bright data
`
`Patent Owner’s Presentation:
`IPR2021-01492 and IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10;257,319
`
`IPR2021-01493 and IPR2022-00916 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`June 9, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`i!
`
`Major Data UAB v.Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2074
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Presentation:
`IPR2021-01492 and IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10;257,319
`
`IPR2021-01493 and IPR2022-00916 of Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`June 9, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`i!
`
`Major Data UAB v.Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2074
`
`
`
`¢ Overview of Patent No. 10,257,319 (“the ‘319 Patent”) and Patent No.
`10,484,510 (“the “510 Patent”)(together, “the Challenged Patents”)
`
`¢ Claim construction
`
`Introduction
`
`iyFeaelt 6b!
`
`¢ Secondary considerations of non-obviousness DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`° Failure to show anticipation or obviousness based on Crowds, Border, or
`MorphMix
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Grounds in IPR2021-01492 and IPR2022-00915 of the ‘319 Patent (-1492, Institution Decision at 8;
`-915, Institution Decision at 9):
`
`MorphMix and RFC 2616
`
`1349; 23-29
`
`Crowds
`
`TF 204-15, A7-195 21-29
`
`Crowds and RFC 2616
`
`1,12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, 27-29
`
`Border
`
`AOL, MATSAT H1O: 21-22 24-29, 27-29
`
`Border and RFC 2616
`
`Lay oe easeo
`
`t. Zanyao eaHoe
`
`MorphMix
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`bright (obs)
`
`¢ Grounds in IPR2021-01493 and IPR2022-00916 of the ‘510 Patent (-1493, Institution Decision at 7;
`-916, Institution Decision at 8):
`
`MorphMix and RFC 2616 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1, 6, 7, 13, 15-16, 18-24
`
`Crowds
`
`1, 2, 6-11, 13, 15-16, 18-24
`
`Crowds and RFC 2616
`
`1, 6, 10, 15-20, 23-24
`
`Border
`
`1, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20, 22-24
`
`Border and RFC 2616
`
`1, 6-8, 13, 15-16, 18-24
`
`1.2, 0-213, 25-16; 138-24
`
`MorphMix
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`bright (obs)
`
`¢ Notably, the Code200 Petitioners (“Oxylabs”) alleged anticipation by
`Crowds of the asserted claims of the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents during the
`jury trial in Case No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)(the “Teso Litigation”)
`— The independentclaims recite a “second server” which is not disclosed in Crowds
`
`-1492, Sur-reply at 5-6, EX. 2001; -1493, Sur-reply at 5-6 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ The jury rejected the Code200 Petitioners’ arguments and found no
`anticipation by Crowds
`
`°
`
`
`
`atameet
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SS
`
`JZ :
`
`6
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`yafeaol Flr
`
`-1492, POR at 1-4; -1493, POR at 1-4 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Key aspects of the Challenged Patents:
`— The independentclaims recite methods that operate within a specific second
`server €> first client device <> first/web server architecture
`— Highly scalable solution
`— Lower risk of blocking/spoofing by a web server
`
`¢ The Challenged Patents share a common specification
`— Title: “System providing faster and more efficient data communication”
`— Priority date: October 8, 2009
`
`°
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`yafeatlt Flr!
`
`Independentclaim 1 of the ‘319 Patent:
`
`1. A methodfor use witha first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web
`server that is a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server that responds to HTTP requests, the first server
`stores a first content identified by a first content identifier, and for use with a second server, the method
`by the first client device comprising:
`
`the receiving of the first content identifier. DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[step 1] receiving, from the second server, thefirst content identifier;
`
`[step 2] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`request that comprisesthefirst content identifier;
`
`[step 3] receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the
`sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`[step 4] sending,the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`yafeatlt Flr!
`
`Independent claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent:
`
`1. A methodfor use with a web server that responds to Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
`requests and storesa first content identified by a first content identifier, the method by a first client
`device comprising:
`
`connection, in responseto the receiving of the first content identifier. DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`[step 1] establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection with a second server;
`
`[step 2] sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first content identifier;
`
`[step 3] receiving, the first content from the web server over the Internet in response to the
`sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`[step 4] sending the received first content, to the second server over the established TCP
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Problems identified in prior art proxy server
`systems:
`
`— High infrastructure costs — “need to be deployed
`at every point around the world” and require
`large storage
`
`— Cannot handle dynamic content — typically
`retrieve cached content
`
`— Risk of blocking/spoofing by web server —
`recognition of IP address of proxy server and use
`of a commercial IP address (as opposed to a
`residential IP address)
`
`handle dynamic content.
