UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB; AND
`OXYSALES, UAB, Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-01358
`Patent No. 10,484,510
`____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,484,510
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 1 of 87
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.(cid:3)
`II.(cid:3)
`
`III.(cid:3)
`
`IV.(cid:3)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1(cid:3)
`STATUTORY PREDICATES............................................................................................ 2(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8) ........................................................................... 2(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Real Parties-In-Interest ...................................................................................... 2(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Related Matters .................................................................................................. 2(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ............................................................................... 4(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Service Information ........................................................................................... 4(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103) ........................................................................... 5(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) Certification of Standing (37 CFR § 42.104(a)) .......................................................... 5(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)
`Identification of Challenges (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1)-(2)) .......................................... 5(cid:3)
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(a)) ...................................... 6(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Factor 1 ........................................................................................................................ 7(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) Factor 2 ........................................................................................................................ 7(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) Factor 3 ........................................................................................................................ 8(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) Factor 4 ........................................................................................................................ 8(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3) Factor 5 ........................................................................................................................ 9(cid:3)
`F.(cid:3) Factor 6 ........................................................................................................................ 9(cid:3)
`OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT ........................................................................................ 9(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Claims .......................................................................................................................... 9(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) Specification .............................................................................................................. 10(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) Priority Date .............................................................................................................. 12(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) Alleged Benefit of the Patent .................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART .................................................................................... 12(cid:3)
`V.(cid:3)
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (37 CFR § 4 2.104(b)(3)) .................................................... 13(cid:3)
`VI.(cid:3)
`VII.(cid:3) OVERVIEW OF PRIOR ART REFERENCES ............................................................... 15(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3) Crowds ....................................................................................................................... 15(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) MorphMix ................................................................................................................. 15(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) Border ........................................................................................................................ 16(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3) RFC 2616 .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 2 of 87
`
`

`

`VIII.(cid:3) GROUNDS FOR INVALIDITY (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(4)-(5))........................................ 17(cid:3)
`A.(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)GROUND 1: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-2, 6-7, 15-16, AND 18-23 BY
` CROWDS ................................................................................................................. 17(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 18(cid:3)
`a) Preamble ................................................................................................... 18
`b) Claim step (a) (“establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP)
` connection with a second server”) ........................................................... 19
`c) Claim step (b) (“sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first
` content identifier”) .................................................................................... 22
`d) Claim step (c) (“receiving, the first content from the web server over
` the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier”) .... 24
`e) Claim step (d) (“sending the received first content, to the second server
` over the established TCP connection, in response to the receiving of the
` first content identifier”) ............................................................................. 25
`2.(cid:3)
`Claim 2 ............................................................................................................ 25(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................................ 26(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Claims 7 and 21 ............................................................................................... 27(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)
`Claim 15 .......................................................................................................... 28(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)
`Claim 16 .......................................................................................................... 29(cid:3)
`7.(cid:3)
`Claims 18-19.................................................................................................... 30(cid:3)
`8.(cid:3)
`Claim 20 .......................................................................................................... 30(cid:3)
`9.(cid:3)
`Claim 22 .......................................................................................................... 30(cid:3)
`10.(cid:3) Claim 23 .......................................................................................................... 31(cid:3)
`B.(cid:3) GROUND 2: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 6-11, 13, 15-16, AND
`18-23 BY CROWDS + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ........................... 31(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 33(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Claims 8-9........................................................................................................ 35(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Claims 10-11.................................................................................................... 37(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Claim 13 .......................................................................................................... 38(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)
`Claims 2, 6-7, 15-16, 18-19, and 20-23 ........................................................... 38(cid:3)
`C.(cid:3) GROUND 3: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1, 6, 10, 15-20, AND 23-24 BY
` BORDER ................................................................................................................... 39(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 41(cid:3)
`a) Preamble ................................................................................................... 41
`b) Claim step (a) (“establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP
` connection with a second server”) ............................................................ 42
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 3 of 87
`
`

