`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 IPR2022-00862
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Contents
`
`1 INTRODUCTION
`
`2 STATUTORY PREDICATES
`2.1 Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.1 Real Parties-In-Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.2 Related Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.3 Lead and Backup Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.1.4 Service Information
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`2.2 Other
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`1
`
`2
`2
`2
`3
`9
`9
`9
`
`3 DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS (35 U.S.C. § 314(a))
`
`10
`
`11
`4 OVERVIEW OF THE ’510 PATENT
`4.1 Claims ........................................................................................... 11
`4.2 Specification ................................................................................. 12
`4.3 Priority Date .................................................................................. 14
`
`5 LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`6 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`7 OVERVIEW OF CITED ART
`7.1 Crowds
`7.2 MorphMix
`7.3 Border
`
`- i -
`
`15
`
`15
`
`20
`20
`21
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`7.4 RFCs
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`21
`
`22
`
`8 GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY
`8.1 GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 6-7, 13, 15-16,
`AND 18-24 BY CROWDS .......................................................... 22
`8.1.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 23
`8.1.2 Claim 6 (working with second web server) ...................... 30
`8.1.3 Claims 7 and 21 (running a browser) ............................... 31
`8.1.4 Claims 13 and 24 (corresponding recorded media) .......... 32
`8.1.5 Claim 15 (receiving the FCI over the TCP connection) 32
`8.1.6 Claim 16 (FCI comprises HTTP request) ......................... 33
`8.1.7 Claims 18-19 (communicating via TCP) .......................... 33
`8.1.8 Claim 20 (web page) ......................................................... 34
`8.1.9 Claim 22 (client O/S) ........................................................ 34
`8.1.10 Claim 23 (sequential execution) ....................................... 34
`8.2 GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 6-11, 13, 15- 16,
`AND 18-24 OVER CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35
`
`8.2.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 36
`8.2.2 Claim 2 (client device identifies itself on startup) ............ 37
`8.2.3 Claims 8-9 (periodically communicating) ........................ 38
`8.2.4 Claims 10-11 (validity check) .......................................... 41
`8.2.5 Claims 6-7, 13, 15-16, and 18-24 ..................................... 41
`8.3 GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 6, 10, 15-20,
`and 23-24 BY BORDER ............................................................... 41
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.3.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 44
`8.3.2 Claim 6 (working with second web server) ...................... 49
`8.3.3 Claim 10 (validity check) ................................................. 49
`8.3.4 Claim 15 (receiving the FCI over the TCP connection) 50
`8.3.5 Claim 16 (FCI comprises HTTP request) ......................... 51
`8.3.6 Claim 17 (storing the first content) ................................... 51
`8.3.7 Claims 18 and 19 (communicating via TCP) ................... 52
`8.3.8 Claim 20 (web page) ......................................................... 52
`8.3.9 Claim 23 (sequential execution) ....................................... 52
`8.3.10 Claim 24 (corresponding recorded media) ....................... 53
`8.4 GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20,
`and 22-24 OVER BORDER + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`54
`
`8.4.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 54
`8.4.2 Claims 8 and 9 (periodically communicating) ................. 55
`8.4.3 Claim 11 (validity check, RFC 2616) ............................... 56
`8.4.4 Claim 13 (downloading recorded application) ................. 57
`8.4.5 Claim 22 (client O/S) ........................................................ 58
`8.4.6 Claims 6, 10, 15-20, and 23-24 ......................................... 58
`8.5 GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 6-8, 13, 15-16,
`AND 18-24 BY MORPHMIX ....................................................... 59
`8.5.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 60
`8.5.2 Claim 6 (working with second web server) ...................... 65
`8.5.3 Claims 7 and 21 (running a browser) ............................... 67
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`8.5.4 Claim 8 (periodically communicating via TCP) .............. 68
`8.5.5 Claims 13 and 24 (corresponding recorded media) .......... 69
`8.5.6 Claim 15 (receiving the FCI over the TCP connection) 70
`8.5.7 Claim 16 (FCI comprises HTTP request) ......................... 70
`8.5.8 Claims 18-19 (communicating via TCP) .......................... 70
`8.5.9 Claim 20 (web page) ......................................................... 71
`8.5.10 Claim 22 (client O/S) ........................................................ 71
`8.5.11 Claim 23 (sequential execution) ....................................... 71
`8.6 GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 6-11, 13,
`15-16, AND 18-24 OVER MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 +
`GENERAL KNOWLEDGE .......................................................... 72
`
`8.6.1 Claim 1 .............................................................................. 72
`8.6.2 Claim 2 (client device identifies itself at startup) ............. 73
`8.6.3 Claim 9 (keep-alive messages) ......................................... 75
`8.6.4 Claims 10-11 (validity check) .......................................... 76
`8.6.5 Claims 6-8, 13, 15-16, and 18-23 ..................................... 76
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`1001 United States Patent No. 10,484,510 to Shribman et al.
