IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`BRIGHT DATA, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`TESO, LT UAB, et al
`
`Defendants.
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:19-CV-395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`NOVEMBER 3, 2021
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`8:30 A.M.
`
`(
`)
`(
`)
`(
`)
`(
`)
`(
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TRIAL ON THE MERITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`and a jury
`
`SHAWN M. MCROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`100 E. HOUSTON STREET
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`75670
`(903) 237-7464
`shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`1 of 6
`
`
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`BRIGHT DATA, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`TESO, LT UAB, et al
`
`Defendants.
`
`CAUSE NO. 2:19-CV-395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`NOVEMBER 3, 2021
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`8:30 A.M.
`
`(
`)
`(
`)
`(
`)
`(
`)
`(
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`TRIAL ON THE MERITS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`and a jury
`
`SHAWN M. MCROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`100 E. HOUSTON STREET
`MARSHALL, TEXAS
`75670
`(903) 237-7464
`shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`1 of 6
`
`
`
`303
`
`Q.
`
`And you've highlighted collections of users and a process
`
`on her computer,
`
`so what
`
`type of computer are we talking about
`
`here?
`
`A.
`
`It could be any computer, but certainly could be
`
`desktops,
`
`laptops, and whatnot.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`This was all about anonymity?
`
`Correct.
`
`So is this one example of what you stated earlier that
`
`you did not believe Mr. Derry Shribman's belief was correct
`
`that in 2009 there were no systems that anonymously routed
`
`through user computers web requests?
`
`A,
`
`Q.
`
`Correct. This was a well-known system published in 1998.
`
`I see a lot of lines on this figure.
`
`Is there some text
`
`those proxies--and finally the end server.
`
`
`
`you can -- and, by the way,
`
`of Crowds?
`
`this figure is on what page, sir,
`
`A.
`
`QO.
`
`The figure is on page 73 and 74 of the Crowds reference.
`
`Thank you.
`
` Is there some text you can take us through to discuss
`
`these paths that are shown on this figure?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`So this figure is showing web servers in the
`
`Squares, and then these jondos,
`
`these client devices and other
`
`computers, are shown in the circles. And the paper -- this is
`
`on page 73 And 74.
`
`Crowds says that each request travels from
`
`the user's browser through some number of jondos--these are
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`2 of 6
`2 of 6
`
`
`
`304
`
`And it gives an example of a number of paths that it
`
`could take, and for simplicity I just wanted to highlight one
`
`path and we're going to use that as an example, although many
`
`paths are possible through this network of participating
`
`proxies.
`
`Q.
`
`But the path that you've highlighted,
`
`5 to -- jondo 5 to
`
`jondo 4 to jondo 6 to the web server,
`
`that is a path that
`
`Crowds specifically discloses?
`
`A.
`
`Correct. That is shown here. This is page 73 and 74,
`
`jondo 5 to jondo 4
`
`to jondo 6, and then finally to web server
`
`5.
`
`Q.
`
`Now, can you, with reference to the figure, explain how
`
`this specific path works?
`
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`So in this example there is a browser running
`
`5 to jondo 6 to jondo 4, and finally
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`on jondo 5, and that's the user who initially makes the web
`
`request;
`
`types in their browser, Hey,
`
`I want to go to
`
`
`
`espn.com.
`
`The request then goes through this tunnel of
`
`proxies,
`
`5 to 4
`
`
`to 6, and finally to the web server for |
`
`shown here in 5.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And what happens once it gets to the web server?
`
`So the web server -- and if you look at the last line of
`
`this text, it says ‘server replies traverse the same path as
`
`the regquests', only in reverse. There was a chain going in
`
`the forward direction, and now the content just goes back in
`
`the exact same direction,
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`3 of 6
`3 of 6
`
`
`
`Jondo 6 is acting as the role of both of a server
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And so what's your conclusion based on that?
`
`Is it both?
`
`Yes.
`
`305
`
`to jondo 5 where it originated.
`
`Q.
