Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 282 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 34 PagelD #: 13324
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and
`Metacluster LT, UAB,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`2:19-cv-00395-IRG
`
`Lead Case
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`OXYLABS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY
`
`SIEBMAN, FORREST,
`BurcG & SmitH LLP
`
`MICHAEL C. SMITH
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN
`Rosson & GARZA, PLLC
`
`STEVEN CALLAHAN
`CRAIG TOLLIVER
`GEORGET. “JORDE” SCOTT
`
`MITCHELL SIBLEY
`
`Counselfor Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB,
`and Metacluster LT, UAB
`
`Code200, UAB,etal. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`1 of 34
`
`February 5, 2021
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Statement Of Issues To Be Decided ................................................................................... 1
`Undisputed Material Facts .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Invalidity Facts ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`III.
`
`B. Eligibility Facts............................................................................................................. 2
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment That The Asserted Claims Of The
`’319 And ’510 Patents Are Invalid In View Of Crowds .................................................... 2
`
`A. There Is No Genuine Dispute That Crowds Anticipates Claim 1 Of The ’319
`And ’510 Patents. ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Crowds discloses every limitation of claim 1 ............................................................. 3
`
`a)
`
`The limitations of ’319 Patent claim 1 are met ................................................. 4
`
`The limitations of ’510 Patent claim 1 are met ................................................. 6
`b)
`2. Luminati’s attempt to distinguish Crowds relies on a contradiction of the
`Court’s claim construction .......................................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`e)
`
`f)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court construed “first client device” and “second server” ......................... 8
`
`The jondo “4” is a “second server” in the path discussed above ....................... 9
`
`Crowds’ jondos perform the same steps that Dr. Rhyne assigns to the
`corresponding components of the Accused Systems for purposes of
`alleged infringement ........................................................................................ 10
`
`Luminati and Dr. Rhyne flout the Court’s claim construction ........................ 11
`Luminati’s and Dr. Rhyne’s flawed claim construction position is
`internally inconsistent ...................................................................................... 12
`
`Even if Dr. Rhyne’s understanding of a server is accepted, Crowds
`expressly discloses such a server operating a jondo ........................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. There Is No Dispute That Crowds Anticipates The Dependent Claims Of
`The ’319 Patent ........................................................................................................... 16
`1. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................................... 17
`
`2. Claims 14-15 ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`3. Claims 17-18 ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`4. Claims 21-22 and 24-25 ............................................................................................ 19
`5. Claim 26 .................................................................................................................... 19
`
`6. Claim 27 .................................................................................................................... 20
`
`C. There Is No Dispute That Crowds Anticipates The
`Dependent Claims Of The ’510 Patent. ...................................................................... 20
`
`i
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`2 of 34
`
`

`

`1. Claim 2 ...................................................................................................................... 20
`
`2. Claims 8-9 ................................................................................................................. 21
`3. Claims 10-11 ............................................................................................................. 21
`
`4. Claim 13 .................................................................................................................... 22
`5. Claim 15 .................................................................................................................... 22
`
`6. Claim 16 .................................................................................................................... 22
`
`7. Claims 18-19 ............................................................................................................. 23
`
`8. Claim 20 .................................................................................................................... 23
`9. Claim 22 .................................................................................................................... 23
`
`10. Claim 23 .................................................................................................................... 23
`
`IV.
`
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of Invalidity Because The Asserted
`Claims Fail 35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................. 24
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 28
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`3 of 34
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................................................................1, 24, 25, 27
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co.,
`850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................27
`
`Reese v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`774 Fed. App’x 656 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................27
`
`Specialized Monitoring Solutions, LLC v. ADT LLC,
`367 F. Supp. 3d 575 (E.D. Tex. 2019) .....................................................................................27
`
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.,
`930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................26
`
`Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .....................................................................................27
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................24, 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...........................................................................................................................2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) ................................................................................................................24, 27
`
`iii
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`4 of 34
`
`

