HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00915
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`1 of 135
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00915
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`1 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................8
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS ..........................................................................................10
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES.......................................................................................12
`
`A. ANTICIPATION .........................................................................................15
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS ..........................................................................................15
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TO THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY.................................22
`
`V.
`
`..25
`
`VI. BACKGROUND OF THE COMMON SPECIFICATION..............................29
`
`VII. REVIEW OF THE COMMON SPECIFICATION.....................................30
`
`VIII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION.........................................................................35
`
`A. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`..............................................37
`
`B. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`......................................................................40
`
`C. PURELY-ROLE BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`EXPRESS CLAIM LANGUAGE .......................................................................42
`
`D. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`FIGURES OF THE SPECIFICATION ...............................................................44
`
`2
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`2 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`1. REVIEW OF FIGURE 1..........................................................................45
`
`2. REVIEW OF FIGURE 3..........................................................................46
`
`3. COMPARISON OF FIGURES 1 AND 3 ................................................47
`
`E. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS CONTRADICT THE
`
`..........................48
`
`1. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF PARENT PATENT NO. 10,069,936..49
`
`2. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF PATENT NO. 10,257,319 ..................52
`
`3. PROSECUTION HISTORY OF CHILD PATENT NO. 10,484,510 .....54
`
`F. PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE
`
`55
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`.............................................................................................................57
`
`.............................................................................................................63
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF CROWDS (EX. 1006)...........................................................66
`
`A.
`
`-
`
`BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..............................................................................69
`
`X.
`
`.........72
`
`3
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`3 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS...................................72
`
`B. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................73
`
`C. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................74
`
`D. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ARCHITECTURE OF CLAIM 1
`
`....................75
`
`XI.
`
`OR IN COMBINATION .........................................................................................78
`
`A. TEACHING AWAY BY CROWDS...........................................................81
`
`XII. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH THE CHALLENGED,
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ..........................................................................................83
`
`A. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`..................................................................................83
`
`B. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`..................................................................................84
`
`C. CROWDS DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM
`
`..................................................................................84
`
`4
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`4 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`XIII. OVERVIEW OF BORDER (EX. 1012)......................................................86
`
`XIV. BORDER DOES NOT
`
`....89
`
`A. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS...................................89
`
`B. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................90
`
`C. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER PURELY
`
`ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS ..................................................................91
`
`D. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ARCHITECTURE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PATENT
`
`XV.
`
`....................93
`
`.........94
`
`A. TEACHING AWAY BY BORDER............................................................96
`
`XVI. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH THE CHALLENGED,
`
`DEPENDENT CLAIMS ..........................................................................................97
`
`A. BORDER DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT CLAIM 18
`
`.......................................................................................98
`
`XVII. OVERVIEW OF MORPHMIX (EX. 1008) ............................................98
`
`XVIII.
`
`PATENT101
`
`5
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`5 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE PREAMBLE OF CLAIM 1
`
`UNDER PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS.................................102
`
`B. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 1 UNDER
`
`PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS................................................102
`
`C. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE CLAIM 1, STEP 4 UNDER
`
`PURELY ROLE-BASED CONSTRUCTIONS................................................104
`
`D. PETITIONERS DO NOT ANALYZE MORPHMIX UNDER PATENT
`
`..................................................105
`
`E. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE ARCHITECTURE OF
`
`XIX.
`
`.107
`
`..108
`
`A. TEACHING AWAY BY MOPRHMIX ....................................................109
`
`XX. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH THE CHALLENGED,
`
`................................................110
`
`A. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT
`
`..................................................................111
`
`B. MORPHMIX DOES NOT DISCLOSE OR TEACH DEPENDENT
`
`..................................................................111
`
`6
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`6 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`XXI.
`
`WEIGHT ................................................................................................................112
`
`XXII.
`
`BRIGHT DATA PRACTICES THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS .........115
`
`XXIII. SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS OF NON-OBVIOUSNESS.......122
`
`7
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`7 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`I, Dr. Tim A. Williams, declare as follows:
`
`My full name is Tim Arthur Williams.
`
`I have been retained as an independent expert in this matter by
`
`provide my opinions on certain references in the above-identified inter partes
`
`2-00915, involving U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`19
`
`I have also been asked to provide my opinions on certain
`
`references in the related IPR proceeding, IPR2022-00916, involving U.S. Patent
`
`No. 10,484,510
`
`. I have reviewed the papers and exhibits in
`
`in each of these IPR proceedings.
`
`4.
