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
`Petitioners, v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-00861
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Petitioners, v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2022-00861
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`3 DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS
`
`1
`
`3
`3
`3
`3
`10
`10
`10
`
`12
`
`12
`4 OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 PATENT
`4.1 Claims ............................................................................................ 12
`4.2 Specification ................................................................................... 14
`4.3 Priority Date ................................................................................... 17
`
`5 LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`6 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`17
`
`18
`
`23
`7 OVERVIEW OF CITED ART
`7.1 Crowds ........................................................................................... 23
`7.2 MorphMix ...................................................................................... 23
`7.3 Border ............................................................................................. 24
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`7.4 RFCs ............................................................................................... 24
`
`25
`
`8 GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY
`8.1 GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 19, and 21-29
`BY CROWDS ................................................................................ 25
`8.1.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 26
`8.1.2 Claims 19, and 28-29 (corresponding recorded media,
`downloading, and device) ................................................. 35
`. 35
`8.1.3 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP)
`8.1.4 Claim 23 (running a browser) ........................................... 36
`8.1.5 Claim 26 (client O/S) ........................................................ 36
`8.1.6 Claim 27 (sequential execution) ........................................ 37
`8.2 GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17- 19,
`and 21-29 OVER CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 37
`8.2.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 38
`8.2.2 Claim 2 (client device identifies itself on startup) ............ 40
`8.2.3 Claims 14-15 (validity check) ........................................... 40
`8.2.4 Claims 17-18 (periodically communicating) .................... 41
`8.2.5 Claims 19 and 21-29 ......................................................... 42
`8.3 GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 21-22,
`24-25, AND 27-29 BY BORDER ................................................. 42
`8.3.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 45
`8.3.2 Claim 12 (storing the received content) ............................ 51
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.3.3 Claim 14 (validity check) .................................................. 51
`. 52
`8.3.4 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP)
`8.3.5 Claim 27 (sequential execution) ........................................ 52
`8.3.6 Claims 28-29 (corresponding recorded media and device) 53
`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 .......................................................... 54
`8.4.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 55
`8.4.2 Claim 15 (validity check, RFC 2616) ............................... 56
`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 ............................ 58
`8.5 GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 17, 19, and
`21-29 BY MORPHMIX ................................................................. 58
`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) ........................................ 71
`8.6 GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17- 19,
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`21-29 OVER MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .............................................................................. 71
`8.6.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 72
`8.6.2 Claim 2 (client device identifies itself at startup) ............. 73
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`
`
`
`
`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 “Petitioner”) 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
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`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 parties-in-interest are Petitioners Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB;
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and coretech lt, UAB.
`
`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.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science
`(2009) Ltd., No. 2-19-cv-00397 (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
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614;
`10,484,510; and
`10,484,511
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.)
`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.)
`
`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
`
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Administrative—PTAB
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`BI Science (2009) Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc.
`v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-00167
`(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
`
`Patent No.
`9,742,866
`
`Page 5 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.
`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
`14/930,894
`15/663,762
`15/957,942
`
`Status/Issued As
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,604
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,936
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,241,044
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,742,866
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,277,711
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,313,484
`
`Related To
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`16/567,496
`16/593,996
`16/593,999
`
`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
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`’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
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`
`Page 7 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`17/194,272
`17/194,273
`17/194,336
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,341
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,190,622
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,852
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,341
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,344
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,089,135
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,038,989
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,986,216
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,345
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,128,738
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,785,347
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,429
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,297,167
`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. 11,303,734
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`’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
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`
`Page 8 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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
`17/395,526
`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
`17/563,578
`17/563,616
`90/014,940
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,879
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,880
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,881
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,228,666
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,178,258
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,206,317
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`’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
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`
`Page 9 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`17/714,423
`17/714,455
`17/714,475
`
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`
`2.1.3. Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`
`Lead Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`2.1.4. Service Information
`
`Electronic Mail
`
`Postal (and
`hand-delivery)
`mailing address
`Telephone
`Facsimile
`
`George “Jorde” Scott, #62,859
`John Heuton, #62,467
`Craig Tolliver, #45,975
`
`(1) jscott@ccrglaw.com
`(2) jheuton@ccrglaw.com
`(3) ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`(214) 521-6400
`(214) 764-8392
`
`
`
`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
`
`603576.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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:
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`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
`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
`
`5
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Challenge
`§ 102 Crowds
`
`§ 103 Crowds + Knowledge of POSITA +
`RFC 2616
`§ 102 Border
`
`§ 103 Border + Knowledge of POSITA +
`RFC 2616
`
`§ 102 MorphMix
`§ 103 MorphMix + Knowledge of POSITA
`+ RFC 2616 (§ 103)
`
`Page 11 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`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.