`

`Defendants Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB (collectively,
`
`“Oxylabs”) file this Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity:
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`This motion for summary judgment presents two issues for the Court to decide:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the Crowds prior-art reference invalidates the ’510 and ’319 patents; and
`
`Whether Alice renders the Patents-in-Suit invalid for impermissibly claiming an
`abstract idea.
`
`II.
`
`UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`Invalidity Facts
`
`Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions Ex. 1 (“Crowds”) is an article authored
`
`by Michael K. Reiter of Bell Laboratories and Aviel D. Rubin of AT&T Labs, and published in
`
`1998 in the ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, November
`
`1998, Pages 66-92. Crowds states that it was published in November 1998. ACM confirms in a
`
`declaration that Crowds was published in the November 1998 journal. Ex. 2. Crowds was not
`
`before the Patent Office during prosecution of the patents.
`
`2.
`
`For claim 1 of both the ’319 and ’510 patents, Luminati’s expert, Dr. Thomas
`
`Rhyne, contests only whether the jondo “4”—in the sample 5
`
`4
`
`6
`
`server path discussed by
`
`Dr. Freedman—is the “second server” recited in the claim. Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 230:14-22.
`
`3.
`
`“Like all network servers, jondos are identied by their IP address and port num-
`
`ber.” Ex. 1 (Crowds) at 90.1 The jondos were tested on a 150-MHz Sparc 20 workstation running
`
`SunOS 4.1.4. Id. at 82. Crowds also discusses use of Unix platforms for jondos. Id. at 81.
`
`
`1 All emphases in quotations have been added, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`1
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`5 of 34
`
`

`

`4.
`
`The Court rejected Luminati’s argument that “a client device is specifically not a
`
`server.” ECF No. 191 at 11. Despite this, Dr. Rhyne’s opinion is that “a client device is specifi-
`
`cally not a server.” Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 70:3-11, 228:18-229:13.
`
`B.
`
`5.
`
`Eligibility Facts
`
`HTTP, TCP/IP, proxy servers, P2P, CDNs, VPNs, resource management, conges-
`
`tion control, use of “client” and “mobile” operating systems, and use of smartphones were well-
`
`known to a POSA in 2009. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) at ¶¶ 52-57, 59-69, and 73-74.
`
`6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THE
`ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’319 AND ’510 PATENTS ARE INVALID IN
`VIEW OF CROWDS
`
`A.
`
`There Is No Genuine Dispute That Crowds Anticipates Claim 1 Of The ’319
`And ’510 Patents
`
`Crowds was published in the ACM Transactions on Information and System Security in
`
`November 1998 and is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Section II.A. Luminati’s expert
`
`admits that the only issue
`
`
`
` Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 230:14-22; Ex. 6 at ¶¶ 132-
`
`139, 152-160.2 As discussed in Section III.A.2 below, Dr. Rhyne’s opinions regarding the “sec-
`
`ond server” are based solely upon his decision to ignore the Court’s Claim Construction Order.
`
`Despite Dr. Rhyne having only a narrow disagreement with Dr. Freedman’s opinions regarding
`
`anticipation of claim 1 by Crowds, Oxylabs walks through the steps of claim 1 below.
`
`2 Dr. Rhyne also
` claim 1 of
`the ’510 patent (Ex. 6 at ¶ 159), but that unsupported opinion lacks merit as discussed below.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`6 of 34
`
`

`

`1.
`
`Crowds discloses every limitation of claim 1
`
`Crowds is a system “for protecting users’ anonymity on the world-wide-web.” Ex. 1
`
`(Crowds) at 66. A user’s request to a web server is not passed directly to the web server, but in-
`
`stead to a random member of the crowd, with the web request eventually submitted to the web
`
`server by a random member, “thus preventing the end server from identifying its true initiator.”
`
`Id. at 67. Crowds’ focus on anonymity matches up precisely with Luminati’s assertions that its
`
`alleged inventions of the Asserted Patents achieve anonymity for web requests. ECF No. 28 at 7.
`
`A Crowds user “is represented in a crowd by a process on her computer called a jondo”
`
`that knows the membership of other members of the crowd. Ex. 1 at 73. 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. Crowds illustrates a
`
`number of different jondo paths in Figure 2:
`
`
`
`One of many paths noted by Crowds is “5
`
`4
`
`6
`
`server,” where the initiator would be
`
`jondo “5,” which would forward the web request to jondo “4” on another user’s computer, which
`
`would forward the request to jondo “6” on another user’s computer, which would make the re-
`
`quest to the target web server. Id. at 73, Fig. 2; Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 3-4.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`7 of 34
`
`

