UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Case IPR2021-01492, IPR2021-01493, IPR2022-00915, IPR2022-00916
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; OXYSALES, UAB, AND
`CORETECH LT, UAB
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`Petitioners’ Presentation
`
`June 9, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`Case IPR2021-01492, IPR2021-01493, IPR2022-00915, IPR2022-00916
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; OXYSALES, UAB, AND
`CORETECH LT, UAB
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`Petitioners’ Presentation
`
`June 9, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`1
`
`
`
`Petitioners’ Presentation
`
`June 9, 2023
`
`* Citations to briefing in footers are for IPR2021-01492 and IPR2021-01493
`(Briefs filed in IPR2022-00915 and IPR2022-00916 are substantially similar.)
`
`* Unless otherwise noted, all citations to exhibits are to IPR2021-01492
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`2
`
`
`
`Outline of Argument
`
`1. Two Primary Issues (Claim Construction)
`
`2. Obviousness of Claim 1 Even Under Patent Owner’s Proposal
`
`3. Dependent Claims
`
`4. Teaching Away is Not Relevant
`
`5. Lack of Nexus for Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`3
`
`
`
`Outline of Argument
`
`1. Two Primary Issues (Claim Construction)
`
`2. Obviousness of Claim 1 Even Under Patent Owner’s Proposal
`
`3. Dependent Claims
`
`4. Teaching Away is Not Relevant
`
`5. Lack of Nexus for Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`4
`
`
`
`Two Primary Issues
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Changes to
`Court Claim Constructions:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`“Client Device” and “Second Server”
`
`“At Every Moment” Change to Court’s
`Role-Based Construction
`
`Reply (’319) at 1-19; Reply (’510) at 1-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`5
`
`
`
`Two Primary Issues
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Changes to
`Court Claim Constructions:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`“Client Device” and “Second Server”
`
`“At Every Moment” Change to Court’s
`Role-Based Construction
`
`Reply (’319) at 1-19; Reply (’510) at 1-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`6
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Subjective Characteristics
`
`Declaration of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`“consumer computer”
`
`“typically portable and easily moved”
`
`“not a dedicated network element”
`
`“resource limited (e.g., bandwidth and
`storage), unlike a server”
`
`“regularly switched off and taken offline”
`
`“capable of processing only a limited
`number of requests at any given time”
`
`“uses a single or relatively few
`connections, unlike a server”
`
`“lesser fault tolerance, lesser reliability,
`and lesser scalability, prioritizing value to
`client device users over system costs”
`
`EX-2065, ¶¶ 118, 122-123
`
`Reply (’319) at 1-5; Reply (’510) at 1-6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`7
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Consumer Computer?
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. Dr. Williams, before the break we were
`referring to, I think, seven characteristics
`that you had listed for a client device in
`paragraphs 122 and 123, right?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q. Is owned by -- owned and operated by a
`consumer an 8th characteristic that you
`would determine to see whether a device
`was a client device?
`
`A. 8 and 9.
`
`EX-1111, 53:24-54:8
`
`Reply (’319) at 2; Reply (’510) at 2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`8
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Consumer Computer?
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q.
`
`Assume with me in the bank example that the bank employee could --
`during the course of the day when the employee had the cell phone, could,
`in fact, add whatever software is needed to perform the method steps of
`Claim 1 of the 319 patent. Would that change your answer?
`
`A.
`
`Then I would say the device is owned and operated by the employee.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`Q. What if the employee did not install the software that would allow it to
`perform the steps of the claim, but rather the bank installed the software.
`Would that change your opinion?
`
`A.
`
`Then I would say that that cell phone was not operating as a consumer
`computer and is not a first client device.
`
`EX-1111, 195:5-196:1
`
`Reply (’319) at 3; Reply (’510) at 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`9
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Consumer Computer?
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. What if a commercial entity gave away a cell phone to a
`consumer and that consumer then used that phone? Would
`that be a consumer -- would that be a consumer computer,
`even if the commercial entity wanted to receive the phones
`back after a certain amount of time?