`
`
`So, Doctor Freedman, what I'd like to do now is have you
`
`apply your tutorial that you gave the jury earlier on how to
`
`determine each of these devices' status as functioning in the
`
`role of a client, a server, or both.
`
`Can you please tell us
`
`what is going on on slide 58?
`
`A.
`
`Sure.
`
`In this example we're going to start with jondo 5,
`
`and that jondo, if you remember, makes a request, sends a
`
`request to another jondo.
`
`So from here jondo 5 is acting in
`
`the role of a client.
`
`So if you remember my coloring,
`
`I am
`
`going to color it red.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`What about
`
`jondo 4?
`
`We then get to jondo 4. And jondo 4 receives a request
`
`to jondo 5, and in the reverse direction later send a
`
`response, and jondo -- so from that perspective is operating
`
`in the role of a server. And then jondo 4 will subsequently
`
`send it along the chain,
`
`so sends a request to jondo 6. And
`
`so there jondo 4 is acting as both a server with respect to 5
`
`and is acting in the role of a client with respect to 6.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`What about
`
`jondo 6, sir?
`
`So jondo 6 is also acting as a proxy.
`
`It acts as a
`
`server with respect to 4 and acts as a client with respect to
`
`the web server.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 20234of6
`4 of 6
`
`
`
`306
`
`and in the role of a client.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`And, finally, what about web server 5?
`
`So web server 5 similarly receives a request from
`
`jondo 6,
`
`so it is acting aS a server, services that request,
`
`and sends a response.
`
`Q.
`
`Now, Doctor Freedman, can this arrangement that we've
`
`shown here map to the second server, first client device,
`
`first web server, architecture that we've been discussing?
`
`A.
`
`So it can,
`
`indeed. And if you remember my tutorial
`
`before,
`
`I described this general architecture with two proxies
`
`in between a client and server. And if you look at Crowds,
`
`this explicit example is showing the same architecture--client
`
`5, web server,
`
`5 here, and jondos 4 and 6 in between them that
`
`Jondo 6 is a communication device
`
`acts as proxies.
`
`And if we remember our language,
`
`this maps as jondo 4
`
`acting aS a second server, it's operating in the role of a
`
`server;
`
`jondo 6 as a first client device, it's operating in
`
`the role of a client; and web server 5 as the first server.
`
`Q.
`
`So let's go through those one by one with reference to
`
`the Court's claim construction.
`
`If you could, please go ahead and start with what you are
`
`mapping to the first client device.
`
`A.
`
`Remember the Court's construction of client device.
`
`It
`
`was a communication device operating in the role of a client.
`
`We see the picture here.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`5 of 6
`5 of 6
`
`
`
`307
`
`that operates in the role of a client by requesting services
`
`from the web server.
`
`Q.
`
`And, by the way, Doctor Freedman, are we still looking in
`
`this discussion at the same pages of DX 917 that we've been
`
`discussing?
`
`And what are you mapping to the first server of the '319
`
`A,
`
`Q.
`
`Correct. This is pages 73 and 74.
`
`Okay. Let's please go ahead and go onto the second
`
`server. What have you mapped that to?
`
`A.
`
`So the second server is a server that is not the client
`
`device. And if you remember,
`
`a server is a device that
`
`operates in the role of a server.
`
`So jondo 4 is a server
`
`because, A, it's a device that acts in the role of a server by
`
`receiving requests from jondo 5 and servicing those requests,
`
`and certainly jondo 4 is not
`
`jondo 6; and,
`
`therefore,
`
`jondo 4
`
`here is acting as a second server as required by the claims.
`
`Q.
`
`What about the first server? And we're going to -- if we
`
`go to the next slide,
`
`there's actually two slightly different
`
`versions of this in the '319 and the '510 Patent.
`
`What is the relevant claim element for the '319 Patent,
`
`Doctor Freedman?
`
`A.
`
`The '319 says,
`
`'a first server that comprises a web
`
`server', and the '510 Patent just says 'a web server'. And
`
`all of these examples are on page 73 and 74 from the Crowds
`
`reference.
`
`Q.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2023
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`6 of 6
`6 of 6
`
`
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
