Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43.988
`
`Gregory S. Nieberg Reg. No. 57,063
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`(617) 646-8000 Phone
`
`(617) 646-8646 Fax
`
`Paper No. __
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00135
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE .................................................................... 3
`
`A. History of the Disputed Terms .............................................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“client device” ............................................................................. 3
`
`“second server” ........................................................................... 4
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Adopt the Court’s Constructions
`and Reject PO’s Narrow Constructions ................................................ 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Court’s Constructions Deserve Substantial Weight ............ 5
`
`PO’s Attempt to Rewrite the Claims .......................................... 7
`
`Disputed Terms ......................................................................... 10
`
`a.
`
`“client device” ................................................................ 10
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`Claims ................................................................... 10
`
`Specification and Cited Intrinsic Evidence .......... 11
`
`The Inventors Confirmed the ID’s
`Role-Based Construction Is Correct ..................... 14
`
`iv.
`
`Prosecution History .............................................. 15
`
`b.
`
`“second server” ............................................................... 17
`
`4.
`
`The Board Should Not Rewrite
`PO’s Claims to Preserve Validity ............................................. 18
`
`C.
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 1 Under the Board’s Constructions .... 19
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Step 1E ...................................................................................... 19
`
`Step 1B ...................................................................................... 21
`
`D.
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claim 1 Even Under PO’s Constructions ..... 21
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE ............................. 22
`
`A.
`
`Plamondon Anticipates Claims 14 and 24 .......................................... 22
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Claim 14 .................................................................................... 22
`
`Claim 24 .................................................................................... 24
`
`B.
`
`Plamondon+Price (Ground 6)
`Renders Claims 2-5 & 19-20 Obvious ................................................ 24
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plamondon+Price Meets Steps 2A-2B ..................................... 24
`
`The Reasons to Combine Are Undisputed ................................ 25
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Plamondon+Kozat (Ground 7) Renders Claims 6-11 Obvious .......... 26
`
`Secondary Considerations Are Irrelevant ........................................... 26
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`912 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Assembly Guidance Systems, Inc. v. Virtek Vision International ULC,
`IPR2021-00062, Paper 24 (May 6, 2022) ............................................................ 28
`
`Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation,
`543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1364) ............................................................................ 27
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 14
`
`Ecolab, Inc. v. FMC Corp.,
`569 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................ 19
`
`Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp.,
`508 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`471 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 22
`
`EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc.,
`755 F.2d 898 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .............................................................................. 22
`
`Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,
`944 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 27
`
`Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 13
`
`In re Ethicon, Inc.,
`844 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 26
`
`In re Garrido,
`646 F. App’x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 16
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`In re Petering,
`301 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1962) .............................................................................. 22
`
`Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`21 F.4th 784 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................... 25
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (Jan. 24, 2020) (precedential) ............................. 26, 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... passim
`
`Powell v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
`663 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Cokebusters USA Inc.,
`924 F.3d 1220 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 16
`
`SightSound Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`809 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 10, 16
`
`St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon Inc.,
`412 F. App’x 270 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................... 16
`
`Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.,
`279 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................ 18
`
`The Toro Company v. MTD Products Inc.,
`IPR2016-00194, Paper 41 (May 10, 2017) .......................................................... 19
`
`Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc.,
`632 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 26, 27
`
`TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 6, 20
`
`Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. Biogenex Laboratories, Inc.,
`473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................ 15
`
`Wyers v. Master Lock Company,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 28
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(9) ............................................................................................... 19
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial
`Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`83 Fed. Reg. 51340 (Oct. 11, 2018) ............................................................. passim
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) ...... 3
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.121 ................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`Exhibit Description
`1001
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`1002
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`1003
`Declaration of Prof. Dave Levin (“Levin”)
`1004
`Curriculum Vitae of Prof. Dave Levin
`1005
`Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 126 (E.D.
`Tex. Sept. 29, 2020)
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 191 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2020)
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 28 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7,
`2020)
`Corrected Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Code200, UAB, et
`al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec.
