In the
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UAB NetNut Ltd.
`Petitioners, v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-00861IPR2021-01492
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 1 of 92
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UAB NetNut Ltd.
`Petitioners, v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-00861IPR2021-01492
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 1 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Contents
`
`1 INTRODUCTION
`
`2 STATUTORY PREDICATES
`2.1 Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.1 Real Parties-In-Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.2 Related Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.3 Lead and Backup Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.4 Service Information
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.2 Other
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`1
`
`23
`23
`23
`23
`810
`910
`910
`
`3 DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS
`1012
`3.1 Fintiv Factors ................................................................................. 11
`3.1.1 Factor 1—Existence or likelihood of a stay ...................... 11
`3.1.2 Factor 2—Proximity of trial date to final written decision 11
`3.1.3 Factor 3—Investment in parallel proceedings .................. 11
`3.1.4 Factor 4—Overlap in issues raised ................................... 11
`3.1.5 Factor 5—Whether the parties are the same ..................... 12
`3.1.6 Factor 6—Other circumstances including the merits ........ 12
`3.2 General Plastic Factors .................................................................. 12
`3.2.1 Factor 1—Prior petition by same petitioner ...................... 12
`3.2.2 Factor 2—Petitioner’s prior knowledge of asserted art . 13
`3.2.3 Factor 3—Petitioner’s prior receipt of preliminary response or
`
`- i -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 2 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`institution decision ............................................................ 13
`
`3.2.4 Factor 4—Elapsed time since the petitioner learned of
`the asserted art ................................................................... 14
`3.2.5 Factor 5—Explanation of time elapsed since prior petition 14
`3.2.6 Factor 6—The finite resources of the Board ..................... 15
`3.2.7 Factor 7—The requirement for a final written decision within a
`year .................................................................................... 15
`
`4 OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 PATENT
`1512
`4.1 Claims ............................................................................................ 1512
`4.2 Specification ................................................................................... 1714
`4.3 Priority Date ................................................................................... 2017
`
`5 LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`6 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`2017
`
`2118
`
`7 OVERVIEW OF CITED ART
`2623
`7.1 Crowds ........................................................................................... 2623
`7.2 MorphMix ...................................................................................... 2623
`7.3 Border ............................................................................................. 2724
`7.4 RFCs ............................................................................................... 2724
`
`8 GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY
`8.1 GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 19, and 21-29
`BY CROWDS ................................................................................ 2825
`
`2825
`
`- i -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 3 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.1.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 2926
`8.1.2 Claims 19, and 28-29 (corresponding recorded media,
`downloading, and device) ................................................. 3735
`8.1.3 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP)
`. 3735
`8.1.4 Claim 23 (running a browser) ........................................... 3836
`8.1.5 Claim 26 (client O/S) ........................................................ 3836
`8.1.6 Claim 27 (sequential execution) ........................................ 3937
`8.2 GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17- 19,
`and 21-29 OVER CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 3937
`8.2.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 4038
`8.2.2 Claim 2 (client device identifies itself on startup) ............ 4140
`8.2.3 Claims 14-15 (validity check) ........................................... 4240
`8.2.4 Claims 17-18 (periodically communicating) .................... 4341
`8.2.5 Claims 19 and 21-29 ......................................................... 4342
`8.3 GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 21-22,
`24-25, AND 27-29 BY BORDER ................................................. 4442
