`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; AND
`OXYSALES, UAB, Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01266
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1069
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`(cid:3)INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1(cid:3)
`I.(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)STATUTORY PREDICATES .................................................................. 2(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8) ................................................... 2(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)Real Parties-In-Interest ..................................................................... 2(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)Related Matters ................................................................................. 2(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)Lead and Back-Up Counsel .............................................................. 4(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)Service Information .......................................................................... 4(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103) ................................................... 5(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)Certification of Standing (37 CFR § 42.104(a)) .................................. 5(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)Identification of Challenges (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .................. 5(cid:3)
`III.(cid:3)(cid:3)INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) ............ 6(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)Factor 1 ................................................................................................ 7(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)Factor 2 ................................................................................................ 7(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)Factor 3 ................................................................................................ 8(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)Factor 4 ................................................................................................ 8(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3)Factor 5 ................................................................................................ 9(cid:3)
`F.(cid:3)Factor 6 ................................................................................................ 9(cid:3)
`IV.(cid:3)(cid:3)OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT .............................................................. 9(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)Claims .................................................................................................. 9(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)Specification ...................................................................................... 10(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)Priority Date ....................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)Alleged Benefit of the Patent ............................................................. 12(cid:3)
`V.(cid:3) (cid:3)LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ........................................................... 12(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3)(cid:3)CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 4 2.104(b)(3)) .......................... 13(cid:3)
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES .................................... 15(cid:3)
`A. Crowds .............................................................................................. 15(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)(cid:3)MorphMix ......................................................................................... 15(cid:3)
`C. Border ................................................................................................ 16(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)(cid:3)RFC 2616 .......................................................................................... 16(cid:3)
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(4)-(5)) .......... 17(cid:3)
` A. GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 21-22, AND
`24-27 BY CROWDS.......................................................................... 17(cid:3)
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 18(cid:3)
`a) Preamble .................................................................................... 18
`b) Claim step (a) (“receiving, from the second server, the first
` content identifier”) .................................................................... 19
`c) Claim step (b) (“sending, to the first server over the Internet,
` a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that
` comprises the first content identifier”) .................................... 23
`d) Claim step (c) (“receiving, the first content from the first
` server over the Internet in response to the sending of the
` first content identifier”) ............................................................. 25
`e) Claim step (d) (“sending, the first content by the first client
` device to the second server, in response to the receiving of
` the first content identifier”) ...................................................... 26
`2.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 26(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 21-22 and 24-25 ................................................................. 28(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 26 ......................................................................................... 29(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 29(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3)GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-18,
`21-22, AND 24-27 BY CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................. 30(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 32(cid:3)
`2. Claim 14 ......................................................................................... 33(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 15 ......................................................................................... 34(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 17 ......................................................................................... 35(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 18 ......................................................................................... 37(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 2, 21-22 and 24-27 ............................................................. 37(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3)GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 21-22,
`24-25, AND 27-29 BY BORDER ..................................................... 38(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 40(cid:3)
`a) Preamble ..................................................................................... 40
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`b) Claim step (a) (“receiving, from the second server, the first
` content identifier”) ..................................................................... 40
`c) Claim step (b) (“sending, to the first server over the Internet,
` a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises
` the first content identifier”) ........................................................ 43
`d) Claim step (c) (“receiving, the first content from the first
` server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first
` content identifier”) .................................................................... 44
`e) Claim step (d) (“sending, the first content by the first client
` device to the second server, in response to the receiving of
` the first content identifier”) ....................................................... 45
`2.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 12 ......................................................................................... 46(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 14 ......................................................................................... 46(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 21-22 and 24-25 ................................................................. 47(cid:3)
`5. Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 48(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 28-29 .................................................................................. 48(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14-15,
`17-18, 21-22, AND 24-29 BY BORDER + RFC 2616
`+ GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ........................................................... 49(cid:3)
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 50(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 15 ......................................................................................... 52(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 17-18 .................................................................................. 53(cid:3)
`4. Claim 26 ......................................................................................... 55(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 ........................................ 55(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3)GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 17, 19, 21-22,
`AND 24-27 BY MORPHMIX ........................................................... 56(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)Claim 1 ............................................................................................ 57(cid:3)
`a) Preamble .................................................................................... 57
`b) Claim step (a) (“receiving, from the second server, the first
` content identifier”) .................................................................... 57
`c) Claim step (b) (“sending, to the first server over the Internet,
` Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises
` the first content identifier”) ....................................................... 61
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d) Claim step (c) (“receiving, the first content from the first
` server over the Internet in response to the sending of the
` first content identifier”) ............................................................63
`e) Claim step (d) (“sending, the first content by the first client
` device to the second server, in response to the receiving of
` the first content identifier”) ....................................................... 63
`2.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 64(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 17 ......................................................................................... 65(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 19 ......................................................................................... 66(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 21-22 and 24-25 ................................................................. 67(cid:3)
`6. Claim 26 ......................................................................................... 68(cid:3)
`7.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 68(cid:3)
`F.(cid:3)GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19,
`21-22, AND 24-27 BY MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .................................................................................. 69(cid:3)
`1. Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 69(cid:3)
`2. Claims 14-15 .................................................................................. 70(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claim 18 ......................................................................................... 71(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)(cid:3)Claims 2, 17, 19, 21-22 and 24-27 ................................................. 72(cid:3)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`United States Patent No. 10,257,319 to Shribman et al.
