`THE COURT: All right. Restate your last question,
`Mr. Harkins.
`Q.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) Is it for your infringement analysis,
`do you need to prove that Oxylabs copied Bright Data?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`Okay. All right. Let's move on to the preamble of the
`claim. We've looked at this before.
`Did you find that the preamble -- the components of that
`preamble of the claim and the preamble as a whole is in
`Defendants' residential proxy service?
`A.
`Yes. You can see I've got different -- I'm using the
`Oxylabs' names for what I believe are the first, second
`servers, and the first client device--the web server being the
`web server, the Supernode or Demon server being the second
`server, and the so-called minion devices being the first
`client devices.
`Q.
`So can we check off the preamble for Oxylabs?
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`172
`
`Yes.
`A.
`Okay. The first step we've already talked about what it
`Q.
`does. Did you find that that first step is practiced by
`Oxylabs' residential proxy service?
`A.
`Yes. I found that their Supernode sends to the selected
`minion the identifier for the first content that the ultimate
`customer really wants to get in the first place.
`Q.
`Can I check this one off for Oxylabs?
`A.
`I'm sorry?
`Q.
`Can we check this off as you found it in your analysis?
`A.
`Based on looking at that code, looking at the
`depositions, the same set of -- wealth of background
`information, I believe it's appropriate to do so.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's look at the second step, the sending step,
`sending to the first server over the internet. Did you find
`that that step is practiced by the Oxylabs' accused
`residential proxy service?
`A.
`Yes. What happens, in my understanding of the system, is
`that a specific minion, somebody's cell phone, somebody's
`laptop, is selected to be the first client device. And they
`then, using HTTP as their protocol, send a request to the
`first server, the web server, to get the requested information
`available to it.
`Q.
`Okay. Did you find specific examples of Oxylabs'
`evidence that showed you that it used HTTP?
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`173
`
`Yes. And this is just one piece that I felt like was
`A.
`very succinct. I mean, it's which protocols are supported by
`Oxylabs' residential proxies. That's the minions. They are
`the residential proxies. Oxylabs' residential proxies support
`HTTP and HTTPS protocols, where the HTTPS is -- that's a
`secure protocol. It has additional capabilities to hide the
`information flowing. But there's no question based on this
`article that they do use HTTP, as the claim requires.
`Q.
`And the article that you're discussing at PDX 4.42, is
`that published by Oxylabs?
`A.
`I believe so, yes, sir. It's available -- you can see if
`you work your way through this -- this identifier, it's learn
`Oxylabs input/output, et cetera, it's available on their
`internet website.
`Q.
`Okay. With the review of all the information and
`analysis you did, can we check off that this step of claim 1
`of the '319 patent is practiced by Oxylabs?
`A.
`In my opinion, you certainly may.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's look at that third step, the receiving from
`the first server step. Did you determine whether that was
`practiced by Oxylabs' accused product?
`A.
`Basically what this requires is receiving back from the
`first server over on the right to the minion, the intermediate
`device, that sent the request across to the first server, the
`information that's been requested.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`174
`
`And based on my analysis of the software and other
`information that I identified earlier, that turned out -- I
`found that to be the case.
`Q.
`So can we check this box off on the chart?
`A.
`In my expert opinion, you may.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's go to that final step, the sending step, the
`last sending step. Did you find that the final step of claim
`1 of the '319 Patent is practiced by Oxylabs' accused service?
`A.
`Yes. Basically, again, this requires that the selected
`minion, having received the information from the first server,
`forwards it over to the second server. And I found that to be
`the case.
`Q.
`Okay. So can we check off the final step?
`A.
`Yes. Before you do that, I would notice that I actually
`cited a couple of agreements between -- with Globalhop as part
`of the evidence that I thought was particularly relevant.
`Q.
`Okay. And is it true that for part of the time during
`the time the patents existed in this case, that Oxylabs had
`its own SDK that was operational?
`A.
`Yes. We heard the testimony that said at some point, the
`gentleman wasn't quite sure when, but that they had sold that
`feature over, but they still maintained control of the
`operation.
`Q.
`Okay. And you analyzed -- just to be clear, for all of
`the work you're doing here, you analyzed both Oxylabs when it
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`175
`
`ran its own SDK and when it had a deal with Globalhop. Is
`that right?
`A.
`Based on the information that was available to me, I
`certainly did that.
`Q.
`All right.
`MR. HARKINS: Can we pull up PTX 292 for a moment,
`
`please?
