UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MAJOR DATA, UAB,
`
`Petitioner
`
`Vv.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2022-00915
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`DECLARATION OF DR. TIM A. WILLIAMS
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`1 of 39
`1 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`I, Dr. Tim Williams, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Myfull name is Tim Arthur Williams.
`
`I am an industry professional with over 45 years of experience in
`
`
`
`wireless and_telecommunicationscommunications, computer networking
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technology. A copy of my CV is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`3.
`
`I am currently active currently active as Chief Executive Officer at
`
`Beach Technologies, LLC (Danville, CA) a companyrelated to intellectual property
`
`consulting.
`
`4.
`
`I am also currently active as a Member at Calumet Venture
`
`Management (Madison, WI) a company related to the investment into start-up
`
`companies.
`
`5.
`
`Beginning in 2004, I was the Founder and Chairman at DoceoTechInc.
`
`(Danville, CA) which provides training for engineers in wireless, computer
`
`networking, and telephony technologies.
`
`6.
`
`From 2008 to 2010, I was Founder and Board Member of BitRail
`
`Networks, Inc (Miami, FL). This company designed and produced computer
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was edge devices for
`
`residential and community access.
`
`7.
`
`From 2006 to 2015, I was Founder and Board Member of BEEcube,
`
`Inc. (Freemont, CA). This company built high speed computing and computer
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`2 of 39
`2 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`networking equipment. One market the company served was networking equipment
`
`for backhaul networks used in 5G cellular networks.
`
`8.
`
`From 2004 to 2008, I was Founder and CEO of SiBEAM,Inc. This
`
`company designed and produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`9.
`
`From 1999 to 2000, I was Interim CEO and Advisory Board Member
`
`of Atheros Communications, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA) . This company designed and
`
`produced wireless networking IC and equipment.
`
`10.
`
`From 1998 to 2000, I was CTO of Picazo Communications, Inc. (San
`
`Jose, CA). This company built computer networking equipment to provide VoIP
`
`PBX functionality.
`
`11.
`
`From 1991 to 1998, I was Co-Founder, CTO, VP Engineering of
`
`Wireless Access, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA). This company developed overthe air
`
`communication protocols for communication between the subscriber device and the
`
`network.
`
`12.
`
`From 1979 to 1991, I was a Memberof the Technical Staff at Motorola,
`
`Inc. (Schaumberg, IL and Austin, TX). In IL, I designed protocols for Digital voice
`
`communications. In TX, I designed ICs for communications including Telecom,
`
`Wireless, Cellular and Computer Networking.
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`3 of 39
`3 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`13.
`
`Ihave been engaged in over 200 patent related litigations since 1999.
`
`Manyofthese casesrelate to computer networking technologies, including protocols
`
`for Internet communications and the architecture of computer networks.
`
`14.
`
`I hold degrees from Michigan Technological University (B.S.E.E.,
`
`1976) and the University of Texas at Austin (M.S.E.E., 1982 and Ph.D., Electrical
`
`Engineering, 1985 and M.B.A., 1991).
`
`15.
`
`I am theprincipal inventor on 28 U.S. Patents all of which relate to
`
`communications technologies.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Ihave been a Registered Patent Agent since 2002.
`
`Ifcalled upon to do so, I could and wouldtestify truthfully as follows:
`
`Based on my experience in the art and my study of the Internet
`
`communication systems disclosed in the Challenged Patents (U.S. Patents Nos.
`
`10,257,319 (“the °319 Patent”) and 10,484,510 (“the °510 Patent”), collectively
`
`“Challenged Patents’), which share the same inventors of Derry Shribman and Ofer
`
`Vilenski and a commonspecification), in my opinion a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art (a ““POSA”hereafter) would be an individual who,as of October 8, 2009, the
`
`filing date of the shared provisional application, had a Master’s Degree or higherin
`
`the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or Computer Science or
`
`as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields and two or moreyears of
`
`experience in Internet communications.
