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
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`CORRECTED DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`1 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I, Dr. Tim Williams, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`My full name is Tim Arthur Williams.
`
`I am an industry professional with over 45 years of experience in
`
`wireless communications,
`
`computer networking
`
`and
`
`telecommunications
`
`technology. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently active currently active as Chief Executive Officer at
`
`Beach Technologies, LLC (Danville, CA) a company related to intellectual property
`
`consulting.
`
`4.
`
`I am also currently active as a Member at Calumet Venture
`
`Management (Madison, WI) a company related to the investment into start-up
`
`companies.
`
`5.
`
`Beginning in 2004, I was the Founder and Chairman at DoceoTech Inc.
`
`(Danville, CA) which provides training for engineers in wireless, computer
`
`networking, and telephony technologies.
`
`6.
`
`From 2008 to 2010, I was Founder and Board Member of BitRail
`
`Networks, Inc (Miami, FL). This company designed and produced computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was edge devices for
`
`residential and community access.
`
`7.
`
`From 2006 to 2015, I was Founder and Board Member of BEEcube,
`
`Inc. (Freemont, CA). This company built high speed computing and computer
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`2 of 39
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was networking equipment
`
`for backhaul networks used in 5G cellular networks.
`
`8.
`
`From 2004 to 2008, I was Founder and CEO of SiBEAM, Inc. This
`
`company designed and produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`9.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was Interim CEO and Advisory Board Member
`
`of Atheros Communications, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) . This company designed and
`
`produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`10.
`
`From 1998 to 2000, I was CTO of Picazo Communications, Inc. (San
`
`Jose, CA). This company built computer networking equipment to provide VoIP
`
`PBX functionality.
`
`11.
`
`From 1991 to 1998, I was Co-Founder, CTO, VP Engineering of
`
`Wireless Access, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA). This company developed over the air
`
`communication protocols for communication between the subscriber device and the
`
`network.
`
`12.
`
`From 1979 to 1991, I was a Member of the Technical Staff at Motorola,
`
`Inc. (Schaumberg, IL and Austin, TX). In IL, I designed protocols for Digital voice
`
`communications. In TX, I designed ICs for communications including Telecom,
`
`Wireless, Cellular and Computer Networking.
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`3 of 39
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`13.
`
`I have been engaged in over 200 patent related litigations since 1999.
`
`Many of these cases relate to computer networking technologies, including protocols
`
`for Internet communications and the architecture of computer networks.
`
`14.
`
`I hold degrees from Michigan Technological University (B.S.E.E.,
`
`1976) and the University of Texas at Austin (M.S.E.E., 1982 and Ph.D., Electrical
`
`Engineering, 1985 and M.B.A., 1991).
`
`15.
`
`I am the principal inventor on 28 U.S. Patents all of which relate to
`
`communications technologies.
`
`16.
`
`I have been a Registered Patent Agent since 2002.
`
`17.
`
`If called upon to do so, I could and would testify truthfully as follows:
`
`18. Based on my experience in the art and my study of the Internet
`
`communication systems disclosed in the Challenged Patents (U.S. Patents Nos.
`
`10,257,319
`
`the 319
`
`and 10,484,510
`
`, collectively
`
`Challenged
`
`, which share the same inventors of Derry Shribman and Ofer
`
`Vilenski and a common specification), in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (a
`
`hereafter) would be an individual who, as of October 8, 2009, the
`
`filing date of the shared provisional application, had a
`
`or higher in
`
`the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or
`
`as of that time had a
`
`ree in the same fields and two or more years of
`
`experience in Internet communications.
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`4 of 39
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the Board instituted inter partes review of the
`
`Challenged Patents in IPR2021-01492 and IPR2021-01493, respectively. In the
`
`Institution Decisions, the Board applied the definition of a POSA proposed by
`
`Petitioner NetNut Ltd.
`
`communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks, including the
`
`eb, Internet, or network
`
`2001 2033 at 17-18; EX.