`

`c) Claim step (b) (“sending, to the web server over an Internet, the first
` content identifier ”) ................................................................................... 44
`d) Claim step (c) (“receiving, the first content from the web server over
` the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier”) ... 45
`e) Claim step (d) (“sending the received first content, to the second server
` over the established TCP connection, in response to the receiving of
` the first content identifier”) ....................................................................... 46
`2.(cid:3)
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................................ 47(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Claim 10 .......................................................................................................... 47(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Claim 15 .......................................................................................................... 48(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)
`Claim 16 .......................................................................................................... 49(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)
`Claim 17 .......................................................................................................... 49(cid:3)
`7.(cid:3)
`Claims 18-19.................................................................................................... 50(cid:3)
`8.(cid:3)
`Claim 20 .......................................................................................................... 50(cid:3)
`9.(cid:3)
`Claim 23 .......................................................................................................... 50(cid:3)
`10.(cid:3) Claim 24 .......................................................................................................... 51(cid:3)
`D.(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)GROUND 4: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20, AND
` 22-24 BY BORDER + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ........................... 52(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 53(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Claims 8-9........................................................................................................ 54(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Claim 11 .......................................................................................................... 56(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Claim 13 .......................................................................................................... 57(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)
`Claim 22 .......................................................................................................... 58(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)
`Claims 6, 10, 15-20, and 23-24 ....................................................................... 58(cid:3)
`E.(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)GROUND 5: ANTICIPATION OF CLAIMS 1-2, 6-8, 13, 15-16, AND 18-23
` BY MORPHMIX ....................................................................................................... 59(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 60(cid:3)
`a) Preamble ................................................................................................... 60
`b) Claim step (a) (“establishing a Transmission Control Protocol
` (TCP) connection with a second server”) ................................................. 60
`c) Claim step (b) (“sending, to the web server over an Internet, the
` first content identifier”) ............................................................................. 64
`d) Claim step (c) (“receiving, the first content from the web server over
` the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier”) .... 66
`e) Claim step (d) (“sending the received first content, to the second
` server over the established TCP connection, in response to the
` receiving of the first content identifier”) .................................................. 66
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 4 of 87
`
`

`

`Claim 2 ............................................................................................................ 67(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Claim 6 ............................................................................................................ 67(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Claims 7 and 21 ............................................................................................... 69(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Claim 8 ............................................................................................................ 70(cid:3)
`5.(cid:3)
`Claim 13 .......................................................................................................... 71(cid:3)
`6.(cid:3)
`Claim 15 .......................................................................................................... 72(cid:3)
`7.(cid:3)
`Claim 16 .......................................................................................................... 72(cid:3)
`8.(cid:3)
`Claims 18-19.................................................................................................... 72(cid:3)
`9.(cid:3)
`10.(cid:3) Claim 20 .......................................................................................................... 72(cid:3)
`11.(cid:3) Claim 22 .......................................................................................................... 73(cid:3)
`12.(cid:3) Claim 23 .......................................................................................................... 73(cid:3)
`F.(cid:3) GROUND 6: OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1-2, 6-11, 13, 15-16, AND
`18-23 BY MORPHMIX + RFC 2616 + GENERAL KNOWLEDGE ...................... 74(cid:3)
`1.(cid:3)
`Claim 1 ............................................................................................................ 74(cid:3)
`2.(cid:3)
`Claim 9 ............................................................................................................ 75(cid:3)
`3.(cid:3)
`Claims 10-11.................................................................................................... 76(cid:3)
`4.(cid:3)
`Claims 2, 6-8, 13, 15-16, and 18-23 ................................................................ 77(cid:3)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 5 of 87
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`United States Patent No. 10,484,510 to Shribman et al.
`File History for United States Patent No. 10,484,510
`Minute Entry: Scheduling Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Docket Control Order, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et
`al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Luminati Mtn. to Consolidate and Reset Trial, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Order: Pretrial Conference, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB
`Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Petitioners’ Chart of Challenged Claims
`to Dismiss,
`Luminati’s Opposition
`to Defendants’ Motion
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG
`(E.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Michael Freedman, Ph. D. with curriculum vitae and
`testifying list
`Luminati’s Opening Claim Construction Brief, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, et al., 2:18-cv-0299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Michael Reiter & Aviel Rubin, Crowds: Anonymity for Web
`Transactions, ACM Transactions on Information and System
`Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, Nov. 1998, at 66-92
`Declaration of Scott Delman (regarding Crowds)
`Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based System for
`Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Doctoral Thesis)
`Declaration of Marc Rennhard (regarding MorphMix)
`Declaration of Bernhard Plattner (regarding MorphMix)
`Declaration of Andreas Berz (regarding MorphMix)
`United States Patent No. 6,795,848 to Border et al.
`Network Working Group, RFC 2616
`Network Working Group, RFC 1180
`ACM Award Winners, Michael J. Freedman
`Network Working Group, RFC 791
`Network Working Group, RFC 2460
`Network Working Group, RFC 793
`Network Working Group, RFC 959
`
`v
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`1020
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 6 of 87
`
`

