`____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-_____
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`____________________
`
`EXPERT DECLARATION OF KEITH J. TERUYA
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 1 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Contents
`
`1 INTRODUCTION
`
`2 QUALIFICATIONS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`7
`
`8
`
`8
`
`3 My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`4 My Understanding of Anticipation
`
`5 My Understanding of Obviousness
`
`6 Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`7 OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS
`
`7.1 Background of the ’319 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`7.2 The Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
`
`8 OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME OF FIL-
`
`ING
`
`12
`
`8.1 Crowds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
`
`8.2 Border . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
`
`8.3 MorphMix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
`
`8.4 Internet RFCs and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
`
`9 GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 19, 21-29 BY CROWDS 18
`
`9.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
`
`9.2 Claims 19, and 28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
`
`9.2.1 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
`
`9.3 Claim 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`
`9.4 Claim 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
`
`Page i of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 2 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`9.5 Claim 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
`
`10 GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19, and
`
`21-29 BY CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
`
`28
`
`10.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
`
`10.2 Claim 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
`
`10.3 Claims 14-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`
`10.4 Claims 17-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
`
`10.5 Claims 19, and 21-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`
`11 GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25,
`
`AND 27-29 BY BORDER
`
`33
`
`11.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
`
`11.2 Claim 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
`
`11.3 Claim 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
`
`11.4 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
`
`11.5 Claim 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
`
`11.6 Claims 19 and 28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
`
`12 GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14-15, 17-18,
`
`21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 BY BORDER + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`
`KNOWLEDGE
`
`45
`
`12.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
`
`12.2 Claim 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
`
`12.3 Claims 17 and 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
`
`12.4 Claims 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
`
`13 GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 17, 19, 21-29 BY
`
`MORPHMIX
`
`49
`
`Page ii of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 3 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`13.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
`
`13.2 Claim 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
`
`13.3 Claims 19 and 28-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
`
`13.3.1Claim 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
`
`13.4 Claims 21-22 and 24-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
`
`13.5 Claim 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`
`13.6 Claim 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
`
`14 GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19, and
`
`21-29 BY MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE
`
`63
`
`14.1 Claim 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
`
`14.2 Claim 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
`
`14.3 Claims 14 and 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
`
`14.4 Claim 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
`
`14.5 Claims 19 and 21-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
`
`Page iii of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 4 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
`IPR2022-_____
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`EXHIBITS LIST
`
`1001 United States Patent No. 10,257,319 to Shribman et al.
`
`1002 File History for United States Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`1003 Petitioners’ Chart of Challenged Claims
`
`1004 Luminati’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`1005 Declaration of Keith J. Teruya with curriculum vitae
`1006 Reiter, M. et al., 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 Rennhard, M., 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. et al., “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.)
`1018 W3C, Glossary of Terms for Device Independence, January 2005
`1019 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2009/0037977 to Gai et al.
`
`1020 Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`1021 Transcript of Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`1022 Declaration of Wensheng Ma (regarding exhibits submitted herein)
`
`v
`
`Page iv of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 5 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`I, KEITH J. TERUYA, declare the following:
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`I have been retained by counsel for Major Data UAB to provide
`my opinions on certain issues in connection with claims 1-29 of U.S.
`Patent No. 10,257,319 (the ’319 patent).
`I am being compensated at a normal hourly rate for my time in
`2.
`preparing this declaration, with reimbursement for actual expenses. My
`compensation is not tied to the outcome of this matter, and is not based
`on the substance of the opinions rendered here.
`In preparing my opinions expressed herein, I have reviewed the
`3.
`’319 patent and its prosecution history and all of the patents and printed
`publications listed above. I may rely upon these materials, my knowledge
`and experience, and/or additional materials to rebut arguments raised by
`the patent owner. Further, I may also consider additional documents and
`information in forming any necessary opinions, including documents that
`may not yet have been provided to me.
`I am familiar with the technology described in the ’319 patent as
`4.
`of its earliest claimed priority date of October 8, 2009. I have been asked
`to provide my technical review, analysis, insights, and opinions regarding
`the ’319 patent. I have used my experience and insight along with the
`above-noted references as the basis for my opinions, which support the
`grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of the ’319 Patent.