`
`2002 2034 at 17-18. In my opinion, and the Board agreed (see EX. 2001 2033 at 18;
`
`EX. 2002 2034 at 18), that the proposed qualifications between my POSA definition
`
`materially different, at least in terms of affecting an institution decision in IPR2022-
`
`00861, IPR2022-00862, IPR2022-00915, and IPR2022-00916. My analysis herein
`
`does not change under either POSA definition.
`
`20.
`
`I have reviewed each of the Challenged Patents, the file history for each
`
`of the Challenged Patents, and the file histories for related patents (EX. 2006 2038
`
`and EX. 20082040). I have also reviewed the Petitions and exhibits thereto, the
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Responses and exhibits thereto, and the Institution
`
`Decisions in IPR2021-01492 and IPR2021-01493
`
`. I
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`5 of 39
`
`4
`
`

`

`understand that the Petitions and exhibits thereto in IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-
`
`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`00862, IPR2022-00915, and IPR2022-
`
`exhibits thereto in the NetNut IPRs.
`
`21.
`
`I have also reviewed at least the Claim Construction Order (Dkt.
`
`191)
`
`), the Supplemental Claim Construction order (Dkt.
`
`the February 16, 2021 Order denying
`
`the Declaration of Dr. Vernon
`
`Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 126-5) and the Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Freedman in
`
`case of Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D.
`
`-1) in the
`
`I have also reviewed my prior declaration in
`
`-7), the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Claffy
`
`Construction Brief (Dkt. 115-1),
`
`tion Order (Dkt.
`
`146)
`
`No. 2:21-cv-
`
`in the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case
`
`22. Based on my experience in the NetNut Litigation, I have also reviewed
`
`each of Patent Nos.
`
`) and their file histories.
`
`5
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`6 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Background to the Challenged Patents
`
`23.
`
`The common specification distinguishes two prior art systems. The first
`
`prior art system is the traditional use of a proxy server as an intermediary between a
`
`client device and a web server. See
`
`-39. The second prior art system
`
`is the traditional use of a peer-to-peer system using caching client devices. See
`
`Patent at 2:40-3:3. The common specification explains that the prior art systems are
`
`cost prohibitive and do not handle dynamic content due to the typical cache-storage
`
`methods.
`
`24.
`
`n intermediary
`
`as recited in the claims lowers costs and is able to handle dynamic content. In my
`
`opinion, it would not be obvious to a POSA to use a client device, having limited
`
`resources unlike a server, as an intermediary proxy.
`
`Introduction to the Challenged Patents
`
`25. All of the patents claiming priority to Provisional Application No.
`
`61/249,624 filed on October 8, 2009 share the same specification. I agree with the
`
`, which were at
`
`issue in the Teso Litigation. Each of the patent claims recites a web server.
`
`Specifically,
`
`Patent refers
`
`.
`
`In addition, each of the patent claims recites a separate server referred
`
`Patent refers to a
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`7 of 39
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`to as the “second server” in the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents. Finally, each of the
`
`independentpatent claimsin the ?319 and ’510 Patents recites a “first client device”
`
`serving as an intermediary between the webserverand the secondserver.
`
`26.
`
`Based on my experience in the NetNutLitigation, I note that the ’713
`
`and °852 Patents in this same family have claims that additionally recite a
`
`“requesting client device” that is not an intermediary.
`
`27.