`File History for United States Patent No. 10,257,319
`Minute Entry: Scheduling Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Docket Control Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et
`al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Luminati Mtn. to Consolidate and Reset Trial, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Order: Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet,
`et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Petitioners’ Chart of Challenged Claims
`Luminati’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Declaration of Michael Freedman, Ph. D. with curriculum vitae and
`testifying list
`Luminati’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Michael Reiter & Aviel Rubin, Crowds: Anonymity for Web
`Transactions, ACM Transactions on Information and System
`Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, Nov. 1998, at 66-92
`Declaration of Scott Delman (regarding Crowds)
`Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Doctoral Thesis)
`Declaration of Marc Rennhard (regarding MorphMix)
`Declaration of Bernhard Plattner (regarding MorphMix)
`Declaration of Andreas Berz (regarding MorphMix)
`United States Patent No. 6,795,848 to Border et al.
`Network Working Group, RFC 2616
`Network Working Group, RFC 1180
`ACM Award Winners, Michael J. Freedman
`Network Working Group, RFC 791
`Network Working Group, RFC 2460
`Network Working Group, RFC 793
`
`v
`
`
`
`Network Working Group, RFC 959
`Network Working Group, RFC 821
`Network Working Group, RFC 918
`Network Working Group, RFC 937
`Network Working Group, RFC 1939
`Network Working Group, RFC 1034
`Network Working Group, RFC 1035
`Network Working Group, RFC 1945
`Roger Dingledine, Michael Freedman, & David Molnar, The Free
`Haven Project: Distributed Anonymous Storage Service (2000)
`Michael Freedman & Robert Morris, Tarzan: A Peer-to-Peer
`Anonymizing Network Layer (2000)
`Google Scholar: Crowds Citations
`Google Scholar: MorphMix citation in Alessandro Acquisti, et al.,
`Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices (2007)
`Network Working Group, RFC 1122
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. Code200, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (“Patent”), with a priority date of 2009, claims the
`
`sending of basic Internet information, using the HTTP protocol, through a proxy
`
`device that retrieves content from the target web server and returns the content to the
`
`requesting device. Not surprisingly, the alleged invention was well known to a
`
`person of “ordinary skill in the art” as of 2009 (“POSA”) and is invalidated by the
`
`Crowds, Border, and MorphMix references discussed herein. None of these
`
`references were before the examiner during prosecution. Further, the references
`
`expressly identify the same alleged benefit as patent owner Luminati Networks Ltd.
`
`(“Luminati”)—anonymous retrieval of web data, relieving traffic congestion, and
`
`decreasing network latency.
`
`In short, Luminati did not come close to being the first to invent a web proxy,
`
`and its Patent should be invalidated. Accordingly, there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioners would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATUTORY PREDICATES
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are the Petitioners Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB,
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, “Petitioners”); as well as
`
`coretech lt, UAB.
`
`Related Matters
`2.
`The Patent is currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Further, U.S Pat. Nos.
`
`10,484,511 and 10,637,968 (both claiming the benefit of 61/249,624 (the Patent’s
`
`provisional application number)), are currently the subject of the litigation styled
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code 200, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`and Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. NetNut, Ltd., 2:20-cv-00188-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Further, the Patent, as well as U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,484,510 and 10,484,511 (both
`
`claiming the benefit of 61/249,624 (the Patent’s provisional application number)),
`
`are currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom
`
`S.A. D/B/A NordVPN, 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system indicates that
`
`U.S. Application Nos. 16/278,106 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,712), 16/662,800
`
`(pending), 16/278,107 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,484,510), and 16/600,507 (pending)
`
`all claim the benefit of 15/957,945 (the Patent’s application number). Further, the
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`following patent applications and patents claim the benefit of 61/249,624 (the
`
`Patent’s provisional application number): 12/836,059 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`8,560,604), 14/025,109 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,069,936), 15/957,942 (issued as U.S.
