UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. TBD
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`DECLARATION OF PROF. DAVID LEVIN IN SUPPORT OF PETITION
`FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,257,319
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 1 of 187
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND ................................. 1
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED .......................................................................... 5
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW ................................................. 9
`A. Anticipation ...............................................................................................12
`B. Obviousness ...............................................................................................12
`IV. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSA”) ..............15
`V. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND .....................................................................18
`A. Network Components ................................................................................19
`1. Client, Server, and Peer .......................................................................19
`2. Sources and Destination ......................................................................20
`B. Intranets and (the) Internet ........................................................................22
`1. Layers of Abstraction ..........................................................................24
`2. Establishing TCP Connections ............................................................25
`3. Proxies and Middleboxes ....................................................................27
`4. HTTP and the Web ..............................................................................28
`C. Peer-to-Peer Architectures .........................................................................30
`VI. THE ’319 PATENT .........................................................................................34
`A. Overview ...................................................................................................34
`B. Prosecution History ...................................................................................36
`C. Challenged Claims .....................................................................................37
`VII. CLAIM INTERPRETATION .........................................................................41
`A. Patent Owner’s Litigation Argument ........................................................42
`B. District Court Constructions ......................................................................42
`C. “establishing . . . a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
`connection . . . using TCP/IP protocol” .....................................................44
`1. Plain meaning. .....................................................................................45
`2. Usage in ’319 patent specification. .....................................................53
`
`i
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 2 of 187
`
`

`

`3. Prosecution history ..............................................................................55
`VIII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE WHEN
`COMPARED TO THE PRIOR ART IDENTIFIED IN THE PETITION ......57
`A. Ground 1: Plamondon Teaches The Subject Matter Recited In
`Claims 1, 12-14, and 21-27. ......................................................................58
`1. Plamondon ...........................................................................................58
`2. Claim 1. ...............................................................................................65
`3. Claim 12. .............................................................................................83
`4. Claim 13. .............................................................................................87
`5. Claim 14. .............................................................................................89
`6. Claim 21. .............................................................................................90
`7. Claim 22. .............................................................................................91
`8. Claim 23. .............................................................................................92
`9. Claim 24. .............................................................................................94
`10. Claim 25. ...........................................................................................100
`11. Claim 26. ...........................................................................................101
`12. Claim 27. ...........................................................................................101
`B. Ground 2: Claims 28-29 are obvious over Plamondon. ..........................103
`1. Claim 28. ...........................................................................................103
`2. Claim 29. ...........................................................................................104
`C. Ground 3: Claims 15-17 are obvious over Plamondon in view of
`RFC 2616. ................................................................................................105
`1. RFC 2616 ..........................................................................................105
`2. Plamondon in view of RFC 2616. .....................................................107
`3. Claim 15. ...........................................................................................110
`4. Claim 16. ...........................................................................................111
`5. Claim 17. ...........................................................................................114
`D. Ground 4: Claims 17-18 are obvious over Plamondon in view of
`RFC 1122. ................................................................................................117
`1. RFC 1122 ..........................................................................................117
`
`ii
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 3 of 187
`
`

`

`2. Plamondon in view of RFC 1122. .....................................................118
`3. Claim 18. ...........................................................................................122
`4. Claim 17. ...........................................................................................124
`E. Ground 5: Claims 2 is obvious over Plamondon in view of IEEE
`802.11-2007. ............................................................................................124
`1. IEEE 802.11-2007 .............................................................................124
`2. Plamondon in view of IEEE 802.11-2007. .......................................132
`3. Claim 2. .............................................................................................133
`F. Ground 6: Claims 2-5 and 19-20 are obvious over Plamondon in
`view of Price. ...........................................................................................136
`1. Price ...................................................................................................136
`2. Plamondon in view of Price. .............................................................137
`3. Claim 2. .............................................................................................143
`4. Claim 3. .............................................................................................146
`5. Claim 4. .............................................................................................149
`6. Claim 5 ..............................................................................................152
`7. Claim 19. ...........................................................................................154
`8. Claim 20. ...........................................................................................157
`G. Ground 7: Claims 6-11 are obvious over Plamondon in view of
`Kozat. .......................................................................................................158
`1. Kozat..................................................................................................158
`2. Plamondon in view of Kozat. ............................................................160
`3. Claim 6. .............................................................................................166
`4. Claim 7. .............................................................................................174
`5. Claim 8. .............................................................................................175
`6. Claim 9. .............................................................................................177
`7. Claim 10. ...........................................................................................178
`8. Claim 11. ...........................................................................................181
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 4 of 187
`
`

