`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
` THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00135
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PAPER 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits this Reply to Petitioner’s Partial
`
`Opposition (Paper 27) to Patent Owner’s Motion to Seal (Paper 26). Petitioner
`
`opposes Patent Owner’s redactions and designation to EX. 1081, the deposition
`
`transcript of Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Williams. See generally Paper 27.
`
`As discussed herein, the limited redactions do not diminish the
`
`understandability of the public record. The limited redactions balance the strong
`
`public policy interest with Patent Owner’s interest in protecting its highly sensitive
`
`information. Further, the designation is appropriate at least because the petitioner is
`
`a market competitor and should not be given access to highly sensitive, technical
`
`details about Patent Owner’s source code and commercial services.
`
`I. REDACTIONS GENERALLY
`
`Patent Owner made good faith efforts to limit the redactions as much as
`
`possible. Paper 26 at 12. The redactions are sufficiently tailored to protect Patent
`
`Owner’s highly sensitive information, including specific, non-public details
`
`regarding Patent Owner’s source code and the operation of Patent Owner’s
`
`commercial services. Paper 26 at 6-8. These specific details comprise
`
`competitively valuable information that Patent Owner maintains confidentially and
`
`desires to continue to maintain confidentially. Patent Owner would be harmed by
`
`disclosing these specific details because that would enable other market
`
`competitors to replicate its commercial services, e.g., operation of Bright Data’s
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`SuperProxy. Paper 26 at 9-10; Unified Patents Inc. v. American Patents LLC,
`
`IPR2019-00482, Paper 132 at 65 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2022)(“American”); Unified
`
`Patents, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2017-02148, Paper 76 at 10 (PTAB Apr. 12,
`
`2019). As discussed in the Motion, the petitioner appears to be developing its own
`
`“super proxy”. See Paper 26 at 10. As further discussed below, the redactions are
`
`appropriate and necessary.
`
`Petitioner did not rely on the redacted testimony in its Reply. Paper 23.
`
`Patent Owner does not intend to rely on the redacted testimony in its forthcoming
`
`Sur-Reply. The redactions do not diminish the understandability of the public
`
`record. Overall, the public’s interest is outweighed by the prejudicial effect
`
`disclosing the redacted testimony would have on Patent Owner.
`
`A. PETITIONERS CITED CASES ARE NOT APPLICABLE
`
`Petitioner cited three cases that are not applicable at least because Patent
`
`Owner provided limited redactions with explanations. The thrust of the underlying
`
`arguments between the parties are clearly discernable to the public and the
`
`redactions do not obscure the gist of the arguments made in the papers.
`
`First, Petitioner cited Apple v. Corephotonics, IPR2020-00905, Paper 30
`
`(June 21, 2021). The patent owner moved to seal exhibits in their entirety with no
`
`explanation as to why the information was confidential. Id. at 5 and 6. The Board
`
`denied the patent owner’s motion to seal without prejudice and authorized the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`patent owner to file a renewed motion to seal. Id. at 2 and 8. The Board explained
`
`that redactions should be made “in a manner that allows the thrust of any
`
`underlying argument or evidence to be clearly discernible.” Id. at 8
`
`Second, Petitioner cited Netflix v. DivX, IPR2020-00052, Paper 33 (Apr. 30,
`
`2020). Petitioner specifically cited to the Board’s summary of Patent Owner’s
`
`arguments, not a statement or analysis by the Board. Id. at 7. The dispute between
`
`the parties related to identification of a third party as a real party-in-interest. The
`
`petitioner sought to seal the exhibits in their entirety and provided redactions to
`
`its papers. Id. at 6 and 10. The Board noted that the third party does not
`
`consistently protect this type of information. Id. at 7. The Board also noted that the
`
`third party issued a press release, making it clear that a relationship between the
`
`third party and the petitioner exists. Id. at 8. The Board found that the redactions in
`
`the papers would “unnecessarily obscure[] the gist of the arguments made in the
`
`papers”. Id. at 9. The Board ordered the petitioner to file redacted versions of the
`
`exhibits and corrected redacted versions of the papers. Id. at 12.