`
`It should be noted, however, that to provide a compre-
`25 hensive solution for Internet surfing, the proxy servers of
`FIG. 1 would need to be deployed at every point around the
`world where the Internet is being consumed, and the storage
`size of the proxy servers at each location would need to be
`near the size ofall the data stored anywhere on the Internet.
`The abovementioned would lead to massive costs that are
`impractical. In addition, these proxy solutions cannot deal
`well with dynamic data that is prevalent now on the Web.
`There have been commercial companies, such as Akamai,
`that have deployed such proxies locally around the world,
`5 and that are serving a select small group of sites on the
`Internet. If all sites on the Web were to be solved with such
`a solution, the capital investment would bein the range of
`billions of dollars. In addition, this type of solution does not
`
`*
`
`-1492, POR at 4, Sur-reply at 9, EX. 1001 at 2:24-39; -1493, POR at 4, Sur-
`reply at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Problems identified in prior art peer-to-peer
`systems:
`
`40
`
`— High infrastructure costs — “if this system were
`to be used to serve the hundreds of billions of
`files that are available on the Internet of today,
`the cost of storing and maintaining such an
`index would be again in the billions of dollars”
`
`— Cannot handle dynamic content — typically
`retrieve cached content
`
`— High latency — long lookup times
`
`lookup time would be very long).
`
`the large
`To create large distribution systems without
`hardwarecosts involved with a proxysolution, “peer-to-peer
`file sharing” solutions have been introduced, such as, for
`example, BitTorrent. FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram provid-
`ing an example ofa peer-to-peerfile transfer network 50. In
`the network 50, files are stored on computers of consumers,
`referred to herein as client devices 60. Each consumer can
`serve up data to other consumers, via the Internet 62, thus
`taking the load ofserving off of the distributors and saving
`them the associated costs, and providing the consumer
`multiple points from which to download the data, referred to
`herein as peers 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, thus increasing the speed
`of the download. However, each suchpeer-to-peer solution
`must have somesort of index by whichto find the required
`data. In typical peer-to-peerfile sharing systems, because the
`index is on a server 80, or distributed among several servers,
`the numberoffiles available in the systemis not verylarge
`(otherwise,
`the server costs would be very large, or the
`
`5
`
`°
`
`-1492, POR at 4, EX. 1001 at 2:40-58 and 2:64-3:3; -1493, POR at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`ieteanit Flr
`
`The need for a new method ofdatatransfer that is fast for
`the consumer, cheap for the content distributor and does not 55
`require infrastructure investment for ISPs, has become a
`major issue which is yet unsolved.
`
`¢ The common specification discloses a novel second server <> first client
`device <> first/web server architecture that solves the problems in prior art
`systems:
`
`-1492, POR at 4 and 69,Sur-reply at 10, EX. 1001 at 1:54-57; -1493, POR at 4 and 67-68, Sur-reply at 10 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Use of the novel architecture keeps the benefits (e.g., provides
`anonymity) and addressesthe problemsin the prior art (e.g.,
`infrastructure costs)
`
`¢
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`ygFeaelt Flr!
`
`a network”) and 2:8-15 (reproduced above)); -1493, POR at 7-8 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Onesolutionthat has beeninuseis called a “proxy”. FIG.
`1 is a schematic diagram PrOVAMILG 3ana exatpple.©ortuse of a
`
`prox within.a network 2 rver4,6,8\ pre pro?
`
`
`illustratedin FIFIG.Glaass chient devices 10,12.14,116.5 18,20.
`that request data, via the Internet 22, and a Web server or
`Webservers 30, 32, 34 from which they are requesting the
`15 data.
`
`¢ Use of a proxy server as an intermediary was well-known as of 10/8/2009
`— Petitioners’ expert agreed (e.g., EX. 2067 at 51:8-13)
`
`°
`
`-1492, POR at 7-8; EX. 1001, Fig. 1 and 3:66-67 (“FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram providing a prior art example of use of a proxy within
`
`
`
`bright Flr!
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`-1492, EX. 1001, Fig. 1 and 3:66-67 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Figure 1:
`
`°
`
`
`
`¢ Figure 2:
`
`CLIENT
`DEVICE
`60
`
`;
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`bright data
`
`°
`
`-1492, EX. 1001, Fig. 2 and 4:1-2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`ygFedvl Flr!