`
`The ’319 and *510 Patent claims recite methods comprising elements
`
`performedby the“first client device” within a second server < first client device
`
`<> web server architecture as shown, for example, in the annotated claims in the
`
`followingtable:
`
`content, to the second server over
`
`1. A methodfor use with a web
`1. A method for use with a first client
`server thatresponds to Hypertext
`device,for use with a first server that
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests
`comprises a web server that
`is a
`and storesa first content identified
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`by a first content identifier, the
`server that responds to HTTP requests,
`method byafirst client device
`the first server stores a first content
`comprising:
`identified by a first content identifier,
`establishing a Transmission
`ControlProtocol (TCP) connection
`and for use with a second server, the
`method by the first client device
`with a second server;
`comprising:
`sending, to the web server
`receiving, from the second
`over anInternet, the first content
`server, thefirst content identifier;
`identifier;
`sending,to the first server
`receiving, the first content from
`over theInternet, a Hypertext
`the web server overthe Internet in
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request
`response to the sendingofthefirst
`that comprisesthe first content
`content identifier; and
`sendingthe receivedfirst
`identifier;
`receiving, the first content from
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`8 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`the first server overthe Internetin
`responseto the sendingofthe first
`content identifier; and
`sending,the first content by the
`first client device to the second
`server, in responseto the receiving of
`
`the first contentidentifier.
`
`the established TCPconnection, in
`responseto the receiving ofthefirst
`content identifier.
`
`28.
`
`The ’713 and ’852 Patent claims recite methods comprising elements
`
`performedby the “requesting client device” within a requesting client device
`
`second server < first client device < web server architecture as shown, for
`
`example, in the annotated claimsin the followingtable:
`
`Internet, the generated HTTP or
`
`*852 Patent
`*713 Patent
`1. A methodby a requesting client
`1. A methodfor use with a
`device that is identified over the
`requesting client device that
`Internet by a first Internet Protocol (IP)
`comprises an HTTPclient and is
`address, for use with a first server that
`identified over the Internet by a first
`is a web serverthat is Hypertext
`Internet Protocol (IP) address, for use
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext
`with a first server that is a web
`Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS)
`server that is Hypertext Transfer
`server that respectively responds to
`Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext
`HTTP or HTTPSrequests andstores a
`Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS)
`
`server that respectively responds to first content identified byafirst
`HTTPor HTTPSrequests and stores
`Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and
`a first content identified by a first
`for use with a second server distinct
`content identifier, for use with a
`from the first web server and identified
`second server distinct from thefirst
`in the Internet by a second IP address,
`web serverandidentified in the
`the method bythe requesting client
`Internet by a secondIP address, the
`device comprising:
`methodbythe requesting client
`generating an HTTP or HTTPS
`device comprising:
`request that comprises the first URL
`identifying, an HTTP or
`and a geographicallocation;
`HTTPSrequestfor the first content;
`sending, to the second server
`sending, to the second server
`using the second IP address over the
`the second IP address over the
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`9 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Internet in response to the
`identifying, the first content identifier
`and a geographical location; and
`receiving, over the Internet in
`response to the sending, from the
`second server via a first client
`device, the part of, or the whole of,
`the first content.
`
`HTTPS request; and
`receiving, over the Internet in
`response to the sending, from the
`second server via a first client device,
`part of, or whole of, the first content,
`wherein the first content
`comprises a web-page, an audio
`content, or a video content.
`
`29.
`
`The steps of claim 1 in each of the Challenged Patents are performed
`
`by an intermediary client device
`
`a first client device
`
`located between the web
`
`server and the second server. As discussed below, the common specification
`
`discloses a client device may be, for example, a requesting client device or an
`
`intermediary client device.
`
`Review of the Common Specification
`
`30.
`
`The common specification of the Challenged Patents provides several
`
`exemplary embodiments in the detailed description and the figures showing that both
`
`servers and client devices can be configured to operate as intermediaries in a
`
`computer
`
`server
`
`computer or computer
`
`client device
`
`computer pathway.
`
`For example, Figure 1 and the associated discussion show a proxy server between
`
`one or more client devices and a web server in a communication pathway. See e.g.
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`10 of 39
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`-
`
`"proxy". FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram providing an example of use of a proxy
`
`within a network 2. A proxy, or proxy server 4, 6, 8 is a device that is placed between
`
`one or more clients, illustrated in FIG. 1 as client devices 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, that
`
`request data, via the Internet 22, and a Web server or Web servers 30, 32, 34 from
`
`10
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`11 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`31.