`9, 2020)
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT
`et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 453 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2021)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0228938
`(“Plamondon”)
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza for IETF
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 1, RFC 793: Transmission Control Protocol -
`DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, Information
`Sciences Institute (September 1981) (“RFC 793”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 2, RFC 1001: Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS
`Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and Methods, NetBIOS
`Working Group (March 1987) (“RFC 1001”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 3, RFC 1122: Requirements for Internet Hosts --
`Communication Layers, Internet Engineering Task Force (October
`1989) (“RFC 1122”)
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 4, RFC 1630: Universal Resource Identifiers in
`WWW - A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and
`Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide
`Web, Network Working Group (June 1994) (“RFC 1630”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 5, RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL),
`Network Working Group (December 1994) (“RFC 1738”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 6, RFC 2187: Application of Internet Cache
`Protocol (ICP), version 2, National Laboratory for Applied Network
`Research/UCSD (September 1997) (“RFC 2187”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 7, RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
`HTTP/1.1, The Internet Society (June 1999) (“RFC 2616”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 8, RFC 2960: Stream Control Transmission
`Protocol, The Internet Society (October 2000) (“RFC 2960”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 9, RFC 6520: Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
`Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension,
`Internet Engineering Task Force (February 2012) (“RFC 6520”)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson for IEEE
`MacPherson Decl. Exh. A, IEEE 802.11-2007 - IEEE Standard for
`Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information
`Exchange Between Systems – Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
`- Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, June 12,
`2007 (“IEEE 802.11-2007”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0026304 (“Price”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0055471 (“Kozat”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`Pages from W. R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The
`Protocols. Canada: Addison-Wesley, 1994, chs. 1 & 18, bibliography
`(“Stevens”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,712
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072178 (“Budzisch”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0178217 (“Nguyen”)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0125412 (“Glover”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0177513
`(“Kuokkannen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,500 (“Eckert”)
`Pages from L.L. Peterson, B.S. Davie, Computer Networks: A
`Systems Approach, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier, 2007, chs. 1-
`2 (“Peterson”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0187654 (“Raja”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0169818 (“Stewart”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,351,775 (“Yu-775”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0059371 (“Jamail”)
`P. Mell, T. Bergeron, and D. Henning, “Creating a Patch and
`Vulnerability Management Program,” NIST Special Publication 800-
`40 Version 2.0, 2005 (“SP 800-40 Ver. 2”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0153473
`(“Hutchinson”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236083 (“Fristch”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0115613
`(“Ramaswami”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,784 (“Amidon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,655,838 (“Wright”)
`A. Rowstron and P. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object
`Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems.”
`IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems
`Platforms and Open Distributed Processing: Middleware 2001, pp.
`329-350 (2001) (“Rowstron”)
`S. Ratnasamy, M. Handley, R. Karp and S. Shenker, “Topologically-
`aware overlay construction and server selection.” Proceedings
`Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
`Communications Societies, vol. 3, pp. 1190-1199 (2002)
`(“Ratnasamy”)
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`1052
`1053
`1054
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`V. N. Padmanabhan and L. Subramanian, “An Investigation of
`Geographic Mapping Techniques for Internet Hosts.” ACM
`SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 3, No. 4, pp.
`173–185 (2001) (“Padmanabhan”)
`M.J. Freedman, K. Lakshminarayanan, and D. Mazières, “OASIS:
`Anycast for Any Service.” Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on
`Networked Systems Design & Implementation, vol. 3, pp. 129-142
`(2006) (“Freedman-2006”)
`S. Agarwal and J.R. Lorch, “Matchmaking for Online Games and
`Other Latency-Sensitive P2P Systems.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer
`Communication Review, vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 315-326 (2009)
`(“Agarwal”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,144,611 (“Agarwal-611”)
`H. Casanova, “Benefits and Drawbacks of Redundant Batch
`Requests.” Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 5, pp. 235–250 (2007)
`(“Casanova”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0298328 (“Sharma”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0204700 (“Sudhakar”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0212584 (“Yu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,865,585 (“Samuels”)
`S. J. Murdoch, “New Tor distribution for testing: Tor Browser
`Bundle,” January 30, 2008 post to tor-talk mailing list, available at
`https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2008-
`January/007837.html
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0222515 (“Thompson”)
`Defendants’ Section 282 Disclosure, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et
`al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 450 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2021)
`Docket, Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Notice of Filing Invalidity Contentions, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom
`S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG, D.I. 37 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 3, 2021)
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`1072
`1073
`1074
`
`Docket, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., Case No.