`Q.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) And is this one of the
`agreements -- the agreement that you cited between the two
`companies?
`A.
`It is. Give me a moment to re-read it. Yes, it is.
`Q.
`Okay.
`MR. HARKINS: And can we pull up PTX 272, please?
`(BY MR. HARKINS) And is this a document that you
`Q.
`reviewed about the operation of Globalhop SDK?
`A.
`Yes. This deals with the possibility of -- if you let
`them help you here with the minion and all, you can make some
`money that you can spend at a variety of places. It's kind of
`like having a discount available at your gas producer or
`something like that.
`Q.
`Okay.
`MR. HARKINS: We can go back to the slides, please.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) So can I check off the final step of
`Q.
`this '319 claim 1 for Oxylabs?
`A.
`Yes, in my opinion.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`176
`
`So did you reach a conclusion at the end of your analysis
`Q.
`that Bright Data's system practiced every element of claim 1
`of the '319 Patent?
`A.
`I did. That's why I have these five checks here.
`Q.
`And, I'm sorry, what was your conclusion?
`A.
`That they do practice every element.
`Q.
`And did you do an analysis about Oxylabs and whether
`Oxylabs' accused product practices the entirety of claim 1,
`every element?
`A.
`I missed -- was your previous question about Bright Data
`or about Oxylabs?
`Q.
`My previous was about Bright Data.
`A.
`I'm sorry. I misheard you. Yes, that's what I did
`first. And now to answer your second question more correctly,
`yes, I concluded that Oxylabs practices every step of claim 1
`of the '319.
`Q.
`Okay. Now, there's one other claim that we asked you to
`take a look at in '319 patent. Is that right?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And what is that claim?
`A.
`It says that the -- again, the method is performed by the
`first client device, further comprising storing, operating or
`using a client operating system. The operating system is what
`makes your phone work like a phone or computer work like a
`computer. So they say -- it's going to use a client type of
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`177
`
`operating system with the client.
`Q.
`Okay. So that we don't have to keep putting the
`different boards on, we created one kind of composite board
`for the rest of this discussion.
`MR. HARKINS: Your Honor, may I switch to the final
`
`board?
`
`THE COURT: You may.
`MR. HARKINS: Thank you.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) So, Doctor Rhyne, will you be able to
`Q.
`discuss the top half of board when we talk about Bright Data
`and the bottom half of the board for Oxylabs going forward?
`THE WITNESS: If the Court will permit me to stand
`
`up, sir.
`
`THE COURT: Certainly.
`THE WITNESS: Yes.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) Okay. Thank you. I think we've
`Q.
`reproduced most of this by slides, but -- so, in looking at
`the Bright Data system, that first client device that you
`identified, the residential consumer devices, do they store,
`operate, or use a client operating system?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`And can you give me an example --
`A.
`Well, they're cell phones. Okay. If it's an iPhone, it
`has what is called IOS, which is the iPhone operating system.
`If it's an Android, it has a different operating system.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`178
`
`Whatever type of phone or PC, it may have Windows, but it has
`an operating system that's matched to the type of client that
`it is.
`Q.
`Okay. And this says --
`THE COURT: Just a minute. I'm going to ask both of
`you-all to double your efforts to make sure the other one is
`finished before you start talking. You-all are beginning to
`talk over each other, and that's not good for the jury's
`retention or the accuracy of the transcript and the record.
`So let's be careful that the other one's finished before
`the next one starts.
`All right. Let's carry on.
`(BY MR. HARKINS) This says the method according to claim
`Q.
`1. What does -- can you help the jury understand why it says
`that?
`Well, this is what's called a dependent claim. So it
`A.
`says you must infringe claim 1 or meet the limitations of
`claim 1, and then I'm going to add something else, and the
`something else is operating, storing, or using a client
`operating system.
`So based on the fact that in the case of the Bright Data
`system, I've already explained to you my opinion that that
`system meets the limitations of claim 1, this becomes like a
`sixth limitation for claim 1. It just buttons on the end.
`And I've explained to you why I think it meets this one as
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`179
`
`well.
`So can we check the box for claim 26 for Bright Data?
`Q.
`Yes.
`A.
`Okay. Let's move on to Oxylabs. Does Oxylabs also have
`Q.
`the first client comprising, storing, operating, or using a
`client operating system?
`A.
`They use devices such as iPhones and other types of
`laptops just like I explained in the other case. And as a
`result, they meet this requirement.
