In the
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NetNut Ltd.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF KEITH J. TERUYA
`
`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 1005
`Page 1 of 80
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`NetNut Ltd.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2021-TBD
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF KEITH J. TERUYA
`
`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 1005
`Page 1 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`Contents
`
`1 INTRODUCTION
`
`2 QUALIFICATIONS
`
`3 My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`4 My Understanding of Anticipation
`
`5 My Understanding of Obviousness
`
`6 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`7 OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS
`
`7.1 Background of the ’319 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`7
`
`8
`
`8
`
`7.2 The Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`8 OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF FIL-
`
`ING
`
`12
`
`8.1 Crowds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`8.2 Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`8.3 MorphMix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`8.4 Internet RFCs and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`
`9 GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 19, 21-29 BY CROWDS 18
`
`9.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`
`9.2 Claims 19, and 28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`
`9.2.1 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`
`9.3 Claim 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`
`9.4 Claim 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`
`Page i of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 2 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`9.5 Claim 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`10 GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19, and
`
`21-29 BY CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
`
`28
`
`10.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`
`10.2 Claim 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`
`10.3 Claims 14-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`
`10.4 Claims 17-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`
`10.5 Claims 19, and 21-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`
`11 GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25,
`
`AND 27-29 BY BORDER
`
`33
`
`11.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`
`11.2 Claim 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
`
`11.3 Claim 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
`
`11.4 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
`
`11.5 Claim 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`
`11.6 Claims 19 and 28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`
`12 GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14-15, 17-18,
`
`21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 BY BORDER + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`
`KNOWLEDGE
`
`45
`
`12.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`
`12.2 Claim 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`
`12.3 Claims 17 and 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
`
`12.4 Claims 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`
`13 GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 17, 19, 21-29 BY
`
`MORPHMIX
`
`49
`
`Page ii of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 3 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`13.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`
`13.2 Claim 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
`
`13.3 Claims 19 and 28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
`
`13.3.1Claim 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
`
`13.4 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
`
`13.5 Claim 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`
`13.6 Claim 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`
`14 GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19, and
`
`21-29 BY MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
`
`63
`
`14.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
`
`14.2 Claim 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
`
`14.3 Claims 14 and 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
`
`14.4 Claim 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
`
`14.5 Claims 19 and 21-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
`
`Page iii of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 4 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`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, Lumi-
`nati 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, Jan-
`uary 1991
`1015 Postel, J., “Internet Protocol”, STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981
`1016 Braden, R., Ed., “Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communi-
`cation 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.)
`1018 W3C, Glossary of Terms for Device Independence (Jan. 2005)
`available at https://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/#ref-wca-terms
`1019 U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0037977
`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.)
`
`Page iv of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 5 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`I, KEITH J. TERUYA, declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained by counsel for NetNut Ltd. to provide my
`
`opinions on certain issues in connection with claims 1-29 of U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,257,319 (the ’319 patent).
`
`2.
`
`I am being compensated at a normal hourly rate for my time in
`
`preparing this declaration, with reimbursement for actual expenses. My
`
`compensation is not tied to the outcome of this matter, and is not based
`
`on the substance of the opinions rendered here.
`
`3.
`
`In preparing my opinions expressed herein, I have reviewed the
`
`’319 patent and its prosecution history and all of the patents and printed
`
`publications listed above. I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge
`
`and experience, and/or additional materials to rebut arguments raised by
`
`the patent owner. Further, I may also consider additional documents and
`
`information in forming any necessary opinions, including documents that
`
`may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`4.
`
`I am familiar with the technology described in the ’319 patent as
`
`of its earliest claimed priority date of October 8, 2009. I have been asked
`
`to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding
`
`the ’319 patent.
`
`I have used my experience and insight along with the
`
`above-noted references as the basis for my opinions, which support the
`
`grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`of the ’319 Patent.
`
`Page 1 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 6 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`2. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I have a long professional background in information technology
`
`and network engineering, and for the past 20 years I have been the chief
`
`executive officer of a specialized Internet hosting company that I founded,
`
`which among other things provides Tier I Network Operations Center ca-
`
`pabilities for corporations, local municipalities, Federal Government pro-
`
`grams, and regulatory agencies in and around southern California.
