`
`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 PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`NOVEMBER 23, 2022 MOTION TO SEAL (PAPER 26)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY .............................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II. CONFIDENTIALITY STANDARD ................................................................ 3
`
`III. THE REDACTED INFORMATION IS NOT SENSITIVE
`AND HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED ............................................. 4
`
`A. Page 46, Lines 13-17 ................................................................................... 4
`
`B. Page 62, Line 5 – Page 63, Line 14 ............................................................. 5
`
`C. Page 77, Line 24 – Page 78, Line 25;
`Page 93, Line 5 – Page 95, Line 18; and
`Page 96, Line 9 – Page 97, Line 18 ............................................................. 6
`
`IV. CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF HARM ARE INSUFFICIENT ........... 8
`
`V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd.,
`IPR2020 00905, Paper 30 (June 21, 2021) .........................................................4, 6
`
`Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alcon Research, Ltd.,
`IPR2017-01053, Paper 27, 3 (Jan. 19, 2018) .....................................................1, 8
`
`Netflix Inc. v. DivX, LLC,
`IPR2020-00052, Paper 33 (Apr. 30, 2020) ............................................................ 4
`
`Western Digital Corp. v. Kuster,
`IPR2020-01391, Paper 28 (Aug. 19, 2021) ............................................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`The portion of Patent Owner’s (“PO”) November 23, 2022 Motion to Seal
`
`(Paper 26) that seeks redaction of its expert Dr. Williams’ deposition transcript
`
`(Ex. 1081) should be denied because it fails to provide a showing of “good cause”
`
`sufficient to override the strong public policy in favor of making all information in
`
`an IPR open to the public. Argentum Pharms. v. Alcon Research, IPR2017-01053,
`
`Paper 27, 3 (Jan. 19, 2018) (informative).
`
`“Good cause” requires (1) a “sufficient explanation as to why” the
`
`information sought to be sealed (or redacted) is, in fact, confidential, (2) a
`
`demonstration that it is not “excessively redacted,” and (3) a showing that the
`
`strong public interest in an open record is outweighed by “concrete harm” that a
`
`party would suffer from disclosure. Id., 3-4.
`
`As the Board explained in the Scheduling Order in this matter, “The Board
`
`has a strong interest in the public availability of trial proceedings. Redactions to
`
`documents filed in this proceeding should be limited to the minimum amount
`
`necessary to protect confidential information.” Paper 13, 3.
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Concurrent with its Patent Owner Response (“POR”), PO filed a motion that
`
`sought (1) entry of a stipulated protective order and (2) to seal Exhibits 2018 and
`
`2021-2024 in their entirety, and to redact Exhibits 2020 and 2044 and the POR.
`
`Paper 18.
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner did not oppose the motion PO filed as Paper 18. The Board has
`
`not yet acted on that motion.
`
`At the deposition of PO’s expert Dr. Williams, PO’s counsel designated the
`
`transcript (Ex. 1081) under the Protective Order. Ex. 1081, 100:5-9.
`
`On November 16, 2022, Petitioner provisionally filed under seal Dr.
`
`Williams’ deposition transcript (Ex. 1081) and Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 23),
`
`which cited Ex. 1081. PO filed a provisional motion to seal. Paper 24.
`
`Shortly thereafter, the parties met and conferred, and PO indicated that the
`
`Reply could be filed publicly. The Board subsequently made the Reply (Paper 23)
`
`available to the public.
`
`Following the meet-and-confer, PO designated portions of Dr. Williams’
`
`transcript for redaction, as shown in the redacted Exhibit 1081 filed by Petitioner
`
`with PO’s authorization on November 18, 2022.
`
`Finally, on November 23, 2022, PO filed a motion to seal a source-code
`
`related exhibit (Ex. 2051) and the unredacted version of Exhibit 1081. Paper 26.
`
`Petitioner does not oppose sealing Exhibit 2051, but does oppose the remainder of
`
`the motion because the redactions to Exhibit 1081 are not appropriate.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`II. CONFIDENTIALITY STANDARD
`
`PO argues that the redacted content in Ex. 1081 should be sealed because it
`
`is “Highly Confidential – Outside Attorney’s Eyes Only” under the protective
`
`order agreed-to by the parties (Ex. 2046). Compared to the Board’s default
`
`protective order, at PO’s request that stipulated protective order adds new
`
`confidentiality levels with more burdensome restrictions. The stipulated protective
`
`order defines “Highly Confidential – Outside Attorney’s Eyes Only” material as
`
`“Confidential material that is so sensitive that its dissemination requires even
`
`further limitation, including but not limited to, for example, unpublished technical
`
`information, trade secret information, financial information, or computer source
`
`code[.]” Ex. 2046, ¶4.