`2:19-cv-397-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Motion for Summary Judgement, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 282 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021)
`RESERVED
`Amended Complaint, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a
`NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG, D.I. 22 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12,
`2020)
`Docket, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Docket, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Case No.
`2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, Bright
`Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 157
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2020)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,257,319, Code200, UAB, et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01266, Paper 18 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2020)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,484,510, Code200, UAB, et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2020)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319,
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266,
`Paper 5 (PTAB Jul. 14, 2020)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510,
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01358,
`Paper 5 (PTAB Jul. 28, 2020)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,069,936
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-
`JRG, D.I. 493 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2021)
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`1078
`
`1079
`1080
`
`1081
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`1084
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1087
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain
`Invalidity Grounds, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A
`NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG, D.I. 97 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 27,
`2021)
`Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the ’319,
`’510, and ’511 Patents, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A
`NordVPN, Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00414-JRG D.I. 99 (E.D. Tex.
`Sep. 29, 2021)
`Declaration of Adam R. Wichman
`Revised Joint Pretrial Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case
`No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 490 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2021)
`RESERVED
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0009518
`(“Harrow”)
`Deposition Transcript of Dr. Tim A. Williams, dated November 3,
`2022 (PROVISIONALLY DESIGNATED HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY)
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-JRG,
`D.I. 97 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021)
`ORDER - Overruling Plaintiff’s Objections and Defendant’s
`Objections, and Adopting Magistrate Judge Payne’s Order and
`Supplemental Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-JRG, D.I. 251 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2021)
`Order on Pretrial Motions and Motions in limine, Bright Data Ltd. v.
`Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 476 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 9, 2021)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, The Data Company
`Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00138, Paper 6
`(PTAB Feb. 16, 2022)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data
`Ltd., IPR2021-01493, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 27, 2021)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data
`Ltd., IPR2021-01492, Paper 9 (PTAB Dec. 27, 2021)
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`
`
`1088
`
`1089
`
`1090
`
`1091
`
`1092
`
`1093
`
`1094
`
`1095
`
`1096
`
`1097
`
`1098
`
`1099
`
`1100
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright
`Data Ltd., IPR2022-00103, Paper 6 (PTAB Mar. 9, 2022)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright
`Data Ltd., IPR2022-00353, Paper 6 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2022)
`DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, The Data
`Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00138,
`Paper 12 (PTAB May 11, 2022)
`DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, NetNut Ltd.
`v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01493, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 11, 2022)
`DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, NetNut Ltd.
`v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492, Paper 12 (PTAB Mar. 21, 2022)
`DECISION Rehearing on Director Remand Granting Institution of
`Inter Partes Review, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00862, Paper 19 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2022)
`DECISION Rehearing on Director Remand Granting Institution of
`Inter Partes Review, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00861, Paper 19 (PTAB Oct. 19, 2022)
`DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Major Data
`UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00916, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 15,
`2022)
`DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, Major Data
`UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00915, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 15,
`2022)
`DECISION Rehearing on Director Remand Granting Institution of
`Inter Partes Review, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00103, Paper 7 (PTAB June 1, 2022)
`DECISION Rehearing on Director Remand Granting Institution of
`Inter Partes Review, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`IPR2022-00353, Paper 8 (PTAB July 1, 2022)
`Plaintiff’s P.R. 4-2 Disclosures, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 138-3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2020)
`Ex. 2001 - 344 Patent Family Tree, Code200, UAB et al v. Bright
`Data Ltd., IPR2022-00353, IPR2022-00353 (PTAB Apr. 11, 2022)
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`1110
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati Networks Ltd.