`
`4. OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 PATENT
`
`The ’319 patent resulted from a Track One procedure. Ex. 1002 at 358. The
`
`only art-based rejection was under § 103, based on Fang et al., US2006/0212542,
`
`in view of Zaid et al., US2011/0035503. Id. at 302. The applicant traversed by
`
`arguing that Fang et al. disclosed fetching content from the wrong server (id. at
`
`287-88). The subsequent action was an allowance. Id. at 46.
`
`4.1. Claims
`
`The Challenged Claims are listed in Ex. 1003.
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`The following figure schematically represents the data flow corresponding to
`
`claim 1, and the steps performed by the intermediate device (in the middle of the
`
`figure):
`
`
`
`
`
`’319 Patent Claim 1 Data Flow
`
`
`
`This is the data flow of a conventional “proxy server”—a device that stands in
`
`the middle to relay requests and responses to and from an ordinary web server.
`
`The only other aspect of claim 1 is that it refers to the device in the middle of
`
`this diagram, performing the role of a proxy for purposes of the claim, as a “client
`
`device,” and to the device (on the left), requesting content through the middle
`
`device, as a “server.” However, the “client” labelling of the middle device follows
`
`from the fact that it operates in the role of a client relative to the web server (on its
`
`right). Likewise, the device on the left can be a “server” where it otherwise also
`
`has a role as a server. Thus, the claim’s mere labelling of devices implies very
`
`little. There are no structural or procedural claim limitations that require either the
`
`left-hand or middle devices to have any special features or capabilities, other than
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`the ability of the left-hand device to act in the role of a server, and the ability of the
`
`middle device to act in the role of a client. Prior art exists that provides proxy
`
`functionality and satisfies these minimal additional role requirements.
`
`As will be individually addressed, the dependent Challenged Claims merely
`
`recite additional common steps, for example such as that “TCP/IP” is used, or that
`
`an HTTP header used in the prior art RFC 2616 standard is used, additional
`
`features commonly found in proxy devices well known in the art.
`
`4.2. Specification
`
`The ’319 patent uses as an example a peer-to-peer swarm of devices,
`
`provisioned so they can variously act as either “clients” or “servers” (and
`
`sometimes as both), at various times and under various circumstances.
`
`In the disclosure, any of a plurality of “communication devices,” running a
`
`common “acceleration application” 220, can function in different roles, including
`
`as a “client” (device that requests content, for example for the client’s web
`
`browser) “agent” (device that obtains content an origin web server and/or manages
`
`its retrieval from peers), or “peer” (device that continues to cache content received
`
`while the peer acted as a client or agent):
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Fig. 3 from the ’319 patent
`
`
`
`Network 100 shown in Fig. 3 “contains multiple communication devices,” and
`
`“each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent. . . .” Ex. 1001,
`
`4:44-53. The figure shows “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent” communicating,
`
`with the “agent” forming a connection to a server.
`
`Communication requests generated by applications (e.g., a web browser) are
`
`intercepted by software running on the same machine. Id. The IP address of the
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`content server for the communication request (origin server) is transmitted to the
`
`acceleration server, which provides to the content requester a list of agents to use
`
`for retrieving content from the IP address of the origin server. Id., 13:4-15.