`
`Third, Petitioner cited Western Digital v. Kuster, IPR2020-01391, Paper 28
`
`(Aug. 19, 2021). The Board found there was no showing that harm would be
`
`caused to the patent owner because the motion was filed by the petitioner, not
`
`the patent owner. Id. at 3. The Board found that there was no showing that the
`
`patent owner sought to protect the information. Id. at 4. The Board stated that the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`patent owner may seek authorization to file a motion to seal. Id. at 4.
`
`II. REDACTIONS SPECIFICALLY
`
`The redactions generally fall into two categories: one relates to the
`
`programming language, which Petitioner does not dispute is non-public
`
`information, and the second relates to the technical details of Bright Data’s
`
`services, which Petitioner alleges are already public.
`
`Regarding EX. 1081 at 46:13-17; the programming language chosen by
`
`Patent Owner is a highly sensitive, technical detail of Bright Data’s source code.
`
`Paper 26 at 6. Patent Owner has taken steps to maintain the confidentiality of such
`
`details and wishes to maintain that confidentiality. Additionally, it is appropriate to
`
`redact subsequent testimony from which the specific programming language can
`
`be readily ascertained. American at 63.
`
`Regarding EX. 1081 at 62:5-63:14; 77:24-78:25; 93:5-95:18; 96:9-97:18;
`
`Patent Owner refers to its earlier explanations in the Motion. Paper 26 at 6-8. The
`
`public can understand “the thrust” of Patent Owner’s nexus arguments, e.g., EX.
`
`2020 and EX. 2044, such that the public has access to “a materially complete and
`
`understandable file history even given the redactions”. Corning Optical Commn’s
`
`LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2021-00762, Paper 37 at 3 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2022).
`
`The specific details in the redacted testimony are not necessary for a complete
`
`understanding of the issues to be resolved in this proceeding. Eisai Inc. v. Crystal
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Pham. Co., Ltd., et al., PGR2021-00047, Paper 57 at 4 (PTAB Aug. 3, 2022).
`
`The redacted testimony relates to specific details about the operation of
`
`Bright Data’s commercial services and the specific functionality/capabilities of
`
`specific components. The public disclosure of “some aspects” of Patent Owner’s
`
`services “does not eliminate the confidentiality of other, more-specific details.”
`
`American at 68. It seems that Petitioner ignores the information in the question and
`
`that Petitioner seeks to parse the expert’s answer (e.g., only redacting 1 word from
`
`the entire answer) without consideration of the surrounding context. Additionally,
`
`Petitioner seems to ignore the quantifiers in the questions (e.g., some, any, every)
`
`and restrictive adverbs (e.g., only). Moreover, Petitioner’s questions are not limited
`
`to Bright Data’s residential proxy service. Regarding EX. 1081 at 96:9-97:2, Dr.
`
`Williams answered the questions literally.
`
`III. DESIGNATION
`
`Petitioner argues that EX. 1081 is not entitled to any designation. Paper 27 at
`
`3. However, disclosure of the redacted testimony would reveal Patent Owner’s
`
`highly sensitive, unpublished technical information and trade secret information.
`
`Neither petitioner nor in-house counsel should have access to this highly sensitive
`
`information. Paper 18 at 8. Petitioner appears to be entering the same market as
`
`Patent Owner and should not be given access to the specific details in the redacted
`
`testimony. Paper 26 at 1 and 9-10. The designation is appropriate and necessary.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`6
`
`
`Date: December 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITS
`
`
`
`This paper is 5 pages and complies with the type-volume as mandated in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24.
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00135 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies this paper
`
`was served on the undersigned date via email, as authorized by Petitioner, at the
`
`following email addresses:
`
`MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`AWichman-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`GNieberg-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Marie.McKiernan@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: December 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`8
`
`