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`4 of 39
`4 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`19.
`
`I understand that the Board instituted inter partes review of the
`
`Challenged Patents in IPR2021-01492 and IPR2021-01493, respectively. In the
`
`Institution Decisions, the Board applied the definition of a POSA proposed by
`
`Petitioner NetNut Ltd. as having “at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science
`
`or related field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience
`
`working with and programming networked computer systems” and having
`
`familiarity with “the underlying principles of Web,
`
`Internet, or network
`
`communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks, including the
`
`HTTPand TCP/IP protocols” as of October 8, 2009. EX. 2004 at 17-18; EX. 2005
`
`at 17-18. In my opinion, and the Board agreed (see EX. 2004 at 18; EX. 2005 at 18),
`
`that the proposed qualifications between my POSAdefinition and the Board’s POSA
`
`definition applied in the Institution Decisions is not materially different, at least in
`
`terms of affecting an institution decision in IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00862,
`
`IPR2022-00915, and IPR2022-00916. My analysis herein does not change under
`
`either POSA definition.
`
`20.
`
`Ihave reviewed each of the Challenged Patents, the file history for each
`
`of the Challenged Patents, and the file histories for related patents (EX. 2009 and
`
`EX. 2011). [have also reviewed the Petitions and exhibits thereto, the Patent Owner
`
`Preliminary Responses and exhibits thereto, and the Institution Decisions in
`
`IPR2021-01492 and IPR2021-01493 (the “NetNut IPRs” hereafter). I understand
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`5 of 39
`5 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`that the Petitions and exhibits thereto in IPR2022-00861, IPR2022-00862, IPR2022-
`
`00915, and IPR2022-00916 are “copycats” to the Petitions and exhibits thereto in
`
`the NetNut IPRs.
`
`21.
`
`I have also reviewed at least the Claim Construction Order (Dkt.
`
`191)(the “Teso C.C. Order’), the Supplemental Claim Construction order (DKt.
`
`453)(the “Teso Supplemental C.C. Order”), the February 16, 2021 Order denying
`
`defendants’ Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 (Dkt. 303)(the “Teso Alice Order”), the Declaration of Dr. Vernon
`
`Thomas Rhyne (Dkt. 126-5) and the Declaration of Dr. Michael J. Freedman in
`
`Support of Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 138-1) in the
`
`case of Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D.
`
`Tex.)(the “Teso Litigation” hereafter). I have also reviewed myprior declaration in
`
`support of Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.’s Claim Constructions (Dkt. 106-7),
`
`the
`
`Declaration of Dr. Kimberly Claffy in support of Defendant’s Responsive Claim
`
`Construction Brief (Dkt. 115-1), and the Court’s Claim Construction Order (Dkt.
`
`146)(the “NetNut C.C. Order”) in the case of Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case
`
`No.2:21-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex.)(the “NetNut Litigation” hereafter).
`
`22.
`
`Based on my experience in the NetNutLitigation, I have also reviewed
`
`each of Patent Nos. 10,491,713 (“the ’713 Patent”) and 11,050,852 (“the °852
`
`Patent”) and 11,044,346 (“the ’346 Patent’) andtheirfile histories.
`
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`6 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Backgroundto the Challenged Patents
`
`23.
`
`The commonspecification distinguishes twoprior art systems. Thefirst
`
`prior art system is the traditional use of a proxy server as an intermediary between a
`
`client device and a web server. See ‘319 Patent at 2:8-39. The secondpriorart system
`
`is the traditional use of a peer-to-peer system using caching client devices. See ‘319
`
`Patent at 2:40-3:3. The commonspecification explains that the prior art systems are
`
`cost prohibitive and do not handle dynamic content due to the typical cache-storage
`
`methods.
`
`24.
`
` Incontrast, Bright Data’s novel use of a client device as an intermediary
`
`as recited in the claims lowers costs and is able to handle dynamic content. In my
`
`opinion, it would not be obvious to a POSAto use a client device, having limited
`
`resources unlike a server, as an intermediary proxy.