`
`CLIENT
`102
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`-1492, EX. 1001, Fig. 3 and 4:3-5 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Figure 3:
`
`°
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`bright data
`
`-1492, POR at 2-8 and 12-13, Sur-reply at 9-10; -1493, POR at 2-8 and 12-13, Sur-reply at 9-10 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ The independent claims makeclear that the methods operate within
`a specific second server €> first client device <> first/web server
`architecture
`
`¢ Use of a client device as an intermediary between a proxy server and
`a web server is novel and non-obvious
`
`— Instead of the proxy server, the proxy client device is the exit node that sends
`requests for content to the web server
`
`°
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`ibafeaol Flr
`
`¢ Benefits of the claimed methods:
`
`— Lowersinfrastructure costs — enabling millions of proxies worldwide
`— Handles dynamic content — fetching fresh content from a web server, not cached
`content
`
`-1492, POR at 4, 59, and 68-72; -1493, POR at 4, 57, and 67-70 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`— Prevents blocking/spoofing by web server — providing anonymity to the
`requestor and use of a residential IP address (as opposed to a commercial IP
`address)
`
`°
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`bright data
`
`482
`
`¢ Client 102 and agent 122 are both “client devices”
`— See, e.g., “..each communication device may serve as a
`client, peer, or agent...” (-1492, EX. 1001 at 4:48-49)
`— The term “communication device” has a special meaningin
`the context of the specification
`— Aserver is not a communication device in the context of the
`specification
`
`e A requesting client device <> proxy server <> proxy client device <> web server architectureis
`shownin Modified Figure 3 (right)
`
`¢ Proxy server 6 and web server 152 are both “servers”
`
`ACCELERATION
`SERVER
`
`*
`
`-1492, POR at 2-9; -1493, POR at 2-9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`yaFeatl Flr
`
`first client device
`
`web server
`
`¢ Commercial Embodiment: Bright Data’s Residential Proxy Network
`
`-1492, POR at 57-59 and 68; -1493, POR at 56-57 and 67 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SuperProxy
`
`WebServer
`
`Consumer Computers
`(Residential)
`
`Customers
`(Users)
`
`
`
`Overview of the Challenged Patents
`
`ayaFeaol Flr!
`
`¢ Features driving commercial success:
`— (a) the proxy client devices have residential IP addresses which lowers the risk of
`blocking/spoofing by the web server
`—(b) the architecture provides wer scalability given the large numberof proxy
`client devices having residential
`IP addresses
`
`-1492, POR at 59-68 (Nexus) and 68-72; -1493, POR at 57-66 (Nexus) and 67-70 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`* CompareBright Data’s Residential Proxy Service (72 million+ IPs) to Bright
`Data’s Data Center Proxy Service (1.6 million IPs)
`
`¢ Bright Data’s Residential Proxy Service Revenue from 2021: $53.7 million
`
`°
`
`
`
`ataReet
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SS Z 7
`
`]
`
`#
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`ygFeaol 6bee)
`
`¢ Claim terms in dispute:
`
`Claim Term
`
`| Petitioners’ proposed construction
`
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction
`
`“client device”
`
`Communication device that is operating in Consumer computer
`the role of a client
`
`Note: no significance given to
`“communication device”
`
`Alternatively, consumer communication
`device
`
`° Lee parties do not dispute that the preambles of the independent claims are
`imiting
`
`-1492, Petition at 21-23, POR at 22-31; -1493, Petition at 18-20, POR at 23-31 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`“second server”
`
`A device that is operating in the role of a
`server and thatis not the first client device
`
`Server that is not a client device
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright 6h]
`
`¢ Petitioners deviate from the district court constructions as will be
`discussed with respectto:
`— The Teso Claim Construction Orders which maintained that the “second server” is indeed a server
`
`-1492, POR at 9-12 and 22-31, Sur-reply at 5-6; -1493, POR at 9-12 and 23-31, Sur-reply at 5-6 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`— The NetNut Claim Construction Order which expressly rejected referring to generic devices
`operating in a particular role
`
`¢ Patent Owner seeksto clarify the district court constructions for “client
`device” and “second server”
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`yaFeaol ble)
`
`° Purely role-based constructions are inconsistent with the Teso Claim Construction
`
`rders:
`
`¢ A “client device” is a “communication device operating in the role of a client” (EX.