`1002 File History for United States Patent No. 10,484,510
`1003 Petitioners’ Chart of Challenged Claims
`1004 Luminati’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Luminati
`v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D.
`Networks Ltd.
`Tex.)
`1005 Declaration of Keith J. Teruya with curriculum vitae
`1006 Michael Reiter & Aviel Rubin, Crowds:
`Anonymity for Web
`Transactions, ACM Transactions on Information and System
`Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, Nov. 1998, at 66-92
`1007 Declaration of Scott Delman (regarding Crowds)
`1008 Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Doctoral Thesis)
`1009 Declaration of Marc Rennhard (regarding MorphMix)
`1010 Declaration of Bernhard Plattner (regarding MorphMix)
`1011 Declaration of Andreas Berz (regarding MorphMix)
`1012 United States Patent No. 6,795,848 to Border et al.
`1013 Fielding, R. et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1”,
`RFC 2616, June 1999
`1014 Socolofsky, T. and C. Kale, “TCP/IP Tutorial”, RFC 1180, January
`1991
`1015 Postel, J., “Internet Protocol”, STD 5, RFC 791, September 1981
`1016 Braden, R., Ed., “Requirements for Internet Hosts –
`Communication Layers”, STD 3, RFC 1122, October 1989
`1017 Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Luminati Networks Ltd.
`v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit List (Continued)
`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 or Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`1022 Comparison of claim 1 in ’319 and ’510 patents
`1023 Fielding, R., et al., “Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1”,
`RFC 2068, January 1997
`1024 Comparison between current Petition and petition in IPR2021-
`01493 (NetNut IPR petition)
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioners Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB;
`
`Oxysales, UAB; and coretech lt, UAB (collectively “Petitioner”) seeks inter
`
`partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 15-24 (“Challenged
`
`Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510, Ex. 1001 (the “’510 patent” or the
`
`“Patent”). The Petition is supported by the Exhibits listed above, including the
`
`Expert Declaration of Keith J. Teruya (Ex. 1005).
`
`The ’510 patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (the “’319
`
`patent”), challenged separately herewith. As is apparent from a comparison (Ex.
`
`1022), the principal (and only material) difference between the independent
`
`claims of the two patents is that claim 1 of the ’510 patent adds that the
`
`middleman, proxy device (first client device) establishes, and forwards the
`
`requested content over, a TCP connection with the content-requesting device
`
`(second server):
`
`second server <-TCP-> client (proxy) device <—> web server
`For reasons discussed in the accompanying petition on the ’319 patent (and
`
`also included herein to make a sufficient free-standing record as to the ’510
`
`patent) the ’319 patent, like the ’510 patent, is anticipated and/or obvious over
`
`Crowds (Ex. 1006), Border (Ex. 1012), and MorphMix (Ex. 1008). The ’510
`
`inventors were also far from inventing persistent TCP connections, and as
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`addressed herein, the same three principal references anticipate and/or render
`
`obvious the combination, including persistent TCP connections as well.1
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with NetNut Ltd. v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01493 (“the NetNut IPR”), which the Board
`
`instituted on March 21, 2022. This Petition is substantially identical to the
`
`petition in the NetNut IPR and contains the same grounds (based on the same
`
`prior art and supporting evidence) against the same claims, and differs only as
`
`necessary to reflect the fact that it is filed by a different petitioner. See Ex. 1024
`
`(illustrating minimal changes between the instant Petition and the petition in
`
`IPR2021-01493).
`
`2.