`
`6. My day-to-day work in my present capacity involves direct hands-
`
`on as well as strategic involvement in the issues of networked data distri-
`
`bution and access that are addressed by the ’319 patent, including with-
`
`out limitation architecting and configuring high-capacity content servers,
`
`proxy servers, content distribution networks (CDNs), edge and origin ser-
`
`vers, peer-to-peer communications, as well as the lower-level routing and
`
`switching infrastructure and communications protocols and standards
`
`underlying such systems.
`
`7.
`
`In prior positions, I was the Chief Technology Architect (in addi-
`
`tion to being the CEO) for 15 years for a company I founded that was the
`
`original communications technology “skunk-works” for Novell Inc. In this
`
`capacity, I designed basic and advanced telecommunications and network
`
`interfaces for Novell and other companies and developed a mastery of the
`
`standards and protocols underlying the Internet. I authored the Network
`
`Communications Services Interface (“NCSI”) that became a de-facto com-
`
`munications software LAN/WAN standard, with more than 3 million de-
`
`ployments of software. I also developed protocol adjustments in Novell IPX
`
`Protocol for adaptive packet buffering required by LAN/WAN communica-
`
`tion (Asynchronous and LAPB X.25) gateways, receiving Industry Product
`
`of the Year awards for successive years (1988, 1990, 1991 and 1996).
`
`Page 2 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 7 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`8.
`
`I previously served for 10 years architecting network information
`
`processing technologies for Goldman Sachs as a senior consultant. In this
`
`capacity, I was the architect, designer, development manager, and devel-
`
`oper in Goldman’s Network Workstation Technologies Department. I was
`
`also the architect of Goldman’s product strategy and deployment of on-
`
`line delivery of consolidated live market data information into local and
`
`wide area network-based workstations for mission critical securities trad-
`
`ing operations in the worldwide trading rooms of the firm. In particular, I
`
`developed proprietary adaptive buffering protocols to mitigate stream de-
`
`lays when terrestrial transatlantic data links were routed through backup
`
`satellite connections affecting the flow of steaming market data feeds used
`
`for program trading operations.
`
`9.
`
`As Chief Technology Officer of ShowBizData Inc. between 2000
`
`and 2002 as an “early adopter” I pioneered the online Internet streaming
`
`of various lived events of the Cannes Film Festival, BFTA Awards and the
`
`Sundance Film Festival using both commercial and proprietary systems
`
`we architected and developed.
`
`10.
`
`I am also a Network Computing Paradigm Award recipient.
`
`11. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
`
`12.
`
`I believe that I am qualified to provide reliable opinions in the
`
`field of the ’319 Patent, including what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) would have understood from the prior art in this field at that
`
`time and his or her view of obviousness therein.
`
`Page 3 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 8 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`3. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`13.
`
`I understand that, before the PTAB, claims are to be given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification as would have
`
`been read by a POSITA.
`
`4. My Understanding of Anticipation
`
`14.
`
`I understand that for purposes of an inter partes review (IPR) pro-
`
`ceeding, the only bases for invalidity that may be considered are patents
`
`and printed publications. In particular whether the claims in question are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, by patents or printed publications.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is considered anticipated (under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102) if each and every limitation of the claim may be found, ex-
`
`pressly or inherently, within the disclosure of a single prior art reference
`
`(patent or printed publication), with the features arranged in the reference
`
`in the manner claimed.
`
`16. My understanding of inherent disclosure of a claimed feature by a
`
`prior art reference is that it means the prior art reference must necessarily
`
`reflect the presence or operation of the feature (and that possibility or even
`
`strong likelihood that the feature is present is not sufficient).
`
`5. My Understanding of Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`I understand a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the invention was made.
`
`This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be
`
`found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the
`
`Page 4 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 9 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`claim can still be invalid based on a combination of references that would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an under-
`
`standing of the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between
`
`the alleged invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in
`
`evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that to prove prior art or a combination of
`
`prior art renders a patent claim obvious, it is necessary to:
`
`(1) identify
`
`the particular references that, singly or in combination, make the patent
`
`claim obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim
`
`appear in each of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior
`
`art references could have been combined in order to create the inventions
`
`claimed in the challenged claim, and why it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time of the alleged invention to have made that combination.