`

`I, David Levin, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I have been retained on behalf of The Data Company Technologies Inc.
`
`(the “Petitioner”) as an independent technical expert in this IPR proceeding. This
`
`document provides certain of my opinions concerning the patentability of all claims
`
`in U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (“the ’319 patent”), specifically claims 1-29 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”).
`
`2.
`
`For my work as an expert in this matter, I am being compensated for
`
`my services at my standard rate of $500 per hour, plus actual expenses. My
`
`compensation is not dependent in any way upon my conclusions, the results of my
`
`analysis, or the outcome of this inter partes review of the ’319 patent.
`
`I.
`
`PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
`I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at
`3.
`
`the University of Maryland, a position that I have held since 2017. I am also
`
`affiliated with the University of Maryland Institute for Advanced Computer Studies
`
`(UMIACS), the Maryland Cybersecurity Center (MC2), and I am an affiliate
`
`assistant professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. I
`
`chair the Computer Science Undergraduate Honors program at the University of
`
`Maryland. My curriculum vitae (“CV”) is provided as Exhibit 1004.
`
`4.
`
`Before taking a position as Assistant Professor, I was a research
`
`scientist at the University of Maryland and held research positions at Hewlett
`
`- 1 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 5 of 187
`
`

`

`Packard Labs in Palo Alto, California, and Microsoft Research in Redmond,
`
`Washington. I earned my Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of
`
`Maryland in 2010.
`
`5. My research interests and experience primarily focus on systems and
`
`network security. The CV provided at Ex. 1004 includes a publication list. Since
`
`2004, I have published over 50 peer-reviewed journal articles, conference, and
`
`workshop papers on various aspects of networking, security, and operating systems.
`
`As relevant to the ’319 patent subject matter, I have published multiple papers
`
`concerning peer-to-peer systems (including peer-to-peer discovery routing,
`
`cooperative content delivery, caching, and storage systems), multi-hop proxying
`
`systems, anonymity systems, web proxies, web caching, content delivery networks
`
`(CDNs), DNS services, server selection, distributed systems, wireless networking,
`
`Internet architecture, client-server protocols, middleboxes, and network
`
`communication.
`
`6.
`
`At the University of Maryland, I teach graduate and undergraduate
`
`courses in computer and network security, as well as undergraduate courses in
`
`honors seminars on how to perform research in various aspects of computer science.
`
`These courses include materials on networking, distributed systems, Internet
`
`architecture, web architecture, content delivery networks (CDNs), anonymity
`
`systems, DNS services, peer-to-peer systems (including peer-to-peer routing,
`
`- 2 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 6 of 187
`
`