`
`Similarly, Figure 3 shows an exemplary embodiment of network 100
`
`with an agent serving as an intermediary between a client and web server. As
`
`described
`
`in
`
`the
`
`specification,
`
`the communication network comprises
`
`communication devices that can serve as a client, peer, or agent, as well as separate
`
`servers and web servers:
`
`An example of such a communication network 100 is provided by the
`schematic diagram of FIG. 3. The network 100 of FIG. 3 contains
`multiple communication devices. Due to functionality provided by
`software stored within each communication device, which may be the
`same in each communication device, each communication device may
`serve as a client, peer, or agent, depending upon requirements of the
`network 100, as is described in detail herein. It should be noted that a
`detailed description of a communication device is provided with regard
`to the description of FIG. 4.
`
`The communication network 100 also contains a Web server 152. The
`Web server 152 is the server from which the client 102 is requesting
`information and may be, for 65 example, a typical HTTP server, such
`as those being used to deliver content on any of the many such servers
`on the Internet. It should be noted that the server 152 is not limited to
`being an HTTP server. In fact, if a different communication protocol is
`used within the communication network, the server may be a server
`capable of handling a different protocol. It should also be noted that
`while the present description refers to the use of HTTP, the present
`invention may relate to any other communication protocol and HTTP
`is not intended to be a limitation to the present invention.
`
`The communication network 100 further contains an acceleration
`server 162 having an acceleration server storage device 164.
`
`-5:10.
`
`11
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`12 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`As each communication device is configured to operate as a client, agent or peer as
`
`necessary, in my opinion, a POSA would understand client 102 and agent 122 to
`
`both be client devices.
`
`32. As shown in Figure 3, agent 122, in some embodiments, is a client
`
`device which can receive requests for content intended for web server 152. See, e.g.,
`
`-
`
`12
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`13 of 39
`
`

`

`request this content directly from the web server. See, e.g.,
`
`-
`
`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`16:11.
`
`33.
`
`The specification discloses how a communication device can be
`
`configured to serve as a client, agent, and peer. See
`
`4:44-50; 5:21-29;
`
`see also
`
`9:12-50. For example, the specification discloses, when
`
`executing the fetching method, the requesting client device may be executing the
`
`client module 224 disclosed in FIG. 6, while the proxy client device may be
`
`executing the agent module 228 disclosed in FIG. 6.
`
`13
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`14 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, upon reviewing the common specification in general,
`
`and Figures 1 and 3 in particular, that proxy server 6 of Figure 1 could be inserted
`
`between client 102 and agent 122 of Figure 3, as shown below in a modified version
`
`of Figure 3. A POSA would understand the requesting client device
`
`second
`
`server
`
`first client device
`
`web server corresponds to client 102
`
`proxy
`
`server 6
`
`agent 122 web server 152, as annotated in the modified figure below.
`
`Therefore, a POSA would understand the common specification discloses a
`
`requesting client device
`
`proxy server
`
`proxy client device
`
`web server
`
`architecture.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`14
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`15 of 39
`
`

`

`35.
`
`19; EX. 2002 2034 at 22.
`
`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`2001 2033 at
`
`36. Based upon the common specification, in my opinion, a POSA would
`
`client device
`
`See, e.g., 19
`
`Patent at 2:44-
`
`Alternatively, a POSA would understand the
`
`client device
`
`consumer
`
`In my opinion,
`
`these proposed constructions are consistent with the claim language, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution histories distinguishing servers from client
`
`devices.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand a client device is a
`
`communication device in the context of the specification. This is consistent with the
`
`EX. 1017,
`
`EX. 1020, EX. 20032035. As described in the specification,
`
`device may
`
`-49) which in my
`
`opinion, informs a POSA that client 102, peers 112, 114, 116, and agent 122 are all
`
`See also
`
`-50;
`
`5:21-29.