`
`I also understand that it is sufficient to establish invalidity if the combined
`
`limitations of any one embodiment within the scope of the claim may be
`
`found in or are obvious over the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that exemplary rationales that may support a con-
`
`clusion of obviousness include:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain pre-
`
`dictable results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or prod-
`
`ucts) in the same way;
`
`Page 5 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 10 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, pre-
`
`dictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incen-
`
`tives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that the above list of rationales provided is
`
`not all-inclusive. Other rationales may also be sufficient, so long as there
`
`is a link between the factual underpinnings relied on and an articulated
`
`rationale for why those factors render the invention obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I understand certain objective indicia can also be important evi-
`
`dence regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia
`
`include: (1) commercial success of products covered by the patent claims;
`
`(2) a long-felt need for the invention; (3) failed attempts by others to make
`
`the invention; (4) copying of the invention by others in the field; (5) unex-
`
`pected results achieved by the invention as compared to the closest prior
`
`art; (6) praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the field; (7) the
`
`taking of licenses under the patent by others; (8) expressions of surprise
`
`by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and
`
`(9) the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior
`
`art.
`
`I understand that to have legal weight, there must be a nexus—a
`
`Page 6 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 11 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`23.
`
`I also understand that “obviousness” is a legal conclusion based
`
`on the underlying factual issues of the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the field of the prior art, and any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness. For that reason, I am not rendering a legal opinion on
`
`the ultimate legal question of obviousness.
`
`24. Rather, my testimony addresses the underlying facts and provides
`
`factual analysis that would support a legal conclusion of obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness. When I use the term obvious, it is with reference to the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill at the time of claimed invention.
`
`6. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`25.
`
`As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time
`
`the claimed invention was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I
`
`considered the following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`26. The ’319 patent presumes familiarity with Internet standards and
`
`practices, including Internet Requests for Comment (RFCs), to which the
`
`’319 patent cites. Persons who have the skill to operate in this field will
`
`have a working familiarity with the relevant RFCs.
`
`Page 7 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 12 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`27.
`
`The education and/or working experience necessary to acquire
`
`the requisite familiarity with the subject matter to qualify as a POSITA
`
`would have included either (1) a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a field
`
`such as Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Sci-
`
`ence, or an equivalent field that includes network engineering as a topic
`
`of study, plus two or more years of practical academic or industry tech-
`
`nical experience in the computer networking field, such as serving as an
`
`engineer for an Internet service provider performing network design, de-
`
`velopment, or configuration tasks, or as a software developer for network
`
`communications software or related utility software, or (2) or at least three
`
`years’ full-time technical experience as stated (or an equivalent combina-
`
`tion of academic study and work experience). Such a person would be
`
`familiar with the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network com-
`
`munications, data transfers, and content sharing across networks, includ-
`
`ing the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols.
`
`7. OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS
`
`7.1. Background of the ’319 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`28. The following description is made with reference to Fig. 3 of the
`
`’319 patent See Ex. 1001, Fig. 3.
`
`Page 8 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 13 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`Fig. 3 from the ’319 patent
`
`29. The ’319 patent uses as an example a peer-to-peer swarm of de-
`
`vices that are provisioned so that they can variously act as either “clients”
`
`or “servers” (and sometimes as both), at various times and under various
`
`circumstances.
`
`30.
`
`In this 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
`
`Page 9 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 14 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`web server and/or manages its retrieval from peers), or “peer” (device that
`
`continues to cache content previously received while the peer was acting
`
`as a client or agent):
`
`31. The ’319 patent specification states with respect to Figure 3 that
`
`“[t]he network 100 of Fig. 3 contains multiple communication devices,” and
`
`that “each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent. . . .”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:44-49. Figure 3 depicts “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent”
`
`communicating, with the “agent” forming a connection to the web server.
`
`32. Communication requests generated by applications (e.g., a web
`
`browser) are intercepted by software running on the same machine.
`
`Id.
`
`at 4:46-50. The IP address of the content server for the communication
`
`request (origin server) is transmitted to the acceleration server, which pro-
`
`vides to the content requester a list of agents to use for retrieving content
`
`from the IP address of the origin server. Id. at 13:4-15.