`

`a)
`
`The limitations of ’319 Patent claim 1 are met
`
`Preamble: Each of the preamble elements is satisfied for the reasons provided in the dis-
`
`cussion of claim steps (a)-(d) below, because, as discussed below, each of steps (a)-(d) is by the
`
`first client device, is used with a first server (steps (b) and (c)) and second server (steps (a) and
`
`(d)), and the first server (web server) is an HTTP server that responds to HTTP requests and
`
`stores a first content identified by a first content identifier (URL) (steps (b) and (c)).
`
`As explained below in connection with steps (a)-(d), the preamble maps onto Crowds (in
`
`at least the example “5 4
`
`6
`
`server” path) as follows: the “first client device” would be jondo
`
`“6”; the “second server” would be jondo “4”; the “first server” would be the target web server;
`
`the “first content identifier” would be the requested URL; the “first content” would be the re-
`
`quested web page at the requested URL. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 7.
`
`Claim step (a): Step (a) recites the first client device “receiving, from the second server,
`
`the first content identifier.” As noted above, each request in Crowds “travels from the user’s
`
`browser, through some number of jondos, and nally to the end server.” Ex. 1 at 73. In the ex-
`
`ample “5 4
`
`6
`
`server” path disclosed in Crowds, the last jondo in the path (jondo “6”) sends
`
`the web request to the web server and would be the “first client device.” Jondos are started on a
`
`user’s computer, and a jondo has a standard IP address and port number. Id. at 73, 90.
`
`Jondo “4,” from which jondo “6” receives the content identifier (URL) of the web con-
`
`tent to be retrieved, would be the “second server.” Jondo “4” is in the role of a server because it
`
`accepts a connection from jondo “5” to send back a response. Crowds confirms that “server re-
`
`plies traverse the same path as the requests, only in reverse.” Id. at 74. “Like all network servers,
`
`jondos are identied by their IP address and port number.” Id. at 90.
`
`Crowds is a system for “execut[ing] web transactions” (id. at 67) to “web servers” (id. at
`
`4
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`8 of 34
`
`

