`
`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 4, 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. 2024
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`1 of 10
`
`
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. HARKINS: Let's go to 8.15, please.
`
`Q.
`
`(BY MR. HARKINS)
`
`Or this is actually DX 3-65. This is
`
`an example you gave of one possible path to go from jondo 5 to
`
`web server 5. Right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay. And in this path, you identify various things as
`
`clients or a server or both,
`
`in your opinion. Right?
`
`A.
`
`Correct.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`MR. HARKINS: Let's go to the next slide.
`
`Q.
`
`(BY MR. HARKINS)
`
`This is the -- I've highlighted the
`
`a set of various pathways through the crowd, according to the
`
`
`
`exact same path you've shown to the jury in 8.16.
`
`Is that
`
`right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Correct.
`
`All right.
`
`MR. HARKINS:
`
`So let's go to the next slide.
`
`Q.
`
`(BY MR. HARKINS)
`
`The way that you decided to label these
`
`is you said 6,
`
`the circle around 6,
`
`is what you called the
`
`first client device in the '319 patent. Right?
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay. And the 4 is what you called the second server.
`
`Correct.
`
`Okay. But there is other pathways that -- this could be
`
`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.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) EX aoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`2 of 10
`
`
`
`211
`
`5 to 4 to 6 to 3.
`
`One of the most interesting ones to me, and I marked it
`
`over,
`
`this is jondo No.
`
`4 back to itself, and then to server
`
`No. 4. But this figure shows the parts of the system that are
`
`servers and the parts of the system that are jondos, and uses
`
`even a different schematic representation to make that clear.
`
`Q.
`
`In your professional opinion, are any of the numbers in
`
`circles in this figure servers?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`Does -- aS a result, can -- are -- can Crowds demonstrate
`
`that there is a receiving from a second server a first content
`
`request?
`
`A.
`
`No. There's only -- the terminal server -- and you can
`
`receive information from it, but there's no second server in
`
`any of these pathways,
`
`including the one Doctor Freedman
`
`looked at. There's just the set of servers on the right side
`
`and the set of jondos on the left.
`
`Q. Without the disclosure of receiving a content request
`
`from a second server, can Crowds disclose claim 1 of the '319
`
`patent?
`
`No.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A.
`
`No. That's a requirement of the claim.
`
`£
`Q. Without disclosing a method of receiving from a second
`
`
`
`server, first content -- a first content identifier, can
`
`Crowds disclose all elements of the '510 patent claim 1?
`
`A.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) EX aoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`3 of 10
`
`
`
`QO.
`
`As a result, can the Crowds reference anticipate the '319
`
`212
`
`So do you have an ultimate conclusion of validity
`
`patent?
`
`A.
`
`It cannot anticipate any of the asserted two claims of
`
`that patent, no.
`
`Q.
`
`And do you have an opinion about whether Crowds can
`
`anticipate either of the asserted claims of the '510 patent?
`
`A.
`
`It's the same opinion for the same reason. There's one
`
`set of servers and one set of jondos, and there's no
`
`capability of having -- receiving a signal from anything other
`
`than the initial server.
`
`Q.
`
`Was there any other prior art reference that Doctor
`
`Freedman said he thought might anticipate the '319 or
`
`'510
`
`patents?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No, not
`
`in court.
`
`Okay. And is it relevant to you that not only you
`
`didn't -- that you found no second servers in the jondo crowd,
`
`but is this slide relevant to you as well?
`
`A.
`
`It is.
`
`
`I mentioned earlier that there are two servers,
`
`of two types. There's web servers over on the side of that
`
`figure, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
`
`6 squares. There's also a blender
`
`server that's not shown in that figure because they're worried
`
`that somebody could grab ahold of it and get a lot of valuable
`
`information, and that they specifically teach against,
`
`including the blender server in the network or jondos.
`
`Q.
`
`Okay.
`
`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.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915, EX anoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`4 of 10
`
`
`
`Q.
`
`The jondos of Crowds operate in the same role as the
`
`second server of the '319 and '510 patents. Right, sir?
`
`226
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I don't agree with that.
`
`Because that is the only missing item,
`
`the jondos of
`
`(BY MR. GOVETT) Requesting on behalf of a client content
`
` -
`
`Crowds invalidate claim 1 of the '319 and '510 patents.
`
`Correct, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`You need to restate that.
`
`I didn't hear it all.
`
`Sure.
`
`The jondos of Crowds, because they contain an
`
`application program, accept connections --
`
`
`MR. GOVETT:
`
`Put that up.
`
`
`Put Defendants' Exhibit
`
`931 at page 8 again, please.
`
`Q.
`
`
`(BY MR. GOVETT) Because the jondos of Crowds contain
`
`application programs that accept connections and service
`
`requests by sending back responses,
`
`the jondos of Crowds
`
`operate in the same role as the second server of the '319 and
`
`the '510 Patents. Correct?
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`Because the second server, according to you,
`
`is the only
`
`missing item,
`
`the jondos of Crowds invalidate claim 1 of the
`
`"319 and '510 patents, don't they, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`It's the only one that I've addressed in this courtroom.
`
`Doctor Rhyne, requesting on behalf of a client --
`
`MR. GOVETT:
`
`You may take that down, please. Let me
`
`start over.
`
`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.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) Ex aoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`5 of 10
`
`
`
`Do you see that, sir?
`
`£
`coming from web server 5, going back to 6, and then back to 4,
`
`
`
`that path.
`
`230
`
`Q.
`
`So you understand that once the path is established,
`
`that
`
`is the path that is followed based on this sentence. Correct?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`please.
`
` ETT:
`
`Now, if we can have DDX 3 at 68,
`
`Q.