`
`33.
`
`The requesting device then sends a copy of the communication
`
`request itself (URL) to each of the specified agents. One or more of the
`
`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. at 13:31-36, 13:50-61. The client then downloads the data
`
`from these peers in parts and in parallel. See id. at Abstract, 15:12-35.
`
`Retrieving the content as previously cached with peers thereby potentially
`
`speeds up the web transfer, releasing congestion from the Web by fetch-
`
`ing the information from multiple sources, and relieving traffic from Web
`
`servers by offloading the data transfers from them to peers that are nearby
`
`the requester. Id. at Abstract, 15:13-52.
`
`34. The preferred operation of this arrangement is for the requesting
`
`clients to obtain as much of the desired content as feasible from data
`
`Page 10 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 15 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`that has already been cached by other peer devices, as a result of prior
`
`retrievals. See id. at 15:43-52.
`
`35. However, all requested content still has to come from its actual
`
`origin in the first instance. In the event an agent determines that the con-
`
`tent request cannot be satisfied from data already cached with peers, the
`
`order of processing reverts to a model in which the agent serves as a re-
`
`trieval 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, it transfers
`
`the responsive data to the requesting client upon the latter’s request (id.
`
`at 14:62-15:11), thus implementing at a high level the characteristic proxy
`
`server data flow first shown above.
`
`7.2. The Claims
`
`36. Claim 1 of the ’319 patent concerns a method for use with a “first
`
`client device,” in which this first client device (1) receives a first content
`
`identifier from a “second server”; (2) sends a Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`(HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier to a “first server”
`
`over the Internet; (3) receives first content identified by the “first content
`
`identifier” from the “first server” over the Internet in response to the send-
`
`ing of the first content identifier; and (4) sends the first content to the
`
`“second server” in response to receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`37. Despite using words like “first client device,” “first server,” and
`
`“second server,” claim 1 recites little more than the basic functionality of a
`
`proxy server, which was well-known to a POSITA well before 2009.
`
`Page 11 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 16 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`38. The dependent claims add certain additional features to claim 1,
`
`such as that the first client device is identified by a MAC address (claim
`
`2), caching capabilities (e.g., claims 12-16), persistent connections (e.g.,
`
`claims 17 and 18), and serial execution of steps (1)-(4) (claim 27). I address
`
`certain of these dependent claims, in addition to claim 1, in the following.
`
`8. OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME
`
`OF FILING
`
`8.1. Crowds
`
`39. Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions (“Crowds” (Ex. 1006))
`
`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.
`
`40. Crowds is a system “for protecting users’ anonymity on the world-
`
`wide-web.” Ex. 1006 at 66.
`
`“Web servers are unable to learn the true
`
`source of a request because it is equally likely to have originated from any
`
`member of the crowd.” Id. In Crowds, a user’s request to a web server is
`
`not passed directly to the web server, but instead to a random member of
`
`the crowd, who either submits the request directly to the web server or for-
`
`wards it again. The web request is eventually submitted to the web server
`
`by a random member, “thus preventing the end server from identifying its
`
`true initiator.” Id. at 67.
`
`41. A “user is represented in a crowd by a process on her computer
`
`called a jondo.” Id. at 73. Once admitted to the crowd, the jondo receives
`
`“the current membership of the crowd and information that enables this
`
`Page 12 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 17 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`jondo to participate in the crowd.” Id. After receiving the user request from
`
`the browser, the jondo “initiates the establishment of a random path of
`
`jondos that carries its users’ transactions to and from their intended web
`
`servers.” Id.
`
`42. Crowds illustrates example jondo paths in Figure 2:
`
`Figure 2 of Crowds
`
`43.
`
`This figure reflects a “chained” structure of content retrieval
`
`devices, in which the device closest to the web server (e.g., jondo 6) acts
`
`as an HTTP proxy, and in turn communicates with the next device (jondo
`
`4) closer in the chain to the requesting user (jondo 5). As will be seen,
`
`the devices satisfy functional aspects as well as the “client” and “server”
`
`labelling of claim 1, thereby reflecting all of the elements of that claim.
`
`Numerous dependent claims are likewise anticipated as well.