`

`Network Working Group, RFC 821
`Network Working Group, RFC 918
`Network Working Group, RFC 937
`Network Working Group, RFC 1939
`Network Working Group, RFC 1034
`Network Working Group, RFC 1035
`Network Working Group, RFC 1945
`Roger Dingledine, Michael Freedman, & David Molnar, The Free
`Haven Project: Distributed Anonymous Storage Service (2000)
`Michael Freedman & Robert Morris, Tarzan: A Peer-to-Peer
`Anonymizing Network Layer (2000)
`Google Scholar: Crowds Citations
`Google Scholar: MorphMix citation in Alessandro Acquisti, et al.,
`Digital Privacy: Theory, Technologies, and Practices (2007)
`Network Working Group, RFC 1122
`Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks
`Ltd. v. Code200, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Complaint for Patent Infringement, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`1038
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 7 of 87
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 (“Patent”), with a priority date of 2009, claims the
`
`sending of basic Internet information, using the HTTP protocol, through a proxy
`
`device that retrieves content from the target web server and returns the content to the
`
`requesting device. Not surprisingly, the alleged invention was well known to a
`
`person of “ordinary skill in the art” as of 2009 (“POSA”) and is invalidated by the
`
`Crowds, Border, and MorphMix references discussed herein. None of these
`
`references were before the examiner during prosecution. Further, the references
`
`expressly identify the same alleged benefit as patent owner Luminati Networks Ltd.
`
`(“Luminati”)—anonymous retrieval of web data, relieving traffic congestion, and
`
`decreasing network latency.
`
`In short, Luminati did not come close to being the first to invent a web proxy,
`
`and its Patent should be invalidated. Accordingly, there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that Petitioners would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in
`
`this Petition.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 8 of 87
`
`

`

`II.
`
`STATUTORY PREDICATES
`
`A. Mandatory Notices (37 CFR § 42.8)
`1.
`Real Parties-In-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are the Petitioners Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB,
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, “Petitioners”); as well as
`
`coretech lt, UAB.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The Patent claims the benefit of provisional application 61/249,624, and is a
`
`continuation of (among other applications) U.S. Application No. 14/025,109;
`
`IPR2020-01266 asserts challenges to U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, which claims the
`
`benefit of the same provisional, and is a continuation of the same application.
`
`The Patent is currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Further, U.S Pat. Nos.
`
`10,484,511 and 10,637,968 (both claiming the benefit of 61/249,624 (the Patent’s
`
`provisional application number)), are currently the subject of the litigation styled
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code 200, UAB, et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`and Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. NetNut, Ltd., 2:20-cv-00188-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Further, the Patent, as well as U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,257,319 and 10,484,511 (both
`
`claiming the benefit of 61/249,624 (the Patent’s provisional application number)),
`
`are currently the subject of the litigation styled Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom
`
`S.A. D/B/A NordVPN, 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`2
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 9 of 87
`
`