`

`cooperative content delivery, anonymity, and measurements thereof), web proxies,
`
`virtual private networks (VPNs), firewalls (and other middleboxes), and software
`
`security—all covered in depth to permit nuanced study of their myriad cybersecurity
`
`threats and defenses. My CV includes a list of courses taught.
`
`7.
`
`I have been on the technical program committee (TPC) for several
`
`conferences including ACM SIGCOMM (the premiere venue for network research),
`
`three premiere venues in security (IEEE Security and Privacy, USENIX Security,
`
`and ACM CCS), as well as ACM Internet Measurement Conference (IMC; the
`
`premiere conference for network measurement research). Among other duties, being
`
`on these TPCs involved peer-reviewing submitted articles. I have been the general
`
`chair for multiple top-tier networking conferences and workshops: HotNets 2013
`
`(Hot Topics in Networking Workshop), SOSR 2017 (Symposium on Software-
`
`defined Networking Research), and ACM IMC 2021 (Internet Measurement
`
`Conference). I have also been chair of the technical program committees for PAM
`
`2021 (Passive and Active (Network) Measurement Conference), as well as FOCI
`
`2021 (Workshop on Free and Open Communication on the Internet).
`
`8.
`
`One of my projects that is of particular relevance to the ’319 patent
`
`subject matter pertains to the interrogation and circumvention of nation-state Internet
`
`censorship systems, like those present in China and Iran. Nation-state censors
`
`operate by running many firewalls at the borders of their country, configured to
`
`- 3 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 7 of 187
`
`

`

`block or interrupt communication that violates some set of rules (such as blocking
`
`all communication pertaining to a rival political party). My team of students
`
`developed an artificial intelligence we call Geneva that trains directly against nation-
`
`state censors to automatically learn how to circumvent censorship. Developing
`
`Geneva—and understanding why its solutions work—requires extensive knowledge
`
`of TCP/IP, network architectures, HTTP, TLS (HTTPS), and DNS. This project has
`
`resulted in multiple publications in the top venues in networking (ACM SIGCOMM)
`
`and security (ACM CCS and USENIX Security), and has been recognized with
`
`awards from the Internet Research Task Force and from USENIX.
`
`9.
`
`Another one of my projects with particular relevance to the ’319 patent
`
`subject matter pertains to improving the reliability, performance, and security of
`
`content delivery networks (CDNs). As I will explain below, CDNs are the backbone
`
`of how much of the web is delivered today. My students and I have performed large-
`
`scale Internet measurements of how CDNs operate (discovering, for instance, that
`
`they collectively store millions of websites’ secret cryptographic keys) and have
`
`developed new techniques to improve their security (we developed the first truly
`
`“keyless” CDN). Also, through collaborations with CDNs like Cloudflare, I have
`
`helped develop new CDN architectures that are able to more efficiently react to poor
`
`network routes; some of these new designs have been deployed and help deliver
`
`content to millions of users every day.
`
`- 4 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 8 of 187
`
`

`

`10. Yet another one of my projects that is of particular relevance to the ’319
`
`patent subject matter pertains to the well-known BitTorrent peer-to-peer system. My
`
`2008 ACM SIGCOMM paper, “BitTorrent Is an Auction: Analyzing and Improving
`
`BitTorrent’s Incentives,” provided the most accurate explanation for how BitTorrent
`
`peers exchange data with one another and used this to expose new ways in which
`
`peers could selfishly manipulate the system to get an unfair proportion of resources.
`
`My research also introduced a new, fairer, more efficient way for the peers to
`
`identify with whom to share their content, and it is my understanding that some
`
`BitTorrent clients incorporated these findings into their code.
`
`11.
`
`I am also a member of the National Academies Forum on Cyber
`
`Resilience, a group that investigates and informs policymakers on various aspects of
`
`the long-term resilience of the Internet and other critical infrastructures.
`
`II. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`12. My findings, as explained below, are based on my years of education,
`
`research, experience, and background in the field of network communications and
`
`distributed systems, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials for
`
`this declaration. When developing the opinions set forth in this declaration, I
`
`assumed the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art, as set forth in
`
`Section IV below. In forming my opinions, I have considered the exhibits identified
`
`- 5 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 9 of 187
`
`