`
`Page 1 of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 6 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`2. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`5.
`
`I have a long professional background in information technology
`
`and network engineering, and for the past 20 years I have been the chief
`
`executive officer of a specialized Internet hosting company that I founded,
`
`which among other things provides Tier I Network Operations Center ca-
`
`pabilities for corporations, local municipalities, Federal Government pro-
`
`grams, and regulatory agencies in and around southern California.
`
`6. My day-to-day work in my present capacity involves direct hands-
`
`on as well as strategic involvement in the issues of networked data distri-
`
`bution and access that are addressed by the ’319 patent, including with-
`
`out limitation architecting and configuring high-capacity content servers,
`
`proxy servers, content distribution networks (CDNs), edge and origin ser-
`
`vers, peer-to-peer communications, as well as the lower-level routing and
`
`switching infrastructure and communications protocols and standards
`
`underlying such systems.
`
`7.
`
`In prior positions, I was the Chief Technology Architect (in addi-
`
`tion to being the CEO) for 15 years for a company I founded that was the
`
`original communications technology “skunk-works” for Novell Inc. In this
`
`capacity, I designed basic and advanced telecommunications and network
`
`interfaces for Novell and other companies and developed a mastery of the
`
`standards and protocols underlying the Internet. I authored the Network
`
`Communications Services Interface (“NCSI”) that became a de-facto com-
`
`munications software LAN/WAN standard, with more than 3 million de-
`
`ployments of software. I also developed protocol adjustments in Novell IPX
`
`Protocol for adaptive packet buffering required by LAN/WAN communica-
`
`tion (Asynchronous and LAPB X.25) gateways, receiving Industry Product
`
`of the Year awards for successive years (1988, 1990, 1991 and 1996).
`
`Page 2 of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 7 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`8.
`
`I previously served for 10 years architecting network information
`
`processing technologies for Goldman Sachs as a senior consultant. In this
`
`capacity, I was the architect, designer, development manager, and devel-
`
`oper in Goldman’s Network Workstation Technologies Department. I was
`
`also the architect of Goldman’s product strategy and deployment of on-
`
`line delivery of consolidated live market data information into local and
`
`wide area network-based workstations for mission critical securities trad-
`
`ing operations in the worldwide trading rooms of the firm. In particular, I
`
`developed proprietary adaptive buffering protocols to mitigate stream de-
`
`lays when terrestrial transatlantic data links were routed through backup
`
`satellite connections affecting the flow of steaming market data feeds used
`
`for program trading operations.
`
`9.
`
`As Chief Technology Officer of ShowBizData Inc. between 2000
`
`and 2002 as an “early adopter” I pioneered the online Internet streaming
`
`of various lived events of the Cannes Film Festival, BFTA Awards and the
`
`Sundance Film Festival using both commercial and proprietary systems
`
`we architected and developed.
`
`10.
`
`I am also a Network Computing Paradigm Award recipient.
`
`11. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
`
`12.
`
`I believe that I am qualified to provide reliable opinions in the
`
`field of the ’319 Patent, including what a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) would have understood from the prior art in this field at that
`
`time and his or her view of obviousness therein.
`
`Page 3 of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 8 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`3. My Understanding of Claim Construction
`
`13.
`
`I understand that, before the PTAB, claims are to be given their
`
`ordinary and customary meaning in light of the specification as would have
`
`been read by a POSITA.
`
`4. My Understanding of Anticipation
`
`14.
`
`I understand that for purposes of an inter partes review (IPR) pro-
`
`ceeding, the only bases for invalidity that may be considered are patents
`
`and printed publications. In particular whether the claims in question are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, by patents or printed publications.
`
`15.
`
`I understand that a claim is considered anticipated (under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102) if each and every limitation of the claim may be found, ex-
`
`pressly or inherently, within the disclosure of a single prior art reference
`
`(patent or printed publication), with the features arranged in the reference
`
`in the manner claimed.
`
`16. My understanding of inherent disclosure of a claimed feature by a
`
`prior art reference is that it means the prior art reference must necessarily
`
`reflect the presence or operation of the feature (and that possibility or even
`
`strong likelihood that the feature is present is not sufficient).