`
`A.
`
`I think you are asking me a legal question.
`
`Q. Would you need to resolve that legal issue to determine how
`the ownership of the device applied in order to determine
`whether it was a consumer computer?
`
`A. The terms of the arrangement might influence a POSA's
`decision.
`
`EX-1111, 188:8-21
`
`Reply (’319) at 3 n.1; Reply (’510) at 3 n.2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`10
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Portable and Easily Moved?
`
`• “Doesn’t matter” who would be
`moving the device.
`− EX-1111, 17:3-6
`
`• PO expert does not know how
`far to move the device.
`− EX-1111, 24:2-14
`
`• Weight limit on being easily
`moved?
`− EX-1111, 24:9-11, 40:4-20
`
`• How many people move the
`device?
`− EX-1111, 26:2-10
`
`Reply (’319) at 3; Reply (’510) at 3-4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`11
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Portable and Easily Moved?
`
`• “Doesn’t matter” who would be
`moving the device.
`− EX-1111, 17:3-6
`
`• PO expert does not know how
`far to move the device.
`− EX-1111, 24:2-14
`
`• Weight limit on being easily
`moved?
`− EX-1111, 24:9-11, 40:4-20
`
`• How many people move the
`device?
`− EX-1111, 26:2-10
`
`EX-1111, 69:8-12
`
`Reply (’319) at 3, 8; Reply (’510) at 3-4, 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`12
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: No Metrics or Numbers
`
`Patent Owner’s expert has no numbers or metrics for:
`
`• “Single or relatively few connections”
`− EX-1111, 27:22-28:19
`
`• “Resource limited” (bandwidth or storage)
`− EX-1111, 31:8-23, 34:11-19
`
`• “Regularly switched off and taken offline”
`− EX-1111, 45:10-46:20
`
`• “Lesser fault tolerance, lesser reliability, and lesser
`scalability”
`− EX-1111, 50:1-51:20
`
`Reply (’319) at 3-4; Reply (’510) at 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`13
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Characteristics Not in Specification
`
`EX-1001 (’319 Patent), 2:40-46
`
`Reply (’319) at 4-5; Reply (’510) at 4-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`14
`
`
`
`“Client Device”: Characteristics Not in Specification
`
`’319 Patent
`
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Q. Is the client device of Claim
`1 of the 319 patent a prior
`art client device?
`
`A. No.
`EX-1111, 117:8-10
`
`EX-1001 (’319 Patent), 2:40-46
`
`EX-1001 (’319 Patent), 4:1-2
`
`Reply (’319) at 4-5; Reply (’510) at 4-5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`15
`
`
`
`“Second Server”: Subjective Characteristics
`
`Declaration of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`“not a consumer computer”
`
`“remain online with greater availability and maximum up time
`to receive requests almost all of the time”
`
`“efficiently process multiple requests from multiple client
`devices at the same time”
`
`“commercial network element, rather than a consumer device”
`
`“generate various logs associated with the client devices and
`traffic from/to the client devices”
`
`“not portable or moved about by a consumer”
`
`“dedicated network element, unlike a client device”
`
`“typically capable of a large number of connections, unlike a
`typical client device”
`
`EX-2065, ¶¶ 132-33
`
`Reply (’319) at 5-6; Reply (’510) at 6-7
`
`“primarily interface and respond to the client devices,
`oftentimes without a Graphical User Interface”
`
`“have greater fault tolerance and higher reliability with lower
`failure rates”
`
`“provide scalability for increasing resources to serve increasing
`client demands”
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`16
`
`
`
`“Second Server”: Not a Consumer Computer?
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. Does that mean that a consumer can
`not own a server?
`
`A. A consumer would not own a server
`per the claims and specifications of
`the patents in suit in order to infringe
`the clients.
`EX-1111, 79:8-12
`
`Reply (’319) at 7; Reply (’510) at 7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`17
`
`
`
`“Second Server”: Not Portable or “Moved About”?