`

`66, 73, Fig. 2), with URLs as content identifiers (id. at 89 (Fig. 6)). This limitation is satisfied.
`
`Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 10-15.
`
`Claim step (b): Step (b) recites “sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext
`
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier.” Multiple web serv-
`
`ers are shown in Crowds. Ex. 1 at Figure 2, 72. The web server or “end server” is the server “for
`
`which the request was destined.” Id. at 73. HTTP must be included in the proxied services (id. at
`
`73 n.1), and jondos operate as HTTP proxies (id. at Fig. 6).
`
`Step (b) is satisfied when the “first client device” (jondo “6”) sends the URL to the “first
`
`server” (target “Web Server[s]”). Id. at 73-74, Fig. 2; Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 15-18.
`
`Claim step (c): Step (c) recites “receiving, the first content from the first server over the
`
`Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier.” As discussed above, the prima-
`
`ry purpose of Crowds is for the last jondo in the path (the “first client device,” or jondo “6”) to
`
`receive the “first content,” such as the user specified web page. The initiating jondo establishes
`
`the random path of jondos “that carries its users’ transactions to and from their intended web
`
`servers.” Ex. 1 at 73. Further, “server replies traverse the same path as the requests, only in re-
`
`verse.” Id. at 74; see also id. at 82 (latency for “retrieving web pages”). Accordingly, step (c) is
`
`satisfied when the “first client device” (jondo “6”) receives the requested web page (first content)
`
`for sending back to the requesting user. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 19-20.
`
`Claim step (d): Step (d) recites “sending, the first content by the first client device to the
`
`second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier.” As discussed immedi-
`
`ately above, Crowds discloses that the first client device (jondo “6”) receives the first content
`
`from the web server. Further, as explained above regarding claim step (a), jondo “6” previously
`
`receives the first content identifier from the second server (jondo “4” in the above example
`
`5
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`9 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 282 Filed 02/08/21 Page 10 of 34 PagelD #: 13333
`
`path). The first client device (here, jondo “6”) sends the first content (web page content) back to
`
`the second server (here, jondo “4,” the prior jondo). The second server, jondo “4,” can then send
`
`the web page content back to the requesting user (here, jondo “5”).
`
`Accordingly, step (d) is satisfied when the “first client device” (jondo “6”) sends the re-
`
`quested webpage(first content) back to jondo “4.” Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 20-21.
`
`b)
`
`Thelimitations of ’510 Patent claim 1 are met
`
`For the same reasons explained above, Crowds meets the limitations ofclaim 1.
`
`Claim step (a): Claim step (a) recites “establishing a Transmission Control Protocol
`
`(TCP) connection with a second server.” As explained above with respect to claim step (a) of the
`
`°319 patent, the first client device (jondo “6”) communicates with the second server (jondo “4”)
`
`and receives the first content identifier (URL) from jondo “4.”
`
`Crowds also expressly discloses TCP/IP usage, stating that “such failures are detected by
`
`the TCP/IP connection to the jondo breaking or being refused. .
`
`.” Ex.
`
`1 at 81. Further, HTTP
`
`must be included in the proxied services. /d. at 73 n.1; id. at 88 (the jondo “serves as the HTTP
`
`proxy of [user’s] browser”). Additionally, per Figure 6, URLs are used and jondos operate as
`
`HTTPproxies. A POSA would have understood at the relevant time period that HTTP works on
`
`top of TCP, at the application layer of the TCP/IP networking model. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.)
`
`Appx.E at 9-10. Like HTTP, the TCP/IP networking model was well known to a POSA./d. This
`
`claimstep is satisfied by the TCP connection betweenjondo “4” and jondo “6.” Jd. at 8-10.
`
`
`
`3
`
`As discussed in Section LI.A.4 of Oxylabs’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-
`Infringement, filed concurrently herewith, Lumuinati alleges infringement when
`
`y for infringementand validity, Lumi-
`
`
`nati’s interpretation of claim 1 (if accepted by the Court) is anticipated by Crowds.
`
`6
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`10 of 34
`
`

`

`Dr. Rhyne states that
`
` Ex. 6 (Rhyne Valid. Rep.) at ¶ 159. Dr. Rhyne’s conclusory and vague state-
`
`ment makes little sense given Dr. Freedman’s opinions and Crowds express disclosure of TCP/IP
`
`connections between jondos. Dr. Rhyne’s conclusory statement is insufficient to provide a basis
`
`for any rebuttal “opinion,” and fails to create any genuine issue of material fact.
`
`Claim step (b): Claim step (b) recites “sending, to the web server over an Internet, the
`
`first content identifier.” This claim limitation is disclosed for the same reasons discussed above
`
`regarding step (b) of the ’319 patent. For the same reasons explained above, this claim step is
`
`satisfied when jondo “6” sends to the web server the content identifier (URL) of the targeted
`
`content. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. E at 12-14.
`
`Claim step (c): Claim step (c) recites “receiving, the first content from the web server
`
`over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier.” This claim limitation
`
`is disclosed for the same reasons discussed above regarding step (c) of the ’319 patent. For the
`
`same reasons explained above, this claim step is satisfied when jondo “6” receives the content
`
`from the web server. Id. at 15-16.
`
`Claim step (d): Claim step (d) recites “sending the received first content, to the second
`
`server over the established TCP connection, in response to the receiving of the first content iden-
`
`tifier.” This claim limitation is disclosed for the same reasons discussed above regarding step (d)
`
`of the ’319 patent. Also, as discussed above regarding claim step (a) of the ’510 patent, the jon-
`
`dos use a TCP connection. Crowds therefore anticipates claim 1 of the ’510 patent.
`
`7
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`11 of 34
`
`

