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 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`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
`
`
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
