`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-00915
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`____________________
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. §42
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`2. STATUTORY PREDICATES ........................................................................... 2
`2.1. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)......................................................... 2
`2.1.1. Real Parties-In-Interest .......................................................................... 2
`2.1.2. Related Matters ...................................................................................... 3
`2.1.3. Lead and Backup Counsel ..................................................................... 9
`2.1.4. Service Information .............................................................................10
`2.2. Other ........................................................................................................10
`3. DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................11
`4. OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 PATENT .............................................................12
`4.1. Claims .....................................................................................................12
`4.2. Specification ............................................................................................14
`4.3. Priority Date ............................................................................................16
`5. LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ....................................................................16
`6. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .............................................................................17
`7. OVERVIEW OF CITED ART .........................................................................22
`7.1. Crowds ....................................................................................................22
`7.2. MorphMix ...............................................................................................23
`7.3. Border ......................................................................................................23
`7.4. RFCs ........................................................................................................23
`8. GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY .....................................................................24
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`8.1. GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 19, and 21-29
`BY CROWDS .........................................................................................24
`8.1.1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................25
`8.1.2. Claims 19, and 28-29 (corresponding recorded media,
`downloading, and device) .....................................................................34
`8.1.3. Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP) ..........................34
`8.1.4. Claim 23 (running a browser) .............................................................35
`8.1.5. Claim 26 (client O/S) ..........................................................................35
`8.1.6. Claim 27 (sequential execution) ..........................................................36
`8.2. GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19,
`AND 21-29 OVER CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .......................................................................................36
`8.2.1. Claim 1 .................................................................................................37
`8.2.2. Claim 2 (client device identifies itself on startup) ..............................39
`8.2.3. Claims 14-15 (validity check) .............................................................40
`8.2.4. Claims 17-18 (periodically communicating).......................................40
`8.2.5. Claims 19 and 21-29 ............................................................................41
`8.3. GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14, 21-22,
`24-25, AND 27-29 BY BORDER ..........................................................41
`8.3.1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................44
`8.3.2. Claim 12 (storing the received content) ..............................................50
`8.3.3. Claim 14 (validity check) ....................................................................50
`8.3.4. Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP) ..........................51
`8.3.5. Claim 27 (sequential execution) ..........................................................52
`8.3.6. Claims 28-29 (corresponding recorded media and device).................52
`
`iii
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`8.4. GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 12, 14-15, 17-19,
`21- 22, 24-25, AND 27-29 OVER BORDER + RFC 2616 +
`GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ...................................................................53
`8.4.1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................54
`8.4.2. Claim 15 (validity check, RFC 2616) .................................................55
`8.4.3. Claims 17-18 (periodically communicating).......................................56
`8.4.4. Claim 19 (downloading software application) ....................................57
`8.4.5. Claims 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 ..............................................57
`8.5. GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 17, 19, AND
`21-29 BY MORPHMIX ..........................................................................58
`8.5.1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................60
`8.5.2. Claim 17 (periodically communicating) .............................................67
`8.5.3. Claims 19 and 28-29 (corresponding recorded media,
`downloading, and device) .....................................................................68
`8.5.4.
`Claim 23 (web-page and browser) .............................................68
`8.5.5. Claims 21-22 and 24-25 (communications via TCP) ..........................69
`8.5.6. Claim 26 (client O/S) ..........................................................................70
`8.5.7. Claim 27 (sequential execution) ..........................................................70
`8.6. GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 14-15, 17-19,
`21-29 OVER MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL
`KNOWLEDGE .......................................................................................70
`8.6.1. Claim 1 ................................................................................................71
`8.6.2. Claim 2 (client device identifies itself at startup) ................................72
`8.6.3. Claims 14-15 (validity check) .............................................................74
`8.6.4. Claim 18 (periodically communicating; keep-alives) .........................75
`8.6.5. Claims 19 and 21-29 ............................................................................75
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`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 (Jan. 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
`
`