`

`in the exhibit list below. I have also reviewed the documents cited and referenced
`
`herein, even if not included on the exhibit list below.
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Patent Owner’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 126 (E.D.
`Tex. Sept. 29, 2020)
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 191 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2020)
`Patent Owner’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 28 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 7,
`2020)
`Corrected Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, CODE200 et al. v.
`Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 9,
`2020)
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT
`et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 453 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2021)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0228938
`(“Plamondon”)
`Declaration of Sandy Ginoza for IETF
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 1, RFC 793: Transmission Control Protocol -
`DARPA Internet Program Protocol Specification, Information
`Sciences Institute (September 1981) (“RFC 793”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 2, RFC 1001: Protocol Standard for a NetBIOS
`Service on a TCP/UDP Transport: Concepts and Methods, NetBIOS
`Working Group (March 1987) (“RFC 1001”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 3, RFC 1122: Requirements for Internet Hosts --
`Communication Layers, Internet Engineering Task Force (October
`1989) (“RFC 1122”)
`
`- 6 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 10 of 187
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`
`Description
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 4, RFC 1630: Universal Resource Identifiers in
`WWW - A Unifying Syntax for the Expression of Names and
`Addresses of Objects on the Network as used in the World-Wide
`Web, Network Working Group (June 1994) (“RFC 1630”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 5, RFC 1738: Uniform Resource Locators (URL),
`Network Working Group (December 1994) (“RFC 1738”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 6, RFC 2187: Application of Internet Cache
`Protocol (ICP), version 2, National Laboratory for Applied Network
`Research/UCSD (September 1997) (“RFC 2187”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 7, RFC 2616: Hypertext Transfer Protocol --
`HTTP/1.1, The Internet Society (June 1999) (“RFC 2616”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 8, RFC 2960: Stream Control Transmission
`Protocol, The Internet Society (October 2000) (“RFC 2960”)
`Ginoza Decl. Exh. 9, RFC 6520: Transport Layer Security (TLS) and
`Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension,
`Internet Engineering Task Force (February 2012) (“RFC 6520”)
`Declaration of Gordon MacPherson for IEEE
`MacPherson Decl. Exh. A, IEEE 802.11-2007 - IEEE Standard for
`Information Technology - Telecommunications and Information
`Exchange Between Systems – Local and Metropolitan Area Networks
`- Specific Requirements - Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access
`Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, June 12,
`2007 (“IEEE 802.11-2007”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0026304 (“Price”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0055471 (“Kozat”)
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`Pages from W. R. Stevens, TCP/IP Illustrated, Volume 1: The
`Protocols. Canada: Addison-Wesley, 1994, chs. 1 & 18, bibliography
`(“Stevens”)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,491,712
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072178 (“Budzisch”)
`
`- 7 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 11 of 187
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1029
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0178217 (“Nguyen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,761,500 (“Eckert”)
`Pages from L.L. Peterson, B.S. Davie, Computer Networks: A Systems
`Approach, 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Elsevier, 2007, chs. 1-2
`(“Peterson”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0187654 (“Raja”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0169818 (“Stewart”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,351,775 (“Yu-775”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0059371 (“Jamail”)
`P. Mell, T. Bergeron, and D. Henning, “Creating a Patch and
`Vulnerability Management Program,” NIST Special Publication 800-
`40 Version 2.0, 2005 (“SP 800-40 Ver. 2”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0153473
`(“Hutchinson”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236083 (“Fristch”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0115613
`(“Ramaswami”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,041,784 (“Amidon”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,655,838 (“Wright”)
`A. Rowstron and P. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, Decentralized Object
`Location, and Routing for Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems.”
`IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms
`and Open Distributed Processing: Middleware 2001, pp. 329-350
`(2001) (“Rowstron”)
`S. Ratnasamy, M. Handley, R. Karp and S. Shenker, “Topologically-
`aware overlay construction and server selection.” Proceedings
`Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and
`Communications Societies, vol. 3, pp. 1190-1199 (2002)
`(“Ratnasamy”)
`
`- 8 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 12 of 187
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`1050
`
`1052
`1053
`1055
`
`1056
`1077
`
`Description
`V. N. Padmanabhan and L. Subramanian, “An Investigation of
`Geographic Mapping Techniques for Internet Hosts.” ACM
`SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 3, No. 4, pp.
`173–185 (2001) (“Padmanabhan”)
`M.J. Freedman, K. Lakshminarayanan, and D. Mazières, “OASIS:
`Anycast for Any Service.” Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on
`Networked Systems Design & Implementation, vol. 3, pp. 129-142
`(2006) (“Freedman-2006”)
`S. Agarwal and J.R. Lorch, “Matchmaking for Online Games and
`Other Latency-Sensitive P2P Systems.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer
`Communication Review, vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 315-326 (2009)
`(“Agarwal”)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,144,611 (“Agarwal-611”)
`H. Casanova, “Benefits and Drawbacks of Redundant Batch
`Requests.” Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 5, pp. 235–250 (2007)
`(“Casanova”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0204700 (“Sudhakar”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0212584 (“Yu”)
`S. J. Murdoch, “New Tor distribution for testing: Tor Browser
`Bundle,” January 30, 2008 post to tor-talk mailing list, available at
`https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2008-
`January/007837.html
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0222515 (“Thompson”)
`Declaration of Adam R. Wichman
`
`13. The opinions and comments formulated during this assessment are
`
`based on observations and information available at the time of this investigation.
`
`III. MY UNDERSTANDING OF PATENT LAW
`In developing my opinions, I discussed various relevant legal principles
`14.
`
`with Petitioner’s attorneys. Though I do not purport to have prior knowledge of such
`
`- 9 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 13 of 187
`
`