`
`STATUTORY PREDICATES
`
`2.1. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)
`
`2.1.1. Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are Petitioners Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB;
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and coretech lt, UAB.
`
`
`1 There is also very little difference between claim 1 of the ’510 patent and
`claim 24 of the ’319 patent (which likewise recites establishing a TCP
`connection).
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`2.1.2. Related Matters
`
`Judicial
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Matter
`Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-
`00225 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom SA d/b/a
`NordVPN, No. 2-19-cv-00414 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB
`a/k/a UAB Teso LT et al., No. 2-19-cv-00395
`(E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009)
`Ltd., No. 2-19-cv-00397 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks
`Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00188
`(E.D. Tx.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. code200, UAB et al., No.
`2-19-cv-00396 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009)
`Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc., No. 2-19-cv-
`00352 (E.D. Tx.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. IP Ninja Ltd., No.
`2-19-cv-00196 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Subject Matter
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319 and
`10,484,510
`
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614;
`10,484,510;
`10,484,511; and
`10,637,968
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614; and
`10,484,510
`Patent Nos.
`10,257,319;
`10,469,614;
`10,484,510; and
`10,484,511
`Patent Nos.
`10,484,511 and
`10,637,968
`Patent Nos.
`10,484,511 and
`10,637,968
`Patent No.
`10,410,244
`
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Ltd.
`a/k/a BIScience Inc., No. 2-18-cv-00483
`(E.D. Tx.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet,
`No. 2-18-cv-00299 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet,
`No. 2-18-cv-00299 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009)
`Ltd., No. 21-1664 (Fed. Cir.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009)
`Ltd., No. 21-1667 (Fed. Cir.)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science Inc.,
`No. 20-2181 (Fed. Cir.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd.,
`No. 20-2118 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos.
`9,241,044 and
`9,742,866
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`
`Administrative—PTAB
`
`Matter
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01266 (Petition denied)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2021-
`00465 (Petition instituted)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2021-
`00458 (Petition instituted)
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358 (Petition denied)
`
`Subject Matter
`Patent No.
`10,257,319
`
`Patent No.
`9,742,866
`
`Patent No.
`9,241,044
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,510
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01506 (Petition denied)
`Code200, UAB et al v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2021-00249 (Petition denied)
`BI Science (2009) Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc.
`v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-00166
`(Terminated prior to institution decision)
`BI Science (2009) Ltd. a/k/a BIScience Inc.
`v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-00167
`(Terminated prior to institution decision)
`Teso LT, UAB f/k/a UAB Tesonet et al v.
`Luminati Networks Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks
`Ltd., IPR2021-00122 (Petition denied)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati
`Networks Ltd., IPR2021-01492 (Petition
`instituted)
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati
`Networks Ltd., IPR2021-01493 (Petition
`instituted)
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v.
`Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks
`Ltd., IPR2022-00135 (Petition pending)
`The Data Company Technologies Inc. v.
`Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks
`Ltd., IPR2022-00138 (Petition pending)
`
`Patent No.
`10,469,614
`
`Patent No.
`10,637,968
`
`Patent No.
`9,241,044
`
`Patent No.
`9,742,866
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,511
`
`Patent No.
`10,257,319
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,510
`
`Patent No.
`10,257,319
`
`Patent No.
`10,484,510
`
`
`Administrative—Matters Shown in PAIR
`
`In the following, the “’624 Family” refers to patents claiming priority to
`
`provisional application No. 61/249,624 (the provisional of the ’319 patent, filed
`
`Oct. 8, 2009), while the “’815 Family” refers to patents claiming priority to a
`
`later provisional application, No. 61/870,815 (filed Aug. 28, 2013).
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`App. No.