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. So paragraph 132, you say that a server is not
`portable or moved about. Do you see that?
`
`A. Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`Is there a weight limit that would qualify a server
`to being portable or not being portable?
`
`A. Again, I have not put a number on this.
`
`Q. Okay. Is there a particular distance the server
`would have to be moved for purposes of
`determining whether or not the server was
`portable?
`
`A. Again, I have not put a number on this.
`
`EX-1111, 89:18-90:7
`
`Reply (’319) at 7; Reply (’510) at 8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`18
`
`
`
`Figure 3
`
`’319 Patent, 4:3-5
`
`Reply (’319) at 9; Reply (’510) at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`19
`
`
`
`“Second Server”: PO’s Construction Relies on
`Modified Figure
`
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Q. Do any of the components
`drawn in Figure 3 correspond to
`the second server of Claim 1 of
`the 319 patent under your
`construction of second server?
`
`A. No.
`
`EX-1111, 110:17-21
`
`Reply (’319) at 9; Reply (’510) at 9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`20
`
`
`
`’319 Patent, Figure 1
`
`’319 Patent, 3:66-67
`
`Reply (’319) at 9-10; Reply (’510) at 10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`21
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal: Compare Unidentified Devices at
`Unidentified Points in Time
`Declaration of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`“resource limited (e.g., bandwidth and
`storage), unlike a server”
`
`EX-2065, ¶ 122
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Is there a particular number or metric that
`one would use to determine whether a device
`was resource limited in terms of storage?
`
`I'm not putting a number on this, just like the
`previous discussions we had this morning.
`Again, it's deciding -- having a POSA decide
`whether a device is a client device or a server
`by examining the relative difference between
`the storage capability of each device.
`
`EX-1111, 34:11-19
`
`Reply (’319) at 10-11; Reply (’510) at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`22
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal: Compare Unidentified Devices at
`Unidentified Points in Time
`Declaration of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`EX-2065, ¶ 118
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Specifically paragraph 132, for example, sir, do you see
`that your last sentence refers to a "large number of
`connections, comma, unlike a typical client device"?
`
`It does.
`
`How would a POSA know what a typical client device was
`at any given time when the POSA is making the
`determination?
`
`A.
`
`The skill sets of a POSA would include that capability.
`
`Q. Would the typical client device be a particular make and
`model of a device?
`
`A.
`
`Not that I have opined on.
`
`EX-1111, 97:4-16
`
`Reply (’319) at 10-11; Reply (’510) at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`23
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal: Compare Unidentified Devices at
`Unidentified Points in Time
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. Do you have any particular time period that you would
`use in order to determine whether a client device
`meets the characteristics listed in paragraph 122?
`
`A. The point in time at which a POSA reading the claims of
`this patent would decide the bifurcation between
`client device and server would be the point in time at
`which that POSA was determining infringement. And
`over time, the server devices and the client devices
`increase their resource availability approximately
`linearly. So the relative change between the two types
`of devices will stay relatively constant.
`
`EX-1111, 33:9-23
`
`Reply (’319) at 10; Reply (’510) at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`24
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal: Compare Unidentified Devices at
`Unidentified Points in Time
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. Do you have any particular time period that you would
`use in order to determine whether a client device
`meets the characteristics listed in paragraph 122?
`
`A. The point in time at which a POSA reading the claims of
`this patent would decide the bifurcation between
`client device and server would be the point in time at
`which that POSA was determining infringement. And
`over time, the server devices and the client devices
`increase their resource availability approximately
`linearly. So the relative change between the two types
`of devices will stay relatively constant.
`
`EX-1111, 33:9-23
`
`Reply (’319) at 10; Reply (’510) at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`25
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal = Confusion
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`So looking at your paragraph 122, sir, let me give you the following hypothetical. If I
`had a desktop computer that weighed 60 pounds and was bulky, it was not a dedicated
`network element, it had three connections and it had 500 gigabytes of storage, using
`that information, would you be able to tell me whether that device was a client device
`or not?