`8.3.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 4645
`8.3.2 Claim 12 (storing the received content) ............................ 5251
`8.3.3 Claim 14 (validity check) .................................................. 5251
`8.3.4 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP)
`. 5352
`8.3.5 Claim 27 (sequential execution) ........................................ 5352
`8.3.6 Claims 28-29 (corresponding recorded media and device) 5453
`
`- i -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 4 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.4 GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14-15, 17-
`19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 OVER BORDER + RFC 2616 +
`GENERAL KNOWLEDGE .......................................................... 5554
`8.4.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 5655
`8.4.2 Claim 15 (validity check, RFC 2616) ............................... 5756
`8.4.3 Claims 17-18 (periodically communicating) .................... 57
`8.4.4 Claim 19 (downloading software application) .................. 58
`8.4.5 Claims 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 ............................ 5958
`8.5 GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 17, 19, and
`21-29 BY MORPHMIX ................................................................. 5958
`8.5.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 61
`8.5.2 Claim 17 (periodically communicating) ........................... 67
`8.5.3 Claims 19 and 28-29 (corresponding recorded media,
`downloading, and device) ................................................. 69
`8.5.4 Claim 23 (web-page and browser) .................................... 69
`8.5.5 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP) . . . .69
`
`8.5.6 Claim 26 (client O/S) ........................................................ 70
`8.5.7 Claim 27 (sequential execution) ........................................ 7071
`8.6 GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17- 19,
`21-29 OVER MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 71
`8.6.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 7172
`8.6.2 Claim 2 (client device identifies itself at startup) ............. 7373
`
`- i -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 5 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.6.3 Claims 14-15 (validity check) ........................................... 74
`8.6.4 Claim 18 (periodically communicating; keep-alives) …... 75
`
`8.6.5 Claims 19 and 21-29 ......................................................... 76
`
`- i -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 6 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1001 United States Patent No. 10,257,319 to Shribman et al.
`1002 File History for United States Patent No. 10,257,319
`1003 Petitioners’ Chart of Challenged Claims
`1004 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.)
`1005 Declaration of Keith J. Teruya with curriculum vitae
`1006 Michael Reiter & Aviel Rubin, Crowds: Anonymity for Web
`Trans-
`actions, ACM Transactions on Information and System Security,
`Vol. 1, No. 1, Nov. 1998, at 66-92
`1007 Declaration of Scott Delman (regarding Crowds)
`1008 Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Doctoral Thesis)
`1009 Declaration of Marc Rennhard (regarding MorphMix)
`1010 Declaration of Bernhard Plattner (regarding MorphMix)
`1011 Declaration of Andreas Berz (regarding MorphMix)
`1012 United States Patent No. 6,795,848 to Border et al.
`1013 Fielding, R. et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1”, RFC
`2616, June 1999
`1014 Socolofsky, T. and C. Kale, “TCP/IP Tutorial”, RFC 1180, January
`1991
`1015 Postel, J., “Internet Protocol”, STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981
`1016 Braden, R., Ed., “Requirements for Internet Hosts -
`Communication
`Layers”, STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989
`1017 Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`2005)
`1018 W3C, Glossary of Terms for Device Independence (Jan.
`available at https://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/#ref-wca-terms
`1019 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0037977
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 7 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST (Continued)
`1020 Supplemental Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D.
`Tex.)
`1021 Transcript of Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`1022 Comparison between current Petition and petition in IPR2021-
`01492 (NetNut IPR petition)
`
`- vi -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 8 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioners Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB; Oxysales,
`
`UAB; and coretech lt, UAB (collectively NetNut Ltd. (“Petitioner” or “NetNut”)
`
`seeks inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-
`
`29 (“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, Ex. 1001 (the “’319
`
`patent” or the “Patent”). The Petition is supported by the Exhibits listed above,
`
`including the Expert Declaration of Keith J. Teruya (Ex. 1005).