`12/836,059
`14/025,109
`14/468,836
`14/930,894
`15/663,762
`15/957,942
`15/957,945
`15/957,950
`16/031,636
`16/140,749
`16/140,785
`16/214,433
`16/214,451
`16/214,476
`16/214,496
`16/278,104
`16/278,105
`16/278,106
`16/278,107
`16/278,109
`16/292,363
`16/292,382
`16/292,364
`16/292,374
`16/292,382
`16/365,250
`16/365,315
`16/368,002
`16/368,041
`16/396,695
`16/396,696
`16/524,026
`16/566,929
`
`Status/Issued As
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,560,604
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,069,936
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,241,044
`U.S. Pat. No. 9,742,866
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,277,711
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,313,484
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,319
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,225,374
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,616,375
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,652,357
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,659,562
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,469,614
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,440,146
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,652,358
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,721,325
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,523,788
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,469,628
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,491,712
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,484,510
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,484,511
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,469,615
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,447,809
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,582,013
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,582,014
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,637,968
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,637,968
`Pending
`Pending
`
`Related To
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`
`Page 6 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`16/567,496
`16/593,996
`16/593,999
`16/600,504
`16/600,505
`16/600,506
`16/600,507
`16/662,800
`16/662,883
`16/693,306
`16/782,073
`16/782,076
`16/807,661
`16/807,691
`16/865,362
`16/865,364
`16/865,366
`16/910,724
`16/910,863
`16/932,763
`16/932,764
`16/932,766
`16/932,767
`17/019,267
`17/019,268
`17/098,392
`17/146,701
`17/146,625
`17/146,649
`17/146,728
`17/194,272
`17/194,273
`17/194,336
`17/194,339
`17/241,111
`
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,341
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,190,622
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,050,852
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,341
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,344
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,089,135
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,038,989
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,986,216
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,345
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,128,738
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,785,347
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,429
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,297,167
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,931,792
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,958,768
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,044,346
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,303,734
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,879
`Pending
`
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’815 Family
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,880
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,881
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,228,666
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,178,258
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,206,317
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`17/241,113
`17/241,119
`17/331,980
`17/332,001
`17/332,023
`17/332,077
`17/332,116
`17/332,171
`17/332,220
`17/332,260
`17/332,290
`90/014,624
`90/014,652
`17/395,526
`90/014,816
`90/014,827
`90/014,875
`90/014,876
`17/518,601
`17/518,603
`90/019,041
`90/014,920
`17/563,497
`17/563,531
`17/563,578
`17/563,616
`90/014,940
`17/714,423
`17/714,455
`17/714,475
`
`
`
`
`
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`
`Page 8 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`2.1.3.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`Back-up Counsel
`
`
`2.1.4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`George “Jorde” Scott, #62,859
`John Heuton, #62,467
`Craig Tolliver, #45,975
`
`
`
`
`
`Electronic Mail
`
`Postal (and
`hand-delivery) mailing
`address
`Telephone
`Facsimile
`
`(1) jscott@ccrglaw.com
`(2) jheuton@ccrglaw.com
`(3) ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`(214) 521-6400
`(214) 764-8392
`
`Additionally, Petitioner consents to electronic service via e-mail at the e-
`
`mail addresses noted above.
`
`2.2. Other
`
`The USPTO is authorized to charge any required fees, including the fee as
`
`set forth in 37 C.F.R. §42.15(a) and any excess claim fees, to Deposit Account
`
`603576.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ‘510 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting inter partes review challenging the patent claims on the
`
`grounds identified in this Petition. The one-year bar date of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`does not apply to an IPR petition if it is accompanied by a timely joinder
`
`motion. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.104(b), Petitioner states that it seeks cancellation
`
`of the claims listed below on the statutory grounds, patents, and printed
`
`publications stated for each:
`
`
`
`No. Claims
`1, 6-7, 15-16, and
`1
`18-24
`1-2, 6-11, 13, 15-
`16, and 18-24
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1, 6, 10, 15-20, and
`23-24
`1, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-
`20, and 22-24
`1, 6-8, 13, 15-16,
`and 18-24
`1-2, 6-11, 13, 15-
`16, and 18-24
`
`Challenge
`Anticipated by Crowds (§ 102)
`
`Obvious over Crowds + Knowledge of
`POSITA + Request for Comments (“RFC”)
`2616 (§ 103)
`Anticipated by Border (§ 102)
`
`Obvious over Border + Knowledge of
`POSITA + RFC 2616 (§ 103)
`Anticipated by MorphMix (§ 102)
`
`Obvious over MorphMix + Knowledge of
`POSITA + RFC 2616 (§ 103)
`
`
`
`3. DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS (35 U.S.C. § 314(a))
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with NetNut Ltd. v.