`
`In what period of time are we in?
`
`Today.
`
`And is that device owned and operated by a consumer?
`
`Yes.
`
`Certainly common servers today have more bandwidth, more storage and are
`dedicated -- and are dedicated network elements and are not owned and operated by
`consumers. So I would say in your hypothetical that that would be a client device.
`
`Sir, what if we used the same hypothetical and used the time period of 2012 rather
`than today? Would that still be a client device?
`
`I don't recall the characteristics of servers in these aspects at that period of time, so I
`can't express an opinion about that.
`
`EX-1111, 37:16-38:16
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Reply (’319) at 10; Reply (’510) at 11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`26
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal = Confusion
`
`PO’s expert does not know how many alleged
`“client device” criteria need to be met.
`(EX-1111, 52:5 - 53:11)
`
`PO’s expert does not know how many alleged
`“server” criteria need to be met.
`(EX-1111, 77:21-79:2)
`
`Reply (’319) at 11; Reply (’510) at 11-12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`27
`
`
`
`PO’s Proposal = Confusion
`
`Have you ever heard of a home server before?
`Q.
`Yes. I have home servers in my network.
`A.
`Q. What's the home server?
`A.
`It's a server that's in my house.
`Q. What computer device comprises what you call the server in your house?
`A.
`The device is a Mac Mini.
`
`Q.
`A.
`Q.
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`***
`And you said that the Mac Mini is a home server in your house; correct?
`It's a server within my home network, yes.
`So would the Mac Mini, then, be a server within the meaning of the claims of the
`patent as you described a server in your declaration?
`No.
`A.
`Q. Why not?
`A.
`Again, a POSA reading the claims of the specification -- in the specification of the
`patents in suit is deciding what is a client device and what is a server. And in my
`opinion, the POSA would not interpret my server in mind of a client -- my server in my
`network to be a server per the claims of the patent.
`***
`Okay. Can you tell from Exhibit 1110 whether a POSA would understand the Mac Mini
`server as reflected in Exhibit 1110 to be a server, or would you need more
`information?
`Need more information. As we discussed this morning, the server in my network, I
`don't believe a POSA would reach the conclusion that my server in my network is a
`server per the claims in the disclosures of the patents.
`EX-1111, 79:23-80:6, 80:14-81:5, 102:15-23
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Reply (’319) at 11-12; Reply (’510) at 12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`28
`
`
`
`Court Applied Role-Based Constructions
`
`Reply (’319) at 12-13; Petition (’319) at 21-23; Reply (’510) at 13-14; Petition (’510) at 18-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`29
`
`EX-1112, 13
`
`
`
`Court Applied Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1020, 10
`
`Reply (’319) at 13; Petition (’319) at 21-23; Reply (’510) at 13-14; Petition (’510) at 18-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`30
`
`
`
`Court Applied Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1020, 10
`
`Reply (’319) at 13; Petition (’319) at 21-23; Reply (’510) at 13-14; Petition (’510) at 18-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`31
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1001 (’319 Patent), 5:55-57
`
`EX-1001 (’319 Patent), 9:20-26
`
`Reply (’319) at 13-14, Petition (’319) at 17-19; Reply (’510) at 14; Petition (’510) at 15-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`32
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1126, 8
`
`Reply (’319) at 14-15; Reply (’510) at 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`33
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`Reply (’319) at 14-15; Reply (’510) at 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`34
`
`EX-1126, 8
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`PO Sur-Reply, 9 n.4
`
`PO’s Sur-Reply (’319) at 9 n.4; PO’s Sur-Reply (’510) at 9 n.4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`35
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1126, 8-9
`
`Reply (’319) at 14-15; Reply (’510) at 14-15
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`36
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1001 (’319 Patent), 16:21-22
`
`’319 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1. A method for use with a 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:
`
`receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext
`sending,
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request
`that comprises the first
`content identifier;
`
`from the first server over the
`the first content
`receiving,
`Internet
`in response to the sending of
`the first content
`identifier; and
`
`the first content by the first client device to the
`sending,
`second server, in response to the receiving of the first content
`identifier.