`
`Page 13 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 18 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`8.2. Border
`
`44. United States Patent 6,795,848 (“Border” (Ex. 1017)) issued to
`
`Border et al. on September 21, 2004. Border is “related to retrieving web
`
`content using proxy servers.” Ex. 1012 at 1:16-18. According to Border,
`
`benefits in doing so include “reliev[ing] traffic congestion and network la-
`
`tency.” Id. at 1:26.
`
`45. The communication system 100 of Border includes user station
`
`101, downstream proxy server 105, upstream proxy server 107, and web
`
`server 109:
`
`Figure 1 of Border
`
`Id. at Fig. 1. This illustration depicts the content request going from right
`
`to left. User stations 101 use communication system 100 to request and
`
`receive web content stored on web servers 109.
`
`Id. at 1:34-35. Proxy
`
`servers 105 and 107 act as intermediary devices between one or more
`
`user stations 101 and many web servers 109. Id. at 4:29-31.
`
`46. Border discloses proxy servers that can operate on “general pur-
`
`pose personal computers,” and further discloses an exemplary computer
`
`Page 14 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 19 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`system 701 that can be configured as a proxy server. Id. at 4:52-54; 10:6-
`
`11:54. Computer system 701 is comprised of generic personal computer
`
`components, such as a processor, memory, storage, a network interface
`
`card, and input/output devices. Id. at 10:6-11:54. Proxy servers 105 and
`
`107 communicate using a persistent HTTP over TCP connection, and are
`
`referenced as HTTP proxy servers. Id. at 4:8-14; 4:29-31.
`
`47. Figure 2 of Border shows the communications that occur when a
`
`user station requests and receives web content stored on a web server:
`
`Figure 2 of Border
`
`Id. at Fig. 2. To request web content at a particular URL, a browser 103
`
`of user station 101 sends an HTTP GET request containing the URL to
`
`downstream proxy server 105. Id. at 5:14-17. If downstream proxy server
`
`Page 15 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 20 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`105 does not have a copy of the content stored in its cache, downstream
`
`server 105 sends an HTTP GET request containing the URL to upstream
`
`proxy server 107. If upstream proxy server 107 does not have a copy, it
`
`sends an HTTP GET request to web server 109. Web server 109 transmits
`
`the content at the URL to upstream server 107, which stores the content in
`
`its cache. Upstream server 107 then forwards the content to downstream
`
`server 105, which stores the content in its cache, and then forwards the
`
`content to web browser 103.
`
`8.3. MorphMix
`
`48.
`
`MorphMix - A Peer-to-Peer-based System for Anonymous Inter-
`
`net Access (“MorphMix” (Ex. 1008)) is a doctoral thesis authored by Marc
`
`Rennhard, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Computer Engi-
`
`neering and Networks Laboratory; Zurich, Switzerland. MorphMix states
`
`that it was published in 2004.
`
`49. MorphMix states its goal as “achieving anonymous Internet ac-
`
`cess” and “to provide anonymity for the masses and aim at a large number
`
`of nodes distributed all around the world.” Ex. 1008 at 14, 109. An in-
`
`dividual can join MorphMix with a computer “connected to the Internet”
`
`that is capable of running applications “such as web browsers” and that
`
`has an IP address. Id. at 234.
`
`50. MorphMix describes a set of “nodes,” each node identified by its IP
`
`address and connected to one or more other MorphMix nodes at any time,
`
`where there is a TCP connection between any two connected nodes. Id. at
`
`98-99. To access an Internet web server anonymously, a node “establishes
`
`a circuit via some other nodes” forming an “anonymous tunnel.” Id. at 99.
`
`If a web browser sends a request to a node, the first node sends the IP
`
`Page 16 of 68
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1005
`Page 21 of 80
`
`
`
`2042-04-319-IPR (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`address and port of the targeted web server “to the final node.” Id. at 103.
`
`The final node then “connects to the server” and the “connection has been
`
`established.” Id. “Sending data back from the server to the client works
`
`exactly in the opposite way.” Id. at 105.
`
`8.4.
`
`Internet RFCs and Standards
`
`51. The background, against which every POSITA in the field works,
`
`is specified in published and well-known Internet RFCs, and in standards
`
`promulgated by standards bodies such as the International Standards Or-
`
`ganization (ISO). These bodies publis
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