`
`Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01493 (“the NetNut IPR”), which the Board
`
`instituted on March 21, 2022. This Petition is substantially identical to the
`
`petition in the NetNut IPR and contains the same grounds (based on the same
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`prior art and supporting evidence) against the same claims, and differs only as
`
`necessary to reflect the fact that it is filed by a different petitioner. See Ex. 1024
`
`(illustrating changes between the instant Petition and the petition in IPR2021-
`
`01493). All exhibits (other than Ex. 1024) filed by Petitioner, including the
`
`expert declaration, are the same exhibits filed in the NetNut IPR, aside from a
`
`change to the document control number on the first page of each exhibit to
`
`indicate filing with this IPR Petition.
`
`4. OVERVIEW OF THE ’510 PATENT
`
`4.1. Claims
`
`The Challenged Claims are listed in Ex. 1003.
`
`The following figure schematically represents the data flow corresponding
`
`to claim 1, and the steps performed by the intermediate device in the middle of
`
`the figure:
`
`
`
`
`
`’510 Patent Claim 1 Data Flow
`
`This is the data flow of a conventional “proxy server”—a device that stands
`
`in the middle to relay requests and responses to and from an ordinary web
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`server. In the case of the ’510 patent, claim 1 recites “establishing a TCP
`
`connection” and that step (4) in the above figure (returning the first content) is
`
`done over that connection. However, as will be addressed, this is also standard,
`
`in prior art in exactly the same context, and hardly merits a patent.
`
`The “client” and “server” labelling of the devices in the claim also do not
`
`distinguish over the prior art.
`
`As will be individually addressed, the dependent Challenged Claims merely
`
`recite additional common steps, for example using headers defined in existing
`
`Internet standards, cached content validation, and the like, commonly found in
`
`proxy devices well known in the art.
`
`4.2. Specification
`
`The ’510 patent uses as an example a peer-to-peer swarm of devices,
`
`provisioned so they can variously act as either “clients” or “servers” (and
`
`sometimes as both), at various times and under various circumstances.
`
`In the disclosure, any of a plurality of “communication devices,” running a
`
`common “acceleration application” 220, can function in different roles,
`
`including as a “client” (device that requests content, for example for the client’s
`
`web browser) “agent” (device that obtains content an origin web server and/or
`
`manages its retrieval from peers), or “peer” (device that continues to cache
`
`content received while the peer acted as a client or agent):
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Fig. 3 from the ’510 patent
`
`
`
`Network 100 shown in Fig. 3 “contains multiple communication devices,”
`
`and “each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent. . . .” Ex.
`
`1001, 4:45-53. The figure shows “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent”
`
`communicating, with the “agent” forming a connection to a server.
`
`The disclosed system preferentially seeks to satisfy requests for web con-
`
`tent, by way of agents, from peer caches established as a result of prior
`
`retrievals. Id., 13:4-14:61.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`However, all requested content still must come from its actual origin. If an
`
`agent determines that the content request cannot be satisfied from peer caches,
`
`processing reverts to a model, more pertinent to the claimed embodiments, in
`
`which the agent serves as a retrieval intermediary, as shown in Fig. 3 of the
`
`’510 patent: in this scenario (i.e., no cache hit among the connected peers), the
`
`agent makes a request directly to the web server for the content, and after the
`
`web server sends the data, the agent responds to the requesting client, listing
`
`itself as the only peer with responsive data, and then, acting as that peer,
`
`transfers the responsive data to the requesting client upon the latter’s request
`
`(id., 14:62-15:12), thus implementing at a high level the characteristic proxy
`
`server data flow first shown above. The Patent further discloses an embodiment
`
`wherein the client and agent devices establish TCP connections between them.
`
`Id., 17:15-19:4.2
`
`4.3. Priority Date
`
`The ’510 patent claims priority to provisional application 61/249,624 (the
`
`“2009 Provisional”) filed on October 8, 2009 (“Priority Date”). (The claimed
`
`priority pre-dates the March 16, 2013 effective date of the First Inventor to File
`
`provisions of the AIA.)
`
`
`2 Petitioner reserves any arguments based on lack of enablement or written
`description, or indefiniteness, which are beyond the scope of this IPR.