`

`principles, I understood them when they were explained to me and have relied upon
`
`such legal principles, as explained to me, while forming the opinions set forth in this
`
`declaration. My understanding in this respect is as follows:
`
`15.
`
`I understand that “inter partes review” (IPR) is a proceeding before the
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office for evaluating the patentability of an issued
`
`patent’s claims based on prior-art patents and printed publications.
`
`16.
`
`I understand that, in this proceeding, Petitioner has the burden of
`
`proving that the challenged claims of the ’319 patent are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that a “preponderance of the evidence”
`
`means that the evidence establishes that a fact or conclusion is more likely true than
`
`not true.
`
`17.
`
`I understand that patent claims can be independent or dependent. I
`
`understand that a dependent claim must reference a claim previously set forth, and
`
`then must specify a further limitation of the claimed subject matter. I also understand
`
`that a dependent claim is treated as incorporating by reference all limitations of the
`
`previously recited claim that it references. I understand than an independent claim
`
`does not reference or incorporate limitations from a previously disclosed claim.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that, in inter partes review proceedings, claim terms in a
`
`patent are given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) in the context of the entire patent and the
`
`- 10 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 14 of 187
`
`

`

`prosecution history pertaining to the patent. If the specification provides a special
`
`definition for a claim term that differs from the meaning the term would otherwise
`
`possess, the specification’s special definition takes precedence. I have applied these
`
`standards in preparing the opinions in this declaration.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that determining whether a particular patent or printed
`
`publication constitutes prior art to a challenged patent claim can require determining
`
`the effective filing date (also known as the priority date) to which the challenged
`
`claim is entitled. I understand that for a patent claim to be entitled to the benefit of
`
`the filing date of an earlier application to which the patent claims priority, the earlier
`
`application must have described the claimed invention in sufficient detail to convey
`
`with reasonable clarity to the POSA that the inventor had possession of the claimed
`
`invention as of the earlier application’s filing date. I understand that a disclosure
`
`that merely renders the claimed invention obvious is not sufficient written
`
`description for the claim to be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the
`
`application containing that disclosure.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be patentable,
`
`it must be, among other things, new (and consequently not anticipated) and not
`
`obvious from the prior art. My understanding of these two legal standards is set
`
`forth below.
`
`- 11 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 15 of 187
`
`