`

`2.
`
`Luminati’s attempt to distinguish Crowds relies on a contradiction of
`the Court’s claim construction
`
`a)
`
`The Court construed “first client device” and “second server”
`
`Dr. Rhyne
`
`
`
` Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 230:14-22. The Court’s Order construes “client de-
`
`vice” and “second server” in terms of their roles, which is typical for Internet communications.
`
`“Client device” is a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client.” ECF No.
`
`191 at 12. The Court expressly rejected Luminati’s arguments that (i) a client device is a “con-
`
`sumer computer” (id. at 11) and (ii) “a client device is specifically not a server” (id.). For exam-
`
`ple, the Court stated, “Luminati’s second argument—that a client device is specifically not a
`
`server—is not supported by the specification.” Id. The Court further stated that the patent speci-
`
`fication disclosure “is not sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a server in all
`
`cases,” and the Court declined to import the “negative claim limitation[]” proposed by Luminati.
`
`The Court construed “second server” as “server that is not the client device.” ECF No.
`
`191 at 13-14. The Court noted that claim 1 of the ’510 Patent recites that the client device estab-
`
`lishes a TCP connection with the second server, and that “[s]uch a connection would not be re-
`
`quired if the first client device and second server were the same device.” Id. at 14. Therefore, the
`
`Court construed the claimed devices to be different devices (“not the client device”). See id.
`
`The Court noted that Luminati’s own P.R. 4-2 extrinsic evidence “cit[ed] sources that de-
`
`fine ‘client’ as, for example, ‘[t]he role adopted by an application when it is retrieving and/or
`
`rendering resources.’” Id.at 12 (citing to ECF No. 138-3). Oxylabs also notes that Luminati’s
`
`same extrinsic evidence, for “second server,” offered a definition of “server” as “[t]he role
`
`adopted by an application when it is supplying resources or resource manifestations,” and “[a]
`
`program which provides a service to another, known as the client.” ECF No. 138-3 at 4.
`
`8
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`12 of 34
`
`

`

`Further, the ’319 and ’510 patents also refer in claim 1 to the use of the HTTP protocol,
`
`which is defined by the protocol RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) released by the Internet Engineering
`
`Task Force in 1999. Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 203:19-204:7. The patents also expressly cite to RFC
`
`2616, and recite RFC 2616 in dependent claims. ’319 Pat. at 16:22, claim 15; ’510 Pat., claim 11.
`
`RFC 2616 confirms the role-based usage of “client” and “server.” For example, RFC 2616 de-
`
`fines a “client” as “[a] program that establishes connections for the purpose of sending requests,”
`
`while a “server” is defined as “[a]n application program that accepts connections in order to ser-
`
`vice requests by sending back responses.” Ex. 7 (RFC 2616) at §1.3. RFC 2616 also confirms
`
`that “client” and “server” refer to roles, and that “[a]ny given program may be capable of being
`
`both a client and a server; our use of these terms refers only to the role being performed by the
`
`program for a particular connection.” Id. at §1.3.
`
`b)
`
`The jondo “4” is a “second server” in the path discussed above
`
`As discussed above, a “jondo” in Crowds is an application on a computer that is used in a
`
`“crowd” of other jondos/computer to make web requests. Oxylabs explains above that jondo “6”
`
`serves as the “first client device” and jondo “4” serves as the “second server” in the example
`
`“5 4
`
`6
`
`server” path. See Section III.A.1. Jondo “4” is a server in the above path because it
`
`sends back a response (the desired web content) to jondo “5.” As Crowds notes, “server replies
`
`traverse the same path as the requests, only in reverse.” Ex. 1 at 74. Therefore, jondo “4” sends
`
`back a response to jondo “5.” See Section VII.A.1. Dr. Rhyne
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 226:25-227:3.
`
`9
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`13 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 282 Filed 02/08/21 Page 14 of 34 PagelD #: 13337
`
`Further, per the Court’s Claim Construction, jondo “4” is not jondo “6” (client device).
`
`>
`Asdiscussed above, jondo “4” is on a user’s computer, and jondo “6” would be on anotheruser’s
`
`computer. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 7. Dr. Ryit
`
`c)
`
`Crowds’ jondos perform the same steps that Dr. Rhyne assigns
`to the corresponding components of the Accused Systems for
`purposesof alleged infringement
`
`For purposes ofhis infringement opinion, Dr. Rhynetestified that it was his understand-
`
`ing that, in the AccusedSyste,
`
`Rhyneherby
`
`Dr. Rhyne wasalso asked a similar question about the disclosure in Crowds. The substan-
`
`tial similarityae
`
`Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 218:25-220:1. Dr. Rhyne further admitted
`
`Code200, UAB,etal. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`14 of 34
`
`