`
`5. My Understanding of Obviousness
`
`17.
`
`I understand a patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time the invention was made.
`
`This means that even if all of the requirements of the claim cannot be
`
`found in a single prior art reference that would anticipate the claim, the
`
`Page 4 of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 9 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`claim can still be invalid based on a combination of references that would
`
`have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that an obviousness analysis requires an under-
`
`standing of the scope and content of the prior art, any differences between
`
`the alleged invention and the prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in
`
`evaluating the pertinent art.
`
`19.
`
`I further understand that to prove prior art or a combination of
`
`prior art renders a patent claim obvious, it is necessary to:
`
`(1) identify
`
`the particular references that, singly or in combination, make the patent
`
`claim obvious; (2) specifically identify which elements of the patent claim
`
`appear in each of the asserted references; and (3) explain how the prior
`
`art references could have been combined in order to create the inventions
`
`claimed in the challenged claim, and why it would have been obvious to a
`
`POSITA at the time of the alleged invention to have made that combination.
`
`I also understand that it is sufficient to establish invalidity if the combined
`
`limitations of any one embodiment within the scope of the claim may be
`
`found in or are obvious over the prior art.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that exemplary rationales that may support a con-
`
`clusion of obviousness include:
`
`• Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain pre-
`
`dictable results;
`
`• Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or prod-
`
`ucts) in the same way;
`
`Page 5 of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 10 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`• Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product)
`
`ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, pre-
`
`dictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
`
`• Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for
`
`use in either the same field or a different one based on design incen-
`
`tives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art; and
`
`• Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSITA to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
`
`art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
`
`21.
`
`I further understand that the above list of rationales provided is
`
`not all-inclusive. Other rationales may also be sufficient, so long as there
`
`is a link between the factual underpinnings relied on and an articulated
`
`rationale for why those factors render the invention obvious.
`
`22.
`
`I understand certain objective indicia can also be important evi-
`
`dence regarding whether a patent is obvious or nonobvious. Such indicia
`
`include: (1) commercial success of products covered by the patent claims;
`
`(2) a long-felt need for the invention; (3) failed attempts by others to make
`
`the invention; (4) copying of the invention by others in the field; (5) unex-
`
`pected results achieved by the invention as compared to the closest prior
`
`art; (6) praise of the invention by the infringer or others in the field; (7) the
`
`taking of licenses under the patent by others; (8) expressions of surprise
`
`by experts and those skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and
`
`(9) the patentee proceeded contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior
`
`art.
`
`I understand that to have legal weight, there must be a nexus—a
`
`Page 6 of 68
`
`Exhibit 1005
`Page 11 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`connection—between any such secondary considerations and the alleged
`
`invention.
`
`23.
`
`I also understand that “obviousness” is a legal conclusion based
`
`on the underlying factual issues of the scope and content of the prior art,
`
`the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the field of the prior art, and any objective indicia of
`
`non-obviousness. For that reason, I am not rendering a legal opinion on
`
`the ultimate legal question of obviousness.
`
`24. Rather, my testimony addresses the underlying facts and provides
`
`factual analysis that would support a legal conclusion of obviousness or
`
`non-obviousness. When I use the term obvious, it is with reference to the
`
`perspective of one of ordinary skill at the time of claimed invention.
`
`6. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`25.
`
`As part of this inquiry, I have been asked to consider the level
`
`of ordinary skill in the field that someone would have had at the time
`
`the claimed invention was made. In deciding the level of ordinary skill, I
`
`considered the following:
`
`• the levels of education and experience of persons working in the field;
`
`• the types of problems encountered in the field; and
`
`• the sophistication of the technology.
`
`26. The ’319 patent presumes familiarity with Internet standards and
`
`practices, including Internet Requests for Comment (RFCs), to which the
`
`’319 patent cites. Persons who have the skill to operate in this field will
`
`have a working familiarity with the relevant RFCs.
`
`Page 7 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 12 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`27.