`
`In the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`
`I also reviewed related
`
`ies. I
`
`Constructions (Dkt. 106-7) and the Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Claffy in support
`
`Litigation. I reviewed the
`
`8
`
`-1) in the NetNut
`
`-
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`8 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkts. 191 and 453) and 2:19-cv-396 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkts. 97 and
`
`244) and 2:21-cv-225 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkt. 146)
`
`Alice Orders in
`
`Case Nos. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkt. 303) and 2:19-cv-396 (E.D. Tex.)(Dkt.
`
`98). I reviewed the Declaration of Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 126-5) and the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Freedman (Dkt. 138-1) regarding claim construction
`
`in the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395
`
`I reviewed the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Vernon Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 86-3) and the Declaration of Dr. Michael J.
`
`Freedman (Dkt 88-1) regarding claim construction in the case of Bright Data Ltd.
`
`v. Code200, UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`
`.
`
`5.
`
`I have reviewed other exhibits submitted concurrently with this
`
`declaration, as cited and discussed herein.
`
`6.
`
`In connection with my review of the materials discussed in this
`
`declaration
`
`reviewer from the various Texas litigations
`
`,
`
`consulting source code
`
`Mr. Matt McKune.
`
`7.
`
`I am being paid for my work preparing this declaration at my normal
`
`consulting rate plus reimbursement of direct expenses. My compensation is not
`
`9
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`9 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`tied to the outcome of this matter and is not based on the substance of the opinions
`
`that I provide.
`
`II. QUALIFICATIONS
`
`8.
`
`I am an industry professional with over 45 years of experience in
`
`wireless communications, computer networking and telecommunications
`
`technology. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`9.
`
`I am currently active currently active as Chief Executive Officer at
`
`Beach Technologies, LLC (Danville, CA) a company related to intellectual
`
`property consulting.
`
`10.
`
`I am also currently active as a Member at Calumet Venture
`
`Management (Madison, WI) a company related to the investment into start-up
`
`companies.
`
`11. Beginning in 2004, I was the Founder and Chairman at DoceoTech
`
`Inc. (Danville, CA) which provides training for engineers in wireless, computer
`
`networking, and telephony technologies.
`
`12.
`
`From 2008 to 2010, I was Founder and Board Member of BitRail
`
`Networks, Inc (Miami, FL). This company designed and produced computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was edge devices for
`
`residential and community access.
`
`10
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`10 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`13.
`
`From 2006 to 2015, I was Founder and Board Member of BEEcube,
`
`Inc. (Freemont, CA). This company built high speed computing and computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was networking
`
`equipment for backhaul networks used in 5G cellular networks.
`
`14.
`
`From 2004 to 2008, I was Founder and CEO of SiBEAM, Inc. This
`
`company designed and produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`15.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was Interim CEO and Advisory Board Member
`
`of Atheros Communications, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) . This company designed and
`
`produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`16.
`
`From 1998 to 2000, I was CTO of Picazo Communications, Inc. (San
`
`Jose, CA). This company built computer networking equipment to provide VoIP
`
`PBX functionality.
`
`17.
`
`From 1991 to 1998, I was Co-Founder, CTO, VP Engineering of
`
`Wireless Access, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA). This company developed over the air
`
`communication protocols for communication between the subscriber device and
`
`the network.
`
`18.
`
`From 1979 to 1991, I was a Member of the Technical Staff at
`
`Motorola, Inc. (Schaumberg, IL and Austin, TX). In IL, I designed protocols for
`
`Digital voice communications. In TX, I designed ICs for communications
`
`including Telecom, Wireless, Cellular and Computer Networking.
`
`11
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`11 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`19.
`
`I have been engaged in over 200 patent related litigations since 1999.
`
`Many of these cases relate to computer networking technologies, including
`
`protocols for Internet communications and the architecture of computer networks.
`
`20.
`
`I hold degrees from Michigan Technological University (B.S.E.E.,
`
`1976) and the University of Texas at Austin (M.S.E.E., 1982 and Ph.D., Electrical
`
`Engineering, 1985 and M.B.A., 1991).
`
`21.
`
`I am the principal inventor on 28 U.S. Patents all of which relate to
`
`communications technologies.
`
`22.