`Page 14 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`5.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field to which the
`
`’510 patent pertains would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’
`
`experience working with and programming networked computer systems as of
`
`the Priority Date. Such a person would be familiar with the underlying
`
`principles of Web, Internet, or network communication, data transfer, and
`
`content sharing across networks, including the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols. Ex.
`
`1005 ¶¶ 25-27. See also id. ¶¶ 51-54, as to the knowledge a POSITA would
`
`possess as of the Priority Date.
`
`6. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exs. 1017 and 1020 are an EDTX decision and a supplemental decision
`
`construing terms of the ’510 patent. Petitioner asserts that the court’s
`
`constructions are appropriate:
`
`Agreed constructions adopted by the court :
`
`Term
`preamble
`web server
`receiving, from the second server,
`the first content identifier
`during, as part of, or in response to,
`a start up
`
`Construction
`limiting
`plain and ordinary meaning
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`plain and ordinary meaning
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 77
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Disputed constructions, as construed by the court:
`
`Term
`client device
`
`first server
`second server
`
`Court’s Construction
`communication device that is
`operating in the role of a client
`plain and ordinary meaning
`server that is not the client device
`(further clarified by supplemental
`order, see below)
`
`
`Supplemental ruling (Ex. 1020, 8, 10):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Term
`second server
`
`Court’s Clarification
`a device that is operating in the
`role of a server and that is not the
`first client device
`
`
`As to “client device,” the court cited Patent Owner’s extrinsic evidence, the
`
`W3C Glossary of Terms for Device Independence. See Ex. 1018, 4; Ex. 1017,
`
`12. In IPRs concerning Patent Owner’s related patents, the Board construed
`
`“client device” in almost these exact terms, as “a device that is operating in the
`
`role of a client by requesting services, functionalities, or resources from other
`
`devices.” IPR-2021-00458, Paper 11 at 19 (concerning Patent Owner’s Patent
`
`No. 9,241,044). See also IPR-2021-00465, Paper 11 at 14-15 (same, concerning
`
`Patent Owner’s Patent No. 9,742,866).
`
`In its supplemental ruling (Ex. 1020), the court reaffirmed that “a
`
`component can be configured to operate in different roles.” Ex. 1020, 10
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`As to “second server,” Patent Owner argued only that it should be distinct
`
`from both the client device and the web server. See Ex. 1017, 13. The court
`
`went with the first of these requirements, but not the second (id., 14), which, for
`
`purposes of this Petition only, Petitioner asserts is reasonable, and in any case
`
`makes no difference as to the art cited herein.3
`
`The court’s supplemental ruling, approving the clarification that the second
`
`server is a device “operating in the role of a server,” follows the definition of
`
`“server” in the W3C Glossary extrinsic evidence source that the court relied on
`
`for its similar construction of “client device”. See Ex. 1018, 5 (“The role
`
`adopted by an application when it is supplying resources or resource
`
`manifestations.”).
`
`At a subsequent pretrial conference, the court further instructed that Patent
`
`Owner’s expert could not testify “that a client device is specifically not a
`
`server.” Ex. 1021 at 64.
`
`In IPR2021-00458, concerning Patent Owner’s patent No. 9,241,044
`
`(similar in substance, though claiming later priority), the Board construed
`
`“server” in a similar manner, as a “program accepting and servicing requests
`
`from clients; a server may be an origin server or a proxy server.” IPR2021-
`
`00458, Paper 11 at 21.
`
`
`3 The court also held claim 13 indefinite, as unclear with regard to what steps
`were recited. Ex. 1017, 22. For purposes hereof, Petitioner will assume that
`claim 13 refers to the steps of claim 1.
`
`
`
`Page 17 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Petitioner proposes a construction of “second server” corresponding to the
`
`court’s clarification (a device that is operating in the role of a server and that is
`
`not the first client device).
`
`Consistent with
`
`these constructions,
`
`the claim
`
`terms map
`
`to
`
`the
`
`specification disclosure as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The “second server” is marked in green (client 102). The “client device” is
`
`Figure 3 of the ’510 patent (annotated)
`
`marked in red (agent 122), and the “first server” is marked in blue (web server
`
`
`
`Page 18 of 77
`
`
`
`
`
`2042-04-510-IPR (US 10,484,510)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`152). While this is a logical and reasonable mapping, it is more than that: thi