`
`The Patent Owner is Bright Data Ltd. (formerly known as Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd.). Since 2018, Patent Owner has been suing its competitors in this field
`
`(including Petitioner) on numerous patents stemming from two provisional
`
`applications filed respectively in 2009 (relevant to this case) and 2013. Despite
`
`pursuing ten district court cases, Patent Owner has avoided most efforts to obtain
`
`PTAB review.1
`
`The sum and substance of claim 1 of the ’319 patent is simply the ordinary
`
`process of retrieving content from a web server through a proxy:
`
`second server <—> client (proxy) device <—> web server
`Patent Owner has asserted that the manner in which the claim language labels
`
`the device in the middle (above), as a “client” (rather than a “server”) defines a
`
`
`1 There were two recent exceptions in IPRs, also brought by Petitioner, which were
`instituted on August 12, 2021. See IPR2021-00458, Paper 11; IPR2021-00465,
`Paper 11.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 9 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`patentably unique “architecture.” However, court constructions have rejected the
`
`narrow construction of “client” and “server” on which Patent Owner would rely to
`
`support that argument. Even if one were to accept Patent Owner’s unreasonably
`
`narrow constructions, there are numerous examples of proxy retrieval scenarios in
`
`the prior art that easily meet the claim requirements. The ’319 patent was
`
`previously challenged, on the same art presented herein, in a petition (by another
`
`competitor) whose institution was denied, but on discretionary grounds. See
`
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266, Paper 18 at 2
`
`(generally, the “’1266 IPR”). The present Petition arises in a different posture,
`
`being filed very early in relation to the lawsuit against Petitioner, such that this
`
`case is likely to result in a final written decision before the trial in the district court
`
`case. That timing, plus the plain deficiencies of the ’319 patent, strongly favor
`
`PTAB review.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with NetNut Ltd. v. Bright
`
`Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492 (“the NetNut IPR”), which the Board instituted on
`
`March 21, 2022. This Petition is substantially identical to the petition in the NetNut
`
`IPR and contains the same grounds (based on the same prior art and supporting
`
`evidence) against the same claims, and differs only as necessary to reflect the fact
`
`that it is filed by a different petitioner. See Ex. 1022 (illustrating minimal changes
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 10 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`between the instant Petition and the petition in IPR2021-01492).
`
`2.
`STATUTORY PREDICATES
`2.1. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)
`2.1.1. Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real partyparties-in-interest is are Petitioners Code200, UAB; Teso LT,
`
`UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and coretech lt, UABNetNut Ltd.
`
`(“Petitioner” or “NetNut”).
`
`2.1.2. Related Matters
`
`Judicial
`
`Matter
`Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., No.
`2:21-cv-00225 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom
`SA d/b/a NordVPN, No. 2-19-cv-
`00414 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB
`a/k/a UAB Teso LT et al., No.
`2-19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Subject Matter
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319 and
`10,484,510
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614;
`10,484,510;
`10,484,511; and
`10,637,968
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614; and
`10,484,510
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 11 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science
`(2009) Ltd., No. 2-19-cv-00397 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. f/k/a Hola
`Networks Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., No.
`2:20-cv-00188 (E.D. Tx.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. code200, UAB et al.,
`No. 2-19-cv-00396 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science
`(2009) Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc., No.
`2-19-cv-00352 (E.D. Tx.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. IP Ninja Ltd.,
`No. 2-19-cv-00196 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Ltd.
`a/k/a BIScience Inc., No. 2-18-cv-00483
`(E.D. Tx.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet,
`No. 2-18-cv-00299 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet,
`No. 2-18-cv-00299 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science
`(2009) Ltd., No. 21-1664 (Fed. Cir.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science
`(2009) Ltd., No. 21-1667 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614;
`10,484,510; and
`10,484,511
`Patent Nos.
`10,484,511 and
`10,637,968
`Patent Nos.
`10,484,511 and
`10,637,968
`Patent No.
`10,410,244
`
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 12 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science Inc.,
`No. 20-2181 (Fed. Cir.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd.,
`No. 20-2118 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`
`Administrative—PTAB
`
`
`
`
`
`Matter
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01266 (Petition denied)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2021-00465
`(Petition instituted)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2021-00458
`(Petition instituted)
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358 (Petition denied)
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01506 (Petition denied)
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2021-00249 (Petition denied)
`BI Science (2009) Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc.
`v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-00166
`(Terminated prior to institution decision)
`
`Subject Matter
`Patent No.
`10,257,319
`
`Patent No.