`v. Code200, UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-JRG, D.I. 86 (E.D.
`Tex. Dec. 18, 2020)
`Plaintiff’s Claim Construction Reply Brief, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Code200, UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-JRG, D.I. 89 (E.D.
`Tex. Jan. 8, 2021)
`Plaintiff’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Bright Data Ltd. v.
`NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-JRG, D.I. 106 (E.D. Tex. Feb
`23, 2022)
`Plaintiff’s Reply Claim Construction Brief, Bright Data Ltd. v.
`NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-JRG, D.I. 118 (E.D. Tex Mar.
`16, 2022)
`Joint Motion for Entry of Post-Verdict Scheduling Order, Bright Data
`Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 613 (E.D.
`Tex. Oct. 5, 2022)
`Order Staying Case, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00396-JRG, D.I. 283 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2022)
`Order Granting Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Bright Data
`Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-JRG, D.I. 153 (E.D. Tex.
`May 17, 2022)
`Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne III in Support of Plaintiff
`Luminati Network Ltd.’s Claim Constructions, Bright Data Ltd. v.
`Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 126-5 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 29, 2020)
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, Major Data UAB v. Bright
`Data Ltd., IPR2022-00916, Paper 12 (PTAB June 23, 2022)
`Non-Final Office Action mailed March 23, 2022, Reexamination No.
`90/014,876
`Final Office Action mailed June 21, 2022, Reexamination Nos.
`90/014,827 & 90/014,624
`Complaint, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, Case No. 2:18-
`cv-00299, D.I. 1 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 19, 2018)
`Complaint, Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. BiScience Ltd., Case No. 2:18-
`cv-00483, D.I. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2018)
`
`- xiii -
`
`

`

`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. IP Ninja, Case No. 2:19-cv-
`00196, D.I. 1 (E.D. Tex. May 24, 2019)
`Complaint, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-
`cv-00395, D.I. 1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2019)
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript, Day 2, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et
`al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2021)
`
`
`
`- xiv -
`
`

`

`
`
`ID
`PO
`POPR
`POR
`’510 patent
`’319 patent
`’614 patent
`TPG
`Williams
`
`ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Institution Decision
`Patent Owner
`PO Preliminary Response
`PO Response
`U.S. 10,484,510
`U.S. 10,257,319
`U.S. 10,469,614
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`Declaration of Dr. Tim Williams (Ex. 2044)
`
`
`
`- xv -
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’319 patent describes an “acceleration server” that directs content
`
`requests to “agents,” which in turn locate “peers” possessing the requested content.
`
`Its claims, however, are not directed to that approach. Instead, the claims are
`
`overbroad and read directly on prior art proxy server functionality. Petition, 1-4.
`
`The POR admits that, under the Board’s “role-based” constructions, the invention
`
`“collapses” onto the prior art. POR, 19-23.
`
`PO’s narrow constructions, which are contrary to the intrinsic record, have
`
`been consistently rejected in court and by this Board. Infra § I.A.
`
`PO also argues that, under the Board’s role-based constructions, Plamondon
`
`fails to meet claim steps 1B and 1E since its components do not exhibit exclusively
`
`server-like or client-like behavior. POR, 36-38.1 The Board’s constructions do not
`
`require exclusivity. Requiring exclusivity would render the claims inoperable.
`
`Indeed, the USPTO has rejected exclusivity—holding that a “client device” is one
`
`that “acts, at some point, as a client.”2 Finally, PO admitted there is no exclusivity
`
`requirement by applying the court’s constructions without exclusivity at trial.
`
`Infra § I.C.
`
`
`1 For step numbering see Petition, 6. PO calls these steps 1 and 4. POR, 36-38.