`
`PO’s arguments for sealing portions of Ex. 1081 fail even the
`
`less-demanding test of confidentiality included in the Board’s default protective
`
`order, let alone the heightened test for the “Highly Confidential – Outside
`
`Attorneys Eyes Only” designation that PO’s motion seeks under the stipulated
`
`protective order.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`III. THE REDACTED INFORMATION IS NOT SENSITIVE
`AND HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCLOSED
`A.
`
`Page 46, Lines 13-17
`
`PO asserts that the above-referenced testimony describes “highly sensitive,
`
`technical details of Bright Data’s source code files.” Paper 26, 6. But, in fact, it
`
`merely identifies the programming language in which PO’s software is written. It
`
`discloses nothing whatsoever about any allegedly confidential or trade secret
`
`functionality of the software, and thus is not properly subject to redaction from
`
`public view. Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020 00905, Paper 30, 6 (June 21, 2021)
`
`(“Corephotonics”) (denying motion to seal email identifying software used by
`
`patent owner: “Although the email string provides additional information, such as
`
`the name of the commercially available simulation software used to generate the
`
`black box model, Patent Owner has failed to explain why disclosing Patent
`
`Owner’s use of that particular software outweighs the public interest in a more
`
`complete and understandable record.”).
`
`Further, it would be facially absurd to suggest that PO enjoys a competitive
`
`advantage from its programming language being kept secret. Searching “most
`
`common computer languages” in Google shows it is one of the most popular and
`
`ubiquitous programming languages in use today. It is inappropriate to seal
`
`information that “members of the public already can infer with reasonable
`
`confidence.” Netflix v. DivX, IPR2020-00052, Paper 33, 7 (Apr. 30, 2020).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Page 62, Line 5 – Page 63, Line 141
`
`This testimony covers information PO has already publicly disclosed:2
`
` Ex. 2020, 2 (“The Practicing Products comprise proxy client
`devices…which have, for example, downloaded Bright Data’s SDK, each
`of which has its own identifier such as a residential IP address. Through
`the execution of Bright Data’s software, including the SDK installed on
`the proxy client devices, these proxy client devices perform the claimed
`method steps of the ’510 Patent, including the sending of its identifier to
`Bright Data’s second server (e.g. Super Proxy)…”).
` Ex. 2020, 15 (“a proxy client device of Bright Data’s Practicing
`Products may periodically send a message that comprises a status of the
`client device in response to a request for the status of the client device.
`Further, the proxy client device and the second server of Bright Data’s
`Practicing Products periodically communicate, including by exchanging
`‘keep alive’ messages.”).
` Ex. 1081, 61:2-5 (“What we’ve been discussing is Bright Data’s system,
`which uses residential IP addresses for the client devices.”).
`
`
`1 A sentence fragment on Page 63, lines 7-8 is the only reference to content in any
`confidential document. Petitioner offered to redact it, but the meet-and-confer
`failed. The information in the fragment is not actually confidential, as shown here.
`2 PO baldly alleges “These specific details have not been publicly disclosed”
`(Paper 26, 7), but fails to address the nearly-identical prior disclosures quoted
`herein, despite knowing Petitioner contends that Exhibits 2020 and 2044 disclose
`the redacted information. Paper 26, 8.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Such information should not be sealed. Corephotonics, 4 (denying motion
`
`to seal information that “Patent Owner has already publicly disclosed”).
`
`Additionally, with regard to Page 62, lines 20-21 and Page 63, lines 8-14,
`
`pure speculation by a witness cannot possibly be confidential to PO.
`
`C.
`
`Page 77, Line 24 – Page 78, Line 25;
`Page 93, Line 5 – Page 95, Line 18; and
`Page 96, Line 9 – Page 97, Line 18
`
`This testimony covers information PO has already publicly disclosed:
`
` Ex. 2020, 2 (“The Practicing Products comprise proxy client devices with
`residential IP addresses. A customer can send HTTP requests to the
`second server, e.g., Super Proxy, the second server can send HTTP
`requests to the proxy client device, which can send HTTP requests to
`the web server, which is an HTTP web server. The web server responds
`to HTTP requests by sending the requested content to the proxy client
`device, which sends the requested content back to the customer via the
`second server.”).