`
`Pat. 10,313,484), 15/957,945 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,257,319), 15/957,950 (issued
`
`as U.S. Pat. 10,225,374), 16/031,636 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,616,375), 16/278,106
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,712), 16/278,107 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,484,510),
`
`16/278,109 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,484,511), 16/278,104 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`10,523,788), 16/278,105 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,469,628), 16/368,002 (issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. 10,582,013), 16/368,041 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,582,014), 16/396,695
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,713), 16/396,696 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,637,968),
`
`16/600,504 (pending), 16/600,505 (pending), 16/600,506 (pending), 16/600,507
`
`(pending), 16/662,800 (pending), 16/693,306 (pending), 16/782,073 (pending),
`
`16/782,076 (pending), 16/807,661 (pending), 16/807,691 (pending), 16/910,724
`
`(pending), and PCT/US10/51881 (issued as WO 2011/044402).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`3.
`Lead Counsel
`Craig Tolliver
`Registration No. 45,975
`ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`469-587-7263
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza,
`PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`George “Jorde” Scott
`Registration No. 62,859
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`469-587-7264
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza,
`PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Electronic mail
`
`1. ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`2. jscott@ccrglaw.com
`
`(and hand-delivery) mailing
`
`Postal
`address
`
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone
`
`Facsimile
`
`(214) 521-6400
`
`(214) 764-8392
`
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners consent to electronic service via e-mail at the e-mail
`
`addresses noted above.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103)
`
`The required fee is paid through an online credit card, and the office is
`
`authorized to charge any fee deficiencies and credit any overpayments to Deposit
`
`Acct. No. 603576 (Customer ID No. 172361).
`
`C.
`
`Certification of Standing (37 CFR § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioners certify that the Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`alleged herein. Luminati filed a complaint alleging infringement by Teso LT, UAB;
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB; and Oxysales, UAB of the Patent on December 6, 2019 and
`
`served the complaint on Metacluster LT, UAB (the earliest served defendant) on
`
`February 18, 2020. Ex. 1038. Both dates are less than twelve months prior to filing
`
`of this Petition. Petitioners have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the Patent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 315(a).
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
`
`Petitioners request cancellation of the challenged claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-2, 21-22, 24-
`27
`
`1-2, 14-15, 17-
`18, 21-22, 24-27
`
`Anticipated by Crowds (§102)
`
`Obvious in view of Crowds + Knowledge of
`POSA + Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2616
`(§103)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1, 12, 14, 21-22,
`24-25, 27-29
`
`Anticipated by Border (§102)
`
`1, 12, 14-15, 17-
`18, 21-22, 24-29
`
`Obvious in view of Border + Knowledge of
`POSA + RFC 2616 (§103)
`
`1-2, 17, 19, 21-
`22, 24-27
`
`Anticipated by MorphMix (§102)
`
`1-2, 14-15, 17-
`19, 21-22, 24-27
`
`Obvious in view of MorphMix + Knowledge of
`POSA + RFC 2616 (§103)
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(a))
`
`Petitioner Code200 has been sued by Luminati for alleged patent
`
`infringement, but Luminati has (as of yet) not filed any lawsuit alleging infringement
`
`of the Patent by Code200. This weighs in favor of institution with respect to
`
`Code200.
`
`The other petitioners (co-petitioners) were sued by Luminati for alleged
`
`infringement of the Patent, as noted above. As to the co-petitioners, however, the
`
`Fintiv1 factors, discussed below, show that the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution in view of Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et
`
`al., No. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Lawsuit”).
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020)
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020)
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1
`
`The first factor is whether the court may grant a stay if a proceeding is
`
`instituted. The Lawsuit is at a very early stage. The Scheduling Conference did not
`
`occur until May 18, 2020. Ex. 1003. The Docket Control Order issued June 3, 2020.
`
`Ex. 1004. Claim construction is set for November 10, 2020. Id.
`
`No party has requested a stay of the Lawsuit pending the IPR, and the Board
`
`has previously “decline[d] to infer” how a District Court would decide a stay motion.