`
`Introduction to the Challenged Patents
`
`25. All of the patents claiming priority to Provisional Application No.
`
`61/249,624 filed on October 8, 2009 share the same specification. I agree with the
`
`Rhyne C.C. Declaration’s description of the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents, which were at
`
`issue in the Teso Litigation. Each of the patent claims recites a web server.
`
`Specifically, the independent claim of the ’319 Patent refers to a “first server that
`
`comprises a web server” and the independent claims of the 510 Patent refers to a
`
`“web server.” In addition, each ofthe patent claims recites a separate server referred
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`7 of 39
`7 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`to as the “second server” in the ‘319 and ‘510 Patents. Finally, each of the
`
`independentpatent claimsin the ’319 and ’510 Patentsrecites a “first client device”
`
`serving as an intermediary between the webserver and the secondserver.
`
`26.
`
`Based on my experiencein the NetNutLitigation, I note that the ’713
`
`and °852 Patents in this same family have claims that additionally recite a
`
`“requesting client device” that is not an intermediary.
`
`27.
`
`The ’319 and ’510 Patent claims recite methods comprising elements
`
`performedby the “first client device” within a second server < first client device
`
`<> webserverarchitecture as shown, for example, in the annotated claims in the
`
`following table:
`
`content, to the second server over
`
`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, thefirst content identifier;
`sending,to the first server
`over theInternet, a Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request
`that comprisesthe first content
`identifier;
`receiving,
`
`the first content from
`
`1. A method for use with a web
`server thatresponds to Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests
`andstores a first content identified
`by a first contentidentifier, the
`methodbya first client device
`comprising:
`establishing a Transmission
`ControlProtocol (TCP) connection
`with a second server;
`sending, to the web server
`over anInternet, the first content
`identifier;
`receiving, the first content from
`the web server overthe Internet in
`response to the sendingofthefirst
`content identifier; and
`sending the received first
`
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`8 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`content identifier. the first contentidentifier.
`
`the first server overthe Internet in
`responseto the sendingofthe first
`content identifier; and
`sending,the first content by the
`first client device to the second
`server, in response to the receiving of
`
`the established TCP connection, in
`responseto the receiving ofthefirst
`
`28.
`
`The ’713 and ’852 Patent claims recite methods comprising elements
`
`performed by the “requesting client device” within a requesting client device
`
`second server < first client device <> web server architecture as shown, for
`
`example, in the annotated claimsin the following table:
`
`Internet, the generated HTTP or
`
`*713 Patent
`
`°852 Patent
`1. A method by a requesting client
`1. A method for use with a
`requesting client device that
`device that is identified over the
`Internet by a first Internet Protocol (IP)
`comprises an HTTPclient and is
`identified over the Internetbya first
`address, for use with a first server that
`Internet Protocol (IP) address, for use
`is a web serverthat is Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext
`with a first server that is a web
`serverthat is Hypertext Transfer
`Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS)
`server that respectively responds to
`Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext
`Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS)
`HTTP or HTTPSrequests andstores a
`
`server that respectively responds to first content identified byafirst
`HTTP or HTTPSrequests and stores
`Uniform Resource Locator (URL), and
`a first content identified byafirst
`for use with a second server distinct
`content identifier, for use with a
`from the first web server and identified
`in the Internet by a secondIP address,
`secondserverdistinct from thefirst
`the method by the requesting client
`webserver and identified in the
`device comprising:
`Internet by a second IP address, the
`method bythe requesting client
`generating an HTTP or HTTPS
`request that comprises the first URL
`device comprising:
`identifying, an HTTP or
`and a geographicallocation;
`HTTPSrequest for the first content;
`sending, to the second server
`sending, to the second server
`using the second IP address overthe
`using the second IP address over the
`
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`9 of 39
`
`

`

`Internet in response to the
`identifying, the first content identifier
`and a geographical location; and
`receiving, over the Internet in
`responseto the sending, from the
`second server via a first client
`device, the part of, or the wholeof,
`the first content.