`
`15
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`16 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`38.
`
`In the NetNut Litigation, Defendant NetNut Ltd. proposed a
`
`, but the Court
`
`in the Teso Litigation. EX. 2003 2035 at 14. In my opinion, a POSA would
`
`39.
`
`The specification discloses HOW a communication device can be
`
`configured to serve as a client, agent, and peer. E.g.
`
`-50; 5:21-
`
`29; 9:12-50. For example, as discussed above,
`
`the specification discloses a
`
`requesting client device
`
`proxy server
`
`proxy client device
`
`web server
`
`architecture. The specification explains, when executing the fetching method, the
`
`requesting client device may be executing the client module 224 disclosed in FIG.
`
`6, while the proxy client device may be executing the agent module 228 disclosed
`
`in FIG. 6. Therefore, in my opinion, A POSA would understand in the context of the
`
`to operate in accordance with the claims.
`
`40.
`
`In the specification, this software is disclosed, for example, in Figure 6
`
`showing acceleration application 220 on communication device 200. Figure 6 and
`
`the associated text disclose communication devices having client, peer, and agent
`
`modules, but no server module. In my opinion, a POSA would understand from the
`
`16
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`17 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would
`
`nition for each of these
`
`roles.
`
`41. With respect to the modified version of Figure 3 annotated above, in
`
`my opinion, a POSA would understand that client 102 corresponds to the requesting
`
`client device., i.e., a communication device.
`
`42. With respect to the modified version of Figure 3 annotated above, in
`
`my opinion, a POSA would understand that agent 122 corresponds to the proxy
`
`152 (e.g
`
`munication device may be
`
`selected to be the agent (e.g.
`
`-34). In my opinion, agent 122 is a
`
`43.
`
`In the context of the specification, a client device would be understood
`
`to be, more specifically, a consumer computer like a laptop or a smartphone. See,
`
`e.g.
`
`-
`
`consumers, referred to herein as client devices
`
`the specification explicitly sta
`
`-46.
`
`17
`
`
`computers of
`
`In my opinion,
`
`See, e.g.,
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`18 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`in the context of the specification. This
`
`understanding is also consistent with statements made by Applicant during
`
`prosecution of the parent application that issued as Patent No. 10,069,936, further
`
`discussed below. In my opinion, in the context of the specification, a POSA would
`
`understand that a consumer device is distinguished from a commercial device. A
`
`POSA would also understand that a consumer device is not a dedicated proxy server.
`
`44.
`
`serv
`
`E.g., https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/consumer
`
`(EX.
`
`20042036) and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/consumer
`
`(EX. 20052037). This is also consistent with statements made by Applicant during
`
`prosecution of the parent application that issued as Patent No. 10,069,936, where the
`
`EX. 2006 2038 at 163.
`
`45.
`
`Further, in my opinion, given that the above recited architectures in the
`
`claims distinguish between client devices and servers (e.g.
`
`proxy server
`
`proxy client device web server) a POSA would understand that
`
`the mere inclusion of three interchangeable general use computers in pathway such
`
`as a generic computer
`
`computer
`
`computer architecture would not by itself
`
`disclose the recited architecture of the Challenged Patents. The Court repeatedly
`
`18
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`19 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`acknowledged that a client device is not merely a general-purpose computer. E.g.,
`
`EX. 2003 2035 at 14-15.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, the recited architecture in the claims of the Challenged
`
`Patents distinguishes the novel use of a client device, rather than a proxy server, as
`
`an intermediary. This understanding is consistent with the Teso Alice Order finding
`
`EX. 2009 2041 at 8-
`
`claimed methods in this case were simply the receipt and forwarding of information
`
`over the Internet, Teso might have a compelling argument. However, it is the use of
`
`non-traditional client devices that transforms the Asserted Claims into non-abstract
`
`This understanding is also consistent with the Teso C.C. Order, the
`
`Teso Supplemental C.C. Order, and the NetNut C.C. Order. EXS. 1017, 1020,
`
`20032035.