`
`The education and/or working experience necessary to acquire
`
`the requisite familiarity with the subject matter to qualify as a POSITA
`
`would have included either (1) a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a field
`
`such as Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Sci-
`
`ence, or an equivalent field that includes network engineering as a topic
`
`of study, plus two or more years of practical academic or industry tech-
`
`nical experience in the computer networking field, such as serving as an
`
`engineer for an Internet service provider performing network design, de-
`
`velopment, or configuration tasks, or as a software developer for network
`
`communications software or related utility software, or (2) or at least three
`
`years’ full-time technical experience as stated (or an equivalent combina-
`
`tion of academic study and work experience). Such a person would be
`
`familiar with the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network com-
`
`munications, data transfers, and content sharing across networks, includ-
`
`ing the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols.
`
`7. OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS
`
`7.1. Background of the ’319 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`28. The following description is made with reference to Fig. 3 of the
`
`’319 patent See Ex. 1001, Fig. 3.
`
`Page 8 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 13 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`Fig. 3 from the ’319 patent
`
`29. The ’319 patent uses as an example a peer-to-peer swarm of de-
`
`vices that are provisioned so that they can variously act as either “clients”
`
`or “servers” (and sometimes as both), at various times and under various
`
`circumstances.
`
`30.
`
`In this disclosure, any of a plurality of “communication devices,”
`
`running a common “acceleration application” 220, can function in different
`
`roles, including as a “client” (device that requests content, for example for
`
`the client’s web browser) “agent” (device that obtains content an origin
`
`Page 9 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 14 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`web server and/or manages its retrieval from peers), or “peer” (device that
`
`continues to cache content previously received while the peer was acting
`
`as a client or agent):
`
`31. The ’319 patent specification states with respect to Figure 3 that
`
`“[t]he network 100 of Fig. 3 contains multiple communication devices,” and
`
`that “each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent. . . .”
`
`Ex. 1001 at 4:44-49. Figure 3 depicts “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent”
`
`communicating, with the “agent” forming a connection to the web server.
`
`32. Communication requests generated by applications (e.g., a web
`
`browser) are intercepted by software running on the same machine.
`
`Id.
`
`at 4:46-50. The IP address of the content server for the communication
`
`request (origin server) is transmitted to the acceleration server, which pro-
`
`vides to the content requester a list of agents to use for retrieving content
`
`from the IP address of the origin server. Id. at 13:4-15.
`
`33.
`
`The requesting device then sends a copy of the communication
`
`request itself (URL) to each of the specified agents. One or more of the
`
`agents respond with a list of peers that have previously seen some or all of
`
`the content responsive to this request (after checking whether this data is
`
`still valid). Id. at 13:31-36, 13:50-61. The client then downloads the data
`
`from these peers in parts and in parallel. See id. at Abstract, 15:12-35.
`
`Retrieving the content as previously cached with peers thereby potentially
`
`speeds up the web transfer, releasing congestion from the Web by fetch-
`
`ing the information from multiple sources, and relieving traffic from Web
`
`servers by offloading the data transfers from them to peers that are nearby
`
`the requester. Id. at Abstract, 15:13-52.
`
`34. The preferred operation of this arrangement is for the requesting
`
`clients to obtain as much of the desired content as feasible from data
`
`Page 10 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 15 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`that has already been cached by other peer devices, as a result of prior
`
`retrievals. See id. at 15:43-52.
`
`35. However, all requested content still has to come from its actual
`
`origin in the first instance. In the event an agent determines that the con-
`
`tent request cannot be satisfied from data already cached with peers, the
`
`order of processing reverts to a model in which the agent serves as a re-
`
`trieval intermediary, as shown in Fig. 3 of the ’319 patent: in this scenario
`
`(i.e., no cache hit among the connected peers), the agent makes a request
`
`directly to the web server for the content, and after the web server sends
`
`the data, the agent responds to the requesting client, listing itself as the
`
`only peer with responsive data, and then, acting as that peer, it transfers
`
`the responsive data to the requesting client upon the latter’s request (id.
`
`at 14:62-15:11), thus implementing at a high level the characteristic proxy
`
`server data flow first shown above.
