Paper 18
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: September 15, 2022
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: September 15, 2022
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Major Data UAB (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 6–11, 13, and 15–24 (the
`“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’510
`patent”). Bright Data Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). With authorization, Petitioner filed a
`Preliminary Reply (Paper 16, “Pet. Prelim. Reply”), and Patent Owner filed
`a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 17, “PO Prelim. Sur-reply”).
`The Board has authority to determine whether to institute an inter
`partes review. See 35 U.S.C. § 314; 37 C.F.R. § 42.4(a). Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), we may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information
`in the petition and the preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`claims challenged in the petition.”
`For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has
`established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at
`least one claim. We therefore institute inter partes review as to all of the
`challenged claims of the ’510 patent and all of the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability in the Petition.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify several district court proceedings involving the
`’510 patent and a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (“the ’319
`patent”)), including Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-225 (E.D.
`Tex.); Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395
`(E.D. Tex.); Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-
`
`2
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 2 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`397 (E.D. Tex.); and Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A., No. 2:19-cv-
`414 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 3; Paper 6, 2–3.
`According to the parties, the ’510 patent was previously before the
`Board in IPR2020-01358, IPR2021-01493, IPR2022-00138, and IPR2022-
`00862. See Pet. 4–6; Paper 6, 1–2. Petitioner also identifies a number of
`other Board proceedings and district court actions involving patents related
`to the ’510 patent. See Pet. 3–6.
`Patent Owner identifies ex parte reexaminations for the ’319 and ’510
`patents, respectively, Control No. 90/014,875 and Control No. 90/014,876.
`Paper 6, 2.
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Major Data UAB as the real party-in-interest.
`Pet. 2. Patent Owner expresses concern, however, that “Major Data was
`formed as a ‘back-up’ option to continue these IPRs,” and represents that
`Patent Owner “has not sued Major Data for infringement of any patents and
`Patent Owner is not aware of any services offered by Major Data.” Prelim.
`Resp. 3.
`In its Preliminary Reply, however, Petitioner points out that shortly
`before Patent Owner filed the Preliminary Response, Petitioner had advised
`Patent Owner and “confirmed, inter alia, that it is not affiliated with any of
`the Code200 parties and did not discuss the preparation or filing of IPRs
`with anyone apart from privileged communications with its own attorneys.”
`Pet. Prelim. Reply 3. Petitioner avers that “it did not file its IPRs at any
`another party’s behest.” Id.
`In its Preliminary Sur-reply, Patent Owner does not directly challenge
`Petitioner’s representations, but instead “reserves all rights including, e.g.,
`
`3
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 3 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`vacatur and sanctions, if any contradictions to Petitioner’s representations
`should arise.” PO Prelim. Sur-reply 4.
`Based on the current record, we determine that Petitioner has
`established compliance with the statutory requirement under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 312(a)(2) to identify all real parties in interest.
`C. The ’510 Patent
`The ’510 patent is titled “System Providing Faster And More Efficient
`Data Communication” and issued on November 19, 2019 from an
`application filed on February 17, 2019. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (54).
`The patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. Id. at code (*). The
`application for the ’866 patent claims priority to several applications,
`including U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/249,624, filed October 8,
`2009. Id. at code (60).
`The ’510 patent is directed to addressing the “need for a new method
`of data transfer that is fast for the consumer, cheap for the content distributor
`and does not require infrastructure investment for ISPs.” Ex. 1001, 1:57–59.
`The ‘’510 patent states that other “attempts at making the Internet faster for
`the consumer and cheaper for the broadcaster,” such as proxy servers and
`peer-to-peer file sharing, have various shortcomings. Id. at 1:61–3:6. The
`’510 patent provides a system and method “for faster and more efficient data
`communication within a communication network,” such as in the network
`illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below. Id. at 3:16–18, 4:5–7.
`
`4
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 4 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic diagram depicting communication network 100
`including a number of communication devices. Ex. 1001, 4:56–48. Client
`102 is capable of communicating with peers 112, 114, and 116, as well as
`with one or more agents 122. Id. at 4:58–60. Web server 152 may be “a
`typical HTTP server, such as those being used to deliver content on any of
`the many such servers on the Internet.” Id. at 4:65–5:2. Acceleration server
`162 includes an acceleration server storage device 164 with an acceleration
`server database, which “stores Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of
`communication devices within the communication network 100 having
`acceleration software stored therein.” Id. at 5:14–17.