`9,742,866
`
`Patent No.
`9,241,044
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,510
`
`Patent No.
`10,469,614
`
`Patent No.
`10,637,968
`
`Patent No.
`9,241,044
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 13 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`BI Science (2009) Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc.
`v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-00167
`(Terminated prior to institution decision)
`Teso LT, UAB f/k/a UAB Tesonet et al v.
`Luminati Networks Ltd. f/k/a Hola
`Networks Ltd., IPR2021-00122 (Petition
`denied)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati
`Networks Ltd., IPR2021-01492 (Petition
`instituted)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati
`Networks Ltd., IPR2021-01493 (Petition
`instituted)
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v.
`Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks
`Ltd., IPR2022-00135 (Petition pending)
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v.
`Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks
`Ltd., IPR2022-00138 (Petition pending)
`
`Patent No.
`9,742,866
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,511
`
`Patent No.
`10,257,319
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,510
`
`Patent No.
`10,257,319
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,510
`
`
`Administrative—Matters Shown in PAIR
`
`In the following, the “’624 Family” refers to patents claiming priority to
`
`provisional application No. 61/249,624 (the provisional of the ’319 patent, filed
`
`Oct. 8, 2009), while the “’815 Family” refers to patents claiming priority to a later
`
`provisional application, No. 61/870,815 (filed Aug. 28, 2013).
`
`App. No.
`12/836,059
`14/025,109
`14/468,836
`
`Status/Issued As
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,604
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,936
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,241,044
`
`Related To
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 14 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`14/930,894
`15/663,762
`15/957,942
`15/957,945
`15/957,950
`16/031,636
`16/140,749
`16/140,785
`16/214,433
`16/214,451
`16/214,476
`16/214,496
`16/278,104
`16/278,105
`16/278,106
`16/278,107
`16/278,109
`16/292,363
`16/292,382
`16/292,364
`16/292,374
`16/292,382
`16/365,250
`16/365,315
`16/368,002
`16/368,041
`16/396,695
`16/396,696
`16/524,026
`16/566,929
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,742,866
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,277,711
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,313,484
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,319
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,225,374
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,616,375
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,652,357
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,659,562
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,469,614
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,440,146
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,652,358
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,721,325
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,523,788
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,469,628
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,491,712
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,484,510
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,484,511
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,469,615
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,447,809
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,582,013
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,582,014
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,637,968
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,637,968
`Pending
`Pending
`
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 15 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`16/567,496
`16/593,996
`16/593,999
`16/600,504
`16/600,505
`16/600,506
`16/600,507
`16/662,800
`16/662,883
`16/693,306
`16/782,073
`16/782,076
`16/807,661
`16/807,691
`16/865,362
`16/865,364
`16/865,366
`16/910,724
`16/910,863
`16/932,763
`16/932,764
`16/932,766
`16/932,767
`17/019,267
`17/019,268
`17/098,392
`17/146,701
`17/146,625
`17/146,649
`17/146,728
`
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,341Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,190,622Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,852Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,341Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,344Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,089,135Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,038,989Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,986,216Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,345Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,128,738Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,785,347Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,429Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,297,167Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,931,792
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,958,768
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,346
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No.Pending 11,303,734
`
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 16 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`17/194,272
`17/194,273
`17/194,336
`17/194,339
`17/241,111
`17/241,113
`17/241,119
`17/331,980
`17/332,001
`17/332,023
`17/332,077
`17/332,116
`17/332,171
`17/332,220
`17/332,260
`17/332,290
`90/014,624
`90/014,652
`17/395,5926
`90/014,816
`90/014,827
`90/014,875
`90/014,876
`17/518,601
`17/518,603
`90/019,041
`90/014,920
`17/563,497
`17/563,531
`
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,879Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No.Pending 11,233,880
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,881Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,228,666Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,178,258Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,206,317Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 17 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`17/563,578
`17/563,616
`90/014,940
`17/714,423
`17/714,455
`17/714,475
`
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`
`2.1.3. Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`
`George “Jorde” ScottRonald
`Abramson, #34,76262,859
`M. Michael LewisJohn Heuton,
`#50,47862,467
`Ari J. JaffessCraig Tolliver,
`#45,97574,558
`
`
`2.1.4. Service Information
`
`Electronic Mail
`
`Postal (and
`hand-delivery)
`mailing address
`
`Telephone
`Facsimile
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) jscott@ccrglawron.abramson@listona
`bramson.com
`(2) jheuton@ccrglaw.comari.jaffess@list
`onabramson
`(3) ctolliver@ccrglawmichael.lewis@list
`onabramson.com
`Liston Abramson LLP, 405 Lexington
`Ave, 46th Floor, New York, NY
`10174Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`(214) 521-6400(212) 257-1630
`(214) 764-8392(914) 462-4175
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 18 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Additionally, Petitioner consents to electronic service via e-mail at the e-mail
`
`addresses noted above.