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that a client device is
`
`typically portable, like, for example, a laptop or a smartphone. I also agree with the
`
`prosecution that a client device typically uses a single connection, unlike a server. I
`
`resource limited (e.g., bandwidth and storage), unlike a server.
`
`19
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`20 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that a client device is
`
`typically understood to be (a) regularly switched off and taken offline; (b) capable
`
`of processing only a limited number of requests for another device at any given time,
`
`which may for example include a single user login; and/or (c) for acceptance of
`
`lesser fault tolerance, lesser reliability, and lesser scalability, prioritizing value to
`
`client device users over system costs.
`
`49.
`
`In my opinion, a
`
`with a def
`
`https://www.webopedia.com/reference/network-fundamentals-study-
`
`guide/#topologies (EX. 20072039).
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion, given the specifications discussion of problems
`
`associated with the prior art system of using a proxy server as an intermediary (e.g.,
`
`-39) a POSA would NOT consider a proxy client device to
`
`encompass a proxy server.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand there are structural
`
`differences between client devices and servers in the context of the specification and
`
`20
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`21 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I have seen no contradictory disclosure in the specification or in the prosecution
`
`histories. Rather, client devices are repeatedly distinguished from servers in the
`
`specification and the prosecution histories.
`
`52.
`
`For example,
`
`3:66-67. The
`
`exemplary end-points in the architecture of Fig. 1 are clients devices 14,16 and web
`
`server 32. These end-points never change roles. In my opinion, a POSA would
`
`understand that client devices 14,16 are client devices and not servers; and a POSA
`
`would understand that web server 32 is a server and not a client device. The
`
`exemplary intermediary is proxy server 6. In my opinion, a POSA would understand
`
`that proxy server 6 is a server and not a client device. As shown in Figure 1, proxy
`
`server 6 (i) receives requests from client devices 14,16 and (ii) sends requests to web
`
`server 32.
`
`53.
`
`Patent at 4:3-5. The exemplary end-points in the architecture of Fig. 3 are client 102
`
`and web server 152. The end-points never change roles. In my opinion, a POSA
`
`would understand that client 102 is a client device and not a server; and a POSA
`
`would understand that web server 152 is a server and not a client device. The
`
`exemplary intermediary is agent 122. In my opinion, a POSA would understand that
`
`agent 122 is a client device and not a server. As shown in Figure 3, agent 122 (i)
`
`receives requests from client devices and (ii) sends requests to web server 152.
`
`21
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`22 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`54. Upon reviewing the specification in general, and Figures 1 and 3 in
`
`particular, a POSA would understand that proxy server 6 must be structurally
`
`different from agent 122. In my opinion, these figures inform a POSA that a server
`
`is not a client device and that a client device is not a server. This understanding is
`
`consistent with the prosecution history as well. For example, in each of the Notices
`
`of Allowance, the examiner acknowledged that
`
`methods are performed is novel. See, e.g., Notice of Allowance dated 1/23/2019,
`
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1002 at 50; Notice of Allowance dated 10/3/2019, IPR2021-
`
`01493, EX. 1002 at 41; Notice of Allowance dated 6/29/2018, EX. 2006 2038 at 44.
`
`acknowledging the non-traditional use of client devices in this particular architecture
`
`makes the methods non-abstract. EX. 2009 2041 at 8-9. In my opinion, a POSA
`
`would understand that a proxy client device is not the same as a proxy server.
`
`55.
`
`The patent prosecution history of the parent, Patent No. 10,069,936,
`
`clearly distinguishes client devices from servers. During prosecution, the examiner
`
`had rejected then-pending claims over the Garcia reference. See, e.g., EX. 2006 2038
`
`2006 2038
`
`reference to the cache server 306, which is clearly a dedicated device and performs
`
`teachings of Garcia. EX.