`
`In operation, a client may request a resource on the network, for
`example, through the use of an Internet browser. Ex. 1001, 12:62–13:3. If
`server 152 is the target of the request, the client sends the IP address of
`server 152 to acceleration server 162. Id. at 13:8–15. Acceleration server
`162 then prepares a list of agents that can handle the request, which includes
`
`5
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 5 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`communication devices “that are currently online, and whose IP address is
`numerically close to the IP of the destination Web server 152.” Id. at
`13:19–29. The client then sends the original request to the agents in the list
`to find out which “is best suited to be the one agent that will assist with this
`request.” Id. at 13:31–36. The connection established between the agent
`and client may be a Transmission Control Protocol [TCP] connection. Id. at
`17:61–64.
`Each agent responds to the client with information as to “whether the
`agent has seen a previous request for this resource that has been fulfilled,”
`and “which can help the client to download the request information from
`peers in the network.” Ex. 1001, 13:51–57. The client selects an agent
`based on a number of factors, and the selected agent determines whether
`data stored in its memory or the memory of the peers “still mirrors the
`information that would have been received from the server itself for this
`request.” Id. at 13:62–14:1, 14:35–38. If the selected agent does not have
`the necessary information to service a request, it may “load the information
`directly from the server in order to be able to provide an answer to the
`requesting client.” Id. at 14:62–67.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`The ’510 patent has 24 claims. Claim 1, the only independent claim
`in the ’510 patent, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter and is
`reproduced below, with bracketed designations added to the limitations for
`reference purposes.
`1. [pre] A method for use with a web server that responds to
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and stores a first content
`identified by a first content identifier, the method by a first client
`device comprising:
`
`6
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 6 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`[a] establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`connection with a second server;
`[b] sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first content
`identifier;
`[c] receiving, the first content from the web server over the
`Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier;
`and
`[d] sending the received first content, to the second server over
`the established TCP connection, in response to the receiving of
`the first content identifier.
`Ex. 1001, 19:18–31.
`
`7
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 7 of 36
`
`
`
`Crowds, RFC 26164
`
`Border5
`
`Border, RFC 2616
`
`MorphMix6
`
`MorphMix, RFC 2616
`
`Reference(s)
`Crowds3
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims of the ’510 patent on
`the following grounds:
`Claims Challenged
`1, 6, 7, 132, 15, 16,
`18–24
`1, 2, 6–11, 13, 15, 16,
`18–24
`1, 6, 10, 15–20, 23,
`24
`1, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–20,
`22–24
`1, 6–8, 13, 15, 16,
`18–24
`1, 2, 6–11, 13, 15, 16,
`18–24
`Pet. 11.
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective
`March 16, 2013. Because the ’510 patent claims priority to a provisional
`application that was filed before this date, with Petitioner not contesting that
`priority, the pre-AIA versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. See Ex. 1001, code
`(60); Pet. 17.
`2 The Petition includes assertions for claim 13 under the Crowds anticipation
`ground. Pet. 33. Accordingly, we include this claim in the summary table,
`even though it was not included in the Petition’s summary table. See Pet.
`11.
`3 Michael K. Reiter, Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions, ACM
`Transactions on Information and System Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, November
`1998, at 66–92 (Ex. 1006, “Crowds”).
`4 Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1, Network Working Group, RFC
`2616, The Internet Society, 1999 (Ex. 1013, “RFC 2616”).
`5 U. S. Patent No. 6,795,848, issued September 21, 2004 (Ex. 1012,
`“Border”).
`
`35 U.S.C. §1
`102(b)
`
`103(a)
`
`102(b)
`
`103(a)
`
`102(b)
`
`103(a)
`
`8
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 8 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`III. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL
`Patent Owner contends the Board should deny the Petition pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because “the Fintiv factors overwhelmingly favor denial
`of institution.” Prelim. Resp. 8. Patent Owner provides arguments
`regarding the factors set forth in Fintiv. Id. at 8–19. Patent Owner also
`argues that we should exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny
`institution because “there is a significant risk of the Board redoing the work
`of another tribunal.” Id. at 7.
`The Board’s precedential decision in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”),
`identifies a non-exclusive list of factors parties may consider addressing
`where there is a related, parallel district court action to determine whether
`such action provides any basis for discretionary denial. Fintiv, Paper 11 at
`5–16. Those factors include:
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`may be granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`3. investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`4. overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`
`6 Marc Rennhard, MorphMix—A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Ph.D. dissertation, Swiss Federal
`Institute of Technology) (Ex. 1008, “MorphMix”).