`
`Fintiv, Paper 15 at 12. Factor 1 is neutral.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2
`
`The second factor concerns the proximity of the Lawsuit trial date to the
`
`Board’s projected final written decision. While jury selection is currently set for May
`
`3, 2021 (Ex. 1004), Luminati has previously sought to abandon its trial dates as the
`
`“day of reckoning” approaches. In Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet and
`
`Metacluster UAB, No. 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D.Tex.) (“Prior Lawsuit”), Luminati,
`
`on December 23, 2019, filed an opposed motion to reset the trial date just over one
`
`week before the January 3, 2020 pretrial hearing at which co-petitioners’ dispositive
`
`motions regarding Section 101 invalidity and non-infringement were to be heard.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 2. Luminati sought to delay the February 3, 2020 trial date for at least
`
`five months until “after July 2020.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`The parties settled the Prior Lawsuit at the pretrial conference, prior to
`
`resolution of dispositive motions. Ex. 1006.
`
`In view of Luminati’s history and the potential for COVID-related delays
`
`(which are more likely to affect a jury trial), Factor 2 is neutral.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3
`
`Factor 3 concerns “investment in the parallel proceedings.” The Lawsuit is at
`
`a very early stage, with the Docket Control Order issuing June 2, 2020. Ex. 1004.
`
`Luminati did not provide its infringement contentions, and therefore did not identify
`
`its asserted claims, until May 4, 2020. Id. This Petition was filed just 10 weeks after
`
`the asserted claims were disclosed, and over seven months before co-petitioners’
`
`statutory deadline for filing an IPR. Id. Expert discovery does not close until January
`
`21, 2021. Id.
`
`Given the early stages of the case, and the prompt filing of this Petition, Factor
`
`3 weighs strongly in favor of institution.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4
`
`Factor 4 concerns the overlap between the claims at issue in the Petition and
`
`the Lawsuit. Luminati asserts claims 1-2, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22, and 24-27 in the
`
`Lawsuit. In addition to these claims, this Petition also challenges claims 12, 19, 28,
`
`and 29, which are not at issue in the Lawsuit. Factor 4 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Factor 5
`
`Factor 5 concerns the overlap between the parties in the Petition and the
`
`parties in the Lawsuit. Petitioner Code200 is not a defendant in the Lawsuit, although
`
`it has been sued by Luminati as to alleged infringement of related patents. Ex. 1037.
`
`Factor 5 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6
`
`Factor 6 concerns “other circumstances.” The challenged Patent is
`
`extraordinarily weak. Luminati has essentially claimed the exchange of standard
`
`Internet information via a typical intermediary computer device to perform web
`
`requests for a client. That basic concept has been well known for decades.
`
`Policy favors the Board instituting review so that Luminati may not continue
`
`to pursue parties with infringement claims based on an invalid alleged invention that
`
`was known well before the 2009 priority date.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Claims
`
`Claim 1, the only independent claim of the Patent, is included in the attached
`
`Exhibit 1007, which lists the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Patent claims ordinary devices that exchange standard Internet requests
`
`or content in a routine way. Claim 1 recites the standard use of an intermediary,
`
`where the “first client device” acts as an intermediary to retrieve from a web server
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`(first server) content requested by a “second server,” and send the content to the
`
`second server.
`
`The following is an illustration of Claim 1:
`
`The dependent Challenged Claims merely recite additional steps known to a
`
`POSA, including that “TCP/IP” is used or that an HTTP header used in the prior art
`
`
`
`RFC 2616 standard is used.
`
`B.
`
`Specification
`
`The Patent’s specification confirms that the claim terms used in the Patent
`
`have broad and generic meanings and may be satisfied by standard computers.
`
`Figure 3 depicts “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent” communicating, with the
`
`“agent” forming a connection to the web server:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3. The Patent specification states with respect to Figure 3 that “[t]he
`
`network 100 of FIG. 3 contains multiple communication devices,” that “each
`
`communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent.” Id. at 4:44-53.2
`
`A “communication device” contains “general components of a computer” and
`
`“may serve as a client, agent, or peer.” Id. at 5:52-57. For example, “[t]he
`
`communication device 200 includes a processor 202, memory 210, [and] at least one
`
`storage device 208 . . .” Id. at 5:59-63. Other off-the-shelf features of the
`
`“communication device” include “ROM, hard drive, tape, CDROM, etc.” and that
`
`its input/output devices may include a keyboard or mouse. Id. at 6:14-24, 6:61-7:3.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all emphases in quotations have been added in this Petition.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The Patent claims priority to provisional application 61/249,624 filed on
`
`October 8, 2009. The prior art references asserted in this Petition pre-date the
`
`October 8, 2009 date, and Petitioners do not contest (for purposes of this Petition
`
`only) that the Patent has a priority date of October 8, 2009 (“Priority Date”).