`

` Id. at 220:2-16. Dr. Rhyne admits
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at 226:11-14. As previously noted, jondo 4’s
`
`response to another component’s request is characteristic of a server.
`
`Dr. Rhyne
`
`
`
`
`
`. In view of the plain disclosure of
`
`Crowds
`
` there is no question that Crowds anticipates claim 1, in-
`
`cluding the role of jondo “4” as the “second server.
`
`d)
`
`Luminati and Dr. Rhyne flout the Court’s claim construction
`
`Luminati and Dr. Rhyne make a mockery of the Court’s Claim Construction Order in an
`
`attempt to distinguish Crowds and other prior art. In the process of construing “client device” as
`
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client,” the Court unambiguously stated:
`
`“Luminati’s second argument—that a client device is specifically not a server—is not supported
`
`by the specification.” ECF No. 191 at 11. The Court also stated that the written description “is
`
`not sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a server in all cases.” Id. at 12. The
`
`Court expressly rejected the negative limitations proposed by Luminati for “client device.”
`
`The Court may compare the above language and its rejection of Luminati’s proposal for
`
`the negative limitation of “a client device is specifically not a server” with the following testi-
`
`mony from Dr. Rhyne:
`
`Ex. 3 at 69:8-12.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`15 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 282 Filed 02/08/21 Page 16 of 34 PagelD #: 13339
`
`Dr. Rhyne misreads the Court’s Claim Construction Orderto arrive at his own construc-
`
`tion that is actually the polar opposite of what the Court found:
`
`
`
`Id. at 70:3-11.
`
`Dr. Rhyne madecls
`
`I
`
`Id. at 228:18-229:13.
`
`Luminati’s and Dr. Rhyne’s argument—that Crowds cannot disclose a jondo on one
`
`computer operating as a client and a jondo on another computer operating as a server—is based
`
`on a refusal to abide by the Claim Construction Orderand should be rejected.
`
`e)
`
`Luminati’s and Dr. Rhyne’s flawed claim construction position
`is internally inconsistent
`
`Lumuinati’s argument—in addition to defying the Court’s claim construction as discussed
`
`above—is not eveninternally consistent. First, Luminati never argued during claim construction
`
`12
`
`Code200, UAB,etal. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`16 of 34
`
`