`
`Reply (’319) at 15; Reply (’510) at 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`37
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1013 (RFC 2616)
`
`Reply (’319) at 15; Reply (’510) at 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`38
`
`
`
`Patent Supports Court’s Role-Based Constructions
`
`EX-1013, 8
`
`Reply (’319) at 15; Reply (’510) at 15-16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`39
`
`
`
`Prosecution History Does Not Support PO
`
`Reply (’319) at 15-16; Reply (’510) at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`40
`
`PO Response, 19
`
`
`
`Prosecution History Does Not Support PO
`
`Reply (’319) at 15-16; Reply (’510) at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`41
`
`EX-2026, 215
`
`
`
`Prosecution History Does Not Support PO
`
`EX-2026, 173
`
`EX-2026, 173-174
`
`Reply (’319) at 15-16; Reply (’510) at 16-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`42
`
`
`
`Prosecution History Does Not Support PO
`
`EX-1129
`
`Reply (’319) at 16; Reply (’510) at 17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`43
`
`
`
`Two Primary Issues
`
`Patent Owner’s Proposed Changes to
`Court Claim Constructions:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`“Client Device” and “Second Server”
`
`“At Every Moment” Change to Court’s
`Role-Based Construction
`
`Reply (’319) at 17-19; Reply (’510) at 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`44
`
`
`
`No Dispute About Operation of Prior Art
`
`EX-1006, 74 (green highlighting added)
`
`Petition (’319) at 29-36; Reply (’319) at 19; Petition (’510) at 26-32; Reply (’510) at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`45
`
`
`
`No Dispute About Operation of Prior Art
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 5 sends a request to jondo 4.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 4 sends the request to jondo 6.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 6 sends the request to web server 5.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, web server 5 sends a response to jondo 6.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 6 sends the response to jondo 4.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 4 sends the response to jondo 5.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, jondo 4
`is operating in the role of a server.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, jondo 6
`is operating in the role of a client.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, web
`server 5 is operating in the role of a server.”
`
`EX-2065, ¶¶ 143-148
`
`EX-1006, 74 (green highlighting added)
`
`Petition (’319) at 29-36; Reply (’319) at 19-20; Petition (’510) at 26-32; Reply (’510) at 20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`46
`
`
`
`No Dispute About Operation of Prior Art
`
`’319 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1. A method for use with a 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:
`
`receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, jondo 4
`is operating in the role of a server.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, jondo 6
`is operating in the role of a client.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, web
`server 5 is operating in the role of a server.”
`
`to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext
`sending,
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request
`that comprises the first
`content identifier;
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 5 sends a request to jondo 4.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 4 sends the request to jondo 6.”
`
`from the first server over the
`the first content
`receiving,
`Internet
`in response to the sending of
`the first content
`identifier; and
`
`the first content by the first client device to the
`sending,
`second server, in response to the receiving of the first content
`identifier.
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 6 sends the request to web server 5.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, web server 5 sends a response to jondo 6.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 6 sends the response to jondo 4.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 4 sends the response to jondo 5.”
`
`EX-2065, ¶¶ 143-148
`
`Petition (’319) at 29-36; Reply (’319) at 19-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`47
`
`
`
`No Dispute About Operation of Prior Art
`
`’510 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1. 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:
`
`establishing a Transmission Control Protocol
`connection with a second server;
`
`(TCP)
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, jondo 4
`is operating in the role of a server.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, jondo 6
`is operating in the role of a client.”
`
`“At that point in time, under the purely role-based constructions, web
`server 5 is operating in the role of a server.”
`
`sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first
`content identifier;
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 5 sends a request to jondo 4.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 4 sends the request to jondo 6.”
`
`receiving, the first content from the web server over
`the Internet in response to the sending of the first
`content identifier; and
`
`sending the received first content, to the second server
`over the established TCP connection, in response to the
`receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 6 sends the request to web server 5.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, web server 5 sends a response to jondo 6.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 6 sends the response to jondo 4.”