`
`
`(BY MR. GOVETT)
`
`You were present when Doctor Freedman
`
`testified? Correct, sir?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I was.
`
`And you recall this slide that Doctor Freedman used
`
`showing this path that I just went
`
`through from 5 to 4 to 6 to
`
`web server 5?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I do.
`
`And the slide states,
`
`jondo 4 is a server because it is a
`
`device that acts in the role of a server by receiving requests
`
`from jondo 5 and servicing those requests.
`
`You agree with that, Doctor Rhyne?
`
`I don't.
`
`
`MR. GOVETT: Let's look at Defendants' page 70 of
`
`DDX 3.
`
`Q.
`
`
`(BY MR. GOVETT) And, Doctor Rhyne, Defendants' DDX 3 was
`
`used with Doctor Freedman, also. Correct?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`And it's also showing Figure 2,
`
`the path in the crowd
`
`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.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) Ex aoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`6 of 10
`
`
`
`252
`
`QO.
`
`And there are servers shown, and those are labeled
`
`servers.
`
`Is that right?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`Q.
`
`The devices that Doctor Freedman has decided to label as
`
`a client device,
`
`is that called a client device by Mithyantha?
`
`A.
`
`QO.
`
`Nowhere.
`
`The -- what Doctor Freedman has decided -- and do you
`
`o£
`have any different opinion about Mithyantha based on his cross
`
`
`
`examination that's just happened?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`All right. Let's talk about Crowds.
`
`There was a --
`
`MR. HARKINS:
`
`I'm going to stay off the slides for a
`
`moment.
`
`Q.
`
`(BY MR. HARKINS)
`
`There was a definition from an HTTP
`
`document,
`
`£
`there was a definition of server.
`
`Is it your
`
`opinion that that definition of server comports with server as
`
`
`
`Markman in this case?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`it's used in the '319 and '510 Patent and as the Court has
`
`entered a Markman order in this case?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`No.
`
`There was a deposition clip played about something you
`
`Said about server.
`
`
`Is a server defined only as what you said
`
`in response to the question if you were to apply it in the
`
`context of the patent specification in applying the Court's
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) EX anoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`7 of 10
`
`
`
`When you did your analysis, did you look for a second server
`
`263
`
`in the Oxylabs system?
`
`A.
`
`Yes.
`
`For infringement. Right?
`
`Yes.
`
`And you found one. Correct?
`
`Yes.
`
`And then -- but when it was time to do the analysis of
`
`the claim, it required you to look at the method of the first
`
`client device. Right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`Yes.
`
`Okay. And you found that the first client device
`
`received a content identifier from the second server. Right?
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I did.
`
`Okay.
`
`Now let's talk about the prior art when we talk
`
`about Crowds and Mithyantha.
`
`In Crowds, did you look for the second server to see if
`
`it existed at all in Crowds in the manner set forth in these
`
`claims?
`
`server, could you find that?
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`A,
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`I did.
`
`Did you find one?
`
`No.
`
`So when it was time to find the method where something
`
`pag
`was being received at the first client device from a second
`
`
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR_Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) EX anoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`8 of 10
`
`
`
`264
`
`A.
`
`No.
`
`Q.
`
`Was your testimony consistent about the second server in
`
`this case?
`
`A.
`
`Yes, it is.
`
`MR. HARKINS:
`
`Pass the witness.
`
`COURT: Any further cross?
`
`MR. GOVETT: Nothing further, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`Then you may step down,
`
`process shortly, but there is no reason for me to keep you
`
`Doctor Rhyne.
`
`
`THE WITNESS:
`
`Thank you, sir.
`
`THE COURT: Plaintiff, do you have further rebuttal
`
`witnesses to call?
`
`MR. HARKINS: No, Your Honor.
`
`The Plaintiff rests
`
`its rebuttal case.
`
`THE COURT: All right.
`
`So subject to final
`
`instructions to the jury and closing arguments, Plaintiff and
`
`Defendant rest and close.
`
`Is that correct?
`
`MR. HARKINS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`MR. SMITH: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: All right. That means,
`
`ladies and
`
`gentlemen of the jury, you have now heard all the evidence in
`
`this case.
`
`There are some things I have to take up with counsel that
`
`don't involve the jury, and I am prepared to begin that
`
`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.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) EX aoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`9 of 10
`
`
`
`284
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`Then having heard the arguments
`
`of the parties with regard to the competing motions under Rule
`
`50(a)
`
`regarding to the topics of validity and invalidity,
`
`particularly with regard to Defendants' defenses of
`
`anticipation and lack of adequate description,
`
`that the Court
`
`denies both the Plaintiff's motions and the Defendants'
`
`
`
`the evidence indicates that Defendants always
`
`motions and finds that those issues are properly submittable
`
`to the jury.
`
`All right. Let's next take up what was apparently
`
`overlooked earlier, and that's the targeted issue of induced
`
`infringement.
`
`And let me hear from the Defendant first.
`
`MR. SCOTT:
`
`Thank you, Your Honor. This will be
`
`very brief.
`
`
`If I can find --
`
`So we would move for judgment as a matter of law that the
`
`Defendants have not -- that there is a legally insufficient
`
`basis for the jury to find the Defendants infringe the patents
`
`under induced infringement.
`
`The evidence shows that neither Oxylabs nor its customers
`
`have directly infringed the asserted claims. But if any
`
`Defendant or its customers directly infringed those claims,
`
`the evidence is insufficient to show that Oxylabs actively
`
`induced that specific party's direct infringement of the
`
`claims.
`
`Instead,
`
`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.
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`IPR2022-00915) Ee asoO
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2024
`10 of 10
`
`