`1017 at 12)(underline adde
`— The Court recognized that “communication device” has a special meaning in the context of the
`common specification (see, e.g., EX. 1017 at 12)
`
`-1492, POR at 9-12, Sur-reply at 5-6; -1493, POR at 9-12, Sur-reply at 5-6 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`° ead server’isa “server that is not the client device” (EX. 1017 at 14)(underline
`
`adde
`— The Court recognized that a server is not a communication device and therefore not a client
`device (EX. 1017 at 12; EX. 1020 at 10)
`— The Court did not changeits construction in the supplemental order (EX. 1020 at 11)
`
`¢
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright able)
`
`¢ The district court repeatedly emphasized that the Code200 Petitioners represented they
`would NOTtreat “client devices” and “servers” as interchangeable, general use computers:
`— E.g., EX. 1017 at 15 (“(“[Defendants] deny that they will claim client devices and servers are
`interchangeable general use computers.”)
`— E.g., EX. 2024 at 10-11 (“The Court here notes that in their claim construction briefing, [Defendants]
`specifically represented that they would not take the position that they would later assert that client
`devices and servers are interchangeable general use computers... However, they appear to have taken
`that position anyway.’)
`
`-1492, POR at 12-13 and 28; -1493, POR at 12-13 and 28 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ The district court recognized that a generic computer <> computer < computerarchitecture
`does not disclose the second server <> first client device <> first/web server architecture of
`the claims (e.g., EX. 2024 at 8-11)
`
`*
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Purely role-based constructions are inconsistent with the NetNut Claim
`Construction Order:
`
`-1492, POR at 9-12, Sur-reply at 5-6; -1493, POR at 9-12, Sur-reply at 5-6 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ The Court expressly rejected removing the word “communication” from its
`construction of “client device” (EX. 2021 at 14)
`— Not simply any generic device operating in the role of a client
`— “Communication device” has a special meaning in the context of the common
`specification
`
`¢ The Court expressly rejected removing the word “server”in its construction of
`“second server” (EX. 2021 at 20)
`— Not simply any generic device operating in the role of a server
`— The “second server”is indeed a server
`
`¢
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`ygFeaol data
`
`e “The only meaning that matters in claim construction is the meaning in the
`
`e “TT]he Board's construction cannot be divorced from the specification and the
`record evidence” and “must be consistent with the one that thoseskilled in
`the art would reach.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1298
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`— “A construction that is unreasonably broad and which does not reasonably reflect the
`plain language and disclosure will not pass muster.” /d. (citation and internal quotation
`marks omitted).
`
`-1492, Sur-reply at 9 and 11; -1493, Sur-reply at 9 and 11 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`soos) of the patent.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2005).
`— When there is more than one plain and ordinary meaning, the Board must look to the
`specification to see which meaning is appropriate
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`yafeavl eke)
`
`-1492, Sur-reply at 8; -1493, Sur-reply at 8 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ The specification distinguishes servers (proxy servers, acceleration servers, web
`servers) from client devices (clients, peers, agents)
`— E.g., -1492, EX. 1001 at 2:8-39 (describing prior art proxy servers and problems)
`— E.g., -1492, EX. 1001 at 2:40-43 (contrasting peer devices from servers)
`— E.g., -1492, EX. 1001 at 4:43-50 (server not included as communication device)
`— E.g., -1492, EX. 1001 at 5:8-34 (discussing different servers versus communications devices)
`— E.g., -1492, EX. 1001 at 4:6-13 peering Figs. 4-6 asillustrating “a communication device of the
`communication networkofFIG. 3 *y
`— E.g., -1492, EX. 1001, Fig. 6 (showing that client module 224 is loaded onto a communication
`device, not a server
`
`role-based constructions are improperin the context of the common
`¢ Purely
`specification:
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright 6kes)
`
`-1492, POR at 14-18, Sur-reply at 8-9; -1493, POR at 14-18, Sur-reply at 8-9 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Under the purely role-based constructions, there would be nothing to
`distinguish intermediary proxy server 6 of Fig. 1 (prior art proxy server)
`from intermediary agent 122 of Fig. 3 (inventive proxy client device)
`
`¢ Purely role-based constructions are improperin the context of the
`commonspecification:
`
`¢ The figures distinguish servers (e.g., proxy server 6 of Fig. 1) from client
`devices (e.g., agent 122 of Fig. 3)
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`¢ Figure 1 and Figure 3:
`
`bright eke)
`
`-1492, EX. 1001, Fig. 1 and 4:3-5 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram providing an ggofa
`communication network in accordance with the pi
`
`FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram providing a prior art
`example of use of a proxy within a network.