` Ex. 2020, 2 (“Through the execution of Bright Data’s software, including
`the SDK installed on the proxy client devices, these proxy client devices
`perform the claimed method steps of the ’510 Patent, including the
`sending of its identifier to Bright Data’s second server (e.g. Super Proxy),
`the receiving of requests for content from Bright Data’s second server
`(e.g., Super Proxy), the sending of the requests to a first server that is a
`web server, the receiving of the corresponding requested content from
`the first server, and the sending of that content to Bright Data’s second
`server (e.g., Super Proxy) to go on to the customer.”).
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 2020, 8 (“The target web server sends the requested content to the
`proxy client device. The proxy client device sends the requested content
`back to the customer client device through the Super Proxy.”).
`
` Ex. 2044, 57-58 (“A customer sends an HTTP request for content
`identified by a URL to a Super Proxy. The Super Proxy sends the
`request for content to a proxy client device (Peer SDK) that in turn,
`sends the request for content identified by a URL to a web server using
`the IP address of the proxy client device as the Source IP
`Address…The proxy client device obtains the requested content directly
`from the web server. The proxy client device sends the requested
`content back to the customer via the Super Proxy through the
`established connection.”).
` Ex. 2020, 21 (“For example, the proxy client device may store, operate,
`or use an Android operating system.”).
`
` Ex. 1081, 97:19-23 (“Q. What operating system do the super proxy
`servers run? A. I have not been given that information, but I seriously
`doubt if they are running…Android.”).
`
`Additionally, with respect to Page 96, line 9 – Page 97, line 2, a formulaic
`
`recitation of claim limitations that a device allegedly does not perform cannot
`
`possibly be confidential to PO.
`
`With respect to Page 97, lines 9-15, the unredacted portion of the appendix
`
`states: “A proxy client device of the Practicing Products establishes a Transmission
`
`Control Protocol (TCP) connection with a second server, e.g., the Super Proxy.”
`
`Ex. 2020, 7.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`With respect to Page 97, lines 15-18, the programming language should not
`
`be redacted for the reasons already stated.
`
`IV. CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS OF HARM ARE INSUFFICIENT
`
`PO bears the burden of demonstrating that redactions are appropriate, one
`
`component of which is to demonstrate “concrete harm” that would result from
`
`public disclosure. Argentum, 4. PO’s motion provides only a generic statement
`
`that public disclosure would cause it to be “significantly harmed,” but without any
`
`explanation of what that harm would be. Taking the identity of the programming
`
`language as an example, PO fails to explain how disclosing which of the world’s
`
`most common programming languages PO chose to use would create a technical
`
`vulnerability, or advantage competitors, or cause any other type of harm.
`
`Western Digital v. Sandisk, IPR2020-01391, Paper 28, 3 (Aug. 19, 2021) (denying
`
`motion to seal where “there is no showing that the notebook pages at issue would
`
`‘cause significant harm’ to Patent Owner.”). More broadly, given that PO’s prior
`
`public disclosures are virtually identical to the testimony it now seeks to redact,
`
`and given that PO knows Petitioner contends Exhibits 2020 and 2044 disclose the
`
`redacted information, PO’s motion should have explained what, if any, information
`
`it contends appears in the testimony that was not previously disclosed in those
`
`public filings. Instead, PO simply asserts, without any analysis, that all of the
`
`redacted information has “not been publicly disclosed.”
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`PO has not met, and cannot meet, its burden to demonstrate “concrete harm”
`
`if the redacted information is made available to the public.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`The portion of Paper 26, PO’s November 23, 2022 Motion to Seal, that
`
`seeks to redact portions of Dr. Williams’ deposition transcript (Ex. 1081), should
`
`be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 23, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`The Data Company Technologies Inc.
`
`/Michael N. Rader/
`
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6 (E)(4)
`I certify that on November 23, 2022, I will cause a copy of the foregoing
`
`document, including any exhibits filed therewith, to be served via electronic mail,
`
`as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the following:
`
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Elizabeth A. O’Brien
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tomd@cherianllp.com
`elizabetho@cherianllp.com
`
`/MacAulay Rush/
`MacAulay Rush
`Paralegal
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`