`2 Emphasis added unless otherwise noted; internal quotes omitted.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Further, even under PO’s narrow constructions, Plamondon’s client 102 and
`
`appliance 200 meet the “second server” and “client device” limitations because
`
`Plamondon explains that each can be “any workstation, desktop computer, laptop
`
`or notebook computer, server, handheld computer, mobile telephone, smart
`
`phone.” Petition, 15-17; Plamondon, [0238]. “Server” unquestionably meets PO’s
`
`“second server” construction. “Smartphone” (among others) unquestionably meets
`
`PO’s “client device” construction. PO argues Plamondon’s list would not allow
`
`POSAs to “at once envisage” client 102 as a “server” and appliance 200 as a
`
`“smartphone.” POR, 40-46. The “at once envisage” concept, however, does not
`
`apply to a short list of known devices. Infra § I.D.
`
`Within Ground 1, the POR also disputes anticipation of claims 14 and 24.
`
`POR, 47-52. Its arguments, however, focus on reading non-existent limitations
`
`into the claims, including an “exclusivity” requirement for claim 24. Infra § II.A.
`
`The POR does not separately defend Ground 1’s remaining claims (i.e., claims
`
`12-13, 21-23, 25-27).
`
`The POR disputes obviousness of claims 2-5 & 19-20 (Ground 6) and claims
`
`6-11 (Ground 7), but its motivation-based arguments ignore the Petition’s reasons
`
`why POSAs would have combined Plamondon with Price (Ground 6) or Kozat
`
`(Ground 7). Infra §§ II.B-II.C. Finally, the POR argues, but fails to establish,
`
`secondary considerations—let alone any nexus to the claims. Infra § II.D.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`CLAIM 1 IS UNPATENTABLE
`A. History of the Disputed Terms
`1.
`
`“client device”
`
`PO admits that, in the claimed invention, “a client device serves as a proxy
`
`between the server and the web server.” Ex. 1005, 2. Given that proxy
`
`functionality is prior art, PO argued in court that the ’319 patent advanced the art
`
`by implementing proxy functionality in a “consumer computer.” Ex. 1005, 10-13.
`
`In December 2020, Judge Payne rejected “consumer computer” and
`
`construed “client device” as “communication device that is operating in the role of
`
`a client.” Ex. 1006, 10-12.
`
`Meantime, in another case concerning patents with the same specification,
`
`PO again sought a “consumer computer” construction and urged that the claimed
`
`“client device” cannot function as a server. In February 2021, Judge Payne
`
`rejected both arguments and held the role-based construction applies “regardless of
`
`any additional role the device may serve, including as a server.” Ex. 1082, 13.3
`
`In September 2021, Chief Judge Gilstrap adopted Judge Payne’s
`
`constructions. Exs. 1074, 1083.
`
`
`3 Ex. 1082, a Markman ruling inconsistent with PO’s position, should have been
`filed with the POR. TPG, 47; 83 Fed. Reg. 51356.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Later, Judge Payne again rejected PO’s “consumer computer” construction
`
`in another case. Ex. 2013, 10-16.
`
`In short, the court construed “client device” consistently in three different
`
`cases (2:19-cv-00395, 2:19-cv-00396, 2:21-cv-00225).
`
`The court even forbade testimony that “a client device cannot be a server”
`
`(Ex. 1084, 4)—yet PO repeats that mantra here. POR, 15-16, 19, 22-23.
`
`Construction of “client device” arose in 14 IPRs: this and four others on the
`
`’319 patent (IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00915, IPR2022-01109),
`
`five on the child ’510 patent (IPR2021-01493, IPR2022-00138, IPR2022-00862,
`
`IPR2022-00916, IPR2022-01110), and four on other relatives (IPR2022-00103,
`
`IPR2022-00353, IPR2022-00687, IPR2022-00936).
`
`PO has taken conflicting positions. In several POPRs, PO ostensibly
`
`endorsed the court’s construction. POPR, 23-24; Exs. 1085-1089. Elsewhere, PO
`
`reversed and argued the Board should reject the court’s construction and instead
`
`construe “client device” as “consumer computer.” In all ten IDs that addressed
`
`claim construction, the Board adopted the court’s construction: “communication
`
`device that is operating in the role of a client.” ID, 22; Exs. 1090-1098.