`
`HTTPSrequest; and
`receiving, over the Internet in
`response to the sending, from the
`secondserverviaa first client device,
`part of, or whole of, the first content,
`wherein the first content
`comprises a web-page, an audio
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`content, or a video content.
`
`29.
`
`The steps of claim 1 in each of the Challenged Patents are performed
`
`by an intermediary client device — a “first client device” — located between the web
`
`server and the second server. As discussed below, the common specification
`
`discloses a “client device” may be, for example, a requesting client device or an
`
`intermediary client device.
`
`Review of the CommonSpecification
`
`30.
`
`The commonspecification of the Challenged Patents provides several
`
`exemplary embodimentsin the detailed description and the figures showing that both
`
`servers and client devices can be configured to operate as intermediaries in a
`
`computer <> server <> computer or computer <> client device <> computer pathway.
`
`For example, Figure 1 and the associated discussion show a proxy server between
`
`one or more client devices and a webserver in a communication pathway. See e.g.
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`10 of 39
`10 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`°319 Patent at Fig.
`
`1 and 2:8-15 (“One solution that has been in useis called a
`
`"proxy". FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram providing an example of use of a proxy
`
`within a network 2. A proxy,or proxy server4, 6, 8 is a device that is placed between
`
`one or moreclients, illustrated in FIG. 1 as client devices 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, that
`
`request data, via the Internet 22, and a Webserver or Webservers 30, 32, 34 from
`
`whichthey are requesting the data.”)
`
` CLEENT
`
`DEVICE
`6
`
`DEVICE
`ao
`
` CLIENT
`
`FIG. 1
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`11 of 39
`11 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`31.
`
`Similarly, Figure 3 shows an exemplary embodiment of network 100
`
`with an agent serving as an intermediary betweenaclient and web server. As
`
`described
`
`in
`
`the
`
`specification,
`
`the
`
`communication
`
`network
`
`comprises
`
`communication devices that can serve as a client, peer, or agent, as well as separate
`
`servers and webservers:
`
`An example of such a communication network 100 is provided by the
`schematic diagram of FIG. 3. The network 100 of FIG. 3 contains
`multiple communication devices. Due to functionality provided by
`software stored within each communication device, which maybe the
`same in each communication device, each communication device may
`serve as a client, peer, or agent, depending upon requirements of the
`network 100, as is described in detail herein. It should be noted that a
`detailed description of a communication device is provided with regard
`to the description of FIG.4.
`
`The communication network 100 also contains a Web server 152. The
`Webserver 152 is the server from which the client 102 is requesting
`information and may be, for 65 example, a typical HTTP server, such
`as those being usedto deliver content on any of the many suchservers
`on the Internet. It should be noted that the server 152 is not limited to
`being an HTTPserver.In fact, if a different communication protocolis
`used within the communication network, the server may be a server
`capable of handling a different protocol. It should also be noted that
`while the present description refers to the use of HTTP, the present
`invention may relate to any other communication protocol and HTTP
`is not intended to be a limitation to the present invention.
`
`The communication network 100 further contains an acceleration
`server 162 having an acceleration server storage device 164.
`
`°319 Patent at 4:41-5:10.
`
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`12 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`As each communication device is configured to operate as a client, agent or peer as
`
`necessary, in my opinion, a POSA would understand client 102 and agent 122 to
`
`both be client devices.
`
`1G
`
` CLLENT
`
`FIG. 3
`
`32. As shown in Figure 3, agent 122, in some embodiments, is a client
`
`device which can receive requests for content intended for web server 152. See, e.g.,
`
`‘319 Patent at 5:21-29. The commonspecification also describes that the ‘agent’ can
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`13 of 39
`13 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`request this content directly from the web server. See, e.g., ‘319 Patent at 15:62-
`
`16:11.
`
`33.