`

`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`Petitioner Major Data UAB (“Petitioner” or “Major Data”) seeks inter
`
`partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-29
`
`(“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, Ex. 1001 (the “’319 patent”
`
`or the “Patent”). The Petition is supported by the Exhibits listed above, including
`
`the Expert Declaration of Keith J. Teruya (Ex. 1005).
`
`The Patent Owner is Bright Data Ltd. (formerly known as Luminati
`
`Networks Ltd.) (“Patent Owner”). Since 2018, Patent Owner has been suing its
`
`competitors in this field on numerous patents stemming from two provisional
`
`applications filed respectively in 2009 (relevant to this case) and 2013.
`
`The sum and substance of claim 1 of the ’319 patent is simply the ordinary
`
`process of retrieving content from a web server through a proxy:
`
`second server <—> client (proxy) device <—> web server
`
`Patent Owner has asserted that the manner in which the claim language
`
`labels the device in the middle (above), as a “client” (rather than a “server”)
`
`defines a patentably unique “architecture.” However, court constructions have
`
`rejected the narrow construction of “client” and “server” on which Patent Owner
`
`would rely to support that argument. Even if one were to accept Patent Owner’s
`
`unreasonably narrow constructions, there are numerous examples of proxy
`
`retrieval scenarios in the prior art that easily meet the claim requirements. The ’319
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`patent was previously challenged, on the same art presented herein, in a petition
`
`(by another competitor) whose institution was denied, but on discretionary
`
`grounds. See Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266,
`
`Paper 18 at 2 (generally, the “’1266 IPR”). The present Petition arises in a different
`
`posture, being filed absent any lawsuit pending against Petitioner. That timing,
`
`plus the plain deficiencies of the ’319 patent, strongly favor PTAB review.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with NetNut Ltd. v. Bright
`
`Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492 (“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.
`
`2.
`
`STATUTORY PREDICATES
`
`2.1. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)
`
`2.1.1. Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real party-in-interest is Petitioner Major Data UAB. (“Petitioner” or
`
`“Major Data”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`2.1.2. Related Matters
`
`Judicial
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`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.)
`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.)
`
`Subject Matter
`Patent Nos. 10,257,319;
`10,484,510
`Patent Nos. 10,257,319;
`10,469,614; 10,484,510;
`10,484,511; 10,637,968
`
`Patent Nos. 10,257,319;
`10,469,614; 10,484,510
`
`Patent Nos. 10,257,319;
`10,469,614; 10,484,510;
`10,484,511
`Patent Nos. 10,484,511;
`10,637,968
`
`Patent Nos. 10,484,511;
`10,637,968
`Patent No. 10,410,244
`
`Patent Nos. 9,241,044;
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos. 9,241,044;
`9,742,866
`Patent Nos. 9,241,044;
`9,742,866
`
`3
`
`

`

`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.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Ninja-Tech, SIA, No. 2:21-
`cv-434 (E.D. Tx.)
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`Patent Nos. 9,241,044;
`9,742,866
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`Appeal
`
`Patent Nos. 10,257,319;
`10,484,510
`
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`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)
`Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2022-00861
`(Petition pending)
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`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
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2022-00862
`(Petition pending)
`
`
`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).
`
`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
`
`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
`
`6
`
`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
`
`

`

`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
`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
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`’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
`’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
`
`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
`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
`
`7
`
`

`

`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
`17/241,113
`17/241,119
`17/331,980
`17/332,001
`17/332,023
`17/332,077
`17/332,116
`17/332,171
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`’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
`’815 Family
`’815 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`’624 Family
`
`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
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,880
`U.S. Pat. No. 11,233,881
`
`8
`
`

`

`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
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,257,319
`U.S. Pat. No. 10,484,510
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`Pending
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`’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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`2.1.3. Lead and Backup Counsel
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Liang Huang (Reg. No. 67,016)
`
`Back-up Counsel
`
`Wensheng Ma (Reg. No. 80,420)
`
`9
`
`