`
`7.2. The Claims
`
`36. Claim 1 of the ’319 patent concerns a method for use with a “first
`
`client device,” in which this first client device (1) receives a first content
`
`identifier from a “second server”; (2) sends a Hypertext Transfer Protocol
`
`(HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier to a “first server”
`
`over the Internet; (3) receives first content identified by the “first content
`
`identifier” from the “first server” over the Internet in response to the send-
`
`ing of the first content identifier; and (4) sends the first content to the
`
`“second server” in response to receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`37. Despite using words like “first client device,” “first server,” and
`
`“second server,” claim 1 recites little more than the basic functionality of a
`
`proxy server, which was well-known to a POSITA well before 2009.
`
`Page 11 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 16 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`38. The dependent claims add certain additional features to claim 1,
`
`such as that the first client device is identified by a MAC address (claim
`
`2), caching capabilities (e.g., claims 12-16), persistent connections (e.g.,
`
`claims 17 and 18), and serial execution of steps (1)-(4) (claim 27). I address
`
`certain of these dependent claims, in addition to claim 1, in the following.
`
`8. OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE ART AT THE TIME
`
`OF FILING
`
`8.1. Crowds
`
`39. Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions (“Crowds” (Ex. 1006))
`
`is an article authored by Michael K. Reiter of Bell Laboratories and Aviel
`
`D. Rubin of AT&T Labs, and published in 1998 in the ACM Transactions
`
`on Information and System Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, November 1998, Pages
`
`66-92. Crowds states that it was published in November 1998.
`
`40. Crowds is a system “for protecting users’ anonymity on the world-
`
`wide-web.” Ex. 1006 at 66.
`
`“Web servers are unable to learn the true
`
`source of a request because it is equally likely to have originated from any
`
`member of the crowd.” Id. In Crowds, a user’s request to a web server is
`
`not passed directly to the web server, but instead to a random member of
`
`the crowd, who either submits the request directly to the web server or for-
`
`wards it again. The web request is eventually submitted to the web server
`
`by a random member, “thus preventing the end server from identifying its
`
`true initiator.” Id. at 67.
`
`41. A “user is represented in a crowd by a process on her computer
`
`called a jondo.” Id. at 73. Once admitted to the crowd, the jondo receives
`
`“the current membership of the crowd and information that enables this
`
`Page 12 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 17 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`jondo to participate in the crowd.” Id. After receiving the user request from
`
`the browser, the jondo “initiates the establishment of a random path of
`
`jondos that carries its users’ transactions to and from their intended web
`
`servers.” Id.
`
`42. Crowds illustrates example jondo paths in Figure 2:
`
`Figure 2 of Crowds
`
`43.
`
`This figure reflects a “chained” structure of content retrieval
`
`devices, in which the device closest to the web server (e.g., jondo 6) acts
`
`as an HTTP proxy, and in turn communicates with the next device (jondo
`
`4) closer in the chain to the requesting user (jondo 5). As will be seen,
`
`the devices satisfy functional aspects as well as the “client” and “server”
`
`labelling of claim 1, thereby reflecting all of the elements of that claim.
`
`Numerous dependent claims are likewise anticipated as well.
`
`Page 13 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 18 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`8.2. Border
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`44. United States Patent 6,795,848 (“Border” (Ex. 1017)) issued to
`
`Border et al. on September 21, 2004. Border is “related to retrieving web
`
`content using proxy servers.” Ex. 1012 at 1:16-18. According to Border,
`
`benefits in doing so include “reliev[ing] traffic congestion and network la-
`
`tency.” Id. at 1:26.
`
`45. The communication system 100 of Border includes user station
`
`101, downstream proxy server 105, upstream proxy server 107, and web
`
`server 109:
`
`Figure 1 of Border
`
`Id. at Fig. 1. This illustration depicts the content request going from right
`
`to left. User stations 101 use communication system 100 to request and
`
`receive web content stored on web servers 109.
`
`Id. at 1:34-35. Proxy
`
`servers 105 and 107 act as intermediary devices between one or more
`
`user stations 101 and many web servers 109. Id. at 4:29-31.