`
`The specification discloses how a communication device can be
`
`configured to serve as a client, agent, and peer. See ‘319 Patent at 4:44-50; 5:21-29;
`
`see also ‘319 Patent at 9:12-50. For example, the specification discloses, when
`
`executing the fetching method, the requesting client device may be executing the
`
`client module 224 disclosed in FIG. 6, while the proxy client device may be
`
`executing the agent module 228 disclosed in FIG.6.
`
`
`
`ACCELERATION
`APPLICATION
`220
`
`ACCELERATION
`SYSTEM INITIALIZER
`
`PEER MODULE
`
`AGENT MODULE
`
`226
`
`228
`
`MODULE
`
`
`
`CONFIGURATION
`DATABASE
`280
`
`STORAGEDEVICE
`208
`
`FIG. 6
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`14 of 39
`14 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`34.
`
`In my opinion, upon reviewing the commonspecification in general,
`
`and Figures 1 and 3 in particular, that proxy server 6 of Figure 1 could be inserted
`
`between client 102 and agent 122 of Figure 3, as shown below in a modified version
`
`of Figure 3. A POSA would understand the requesting client device < second
`
`server < first client device < web server correspondsto client 102 < proxy
`
`server 6 <> agent 122 <> webserver 152, as annotated in the modified figure below.
`
`Therefore, a POSA would understand the common specification discloses a
`
`requesting client device <> proxy server < proxy client device <> web server
`
`architecture.
`
`CLIENT
`492
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim Construction for “client device”
`
`14
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`15 of 39
`15 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`35.
`
`The Board preliminarily construed term “client device” as a
`
`“communication device that is operating in the role of a client.” EX. 2004 at 19; EX.
`
`2005 at 22.
`
`36.
`
`Based upon the common specification, in my opinion, a POSA would
`
`understand the term “client device” to mean a “consumer computer.” See, e.g., ‘319
`
`Patent at 2:44-46 (“In the network 50, files are stored on computers of consumers,
`
`referred to herein as client devices.”). Alternatively, a POSA would understand the
`
`term “client device” to mean a “consumer communication device”. In my opinion,
`
`these proposed constructions are consistent with the claim language,
`
`the
`
`specification, and the prosecution histories distinguishing servers from client
`
`devices.
`
`37.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand a client device is a
`
`communication device in the context of the specification. This is consistent with the
`
`Court’s constructionsin the Teso Litigation and in the NetNut Litigation. EX. 1017,
`
`EX. 1020, EX. 2006. As described in the specification, “each communication device
`
`may serve as a client, peer, or agent” (‘319 Patent at 4:48-49) which in myopinion,
`
`informs a POSAthat client 102, peers 112, 114, 116, and agent 122 are all “client
`
`devices” in the context of the specification. See also ‘319 Patent at 4:44-50; 5:21-
`
`29.
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`16 of 39
`16 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`38.
`
`In the NetNut Litigation, Defendant NetNut Ltd. proposed a
`
`construction of “client” as “a device operating in the role of a client”, but the Court
`
`expressly rejected removing the word “communication” from its prior construction
`
`in the Teso Litigation. EX. 2006 at 14. In my opinion, a POSA would understand
`
`that “communication device’ has a special meaningin the context ofthe specification
`
`as referring to a ‘client device’.
`
`39.
`
`The specification discloses HOW a communication device can be
`
`configured to serve as a client, agent, and peer. E.g., ‘319 Patent at 4:44-50; 5:21-
`
`29; 9:12-50. For example, as discussed above,
`
`the specification discloses a
`
`requesting client device <> proxy server < proxy client device <> web server
`
`architecture. The specification explains, when executing the fetching method, the
`
`requesting client device may be executing the client module 224 disclosed in FIG.
`
`6, while the proxy client device may be executing the agent module 228 disclosed
`
`in FIG. 6. Therefore, in my opinion, A POSA would understandin the context ofthe
`
`*319 and ‘510 Patents, a client device is a consumer computer with specific software
`
`to operate in accordance with the claims.