`
`“In the Mapped Path, jondo 4 sends the response to jondo 5.”
`
`EX-2065, ¶¶ 143-148
`
`Petition (’510) at 25-32; Reply (’510) at 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`48
`
`
`
`No Dispute About Operation of Prior Art
`Declaration of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`“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.”
`
`EX-2065, ¶ 44
`
`Q. You would admit, though, that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that typically
`a request for content is sent
`from a client device to a web
`server, correct?
`
`A. Correct.
`
`EX-1111, 132:2-6
`
`Reply (’319) at 19-20; Reply (’510) at 20-21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`49
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`PO Response, 32-33
`
`Reply (’319) at 17-19; Reply (’510) at 17-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`50
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`’319 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1. A method for use with a 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:
`
`receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext
`sending,
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request
`that comprises the first
`content identifier;
`
`from the first server over the
`the first content
`receiving,
`Internet
`in response to the sending of
`the first content
`identifier; and
`
`the first content by the first client device to the
`sending,
`second server, in response to the receiving of the first content
`identifier.
`
`Reply (’319) at 17-19; Reply (’510) at 17-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`51
`
`PO Response, p.32-33
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`’319 Patent, Claim 1
`
`’510 Patent, Claim 1
`
`1. A method for use with a 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:
`
`receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`1. 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:
`
`establishing a Transmission Control Protocol
`connection with a second server;
`
`(TCP)
`
`to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext
`sending,
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request
`that comprises the first
`content identifier;
`
`sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first
`content identifier;
`
`from the first server over the
`the first content
`receiving,
`Internet
`in response to the sending of
`the first content
`identifier; and
`
`the first content by the first client device to the
`sending,
`second server, in response to the receiving of the first content
`identifier.
`
`receiving, the first content from the web server over
`the Internet in response to the sending of the first
`content identifier; and
`
`sending the received first content, to the second server
`over the established TCP connection, in response to the
`receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`Reply (’319) at 17-19; Reply (’510) at 17-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`52
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. So Claim 1, step 1 of the 319 patent
`requires the client device to, in your
`opinion, act in the role of a server with
`respect to Claim 1, step 1, correct?
`
`A. Under role-based constructions. This is one
`of the reasons role-based constructions do
`not make sense in understanding the
`invention of these patents.
`
`EX-1111, 137:8-15
`
`Reply (’319) at 18; Reply (’510) at 18-19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`53
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Just to make sure I have a clean answer, you would agree with me, right, that in Claim
`1, step 1, the first client device is required to perform what you would call a server
`role, correct? Under a role-based construction?
`
`Yes.
`
`And in Claim 1, step 1, the second server is required to perform what you would call a
`client role under a role-based construction, correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes. In order to perform the steps of the method, yes.
`
`EX-1111, 138:17-139:5
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Okay. But now looking just at the language of the claim in Claim 1, step 1, the claim
`actually requires the first client device to receive information from the second server,
`correct?
`
`Yes. These are the steps of a method by the first client device, receiving from the
`second server the first content identifier.
`
`But in your understanding of role-based constructions, a client device cannot receive
`information as shown in step 1, because that would make it a server, correct?
`
`Under a role based construction, yes, that's correct.
`
`And similarly, at a role --
`
`Role-based constructions do not make sense in understanding this claim.
`
`EX-1111, 143:12-144:3
`
`Reply (’319) at 18; Reply (’510) at 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`54
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A.
`Williams
`
`Q. So sitting here today, can you think of any way that step 1,
`Claim 1 could possibly be performed under the way you are
`applying the role-based constructions of second server and
`first client device?
`
`A.
`
`I have not formed an opinion.
`
`Q. Sitting here today, Dr. Williams, can you think of any way
`that step 4 of Claim 1 of the 319 patent could ever possibly
`be performed given the way that you are interpreting the
`role-based constructions of first client device and second
`server?