`

`2.1.4. Service Information
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`Electronic Mail
`
`Postal (and hand-
`delivery) mailing address
`
`Telephone
`Facsimile
`
`(1) rhuang@mkwllp.com
`(2) wma@mkwllp.com
`(3) jbartlett@mkwllp.com
`Mauriel Kapouytian Woods LLP
`15 W. 26 Street, 7th Floor
`New York, NY 10010
`415-738-6328
`212-529-5132
`
`
`
`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 50-
`
`4242.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.104(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’319 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. Petitioner has not been subject to an infringement suit
`
`asserting the ’319 patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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
`1, 19, 21-22, and 24-29
`2
`1-2, 14-15, 17-19, 21-29
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`6
`
`1, 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and
`27-29
`1, 12, 14-15, 17-18, 21-22,
`24-25, and 27-29
`
`1, 17, 19, 21-29
`1-2, 14-15, 17-19, 21-29
`
`Challenge
`§ 102 Crowds
`§ 103 Crowds + Knowledge of
`POSITA + RFC 2616
`§ 102 Border
`
`§ 103 Border + Knowledge of
`POSITA + RFC 2616
`§ 102 MorphMix
`§ 103 MorphMix + Knowledge of
`POSITA + RFC 2616 (§ 103)
`
`
`3. DISCRETIONARY CONSIDERATIONS
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with NetNut Ltd. v. Bright
`
`Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492 (“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. All exhibits filed by Petitioner, including the expert
`
`declaration, are substantially the same as the exhibits filed in the NetNut IPR. A
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`change to the document control number on the first page of each exhibit was made
`
`to indicate filing with this IPR Petition. An additional certifying declaration Ex. 1022
`
`by Petitioner’s counsel, Wensheng Ma is also included.
`
`4. OVERVIEW OF THE ’319 PATENT
`
`The ’319 patent resulted from a Track One procedure. Ex. 1002 at 358. The
`
`only art-based rejection was under § 103, based on Fang et al., US2006/0212542,
`
`in view of Zaid et al., US2011/0035503. Id. at 302. The applicant traversed by
`
`arguing that Fang et al. disclosed fetching content from the wrong server (id. at
`
`287-88). The subsequent action was an allowance. Id. at 46.
`
`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):
`
`
`
`
`
`’319 Patent Claim 1 Data Flow
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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 server.
`
`The only other aspect of claim 1 is that it refers to the device in the middle
`
`of this diagram, performing the role of a proxy for purposes of the claim, as a
`
`“client device,” and to the device (on the left), requesting content through the
`
`middle device, as a “server.” However, the “client” labelling of the middle device
`
`follows from the fact that it operates in the role of a client relative to the web
`
`server (on its right). Likewise, the device on the left can be a “server” where it
`
`otherwise also has a role as a server. Thus, the claim’s mere labelling of devices
`
`implies very little. There are no structural or procedural claim limitations that
`
`require either the left-hand or middle devices to have any special features or
`
`capabilities, other than the ability of the left-hand device to act in the role of a
`
`server, and the ability of the middle device to act in the role of a client. Prior art
`
`exists that provides proxy functionality and satisfies these minimal additional role
`
`requirements.
`
`As will be individually addressed, the dependent Challenged Claims merely
`
`recite additional common steps, for example such as that “TCP/IP” is used, or that
`
`an HTTP header used in the prior art RFC 2616 standard is used, additional
`
`features commonly found in proxy devices well known in the art.
`
`13
`
`

`

`4.2. Specification
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`The ’319 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):
`
`
`Fig. 3 from the ’319 patent
`
`14
`
`

`

`Network 100 shown in Fig. 3 “contains multiple communication devices,”
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`
`and “each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent. . . .” Ex.
`
`1001, 4:44-53. The figure shows “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent”
`
`communicating, with the “agent” forming a connection to a server.
`
`Communication requests generated by applications (e.g., a web browser) are
`
`intercepted by software running on the same machine. Id. The IP address of the
`
`content server for the communication request (origin server) is transmitted to the
`
`acceleration server, which provides to the content requester a list of agents to use
`
`for retrieving content from the IP address of the origin server. Id., 13:4-15.
`
`The requesting device then sends a copy of the communication request itself
`
`(URL) to each of the specified agents. One or more 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., 13:31-36, 13:50-61. The client
`
`then downloads the data from these peers in parts and in parallel. Retrieving the
`
`content as previously cached with multiple peers potentially speeds up the web
`
`transfer and reduces traffic with web servers. Id., 15:13-52.
`
`The preferred operation is for requesting clients to obtain as much of the
`
`desired content as feasible from peer caches. See id.
`
`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,
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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 ’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, transfers the responsive
`
`data to the requesting client upon the latter’s request (id., 14:62-15:11), thus
`
`implementing at a high level the characteristic proxy server data flow first shown
`
`above.2
`
`4.3. Priority Date
`
`The ’319 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.)
`
`5.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in the field to which the
`
`’319 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,
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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.1
`
`6. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Exhibits 1017 and 1020 are an EDTX decision and a supplemental decision
`
`construing terms of the ’319 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
`
`Disputed constructions, as construed by the court:
`
`Term
`
`Court’s Construction
`
`
`1 Petitioner reserves any arguments based on lack of enablement or written
`
`description, or indefiniteness, which are beyond the scope of this IPR.
`
`17
`
`

`

`client device
`
`first server
`second server
`
`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`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 at 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 at 4; Ex. 1017 at
`
`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.”
`
`IPR2021-00458, Paper 11 at 19 (concerning Patent Owner’s Patent No. 9,241,044).
`
`See also IPR2021-00465, 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 at 10 (emphasis in
`
`original).
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`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 at 13. The court went
`
`with the first of these requirements,