`
`9
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 9 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Id. at 5–6.
`On June 21, 2022, the Director of the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office issued an Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in
`AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation
`(“Memorandum”)7 to clarify “the [Board’s] current application of Fintiv to
`discretionary institutions when there is parallel litigation” and to “confirm[]
`that the precedential import of Fintiv is limited to the facts of that case.”
`Memorandum 2. In particular, the Memorandum states that the Board
`will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i)
`when a petition presents compelling evidence of
`unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is
`based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner
`stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding
`the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could
`have reasonably been raised in the petition.
`Id. at 9.
`Petitioner argues in its Preliminary Reply that there are reasons why
`the Board should decline to exercise its discretion under § 314(a). Petitioner
`first argues that “discretionary denials are inappropriate under Fintiv when
`parallel litigation would not result in a ‘binding’ decision that would
`‘conclusively resolve an assertion of patent invalidity.’” Pet. Prelim. Reply
`4 (citing Memorandum 6). Petitioner points out that Patent Owner “has not
`sued Major Data and is not aware of any infringement by Major Data. As a
`non-party to the parallel district court litigation, any judgment upholding the
`patents-in-suit as valid would not be binding on Major Data.” Id. at 5 (citing
`
`
`7 Available at:
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/interim_proc_discretion
`ary_denials_aia_parallel_district_court_litigation_memo_20220621_.pdf
`
`10
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 10 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Stevenson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 713 F.2d 705, 710–11 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
`(prior holding of patent validity not binding on subsequent accused infringer
`because it is “grossly inequitable to bind a party to a judgment of validity
`rendered in an action against some other party”). Petitioner argues that
`“[t]he parallel Texas litigation is therefore not conclusive as to Major Data
`and thus cannot be the basis of a discretionary denial.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 5.
`Second, Petitioner argues that the Memorandum “establishes a bright-
`line rule that ‘the PTAB will not discretionarily deny institution of an IPR or
`PGR in view of parallel district court litigation where a petitioner stipulates
`not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in
`the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the
`petition.’” Id. (citing Memorandum 7). Petitioner provides just such a
`stipulation, stating that it “hereby does stipulate, ‘not to pursue in a parallel
`district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds
`that could have reasonably been raised’ against the claims included in the
`petition.” Pet. Prelim. Reply 6 (quoting Memorandum 7).
`Patent Owner argues, however, that “Petitioner’s stipulation is
`meaningless at least because the [Texas] Litigation has already proceeded
`through trial and reached a jury verdict,” and “Petitioner is not a defendant
`in the Tefincom Litigation.” PO Prelim. Sur-reply 6. Patent Owner
`concludes that “Petitioner’s stipulation provides no mitigating effects” and
`“cannot affect the Board’s Fintiv analysis in this IPR.” Id.
`
`Neither party addresses, however, another directive of the
`Memorandum, which states that “the PTAB will not rely on the Fintiv
`factors to discretionarily deny institution in view of parallel district court
`litigation where a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability.”
`
`11
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 11 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Memorandum 2. The Memorandum explains that “where the PTAB
`determines that the information presented at the institution stage presents a
`compelling unpatentability challenge, that determination alone demonstrates
`that the PTAB should not discretionarily deny institution under Fintiv.”
`Memorandum, 4–5 (emphasis added). The Memorandum further explains
`that “[c]ompelling, meritorious challenges are those in which the evidence,
`if unrebutted in trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that one or more
`claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence.” Memorandum
`4.
`
`On the current record, we determine that Petitioner’s invalidity
`grounds, if unrebutted at trial, would plainly lead to a conclusion that the
`challenged claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. See
`infra Sections IV.D–I. Instituting inter partes review under these
`circumstances “strikes a balance among the competing concerns of avoiding
`potentially conflicting outcomes, avoiding overburdening patent owners, and
`strengthening the patent system by eliminating patents that are not robust
`and reliable.” Memorandum 5.
`Accordingly, based upon our consideration of the evidence and
`arguments presented in the Petition, and pursuant to the directive in the
`Memorandum concerning compelling, meritorious challenges, we decline to
`exercise our discretion under § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes
`review as Patent Owner requests.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`A. Applicable Legal Standards
`The Federal Circuit addressed the legal standard for anticipation in
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
`
`12
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 12 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a prior art reference will anticipate if
`it “disclose[s] each and every element of the claimed invention
`. . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.”