`
`A. Not off the top of my head.
`
`EX-1111, 148:25-149:12
`
`Reply (’319) at 18; Reply (’510) at 19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`55
`
`
`
`PO’s “At Every Moment” Limitation Does Not Make Sense
`
`PO Response, 59, 62
`
`Reply (’319) at 18-19; Reply (’510) at 19-20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`56
`
`
`
`PO Uses Same Argument as to MorphMix and Border
`
`PO Response, 42, 43, 49, 50
`
`Reply (’319) at 20; Reply (’510) at 21
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`57
`
`
`
`Outline of Argument
`
`1. Two Primary Issues (Claim Construction)
`
`2. Obviousness of Claim 1 Even Under Patent Owner’s Proposal
`
`3. Dependent Claims
`
`4. Teaching Away is Not Relevant
`
`5. Lack of Nexus for Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`58
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is Obvious Even Under PO’s Proposal
`
`Deposition of
`Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Q. How heavy is Proxy Server 6?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Proxy servers were well-known in the art. I don't
`recall the weight.
`
`I'm asking about Proxy Server 6.
`
`Proxy Server 6 is an example of a proxy server well
`known in the art. I don't recall the weight.
`
`***
`
`Q. None of these details about Proxy Server 6 are in
`the specification, are they?
`
`A.
`
`Again, this is something that a POSA would bring to
`the specification based on their understanding --
`based on their training.
`
`EX-1111, 120:1-7, 121:8-12
`
`Reply (’319) at 21; Reply (’510) at 21-22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`59
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is Obvious Even Under PO’s Proposal
`
`Reply (’319) at 21; Petition (’319) at 40-41; Reply (’510) at 22; Petition (’510) at 37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`60
`
`EX-1006, 25
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is Obvious Even Under PO’s Proposal
`
`Reply (’319) at 22; Petition (’319) at 56; Reply (’510) at 22-23; Petition (’510) at 54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`61
`
`EX-1012, 4:52-53
`
`
`
`Outline of Argument
`
`1. Two Primary Issues (Claim Construction)
`
`2. Obviousness of Claim 1 Even Under Patent Owner’s Proposal
`
`3. Dependent Claims
`
`4. Teaching Away is Not Relevant
`
`5. Lack of Nexus for Secondary Considerations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`62
`
`
`
`’319 Dependent Claims Argued by PO
`
`Patent Owner raises separate arguments as to only three
`dependent claims:
`
`1. Claim 18 – PO challenges claim 18 as to Crowds, Border,
`MorphMix
`
`2. Claim 19 – PO challenges claim 19 as to Crowds and
`MorphMix, not Border
`
`3. Claim 24 – PO challenges claim 24 as to Crowds only
`
`Reply (’319) at 22-23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`63
`
`
`
`’510 Dependent Claims Argued by PO
`
`Patent Owner raises separate arguments as to only two
`dependent claims:
`
`1. Claim 13 – PO challenges claim 13 as to Crowds, and
`MorphMix, not Border
`
`2. Claim 15 – PO challenges claim 19 as to Crowds,
`MorphMix, and Border
`
`Reply (’510) at 23
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`64
`
`
`
`’319 Patent, Claim 18
`
`18. The method according to claim 17,
`wherein the periodically communicating
`comprises
`exchanging
`‘keep
`alive’
`messages.
`
`Reply (’319) at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`65
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 18 (’319 Pat.) is Invalid
`
`EX-1001, 4:64-67
`
`EX-1001, 17:22-24
`
`EX-1001, 16:21-28
`
`Petition (’319) at 39-40, 43; Reply (’319) at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`66
`
`
`
`Dependent Claim 18 (’319 Pat.) is Invalid
`
`Petition (’319), 40
`
`Petition (’319), 43
`
`Petition (’319) at 40, 43; Reply (’319) at 22
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE |
`
`67
`
`
`
`Dependent Claims 19 (’319 Pat.)
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