`
`I have been a Registered Patent Agent since 2002.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`23. When interpreting a patent, it is my understanding that it is important
`
`to view the disclosure and claims of that patent from the level of ordinary skill in
`
`that art at the time of the invention. My opinion of the level of ordinary skill in the
`
`art is based on my personal experience working and teaching in the technical field
`
`of Internet communications, my knowledge of colleagues and others working in
`
`that field, my study of the 19 Patent and its file history, and my knowledge of:
`
`a. The level of education and experience of persons actively working in
`
`the field at the time the subject matter at issue was developed;
`
`b. The types of problems encountered in the art at the time the subject
`
`matter was developed;
`
`12
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`12 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`c. The relevant prior art patents and publications;
`
`d. The activities of others working in that field;
`
`e. The prior art solutions to the problems addressed by the relevant art;
`
`and,
`
`f. The sophistication of the technology at issue in this case.
`
`24.
`
`In determining the level of ordinary skill in the art, I have also
`
`considered, among other things: (1) the sophistication of the relevant technology;
`
`(2) the rapidity with which innovations are made in that field; and (3) the
`
`educational level of active workers in that field. I also understand that these
`
`factors are not exhaustive and are merely a useful guide to determining the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art.
`
`25.
`
`Taking the above factors into account, based on my experience in the
`
`art and my study of the Internet communication systems disclosed in the
`
`and
`
`Patents (which share the same inventors of Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski
`
`and a common specification), in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in the art (a
`
`field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as
`
`13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`13 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`experience in Internet communications. I exceeded that level of skill in the relevant
`
`time frame.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that Petitioners proposed a POSA would be an individual
`
`who, as of Oc
`
`or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more
`
`working with and programming networked computer systems. Petition at 16. I
`
`understand that the Board applied
`
`definition in the Institution
`
`Decisions in IPR2022-00915 (Paper 18 at 15) and in IPR2022-00916 (Paper 18 at
`
`14). In my opinion, the differences in the proposed POSA definitions have subtle
`
`differences, e.g., requirement of a degree, rather than only experience, but my
`
`analysis is the same under either definition.
`
`27. Based on the foregoing, I believe that I am qualified to provide
`
`reliable opinions in the technical field of the
`
`Patents, including
`
`regarding what a POSA would have understood from the specification, drawings,
`
`claims, and file histories, as well as from the prior art in the field at the time of the
`
`invention (October 8, 2009).
`
`28. When offering opinions about how a POSA would evaluate or
`
`understand a particular issue, I have placed myself in the mindset of such a POSA,
`
`basing my opinions on the relevant education and skillset of such a POSA.
`
`14
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`14 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`A. ANTICIPATION
`
`29.
`
`alleged prior art reference discloses each and every limitation of the claim at issue,
`
`either expressly or inherently. In other words, every limitation of the claim must
`
`appear in a single prior art reference for the reference to anticipate that claim. I also
`
`understand that all limitations of the claim must be disclosed in the reference as
`
`they are arranged in the claim. I also understand that a requirement of a claim that
`
`is missing from a prior art reference may be disclosed inherently if that missing
`
`requirement is necessarily present in the prior art. I also understand that to be
`
`considered anticipatory, the prior art reference must be enabling and must describe
`
`possession of a POSA. I also understand that a POSA must be able to at once
`
`envisage the claimed invention based on the prior art reference without any need
`
`for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures.
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS
`
`30.
`
`I also understand that a patent may
`
`alleged prior art reference or a combination of such references plus what a POSA
`
`would understand based on his or her knowledge and those references. I
`
`understand that a patent cannot be properly granted for subject matter that would
`
`have been obvious to a POSA at the time of the alleged invention. It is also my
`
`15
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`15 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 ofPatent No. 10,257,319
`
`understanding that in assessing the obviousnessof claimed subject matter a POSA
`
`should evaluate obviousnessoverthe prior art from the perspective of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made(andnotfrom the
`
`perspective of either a layman ora geniusin thatart).
`
`31.
`
` Itis my further understanding that the question of obviousnessis to be
`
`determined based on:
`
`e The scope and content of the priorart:
`
`b. The difference or differences between the subject matter of the claim
`
`and the prior art (wherebyin assessing the possibility of obviousness
`
`one should consider the manner in which a patentee and/or a Court
`
`has construed the scope of a claim);
`
`c. Thelevel of ordinary skill in the art at the timeofthe alleged
`
`invention of the subject matter of the claim; and,
`
`d. Any relevant objective factors (the “secondary indicia”) indicating
`
`non-obviousnessasI discuss further below.
`
`32.