`
`The requesting device then sends a copy of the communication request itself
`
`(URL) to each of the specified agents. One or more agents respond with a list of
`
`peers that have previously seen some or all of the content responsive to this request
`
`(after checking whether this data is still valid). Id., 13:31-36, 13:50-61. The client
`
`then downloads the data from these peers in parts and in parallel. Retrieving the
`
`content as previously cached with multiple peers potentially speeds up the web
`
`transfer and reduces traffic with web servers. Id., 15:13-52.
`
`The preferred operation is for requesting clients to obtain as much of the
`
`desired content as feasible from peer caches. See id.
`
`However, all requested content still must come from its actual origin. If an
`
`agent determines that the content request cannot be satisfied from peer caches,
`
`processing reverts to a model, more pertinent to the claimed embodiments, in
`
`which the agent serves as a retrieval intermediary, as shown in Fig. 3 of the ’319
`
`patent: in this scenario (i.e., no cache hit among the connected peers), the agent
`
`makes a request directly to the web server for the content, and after the web server
`
`sends the data, the agent responds to the requesting client, listing itself as the only
`
`peer with responsive data, and then, acting as that peer, transfers the responsive
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`data to the requesting client upon the latter’s request (id., 14:62-15:11), thus
`
`implementing at a high level the characteristic proxy server data flow first shown
`
`above.2
`
`4.3. Priority Date
`
`The ’319 patent claims priority to provisional application 61/249,624 (the
`
`“2009 Provisional”) filed on October 8, 2009 (“Priority Date”). (The claimed
`
`priority pre-dates the March 16, 2013 effective date of the First Inventor to File
`
`provisions of the AIA.)
`
`5.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field to which the ’319
`
`patent pertains would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or
`
`related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience
`
`working with and 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. 1005 ¶¶ 25-27. See also
`
`id. at ¶¶ 51-54, as to the knowledge a POSITA would possess as of the Priority
`
`Date.2
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves any arguments based on lack of enablement or written
`description, or indefiniteness, which are beyond the scope of this IPR.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`6. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exs. 1017 and 1020 are an EDTX decision and a supplemental decision
`
`construing terms of the ’319 patent. Petitioner asserts that the court’s constructions
`
`are appropriate:
`
`Agreed constructions adopted by the court :
`
`Term
`preamble
`web server
`receiving, from the second
`server, the first content
`identifier
`during, as part of, or in
`response to, a start up
`
`Construction
`limiting
`plain and ordinary meaning
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Disputed constructions, as construed by the court:
`
`Term
`client device
`
`first server
`second server
`
`Court’s Construction
`communication device that is
`operating in the role of a client
`plain and ordinary meaning
`server that is not the client
`device (further clarified by
`supplemental
`order,
`see
`below)
`
`
`Supplemental ruling (Ex. 1020 at 8, 10):
`
`Page 18 of 76
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Term
`second server
`
`Court’s Clarification
`a device that is operating in
`the role of a server and that is
`not the first client device
`
`
`As to “client device,” the court cited Patent Owner’s extrinsic evidence, the
`
`W3C Glossary of Terms for Device Independence. See Ex. 1018 at 4; Ex. 1017 at
`
`12. In IPRs concerning Patent Owner’s related patents, the Board construed “client
`
`device” in almost these exact terms, as “a device that is operating in the role of a
`
`client by requesting services, functionalities, or resources from other devices.”
`
`IPR2021-00458, Paper 11 at 19 (concerning Patent Owner’s Patent No. 9,241,044).
`
`See also IPR2021-00465, Paper 11 at 14-15 (same, concerning Patent Owner’s
`
`Patent No. 9,742,866).
`
`In its supplemental ruling (Ex. 1020), the court reaffirmed that “a component
`
`can be configured to operate in different roles.” Ex. 1020 at 10 (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`As to “second server,” Patent Owner argued only that it should be distinct from
`
`both the client device and the web server. See Ex. 1017 at 13. The court went with
`
`the first of these requirements, but not the second (id. at 14), which, for purposes of
`
`this Petition only, Petitioner asse
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