`
`2.
`
`“second server”
`
`The court applied its role-based approach to “server”—“a device that is
`
`operating in the role of a server.” Ex. 1009, 8-11; Ex. 1074.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In its POPR, PO ostensibly agreed the Board should adopt that construction.
`
`POPR, 23-24. However, despite PO purportedly being “mindful” of the court’s
`
`clarifying order (Ex. 1009), its POPR never acknowledged the order’s explanation
`
`that the role-based approach applies to the “second server.” Id., 24-25.
`
`PO also agreed, in several POPRs, that the Board should adopt the court’s
`
`“second server” construction, albeit while ignoring the crux of the clarification.
`
`Exs. 1085-1089. In other filings, PO asked the Board to replace the definite article
`
`with the indefinite article: “server that is not the a client device.” E.g., POR, 30.
`
`This change would eviscerate the court’s role-based construction by suggesting a
`
`server can never have a client role—an argument the court rejected. Ex. 1009, 10
`
`(“a component can be configured to operate in different roles”) (italics original).
`
`All ten IDs that addressed claim construction rejected PO’s arguments and adopted
`
`the court’s construction, including its clarification that a server is “a device that is
`
`operating in the role of a server.” ID, 22; Exs. 1090-1098.
`
`B.
`
`The Board Should Adopt the Court’s Constructions
`and Reject PO’s Narrow Constructions
`1.
`
`The Court’s Constructions Deserve Substantial Weight
`
`The court’s constructions deserve substantial weight. The USPTO explained
`
`that harmonizing the IPR and district court claim construction standards provides
`
`“greater consistency with the federal courts,” and “will reduce the potential for
`
`inconsistent results between different fora.” 83 Fed. Reg. 51344, 51348.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`These considerations are critical here because PO secured a $7.5 million verdict
`
`based on the court’s constructions. POR, 74; Ex. 2028, 7. “Claim terms must be
`
`construed the same way for…invalidity and infringement.” TVIIM v. McAfee,
`
`851 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`In weighing a court’s construction, the USPTO considers “how thoroughly
`
`reasoned the prior decision is and the similarities between the record in the district
`
`court…and…before the PTAB. It also may be relevant whether the prior claim
`
`construction is final or interlocutory.” 83 Fed. Reg. 51355.
`
`These factors strongly favor deference here. First, the court prepared four
`
`consistent, well-reasoned decisions. Exs. 1006, 1009, 1082, 2013.
`
`Second, the relevant records are essentially identical. In 2:19-cv-00395, PO
`
`relied only on the ’510 and ’319 patents’ shared specification and the ’319 patent’s
`
`prosecution history. Ex. 1005 (PO’s opening Markman brief), 10-15; Ex. 2009
`
`(PO’s reply), 1-3. These are in the record. Exs. 1001, 1002. The court also noted
`
`that PO’s extrinsic evidence supported the court’s construction. Ex. 1006, 12.
`
`To ensure a consistent record, that document has been filed. Ex. 1099.
`
`In 2:19-cv-00396, PO relied only on the specification of the asserted patents
`
`(10,484,511, 10,637,968), which the ’319 patent shares (Ex. 1089, 8; Ex. 1100).
`
`Ex. 1101 (PO’s opening Markman brief), 10-15; Ex. 1102, 1-5 (PO’s reply). The
`
`court mentioned RFC 2616 (Ex. 1018). Ex. 1082, 12.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`In 2:21-cv-00225, other than the shared specifications and ’319 prosecution
`
`history (Ex. 1002), PO cited documents that are Exhibits 1018 and 2017 here.
`
`Ex. 1103, 10-18 (PO’s opening Markman brief); Ex. 1104 (PO’s reply), 1-4.
`
`In short, the court’s record matches that before this Board.
`
`Finally, the Markman orders in 2:19-cv-00395 and 2:19-cv-00396 are final
`
`insofar as they were entered by