`
`D.
`
`Alleged Benefit of the Patent
`
`Luminati has argued that the Patent allows for the benefit of “untraceability
`
`and anonymity.” Ex. 1008 at 6. Luminati asserts that data center proxies “with a
`
`limited number of commercial IP addresses” could easily be blocked by a web
`
`server, whereas the usage of many “millions” of consumer devices as proxies
`
`provided many more IP addresses belonging to consumers, which could not easily
`
`be blocked. Id. at 6-7.
`
`Even if these concepts—which are not claimed—were somehow relevant to
`
`Luminati’s alleged invention, the prior art presented in this Petition teaches precisely
`
`the benefit of using many ordinary computer users as proxies that can send
`
`anonymous web requests on behalf of others.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`Dr. Michael Freedman opines that a POSA to which the Patent pertains would
`
`have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or equivalent
`
`experience), as well as two or more years’ experience working with and
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`programming networked computer systems as of the Priority Date. Such a person
`
`would be familiar with the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network
`
`communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks, including the
`
`HTTP and TCP/IP protocols. Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 27-29. Dr. Freedman also opines as to
`
`relevant knowledge a POSA would possess as of the Priority Date. Id. at ¶¶ 30-41.
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 4 2.104(B)(3))
`
`The claim terms at issue in the Challenged Claims require no express claim
`
`construction, as the plain and ordinary meanings apply. Further, Petitioners
`
`understand that issues of indefiniteness are not resolved in an IPR and do not raise
`
`them here, but Petitioners do not waive any applicable indefiniteness challenges.
`
`Petitioners provide the following additional discussion regarding claim construction.
`
`As discussed above in Section IV.B, general purpose computers, such as those
`
`with keyboards, memory, and hard drives, serve in the claimed roles shown in Figure
`
`3—client, peer, or agent—and facilitate communication with a web server. Figure
`
`3, and its related discussion, align with the “first client device,” “second server,” and
`
`“first server” (or “web server”) of the Asserted Claims.
`
`Luminati expressly represented in the Lawsuit that the “first client device” is
`
`depicted by the “agent” box and the “second server” is depicted by the “client” box
`
`in Figure 3:
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1008 at 15-16 (Luminati’s annotated figure, denoting “second server” in green,
`
`“first client device” in red, and “first server” in blue). This confirms that Luminati
`
`views a “server” and “client” to be broad enough to encompass one another, and that
`
`Luminati equates the “client device” with the “agent,” which is described in the
`
`Patent as a standard computer (per Section IV.B above).
`
`Luminati made a substantially similar representation in the Prior Lawsuit
`
`involving two patents that were also owned by Luminati, addressed technologies in
`
`the same field as the Patent, and listed the same inventors as the Patent. For those
`
`two patents, Luminati asserted that “client device” has a plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`Ex. 1010 at 25. Luminati cited extrinsic evidence showing that a POSA understands
`
`a “client” device to fulfill the role of requesting and receiving services from a server.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Id. (citing RFC 1392). Luminati also cited to a definition of client as a “functional
`
`unit that requests and receives services from a server.” Id.
`
`Luminati has confirmed the Patent’s disclosure that a general purpose
`
`computer is used in the claimed invention, and that the references to a “client device”
`
`or “server” in the Challenged Claims specify the current role of the computer device.
`
`See Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 42-48.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES
`
`Crowds
`A.
`Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions (“Crowds” (Ex. 1011)) is an article
`
`authored by Michael K. Reiter of Bell Laboratories and Aviel D. Rubin of AT&T
`
`Labs, and published in 1998 in the ACM Transactions on Information and System
`
`Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, November 1998, Pages 66-92. Crowds states that it was
`
`published in November 1998. ACM confirms in a declaration that Crowds was
`
`published in November 1998. Ex. 1012; Ex. 1009, ¶¶ 49-50. Crowds is accordingly
`
`prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Crowds was not before the Patent Office during
`
`prosecution of the Patent. See Ex. 1002.
`
`B. MorphMix
`MorphMix - A Peer-to-Peer-based System for Anonymous Internet Access
`
`(“MorphMix” (Ex. 1013)) is a doctoral thesis authored by Marc Rennhard, of the
`
`Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Computer Engineering and Networks
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Laboratory; Zurich, Switzerland. MorphMix states that it was published in 2004.