`
`Itis also my understanding that the United States Supreme Court
`
`clarified the law of obviousness in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 398
`
`and 419 (2007) case (“KSR”), which I have read and incorporate herein by
`
`reference. Based on KSR,it is my understanding that to determine whetherit
`
`would have been obvious to combine knownlimitations in a mannerclaimed in a
`
`16
`
`Major Data UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`16 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`patent, one may consider such things as the interrelated teachings of multiple
`
`patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
`
`marketplace, and the background knowledge of a POSA.
`
`33.
`
`It is my further understanding that for a claim to be found invalid as
`
`obvious, it must be obvious to a POSA at the relevant time. I also understand that
`
`the existence of each and every limitation of the claimed invention in multiple
`
`prior art references/systems does not necessarily prove obviousness since most, if
`
`not all, inventions rely on building blocks of prior art. Obviousness may be found
`
`where, for example, the differences between the subject matter sought to be
`
`patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
`
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`34.
`
`It is my further understanding that I should consider whether there
`
`was a reason that would have prompted a POSA to combine the known limitations
`
`in a way the claimed invention does, taking into account such factors as: (1)
`
`whether the claimed invention was merely the predictable result of using prior art
`
`limitations according to their known function(s); (2) whether the claimed invention
`
`provides an obvious solution to a known problem in the relevant field; (3) whether
`
`the prior art teaches or suggests the desirability of combining limitations claimed
`
`in the invention; (4) whether the prior art teaches away from combining limitations
`
`17
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`17 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`in the claimed invention; (5) whether it would have been obvious to try the
`
`combinations of limitations, such as when there is a design need or market pressure
`
`to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions; and (6) whether the change resulted more from design incentives or
`
`other market forces. I also understand that to render a claim obvious, the cited
`
`combination of prior art must provide a reasonable expectation of success for the
`
`proposed combination.
`
`35.
`
`It is also my understanding that in developing opinions as to whether
`
`or not certain claimed subject matter would have been obvious, each claim of a
`
`given patent should be considered in its entirety and separately from any other
`
`claims. In so doing, it is my understanding that while I should consider any
`
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art, I should also assess the
`
`obviousness or non-obviousness of the entirety of a claim covering an alleged
`
`invention, not merely some portion of it.
`
`36.
`
`It is my further understanding that although the KSR decision I
`
`ole test for judging whether the prior art can be combined
`
`is still inappropriate when making such an assertion. For example, § 2142 of the
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Proced
`
`18
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`18 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the
`
`examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the
`
`legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior
`
`who assert that the general knowledge of a POSA and/or a combination of
`
`references invalidates a patent claim through obviousness.
`
`37.
`
`I have also been informed that in cases such as the decision In re
`
`Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`ust be taken to avoid hindsight
`
`reconstruction by using the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art
`
`references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the
`
`important because, as the
`
`Supreme Court also stated in KSR at pp. 418-
`
`elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements
`
`was, independently, known in the prior art. Although common sense directs one to
`
`look with care at a patent application that claims as innovation the combination of
`
`two known devices according to their established functions, it can be important to
`
`identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does.
`
`19
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`19 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`This is so because inventions in most, if not all, instances rely upon building
`
`blocks long since uncovered, and claimed discoveries almost of necessity will be
`
`combinations o
`
`38. Additionally, and also relevant to the above caution to avoid
`
`hindsight, it is my understanding that it is not enough to find that prior art
`
`references could be combined, and that to show obviousness one must prove that a
`
`POSA would actually combine the multiple references to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention, including showing that a POSA would be motivated to do so. For
`
`example, in the case PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987,
`
`994 (Fed. Cir. 2
`
`whether a skilled artisan not only could have made but would have been motivated
`
`to make the combinations or modifications of prior art to arrive at the claimed
`
`l.)
`
`39.
`
`It is also my understanding that I should consider any objective
`
`at the time of the invention and afterwards that may shed light on the non-
`
`obviousness of the claims, such as:
`
`a. Whether the invention was commercially successful as a result of the
`
`merits of the claimed invention (rather than the result of design needs
`
`or market-pressure advertising or similar activities);
`
`20
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`20 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`b. Whether the invention satisfied a long-felt need;
`
`c. Whether others had tried and failed to make the invention;
`
`d. Whether others invented the invention at roughly the same time;
`
`e. Whether others copied the invention;
`
`f. Whether there were changes or related technologies or market needs
`
`contemporaneous with the invention;
`
`g. Whether the invention achieved unexpected results;
`
`h. Whether others in the field praised the invention;
`
`i. Whether persons having ordinary skill in the art of the invention
`
`expressed surprise or disbelief regarding the invention;
`
`j. Whether others sought or obtained rights to the patent from the patent
`
`holder; and,
`
`k. Whether the inventor proceeded contrary to accepted wisdom in the
`
`field.