`
`40.
`
`Inthe specification, this software is disclosed, for example, in Figure 6
`
`showing acceleration application 220 on communication device 200. Figure 6 and
`
`the associated text disclose communication devices having client, peer, and agent
`
`modules, but no server module. In my opinion, a POSA would understand from the
`
`16
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`17 of 39
`17 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`specification that one “client device” may be the requesting client device and another
`
`“client device” may be the proxy client device. In my opinion, a POSA would
`
`understand the term “client device” to have a consistent definition for each of these
`
`roles.
`
`41. With respect to the modified version of Figure 3 annotated above, in
`
`my opinion, a POSA would understandthat client 102 correspondsto the requesting
`
`client device., i.e., a communication device.
`
`42. With respect to the modified version of Figure 3 annotated above, in
`
`my opinion, a POSA would understand that agent 122 corresponds to the proxy
`
`client device. The agent 122 is a “communication device” closest to the web server
`
`152 (e.g., ‘319 Patent 5:27), although a different communication device may be
`
`selected to be the agent(e.g., ‘319 Patent at 5:30-34). In my opinion, agent 122 isa
`
`“client device”, i.e., a communication device.
`
`43.
`
`Inthe context of the specification, a client device would be understood
`
`to be, more specifically, a consumer computerlike a laptop or a smartphone. See,
`
`e.g., "319 Patent at 2:44-46 (“In the network 50, files are stored on computers of
`
`consumers, referred to herein as client devices.”)(emphasis added). In my opinion,
`
`the specification explicitly states that “computers of consumers” are “referred to
`
`herein as client devices” and the term “client devices” is used in the claims. See, e.g.,
`
`°319 Patent at 2:44-46. Therefore, in my opinion, a POSA would understand a “client
`
`17
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`18 of 39
`18 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`device” is a consumer computer
`
`in the context of the specification. This
`
`understanding is also consistent with statements made by Applicant during
`
`prosecution of the parent application that issued as Patent No. 10,069,936, further
`
`discussed below. In my opinion, in the context of the specification, a POSA would
`
`understand that a consumer device is distinguished from a commercial device. A
`
`POSAwould also understand that a consumer device is not a dedicated proxy server.
`
`44. A “consumer” is commonly defined as “a person who buys goodsor
`
`services for their own use” or “someone who buys goods or services for personal
`
`use”. E.g., https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/consumer
`
`(EX.
`
`2007) and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/consumer (EX.
`
`2008). This is also consistent with statements made by Applicant during prosecution
`
`of the parent application that issued as Patent No. 10,069,936, where the applicant
`
`stated that client devices are “typically consumer owned and operated.” EX. 2009 at
`
`163.
`
`45.
`
`Further, in my opinion, given that the aboverecited architectures in the
`
`*319 and ‘510 Patent claims distinguish between client devices and servers(e.g.
`
`proxy server < proxyclient device < web server) a POSA would understandthat
`
`the mere inclusion of three interchangeable general use computers in pathway such
`
`as a generic computer <> computer < computerarchitecture would notbyitself
`
`disclose the recited architecture of the Challenged Patents. The Court repeatedly
`
`18
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`19 of 39
`19 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`acknowledged that a client device is not merely a general-purpose computer. E.g.,
`
`EX. 2006 at 14-15.
`
`46.
`
`In my opinion,the recited architecture in the claims of the Challenged
`
`Patents distinguishes the novel use of a client device, rather than a proxy server, as
`
`an intermediary. This understanding is consistent with the Teso Alice Order finding
`
`the claimsof the ’319 and 510 Patent not abstract. EX. 2012 at 8-9 (“If the claimed
`
`methodsin this case were simply the receipt and forwarding of information over the
`
`Internet, Teso might have a compelling argument. However, it is the use of non-
`
`traditional client devices that transforms the Asserted Claims into non-abstract
`
`subject matter.”) This understandingis also consistent with the Teso C.C. Order, the
`
`Teso Supplemental C.C. Order, and the NetNut C.C. Order. EXS. 1017, 1020, 2006.