`
`2.2. Other
`
`The USPTO is authorized to charge any required fees, including the fee as set
`
`forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and any excess claim fees, to Deposit Account
`
`603576603258.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘319 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the grounds
`
`identified in this Petition. The one-year bar date of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not
`
`apply to an IPR petition if it is accompanied by a timely joinder motion. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(b).
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.104(b), Petitioner states that it seeks cancellation of
`
`the claims listed below on the statutory grounds, patents, and printed publications
`
`stated for each:
`
`No. Claims
`1
`1, 19, 21-22, and
`24-29
`1-2, 14-15, 17-19,
`21-29
`1, 12, 14, 21-22,
`24-25, and 27-29
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Challenge
`§ 102 Crowds
`
`§ 103 Crowds + Knowledge of POSITA +
`RFC 2616
`§ 102 Border
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 19 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`1, 12, 14-15, 17-
`18, 21-22, 24-25,
`and 27-29
`1, 17, 19, 21-29
`1-2, 14-15, 17-19,
`21-29
`
`§ 103 Border + Knowledge of POSITA +
`RFC 2616
`
`§ 102 MorphMix
`§ 103 MorphMix + Knowledge of POSITA
`+ RFC 2616 (§ 103)
`
`
`3. DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with NetNut Ltd. v. Bright
`
`Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492 (“the NetNut IPR”), which the Board instituted on
`
`March 21, 2022. This Petition is substantially identical to the petition in the NetNut
`
`IPR and contains the same grounds (based on the same prior art and supporting
`
`evidence) against the same claims, and differs only as necessary to reflect the fact
`
`that it is filed by a different petitioner. See Ex. 1022 (illustrating changes between
`
`the instant Petition and the petition in IPR2021-01492). All exhibits (other than Ex.
`
`1022) filed by Petitioner, including the expert declaration, are the same exhibits
`
`filed in the NetNut IPR, aside from a change to the document control number on
`
`the first page of each exhibit to indicate filing with this IPR Petition.Patent Owner
`
`sued Petitioner on June 18, 2021 in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), No.
`
`2:2-cv-00225 (the “Related Litigation”) asserting the Patent against Petitioner. The
`
`Patent was also the subject of a prior IPR by another party (IPR2021-01266), in
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 20 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`which institution was denied. (There are also parallel cases asserting the Patent
`
`against other parties.)
`
`This Petition is being filed very early in the Related Litigation, before even the
`
`time for Petitioner to answer the complaint.
`
`3.1. Fintiv Factors
`3.1.1. Factor 1—Existence or likelihood of a stay
`
`This IPR is being filed early in the Related Litigation. Whether the court will
`
`grant a stay is not known, and so this factor should be considered neutral.
`
`3.1.2. Factor 2—Proximity of trial date to final written decision
`
`Because of the early filing of this Petition, a final written decision is likely
`
`before the EDTX case goes to trial. No trial date has been set. This factor strongly
`
`favors institution.