`

`that a “second server” must be comprised of some type of special “server” hardware, and it never
`
`identified any such hardware description in the specification. As the Court noted, the issue was
`
`whether the second server is “a distinct device from the client device and web server.” ECF No.
`
`191 at 13. Luminati never argued—and cannot argue—that a “server” is restricted to a special
`
`type of “server” hardware. And Luminati clearly did not invent any server hardware.
`
`Second, Dr. Rhyne’s admissions in deposition
`
` (Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 67:6-13),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (id. at 75:5-11). Dr. Rhyne later opined
`
` Id. at 197:13-19. In Dr. Rhyne’s opinion, a server would
`
`Id. at 201:22-202:4.
`
`Dr. Rhyne’s
`
`
`
` Id. at 197:19-25.
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`-
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`17 of 34
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`EENove of this is remotely supported by the Court’s claim construction
`
`or any definition in the patent specification. Again, Luminati never made any such arguments to
`
`the Court during claim construction.
`
`Third,it is notable that Dr. Rhyne
`
`Indeed, when assessing infringement, Dr. Rhyne
`
`Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 89:20-90:4. Dr. Rhyne, in fact,
`
`Pe Td. at 80:8-85:16. When asked whether he remembered
`
`Code200, UAB, etal. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`18 of 34
`
`

`

`Similarly, and as discussed above in Section III.A.2.a, the RFC 2616 specification for
`
`HTTP/1.1, is expressly identified in the patent specification and recited in the patent claims as
`
`something with which a POSA would have been familiar. It provides a role-based definition of
`
`server: “[a]n application program that accepts connections in order to service requests by sending
`
`back responses.” See Section III.A.2.a. In deposition, Dr. Rhyne
`
`Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 204:23–207:22. But that is precisely the audience for the ’319 and ’510 pa-
`
`tents. Dr. Rhyne admitted,
`
` (id. at 207:23–208:11),
`
`Dr. Rhyne’s references to
`
` (id. at 209:10-18).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`f)
`
`Even if Dr. Rhyne’s understanding of a server is accepted,
`Crowds expressly discloses such a server operating a jondo
`
`.
`
`In deposition, Dr. Rhyne admitted
`
`200:3. Dr. Rhyne
`
` Ex. 3 (Rhyne Tr.) at 199:18–
`
` Id. at 200:4-11. Dr. Rhyne agreed
`
` Id. at 200:18-21.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`19 of 34
`
`

`

`Curiously,
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 3 at 218:14-23. To
`
`the contrary, Crowds described testing of the described system and jondos, and stated, “The
`
`crowd consisted of four jondos, each executing on a separate, moderately loaded 150-MHz Sparc
`
`20 running SunOs 4.1.4.” Ex. 1 (Crowds) at 82. The Sparc 20 was a Sun workstation, not a lap-
`
`top or personal computer.4 Crowds also discusses use of Unix platforms for jondos. Id. at 81. Dr.
`
`Freedman agrees that this discussion of a jondo executing on a Sun workstation confirms that a
`
`jondo could be a “second server” even if specialized server equipment is required, despite the
`
`Court’s claim construction. Ex. 4 (Freedman Rep.) Appx. A at 12. This further confirms to a
`
`POSA that, depending on a device’s role, any type of equipment with an IP address could be a
`
`server. See id. As previously noted, Crowds also expressly discloses, “Like all network servers,
`
`jondos are identified by their IP address and port number.” Ex. 1 (Crowds) at 90.
`
`For all of these reasons, the Court should reject Luminati’s misapplication of the Court’s
`
`claim construction. But even if Dr. Rhyne’s opinions regarding separate server equipment are
`
`applied, Crowds discloses the jondo as a “second server.”
`
`B.
`
`There Is No Dispute That Crowds Anticipates The Dependent Claims Of The
`’319 Patent
`
`The dependent claims of the ’319 patent recite the usage of standard Internet communica-
`
`tions and protocols. Given that claim 1 is anticipated, as discussed above, the dependent claims
`
`also are anticipated for the further reasons discussed below. In addition, given that Dr. Rhyne
`
`either (i) does not contest anticipation of the dependent claims for any reason beyond his opinion
`
`for claim 1 and/or (ii) includes an insufficient, one-sentence “rebuttal” of Dr. Freedman’s opin-
`
`
`4 See https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19127-01/sparc20.ws/801-6189-12/801-6189-12.pdf.
`
`16
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2042
`20 of 34
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 282 Filed 02/08/21 Page 21 of 34 Pagel