`
`47.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that a client device is
`
`typically portable, like, for example, a laptop or a smartphone. I also agree with the
`
`applicant’s statements during prosecution that a client device is not a dedicated
`
`network element, unlike a server. I also agree with the applicant’s statements during
`
`prosecution that a client device typically uses a single connection, unlike a server. I
`
`also agree with the applicant’s statements during prosecution that a client device is
`
`resource limited (e.g., bandwidth and storage), unlike a server.
`
`48.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand that a client device is
`
`typically understood to be (a) regularly switched off and taken offline; (b) capable
`
`19
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`20 of 39
`20 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`ofprocessing only a limited numberof requests for another device at any given time,
`
`which may for example include a single user login; and/or (c) for acceptance of
`
`lesser fault tolerance, lesser reliability, and lesser scalability, prioritizing value to
`
`client device users over system costs.
`
`49.
`
`Inmyopinion, a POSA would understand “client” to be consistent with
`
`its plain and ordinary meaningin the context of “client device” discussed above. A
`
`POSA’s understanding of client and client device is further evidenced by extrinsic
`
`materials including the February 17, 2015 “Network Fundamentals Study Guide”
`
`with a definition of client as “an application that runs on a personal computer or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`workstation a_server perform some_operations.”and relies on to
`
`https://www.webopedia.com/reference/network-fundamentals-study-
`
`guide/#topologies (EX. 2010).
`
`50.
`
`In my opinion, given the specifications discussion of problems
`
`associated with the prior art system of using a proxy server as an intermediary (e.g.,
`
`*319 Patent at 2:8-39) a POSA would NOT consider a proxy client device to
`
`encompassa proxyserver.
`
`51.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA would understand there are structural
`
`differences between client devices and serversin the context of the specification and
`
`I have seen no contradictory disclosure in the specification or in the prosecution
`
`20
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`21 of 39
`21 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`histories. Rather, client devices are repeatedly distinguished from servers in the
`
`specification and the prosecution histories.
`
`52.
`
`For example, Figure 1
`
`is prior art.
`
`‘319 Patent at 3:66-67. The
`
`exemplary end-points in the architecture of Fig. 1 are clients devices 14,16 and web
`
`server 32. These end-points never change roles. In my opinion, a POSA would
`
`understandthat client devices 14,16 are client devices and not servers; and a POSA
`
`would understand that web server 32 is a server and not a client device. The
`
`exemplary intermediary is proxy server 6. In my opinion, a POSA would understand
`
`that proxy server 6 is a server and not a client device. As shown in Figure 1, proxy
`
`server 6 (i) receives requests from client devices 14,16 and (ii) sends requests to web
`
`server 32.
`
`53.
`
`Figure 3 is an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. ‘319
`
`Patent at 4:3-5. The exemplary end-points in the architecture of Fig. 3 are client 102
`
`and web server 152. The end-points never change roles.
`
`In my opinion, a POSA
`
`would understand that client 102 is a client device and not a server; and a POSA
`
`would understand that web server 152 is a server and not a client device. The
`
`exemplary intermediary is agent 122. In my opinion, a POSA would understand that
`
`agent 122 is a client device and not a server. As shown in Figure 3, agent 122 (i)
`
`receives requests from client devices and (ii) sends requests to web server 152.
`
`21
`
`Major Data, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Major Data, UABv. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2025
`22 of 39
`22 of 39
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`54. Upon reviewing the specification in general, and Figures 1 and 3 in
`
`particular, a POSA would understand that proxy server 6 must be structurally
`
`different from agent 122. In my opinion, these figures inform a POSA that a server
`
`is not a client device and that a client device is not a server. This understanding is
`
`consistent with the prosecution history as well. For example, in each of the Notices
`
`of Allowance, the examiner acknowledged that the “environment” in which the
`
`methodsare performedis novel. See, e.g., Notic