`
`-1492, EX. 1001,Fig. 1 and 3:66-67
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`yaFeatlt data
`
`¢ How do the purely role-based constructions account for differences
`between the prior art system using an intermediary proxy server (shown
`in Fig. 1) and the exemplary embodiment using an intermediary client
`device (shownin Fig. 3)?
`
`-1492, POR at 14-18, Sur-reply at 8-9; -1493, POR at 14-18, Sur-reply at 8-9 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Any fair reading of the common specification must accountfor the
`differences between proxy server 6 of Fig. 1 (which is a server) and agent
`122 of Fig. 3 (whichis a client device)
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Under the purely role-based constructions:
`— FIG. 1— Prior art proxy server 6 operates in the “role of a client” with respect to web server 32
`and “role of a server” with respect to client device 16
`— FIG. 3 — Exemplary embodiment agent 122 operates in the “role of a client” with respect to web
`server 152 and “role of a server” with respect to client device 102
`
`-1492, POR at 14-18; -1493, POR at 14-18 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`isefeatl data
`
`¢ The purely role-based constructions ignore the novel use of a non-traditional client
`device (e.g., agent 122)
`
`¢ The commonspecification clearly distinguishes servers from client devices. For
`example, the prior art use of an intermediary proxy server 6 (whichis a server)is
`Sei from the novel use of an intermediary agent 122 (whichis a client
`
`-1492, POR at 14-18, Sur-reply at 8-9; -1493, POR at 14-18, Sur-reply at 8-9 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`evice).
`
`— Figure 1 showsa prior art requesting client device <>proxyserver<> webserverarchitecture
`
`— Figure 3 showsan inventive requesting client device <>proxyclientdevice© webserver
`
`architecture
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`ibeFeaol data
`
`¢ Petitioners argue that the Board should reject an “at that point in time” qualifier in
`the purely role-based constructions
`
`¢ Petitioners’ argument contradicts the very RFC 2616 on which theyrely, ignoring the
`role being performed at a particular point in time, for a particular connection
`— RFC 2616 states “... our use of these terms [client and server] refers only to the role being
`performed by the program for a particular connection...” (EX. 1013 at 8)(emphasis added)
`
`-1492, Sur-reply at 3, 11, and 13; -1493, Sur-reply at 3, 11, and 13 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Petitioners’ argumentis inconsistent with the use of the terms “server” and “client
`device” in the claims
`
`— Any intermediary would be both a “server” and a “client device” albeit at different points in time
`— Petitioners fail to account for the different constructions for these claim terms
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Purely role-based constructions are improperin the context of the common
`specification:
`
`e The purely role-based constructions contradict the express claim language
`
`-1492, POR at 13-14; -1493, POR at 13-14 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`* Under the purely role-based constructions, during the performanceof certain
`nethee stepsthe “first client device” would be operatingin the role of a server, nota
`
`¢ The preambles of the independentclaimsrecite a “first client device” and must be
`read consistently with the rest of the claims
`
`client
`— Thus, the “first client device” would meet Petitioners’ construction for “second server”
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`ygFeatl ble)
`
`Purely role-based constructions ignore the applicant’s prosecution history statements:
`
`Client devices are NOT “dedicated device[s|”
`Client devices use “client-related software”
`
`Client devices are typically “consumer owned and operated”
`Client devices typically “connect[] to the Internet via an ISP using a single connection”
`Client devices are “inherently [re]sources limited, such as bandwidth and storage capability”
`
`-1492, POR at 19-22 and 27; -1493, POR at 19-22 and 27 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Client devices and servers are NOT “generic computer[s]”
`
`prosecution NIStory, -
`
`;
`
`empnasisS aaqge
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright 6h]
`
`ed construction for “client device”is
`
`— Alternatively, “consumer communication device”
`
`-1492, POR at 22-27, Sur-reply at 9; -1493, POR at 23-28, Sur-reply at 9 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ As disclosed in the specification, client, peers, and agentsare all “client devices”
`— The exemplary independent claims recite use of a proxy client device instead of a prior art
`proxy server to obtain content from the web server, to avoid problems with the prior art
`
`° The “first client device” is a client device regardless of the role being performed