`Q.
`Now, Oxylabs, you didn't -- they're not the ones who are
`making the phones or the laptops that you're looking at. Is
`that right?
`A.
`I never know how to answer that. Yes, they're not.
`Q.
`And they don't make Android operating system or Windows
`operating system, do they?
`A.
`No.
`Q.
`Okay. But do they use with their SDK Windows operating
`system or -- or android or other client operating systems?
`A.
`When their SDK is installed as an app on one of those
`phones, they are operating within the confines of the
`operating system of that device.
`Q.
`Okay. So can we check claim 26 of the '319 patent off
`for Oxylabs?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. Before we do that, did you have any evidence that
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`180
`
`you saw that also supported the idea that client operating
`systems were used by Oxylabs?
`A.
`I did find some, and this drawing -- these are symbols
`that are used, the Apple for IOS, and the little man here for
`Android, and the window for the Windows system. And the
`statement here, it says that the Globalhop SDK is a software
`code that can be embedded into your Android, Unity, Windows or
`MAC OS applications. And they're basically saying that for
`any of these type of devices, they -- they have an SDK that
`can work with it.
`Q.
`And you looked at PTX 272 for that?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`Okay. So we can check off claim 26 as being infringed by
`Oxylabs?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's turn to the next patent the '510 patent.
`Did you analyze whether -- let's talk about the claim.
`We -- you -- did you analyze claim 1 of the '510 patent?
`A.
`I did.
`Q.
`And did you do -- is claim 1 of the '510 patent, does the
`'319 patent have any help in -- in helping to understand claim
`1 of the '510 patent?
`A.
`Well, the steps are similar, but the '510 introduces a
`different protocol called a transmission control, TCP,
`sometimes /IP, it's written that way, protocol. And that's
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`181
`
`added and different from what's in the '319 claim 1.
`Q.
`Are the components that you use to determine whether the
`systems that you looked at practiced the patent, are they the
`same as what you already looked at for the '319 patent?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`We're talking about -- they're labeled a little
`differently, but there's a web server as opposed to a first
`web server. And actually the first web server is -- is
`something that we've looked at before under a different name.
`But, yes, the key feature is that the method is still
`performed by the first client device.
`Q.
`Okay.
`A.
`And so what the steps are down below that, those all have
`to be performed by that device.
`Q.
`We went through a lot of evidence that you looked at, for
`example, to determine -- to do the analysis for Bright Data
`system. Is it the same evidence for the '510 patent?
`A.
`It is.
`Q.
`And we looked at a lot of evidence that you looked at to
`make this assessment of infringement for the Oxylabs system.
`Is it the same evidence that you used to do your analysis for
`the '510 patent?
`A.
`Yes. I basically in each case went back to the software
`and the testimony of the witnesses who had been deposed and
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`182
`
`other information that was available for each of these two
`companies.
`Q.
`Okay. Did you find the components of the preamble and
`the preamble as a whole, did you fined that in Bright Data's
`system?
`A.
`Well, yes. It actually requires a first server -- excuse
`me, a web server. We talked about that as being the first web
`server before, but it's here just called a web server.
`There's a first client device, and later on in the claim the
`second server shows up.
`Q.
`Okay. So using the evidence that you discussed earlier,
`can we check off that Bright Data system meets the preamble of
`'510 patent claim 1?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. Let's look at the first step. Can you tell us
`about the first step of '510 patent claim 1?
`A.
`It simply says that that first client device must
`establish a TCP, or transmission control protocol, with a
`second server, which is the -- sort of the front end of the
`system, and I looked into whether or not I could find evidence
`of that.
`Q.
`And did you find the evidence?
`A.
`The software made it absolutely clear that it was
`operating with a TCP.
`Q.
`Can we check this off?
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`
`
`183
`
`You may.
`A.
`Okay. The second step, sending to the web server, did
`Q.
`you find that the client device did that in Bright Data's
`residential proxy network?
`A.
`Yes. This is identical to what we saw in the previous
`claim of the other patent, and so for the same reasons I
`believe it's met.
`Q.
`So we can check that one off?
`A.
`Yes.
`Q.
`Okay. The third, receiving step, did you find that in
`Bright Data's system?
`A.
`Yes. Again, it's similar or, in fact, identical but for
`the change in name to what we saw with the next-to-the-last
`step in the previous patent.
`Q.
`So can I check this step off from this method claim?
`A.
`Yes, you
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