`815 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). The Federal Circuit
`went on to explain:
`However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes]
`not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined
`as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the
`reference, would at ‘once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or
`combination.
`Id. (quoting Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2011). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) so-called “secondary considerations,” including
`commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and
`unexpected results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`At this stage, neither party has presented any evidence on the fourth Graham
`factor.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related field (or
`
`13
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 13 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience working with and
`programming networked computer systems as of the Priority Date.” Pet. 16.
`Petitioner further asserts that a person of ordinary skill would be familiar
`with “the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or network
`communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks,
`including the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols.” Id. (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25–27).
`
`Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have “had a Master’s Degree or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering,
`Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or as of that time had a
`Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or more years of experience in
`Internet Communications.” Prelim. Resp. 29–30 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 18).
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the parties’ respective proposed
`qualifications “are not materially different, at least in terms of affecting an
`institution decision in this IPR.” Id. at 30.
`For the purposes of this Decision, we adopt the assessment offered by
`Petitioner as it is consistent with the ’510 patent and the prior art before us.
`See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`C. Claim Construction
`For this inter partes review, the Board applies the same claim
`construction standard as that applied in federal courts. See 37 C.F.R
`§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms “are generally given
`their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations
`omitted). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we
`look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim
`
`14
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 14 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in
`evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d
`1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in
`determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1317 (citation omitted).
`Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`Petitioner contends that the district court’s constructions in Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.) should
`apply in this case. Pet. 16. In particular, Petitioner points to two claim
`construction orders in that case—an original order (Ex. 1017) and a
`supplemental order (Ex. 1020)—in which the court construed the preamble
`of claim 1 to be limiting, and construed all other terms to have their plain
`and ordinary meanings, except for “client device” and “second server.” Pet.
`16–17. The district court construed “client device” as “communication
`device that is operating in the role of a client.” Ex. 1017, 12. The District
`Court construed “second server” as “server that is not the client device” (id.
`at 14), and later agreed with the defendants’ clarification as to the scope of
`this construction that a “second server” is “a device that is operating in the
`
`15
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 15 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`role of a server and that is not the requesting client device or the first web
`server” (Ex. 1020, 8, 11).
`Petitioner refers to the district court’s supplemental order which
`indicates that “a component can be configured to operate in different roles.”
`Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1020, 10). Petitioner refers to Figure 3 of the ’510 patent
`and asserts, consistent with the district court’s interpretation of the claim
`terms, that “client 102” can be considered a “second server” in accordance
`with the ’510 specification disclosure, “agent 122” can be considered a
`“client device,” and “web server 152” is the “first server.” Id. at 20.
`Petitioner disputes Patent Owner’s argument that a “client device” is
`limited to consumer computers because it would import a limitation into the
`term. Pet. 21. Further, Petitioner asserts that the district court has declined
`to include this limitation, as did the Board. Id.; see also id. at 18 (referring
`to IPR2021-00458, Paper 11, 19; IPR2021-00465, Paper 11, 14–15).
`Petitioner additionally adds, in accordance with the ’510 patent, that a
`“‘client device’ is an entity that receives the content from the intermediate
`agent device” but the same device acts as a “client” for one content retrieval,
`and as one of the intermediate “agent” nodes, as well as in the role of a
`server. Id. at 21–22 (citing Ex. 1001, 9:27–36). Petitioner asserts that the
`interchangeable nature of the devices is consistent with the District Court’s
`supplemental order. Id.
`Petitioner also argues, as to the term “second server,” “[t]he only
`devices in the ’510 patent that ever receive requested content are the
`‘communication devices,’ i.e., the clients, peers, and agents” and “[a]ll such
`recipient devices also have roles as clients.” Pet. 21. Petitioner asserts that
`if a “second server” were construed to require special hardware, there would
`
`16
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 16 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`be no embodiment disclosed in the ’510 patent specification within that
`scope. Id.
`Patent Owner now proposes constructions for the claim terms “client
`device” and “second server” that are different than those determined by the
`district court. See Prelim. Resp. 30–31. We discuss Patent Owner’s
`proposed constructions below.
`Client Device
`1.
`Patent Owner states that “[t]he Board preliminarily construed the term
`‘client device’ as a ‘communication device that is operating in the role of a
`client,’” citing the Board’s decisions granting institution of inter partes
`review in IPR2021-01492 (Ex. 2004) and IPR2021-01493 (Ex. 2005).