`at a given point in time
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Lexicography in the commonspecification
`
`-1492, POR at 22-27, Sur-reply at 18-19; -1493, POR at 23-28, Sur-reply at 18-19 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`— This definition is not incidental; it expressly sets forth a solution to the problem of using proxy
`servers as intermediaries
`* The commonspecification describes proxy serversas useful, but too expensive and impractical to locate
`everywhere(-1492, EX. 1001 at 2:8-39)
`The commonspecification discloses the novel use of “computers of consumers, referred to herein asclient
`devices” as “a new method of data transfer thatis fast for the consumer, cheap for the content distributor
`and does not require infrastructure investmentfor ISPs...” (-1492, EX. 1001 at 2:45-46 and 1:54-56)
`
`— The specification expressly states: “files are stored on computers of consumers, referred to
`herein as client devices” (1499, EX. 1001 at 2:45-46)(emphasis added)
`
`— The Federal Circuit has found that the phrase “referred to herein as” defines a claim term
`* Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools, Inc. v. ITC, 22 F.4th 1369, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright hr]
`
`-1492, POR at 27; -1493, POR at 27 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`— Not a dedicated network element, unlike a server
`— Resource-limited, unlike a server
`— Regularly switched off and taken offline, unlike a server
`— Lesser fault tolerance,reliability, scalability, unlike a server
`— Prioritizes value to user over network system, unlike a server
`
`¢ Attributes of a “client device” understood by a person ofordinaryskill in
`the art:
`
`— Typically portable and easily moved, unlike a server
`— Typically uses relatively few connections, unlike a server
`— Typically processes limited number of requests (e.g., single user login), unlike a
`server
`
`°
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Patent Owner’s dial construction for “second server”is
`
`¢ The “second server” is a server (not a communication device) regardless of
`the role being performed at a given point in time
`
`-1492, POR at 28-31; -1493, POR at 28-31 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`° As disclosed in the common specification, proxy servers, acceleration servers,
`and web servers are all “servers”
`
`¢ Aserver is a not a client device in the context of the commonspecification
`
`e
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`yeFeavl oh]
`
`¢ Attributes of a “server” understood by a person of ordinary skill in the
`art:
`
`— Dedicated network element
`
`-1492, POR at 30; -1493, POR at 30 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`— Rarely switched off and taken offline
`— Efficiently processes multiple requests from multiple clients at the same time
`— Generates various logs associated with clients and traffic from/to clients
`— Primarily interfaces and responds toclients, often without a GUI
`— Greater fault tolerance and high reliability
`— Lowfailure rates
`
`— Higher scalability for increasing resourcesto serve increasing client demands
`
`*
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright data
`
`¢ Petitioners mischaracterize Patent Owner’s proposed constructions by
`suggesting that the “second server”is simply “not a consumer
`computer”
`
`-1492, Sur-reply at 14; -1493, Sur-reply at 14 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`° The “second server” is a server and a server is not a client device in the
`context of the common specification
`
`e
`
`
`
`Claim construction
`
`bright 6h!
`
`¢ Patent Owner’s proposed constructions:
`
`- “client device” means “consumer computer”
`— Alternatively, “consumer communication device”
`
`-1492, POR at 22-31; -1493, POR at 23-31 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`« “second server” means “server that is not a client device”
`
`°
`
`
`
`bright data
`
`No anticipation or obviousness based on
`
`Crowds, Border, or MorphMix
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`bright GFFe
`
`Crowds:
`
`Border:
`
`WebServers
`
`No anticipation or obviousness
`
`EX. 1006, Fig. 2; EX. 1012, Fig. 1; EX. 1008, Fig. 5.1 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Fig.
`
`2. Paths in a crowd (the initiator and web server of each path are labeled the same)
`
`Figure 5.1: Basic idea ofMorphMix.
`
`°
`
`
`
`atameet
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`"
`
`|
`
`
`
`No anticipation
`
`bright data
`
`WebServers
`
`Crowds describes a system in which identical user computers running
`“iondo” software blend into a “crowd” (EX. 1006 at 8)
`— This provides each jondo “some degree of deniability” (EX. 1006 at 2)
`— The crowd does notinclude any servers
`
`Fig. 2. Paths in a crowd (the initiator and web server of each path are labeled the same).
`
`Any request from the user’s browser is sent directly to the jondo (EX.