`
`40.
`
`It is my further understanding the Board has designated a precedential
`
`decision regarding the proper analysis of secondary considerations in the case of
`
`Lectrosonics, Inc. v Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129, Paper 33 (PTAB Jan. 24,
`
`2020)(designated April 14, 2020)
`
`. I understand that for
`
`secondary considerations of non-obviousness to be accorded substantial weight,
`
`the patentee must establish a nexus between the evidence and the merits of the
`
`21
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`21 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`claimed invention. Id.
`
`patentee i
`
`patent claim is not
`
`Id. I understand that a
`
`Id.
`
`feature that is claimed by a different patent and that materially impacts the
`
`Id.
`
`41.
`
`inappropriate does not
`
`Lectrosonics
`
`opportunity to prove nexus by showing that the evidence of secondary
`
`tics of the claimed
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND TO THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY
`
`42.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that network components,
`
`such as client devices and web servers, communicating over the Internet are
`
`component, typically stores content that may be identified by a uniform resource
`
`22
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`22 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`geolocate the network component with a particular IP address.
`
`43.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that an IP packet sent over
`
`the internet to, for example, a web server includes an IP header and payload. The
`
`IP header includes the Source IP Address (the IP address of the sending network
`
`component) and the Destination IP Address (the IP address of the receiving
`
`network component, for example, the IP address of the web server). The payload
`
`includes the data being transmitted, such as a request for a content stored on the
`
`web server.
`
`44.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, normally, a request for
`
`content is sent from a client device (discussed in detail below) to a web server. For
`
`example, a customer that is considering buying a product from a store may request
`
`content associated with that particular product from
`
`. That same
`
`customer may also request content associated with that same product at a different
`
`As one example, a customer may request content to see if the
`
`product is on sale. Therefore, in my opinion, a POSA would understand that the IP
`
`device.
`
`45.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, normally, the web
`
`server responds to a request for content by sending the requested content back to
`
`23
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`23 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`the Source IP Address. In some cases, the response to the request for content may
`
`be blocked or spoofed due to, for example, the geographic location of the Source
`
`IP Address. As another example, multiple requests having the same Source IP
`
`Address may become suspicious and subsequently blocked or spoofed by the web
`
`server. As yet another example, requests having a commercial IP address, rather
`
`than a residential IP address, as the Source IP Address may be blocked or spoofed
`
`by the web server.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that, at the time of
`
`invention, a different type of network component known as a proxy server may be
`
`used as an intermediary between the client device and the web server in order to
`
`conceal the original Source IP Address for a request for content. See EX. 1001 at
`
`Fig. 1. The IP packet will be sent from the original requestor to the proxy server
`
`and from the proxy server to the web server. When sending the IP packet from the
`
`proxy server to the web server, the proxy server will often replace the original
`
`Source IP address of the original requestor with its own IP address. Thus, a POSA
`
`server. Instead of being blocked or spoofed, the requested content may be sent
`
`back to the original requesting network component via the proxy server.
`
`24
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2065
`24 of 135
`
`
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
`IPR2022-00915 ofPatent No. 10,257,319
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION TO THE CLAIMS OF THE ‘319 AND ‘510
`PATENTS
`
`47. All of the patents claiming priority to Provisional Application No.
`
`61/249,624 filed on October 8, 2009 share the same specification.
`
`48.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent is the only independentclaim ofthe ‘319
`
`Patent. Claim 1 of the ‘’510 Patent is the only independentclaim of the ‘510
`
`Patent. Claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent recites a “first server” that comprises a web
`
`server and Claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent recites a “web server”. The independent
`
`claims of the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents recite a separate server referred to as the
`
`“second server”. Finally, the independentclaimsof the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents
`
`recite a “first client device” serving as an intermediary between the web server
`
`and the second server.
`
`49.
`
`The ’319 and ’510 Patent claims recite methods performed by
`
`elements performed bythe “first client device” within a second server < first
`
`client device < web server architecture as shown, for example, in the annotated
`
`claimsin the followingtable:
`
`ransfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and
`
`1. A method for use with a first
`
`1. A method for use with a web
`
`lient device, for use with a first server |server thatresponds to Hypertext
`
`at comprises a webserverthatis a
`
`25
`
`Major Data UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 20
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