`Prelim. Resp. 30–31. Patent Owner proposes, however, that “the correct
`construction for ‘client device’ is ‘consumer computer’ or alternatively, a
`‘consumer communication device.’” Prelim. Resp. 30 (citing Ex. 2025
`¶ 36).
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the claim term “client
`device” as a “consumer computer” was previously considered, and rejected,
`by the district court. See, e.g., Ex. 1017, 10–12. In the Preliminary
`Response, Patent Owner takes issue with the evidence and the reasoning
`used by the district court to reject Patent Owner’s previously proposed
`construction. See, e.g., Prelim. Resp. 34–36. We have considered Patent
`Owner’s evidence and arguments in the Preliminary Response that the
`district court’s construction of the claim term “client device” as a
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client” is incorrect.
`See Prelim. Resp. 31–49. For purposes of this decision, however, we concur
`with the district court’s reasoning and agree with its construction of the
`
`17
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 17 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`claim term “client device” as a “communication device that is operating in
`the role of a client.” This construction is consistent with, and supported by,
`the intrinsic evidence of the specification.
`Second Server
`2.
`Patent Owner states that “[t]he Board preliminarily construed the term
`‘second server’ as ‘server that is not the client device,’ with the clarification
`that ‘second server’ is a ‘device that is operating in the role of a server and
`that is not the client device.’” Prelim. Resp. 30–31 (citing Ex. 2004, 19;
`Ex. 2005, 22). Patent Owner proposes, however, that “the correct
`construction for ‘second server’ is a ‘server that is not is a client device.’”
`Prelim. Resp. 31 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 71).
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the claim term “second
`server” as a “server that is not is a client device” was previously considered
`by the district court, but the court clarified the scope as a “device that is
`operating in the role of a server and that is not the client device.” See
`Ex. 1017, 13–14; Ex. 1020, 7–11. In its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner argues that “the second server is separate and distinct from ‘the first
`client device’ of the claims, consistent with the Court’s constructions, and
`more particularly, that a server is structurally different from any client
`device disclosed in the specification or recited in the patent claims.” Prelim.
`Resp. 56 (citing Ex. 2025 ¶ 70).
`We have considered Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments in the
`Preliminary Response but, for purposes of this decision, we concur with the
`district court’s reasoning and agree with its clarified construction of the
`
`18
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 18 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`claim term “second server” as a “device that is operating in the role of a
`server and that is not the client device.”
`D. Prior Art References
`Crowds (Ex. 1006)
`1.
`Crowds is an article that “introduce[s] a new approach for increasing
`the privacy of web transactions.” Ex. 1006, 2. In this approach, a user joins
`a “crowd” of other users, wherein the user’s request to a web server is
`passed to a random member of the crowd, and possibly forwarded to one or
`more other members, prior to being submitted to the end server. Id. In this
`way, “[w]hen the request is eventually submitted, it is submitted by a
`random member, thus preventing the end server from identifying its true
`initiator.” Id. In Crowds, “[a] user is represented by a process on her
`computer called a jondo (pronounced ‘John Doe’ and meant to convey the
`image of a faceless participant).” Id. at 8. “When the jondo is started, it
`contacts a server called the blender to request admittance to the crowd.” Id.
`Exemplary paths for web requests from crowd users are shown in Figure 2
`(id. at 9), reproduced below:
`
`19
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 19 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 2 of Crowds, when a jondo receives a user request from a
`browser, it “initiates the establishment of a random path of jondos that
`carries its users’ transactions to and from their intended web servers.” Id. at
`8. For example, the paths in Figure 2 among the jondos labeled 1 to 6 are as
`follows: “1 → 5 → server; 2 → 6 → 2 → server; 3 → 1 → 6 → server; 4
`→ 4 → server; 5 → 4 → 6 → server; and 6 → 3 → server.” Id. “[S]erver
`replies traverse the same path as the requests, only in reverse.” Id. at 9.
`Border (Ex. 1012)
`2.
`Border is a patent titled “System and Method of Reading Ahead of
`Objects for Delivery to an HTTP Proxy Server.” Ex. 1012, (54). Border
`describes “a system for retrieving web content.” Id. at (57). In Border, “[a]
`downstream proxy server receives a URL request message from a web
`browser.” Id. at 3:35–36. Thereafter, “[a]n upstream proxy server receives
`the URL request message from the downstream proxy server” and
`“selectively forwards the URL request message to a web server and receives
`
`20
`
`Major Data Ex. 1122
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915
`Page 20 of 36
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00916
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`the URL co
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