`1006 at 8)
`— Requests are NOT routed through a server
`
`The pathway between a jondo and a web server is random (EX. 1006 at
`8)
`
`— Ajondoflips a biased coin to determine whetheror not to send a request
`to another jondo (EX. 1006at 8)
`
`-1492, POR at 38-39; -1493, POR at 38-39; EX. 1006,Fig. 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`-1492, Petition at 29-30; -1493, Petition at 26-28; EX. 1006,Fig. 2 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Petitioners allege that jondo 6 corresponds
`to the “first client device” of the Challenged
`Cla | ms
`
`bright cli)
`
`Web Servers
`
`Fig. 2. Paths in a crowd(the initiator and web server of each path are labeled the same).
`
`No anticipation
`
`¢ Petitioners rely on the jondo 5 > jondo 4 >
`jondo 6 web server 5 pathway
`
`¢ Petitioners allege that jondo 4 corresponds
`to the “second server” of the Challenged
`Claims
`
`*
`
`
`
`No anticipation
`
`ygFeatlt cles)
`
`-1492, POR at 31-36, Sur-reply at 23; -1493, POR at 31-36, Sur-reply at 23 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Crowds does not anticipate the independent claims under Patent
`Owner’s proposed constructions
`— Crowds doesnotdisclose a “second server” as recited in the independentclaims
`
`¢ Crowds does not anticipate the independent claims under the purely
`role-based constructions
`
`— Petitioners ignore the role being performed by a jondo for a particular
`connection during a particular method step
`
`°
`
`
`
`No anticipation
`
`bright cri)
`
`-1492, POR at 31-36, Sur-reply at 23; -1493, POR at 31-36, Sur-reply at 23 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`¢ Petitioners do not distinguish jondos 4 and 6 (which are both
`intermediaries between jondo 5 and web server 5) other than the roles
`being performed at some point in time
`— Petitioners ignore the particular connection in each method step
`— Petitioners do not consistently apply their own logic to jondos 4 and 6
`
`¢ Under the purely role-based constructions:
`— A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that sending
`requests/receiving responses = “operating in the role of a client”
`— A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that receiving
`requests/sending responses = “operating in the role of a server”
`— An intermediary toggles roles
`
`°
`
`
`
`No anticipation
`
`ibafeatlt clr)
`
`¢ Crowds does not anticipate exemplary step 4 of claim 1 of the ‘319 Patent under the
`purely-role based constructions:
`
`Step 4 recites the first client device “sending, the
`first content... to the second server ...”
`
`Web Servers
`
`a
`
`_
`
`-1492, POR at 32-33; EX. 1006, Fig. 2; see also -1493, POR at 33 (analyzing exemplary step 4 of claim 1 of the ‘510 Patent) DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Whenjondo 6 sendsa response, jondo6 is
`ape
`operating in the role of a server, not a client
`a6]
`Whenjondo 4 receives a response, jondo4is Cn Et ee. §
`
`operating in the role of a client, not a server
`4)
`
`/
`
`a
`
`.
`
`—
`
`2
`
`Fig. 2. Paths in a crowd (the initiator and web server of each path are labeled the same).
`
`
`
`No anticipation
`
`bright cri)
`
`Crowds doesnot anticipate the independent claims under Patent Owner’s
`proposed constructions:
`
`CrowdsFig. 2 discloses identical jondos in the crowd(circle icons) and web servers
`(square icons)
`
`-1492, POR at 33-36, Sur-reply at 23; -1493, POR at 33-36, Sur-reply at 23 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`It is improper to identify one jondo as a “client device” and another identical jondo
`as a “server”
`
`None of the jondosare “servers” under Patent Owner’s proposed constructions
`
`
`
`No anticipation
`
`bright cli)
`
`¢ Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand
`that a jondo is not a “server” at least because of the attributes of a
`jondo:
`— Not a dedicated network element
`— Does not remain online with greater availability and maximum up time
`— Not capable of a large number of connections
`
`-1492, POR at 33-38; -1493, POR at 33-38 DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`°
`
`
`
`bright data
`
`Crowds in combination does not render
`obvious the independentclaims of the
`
`Challenged Patents
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`SiS,
`
`
`
`No obviousness
`
`bright 6b!
`
`¢ Petitioners provide no analysis that would cure the deficiencies of the purely role-
`based constructions
`
`e Petitioners allege inserting a server into the crowd, where that member would not
`run its own browser, to meet Patent Owner’s proposed constructions
`— Petitioners’ argumentis directly contrary to the teachings of Crowds
`* Crowds does n
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