`

`A. Anticipation
`I understand that, for a patent claim to be “anticipated” by the prior art
`21.
`
`(and therefore not novel), each and every claim limitation must be satisfied,
`
`expressly or inherently, in the subject matter provided by a single prior-art reference.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation is disclosed for the purpose of anticipation if a
`
`POSA would have understood the reference to disclose the limitation based on
`
`inferences that a POSA would reasonably be expected to draw from the explicit
`
`teachings in the reference when read in the context provided by the POSA’s
`
`knowledge and experience.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that a claim limitation is inherent in a prior art reference if
`
`that limitation is necessarily present when practicing the teachings of the reference,
`
`regardless of whether a POSA recognized the presence of that limitation in the prior
`
`art.
`
`B. Obviousness
`I understand that a patent claim may be unpatentable if it would have
`23.
`
`been obvious to a POSA in view of a single prior-art reference or a combination of
`
`prior-art references.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that a patent claim is obvious if the differences between
`
`the subject matter of the claim and the prior art are such that the claimed subject
`
`matter, as a whole, would have been obvious to a POSA at the time the invention
`
`- 12 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 16 of 187
`
`

`

`was made. Specifically, I understand that the obviousness question involves a
`
`consideration of:
`
`• the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`• the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
`
`• the knowledge of a POSA; and
`
`• any “secondary considerations” of non-obviousness
`
`25.
`
`I have been
`
`informed
`
`that certain factors called “secondary
`
`considerations” can include (1) the invention’s commercial success, (2) long felt but
`
`unresolved needs, (3) the failure of others, (4) skepticism by experts, (5) praise by
`
`others, (6) teaching away by others, (7) recognition of a problem, (8) copying of the
`
`invention by competitors, and (9) other relevant factors. I am not aware of any such
`
`“secondary considerations” applicable to the Challenged Claims. To my knowledge,
`
`the Patent Owner has not asserted any such secondary considerations with respect to
`
`the ’319 patent. However, should any be presented, I reserve the right to address
`
`those unknown factors if asked by Petitioner to do so.
`
`26.
`
`I understand that for a claimed invention to be considered obvious, a
`
`POSA must have had a reason for combining teachings from multiple prior-art
`
`references (or for altering a single prior-art reference, in the case of obviousness in
`
`view of a single reference) in the fashion proposed.
`
`- 13 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 17 of 187
`
`

`

`27.
`
`It is my understanding that a patent claim is invalid as obvious if all the
`
`claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art would have
`
`combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their
`
`respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than
`
`predictable results to a POSA.
`
`28.
`
`I further understand that relevant considerations for a motivation to
`
`modify a prior art reference includes at least the following:
`
`• combining prior-art elements according to known methods to yield
`
`predictable results;
`
`• simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
`
`predictable results;
`
`• use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or
`
`products in the same way;
`
`• applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvement to yield predictable results;
`
`• applying a technique or approach that would have been “obvious to
`
`try,” i.e., choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
`
`solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
`
`• known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it
`
`for use in either the same field or a different one based on design
`
`- 14 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1003
`Page 18 of 187
`
`

`

`incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been
`
`predictable to a POSA;
`
`• some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would
`
`have led a POSA to modify the prior-art reference or to combine
`
`prior-art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. I
`
`understand that this teaching, suggestion, or motivation may come
`
`from a prior-art reference or from the knowledge or common sense
`
`of a POSA.
`
`29.
`
`I understand that for a single reference or a combination of references
`
`to render the claimed invention obvious, a POSA must have been able to arrive at
`
`the claimed invention by altering or combining the applied references.
`
`IV. PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSA”)
`I have been informed and understand that for purposes of assessing
`30.
`
`whether prior-art references disclose every element of a patent claim (thus
`
`“anticipating” the claim) a