`
`46. Border discloses proxy servers that can operate on “general pur-
`
`pose personal computers,” and further discloses an exemplary computer
`
`Page 14 of 68
`
`. Exhibit 1005
`Page 19 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`system 701 that can be configured as a proxy server. Id. at 4:52-54; 10:6-
`
`11:54. Computer system 701 is comprised of generic personal computer
`
`components, such as a processor, memory, storage, a network interface
`
`card, and input/output devices. Id. at 10:6-11:54. Proxy servers 105 and
`
`107 communicate using a persistent HTTP over TCP connection, and are
`
`referenced as HTTP proxy servers. Id. at 4:8-14; 4:29-31.
`
`47. Figure 2 of Border shows the communications that occur when a
`
`user station requests and receives web content stored on a web server:
`
`Figure 2 of Border
`
`Id. at Fig. 2. To request web content at a particular URL, a browser 103
`
`of user station 101 sends an HTTP GET request containing the URL to
`
`downstream proxy server 105. Id. at 5:14-17. If downstream proxy server
`
`Page 15 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 20 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`105 does not have a copy of the content stored in its cache, downstream
`
`server 105 sends an HTTP GET request containing the URL to upstream
`
`proxy server 107. If upstream proxy server 107 does not have a copy, it
`
`sends an HTTP GET request to web server 109. Web server 109 transmits
`
`the content at the URL to upstream server 107, which stores the content in
`
`its cache. Upstream server 107 then forwards the content to downstream
`
`server 105, which stores the content in its cache, and then forwards the
`
`content to web browser 103.
`
`8.3. MorphMix
`
`48.
`
`MorphMix - A Peer-to-Peer-based System for Anonymous Inter-
`
`net Access (“MorphMix” (Ex. 1008)) is a doctoral thesis authored by Marc
`
`Rennhard, of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Computer Engi-
`
`neering and Networks Laboratory; Zurich, Switzerland. MorphMix states
`
`that it was published in 2004.
`
`49. MorphMix states its goal as “achieving anonymous Internet ac-
`
`cess” and “to provide anonymity for the masses and aim at a large number
`
`of nodes distributed all around the world.” Ex. 1008 at 14, 109. An in-
`
`dividual can join MorphMix with a computer “connected to the Internet”
`
`that is capable of running applications “such as web browsers” and that
`
`has an IP address. Id. at 234.
`
`50. MorphMix describes a set of “nodes,” each node identified by its IP
`
`address and connected to one or more other MorphMix nodes at any time,
`
`where there is a TCP connection between any two connected nodes. Id. at
`
`98-99. To access an Internet web server anonymously, a node “establishes
`
`a circuit via some other nodes” forming an “anonymous tunnel.” Id. at 99.
`
`If a web browser sends a request to a node, the first node sends the IP
`
`Page 16 of 68
`
` Exhibit 1005
`Page 21 of 80
`
`Major Data
`
`
`
` (US 10,257,319)
`
`Declaration of Keith J. Teruya
`
`address and port of the targeted web server “to the final node.” Id. at 103.
`
`The final node then “connects to the server” and the “connection has been
`
`established.” Id. “Sending data back from the server to the client works
`
`exactly in the opposite way.” Id. at 105.
`
`8.4.
`
`Internet RFCs and Standards
`
`51. The background, against which every POSITA in the field works,
`
`is specified in published and well-known Internet RFCs, and in standards
`
`promulgated by standards bodies such as the International Standards Or-
`
`ganization (ISO). These bodies publish their standards online as a regular
`
`activity, which are relied on and considered definitive by the Internet en-
`
`gineering community. The web sites of the standards organizations are
`
`intended as official channels of publication. The publication dates noted
`
`in the standards documents themselves are reliable.
`
`52.
`
`It is well known that RFCs are initially published on the website
`
`of the Internet Engineering Task Force (ietf.org/rfc.html), and are publicly
`
`accessible on the Internet. Based on my long history of work in this field,
`
`in many complex projects, I can attest that RFCs are widely looked to
`
`throughout the Internet community for definitive guidance on the latest
`
`standards for building and integrating Internet services. This has been
`
`true for decades now. As of 2009, RFCs were (as they are today) indexed by
`
`and instantly searchable and retrievable through Internet search engines.
`
`The title of the RFCs themselves (“Request for Comments