`
`22
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`23 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`a server functionality. The Garcia reference is silent, and actually teaches away
`
`from identifying and using another client device for supporting a content request by
`
`a spe
`
`2006 2038 at 215 (emphasis in original).
`
`56.
`
`The examiner responded that the arguments are moot in view of the
`
`new ground(s) of rejection. EX. 2006 2038 at 172. The examiner conceded that
`
`server and a requesting client via one or more clients selected from the group and []
`
`the selected client receiving the content from the web server and [] the requesting
`
`n between the web
`
`2006 2038 at 174.
`
`57.
`
`In my opinion, this concession shows that the examiner recognized a
`
`server cannot be equated to a client device regardless of the role being performed at
`
`a given moment in time. This understanding is consistent with other statements by
`
`Applicant during prosecution as, for example, discussed below.
`
`58.
`
`EX. 2006 2038 at 163.
`
`lient 105 in the Garcia reference, are
`
`end-units that request information from servers, use client-related software such as
`
`Web browser software, communicate over the Internet using ISP connection, and
`
`are typically consumer owned and operated
`
`2006 2038 at 163 (emphasis
`
`23
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`24 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`2006 2038
`
`2006 2038 at 164.
`
`59. Applicant clearly distinguished servers from client devices:
`
`contrast, server devices are known in the art to be dedicated devices to store
`
`2006 2038 at
`
`163.
`
`60.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance, the examiner acknowledged that
`
`limitations of the independent claims, within its environment, is allowable subject
`
`2006 2038 at 44
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`61.
`
`In my opinion, upon reviewing the prosecution history of
`
`Patent, a POSA would understand that there are structural differences between
`
`servers and client devices in the context of the specification.
`
`62.
`
`servers and client devices are not interchangeable general use computers. Applicant
`
`stated that a few types of devices (servers / clients) communicating over a network
`
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1002 at 281. The applicant argued that
`
`specific networking of physical elements such as servers and clients, connected via
`
`various networks forming a specific structure and relationships, which are physical
`
`Id.
`
`In
`
`24
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`25 of 39
`
`

`

`addition, the applicant
`
`the Examiner does not sufficiently
`
`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`establish that
`
`-
`
`Id.
`
`Specifically, the claimed components as a combination perform functions that are
`
`not merely generic - It is respectfully submitted that the conventional arrangement
`
`involves fetching data by a client device from a server device, while the claims
`
`disclose a server receiving information from another server via a client device, which
`
`is unique and solves a specific problem such as anonymity when fetching
`
`Id. at 282-283.
`
`63.
`
`In the Notice of Allowance, the examiner acknowledged that
`
`limitations of the independent claims, within its environment, is allowable subject
`
`IPR2021-01492, EX. 1002 at
`
`50 (emphasis added).
`
`64.
`
`Patent, a POSA would understand that there are structural differences between
`
`servers and client devices in the context of the specification.
`
`65.
`
`Allowance,
`
`in the Notice of
`
`methods was novel over the prior art. IPR2021-01493, EX. 1002 at 41.
`
`25
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2055
`26 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00861 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`66.
`
`2033 at 19; EX. 2002 2034 at 22. During the NetNut Litigation, NetNut proposed
`
`2001
`
`operating in the role of a
`
`2003 2035 at 20. The Court reiterated
`
`2003 2035 at
`
`23.
`
`67. As discussed above, consistent with the Teso C.C. Order, the Teso
`
`Supplemental C.C. Order, the Teso Alice Order, and the NetNut C.C. Order, a POSA
`
`would understand that the recited architectures in the claims of the Challenged
`
`Patents is not mere
`
`architecture.
`
`68. As discussed above, the claim language itself distinguishes client
`
`devices and servers. The specification also distinguishes client devices and servers.
`
`A POSA would understand that the mere inclusion of interchangeable general-
`
`computer pathway would not by itself disclose the architecture of the claimed
`
`26
`
`
`be i