`
`3.1.3. Factor 3—Investment in parallel proceedings
`
`There have been no substantive proceedings in the Related Litigation, which
`
`favors institution.
`
`3.1.4. Factor 4—Overlap in issues raised
`
`There have been no invalidity contentions in the Related Litigation and thus
`
`there is currently no overlap between this IPR and the Related Litigation. Even if
`
`there is some possibility of overlap, Petitioner submits this sole consideration does
`
`not warrant non-institution. If the Related Litigation reaches the invalidity
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 21 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`contentions phase, Petitioner reserves the right include a stipulation in those
`
`contentions to mitigate any overlap concerns.
`
`3.1.5. Factor 5—Whether the parties are the same
`
`The parties in the Related Litigation are the same. However, this proceeding
`
`will likely address the challenged patent before any ruling on the merits in the
`
`Related Litigation, favoring institution. See Apple Inc. v. Parus Holding, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00687, Paper 9 at 21 (this factor can “weigh either in favor of, or against,
`
`exercising discretion to deny institution, depending on which tribunal was likely to
`
`address the challenged patent first.”).
`
`3.1.6. Factor 6—Other circumstances including the merits
`
`The broad court construction of “client device” (and its likewise ruling out any
`
`argument that a client device is specifically not a server) makes it highly unlikely
`
`that Patent Owner can avoid the art asserted in this Petition, favoring institution.
`
`3.2. General Plastic Factors
`
`The Board has recently ruled on General Plastic issues in IPRs 2021-00458
`
`and -465, involving the same parties, and those decisions provide considerable
`
`guidance.
`
`3.2.1. Factor 1—Prior petition by same petitioner
`
`Petitioner differs from the prior petitioners in IPR2021-01266, and there is no
`
`relationship, much less a significant relationship, with them. Since Petitioner was
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 22 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`not involved with the prior IPR challenging the Patent, this factor strongly favors
`
`institution. See Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., IPR2019-00062, Paper 11 at
`
`10 (PTAB Apr. 2, 2019) (designated precedential May 7, 2019) (“Valve”).
`
`3.2.2. Factor 2—Petitioner’s prior knowledge of asserted art
`
`Petitioner was not even sued on the Patent until a year after IPR2021-01266.
`
`IPR2021-01266 was filed on July 14, 2020, only shortly after the time
`
`Petitioner was being sued in an earlier filed EDTX action (No. 2:20-cv-00188), on
`
`different patents. Petitioner was not sued on the Patent until nearly a year later
`
`(June 11, 2021). There is no reason Petitioner should have investigated prior art
`
`relative to the Patent prior to Related Litigation.
`
`This factor therefore has little applicability and thus favors institution.
`
`3.2.3. Factor 3—Petitioner’s prior receipt of preliminary response or
`institution decision
`
`Both the Patent Owner Preliminary Response (“POPR”) and the Board’s Order
`
`denying institution in IPR2021-01266 were available to Petitioner prior to this
`
`Petition. However, since neither provided a substantial roadmap as any response to
`
`the prior art, this factor is at least neutral.
`
`Patent Owner’s primary assertions in the POPR consisted of Fintiv arguments
`
`and a narrow construction that would limit the term “client device” to consumer
`
`devices. See IPR2021-01266, Paper 16 at 4-14, 19-25, 40, 43. The arguments on
`
`the Fintiv factors provide no guidance as to the prior art, while the claim
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1022
`Page 23 of 92
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`construction defense was mooted by the Markman order in another lawsuit on the
`
`Patent. See Ex. 1017 at 12 (interpreting “client device” broadly to mean a
`
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client.”) Hence, the POPR
`
`in IPR2021-01266 provides little guidance as to technical deficiencies in the
`
`Petition beyond those hinging on now-mooted claim construction arguments.
`
`More significantly, the Board’s basis for denying institution of IPR2021-01266
`
`was premised on discretionary factors. See IP
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