`

`The Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system indicates that
`
`U.S. Application No. 16/600,507 (pending) claims the benefit of 16/278,107 (the
`
`Patent’s application number). Further, the following patent applications and patents
`
`claim the benefit of 61/249,624 (the Patent’s provisional application number):
`
`12/836,059 (issued as U.S. Pat. 8,560,604), 14/025,109 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`10,069,936), 15/957,942 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,313,484), 15/957,945 (issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. 10,257,319), 15/957,950 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,225,374), 16/031,636
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,616,375), 16/278,106 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,712),
`
`16/278,107 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,484,510), 16/278,109 (issued as U.S. Pat.
`
`10,484,511), 16/278,104 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,523,788), 16/278,105 (issued as
`
`U.S. Pat. 10,469,628), 16/368,002 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,582,013), 16/368,041
`
`(issued as U.S. Pat. 10,582,014), 16/396,695 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,491,713),
`
`16/396,696 (issued as U.S. Pat. 10,637,968), 16/600,504 (pending), 16/600,505
`
`(pending), 16/600,506 (pending), 16/600,507 (pending), 16/662,800 (pending),
`
`16/693,306 (pending), 16/782,073 (pending), 16/782,076 (pending), 16/807,661
`
`(pending), 16/807,691 (pending), 16/910,724 (pending), and PCT/US10/51881
`
`(issued as WO 2011/044402).
`
`
`
`3
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 10 of 87
`
`

`

`Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`3.
`Lead Counsel
`Craig Tolliver
`Registration No. 45,975
`ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`469-587-7263
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza,
`PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`George “Jorde” Scott
`Registration No. 62,859
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`469-587-7264
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza,
`PLLC
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`
`4.
`
`Service Information
`
`Electronic mail
`
`1. ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`2. jscott@ccrglaw.com
`
`Postal (and hand-delivery) mailing
`address
`
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`Telephone
`
`Facsimile
`
`(214) 521-6400
`
`(214) 764-8392
`
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners consent to electronic service via e-mail at the e-mail
`
`addresses noted above.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 11 of 87
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Payment of Fees (37 CFR § 42.103)
`
`The required fee is paid through an online credit card, and the office is
`
`authorized to charge any fee deficiencies and credit any overpayments to Deposit
`
`Acct. No. 603576 (Customer ID No. 172361).
`
`C.
`
`Certification of Standing (37 CFR § 42.104(a))
`
`Petitioners certify that the Patent is available for IPR and that Petitioners are
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims on the grounds
`
`alleged herein. Luminati filed a complaint alleging infringement by Teso LT, UAB;
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB; and Oxysales, UAB of the Patent on December 6, 2019 and
`
`served the complaint on Metacluster LT, UAB (the earliest served defendant) on
`
`February 18, 2020. Ex. 1038. Both dates are less than twelve months prior to filing
`
`of this Petition. Petitioners have not filed a civil action challenging the validity of
`
`any claim of the Patent within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 315(a).
`
`D.
`
`Identification of Challenges (37 CFR § 42.104(b)(1)-(2))
`
`Petitioners request cancellation of the challenged claims on the following
`
`grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`Claims
`
`Challenge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-2, 6-7, 15-16,
`18-23
`
`1-2, 6-11, 13,
`15-16, 18-23
`
`Anticipated by Crowds (§102)
`
`Obvious in view of Crowds + Knowledge of
`POSA + Request for Comments (“RFC”) 2616
`(§103)
`
`
`
`5
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 12 of 87
`
`

`

`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`1, 6, 10, 15-20,
`23-24
`
`Anticipated by Border (§102)
`
`1, 6, 8-11, 13,
`15-20, 22-24
`
`Obvious in view of Border + Knowledge of
`POSA + RFC 2616 (§103)
`
`1-2, 6-8, 13, 15-
`16, 18-23
`
`Anticipated by MorphMix (§102)
`
`1-2, 6-11, 13,
`15-16, 18-23
`
`Obvious in view of MorphMix + Knowledge of
`POSA + RFC 2616 (§103)
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE GRANTED (35 U.S.C. § 314(A))
`
`Petitioner Code200 has been sued by Luminati for alleged patent
`
`infringement, but Luminati has (as of yet) not filed any lawsuit alleging infringement
`
`of the Patent by Code200. This weighs in favor of institution with respect to
`
`Code200.
`
`The other petitioners (co-petitioners) were sued by Luminati for alleged
`
`infringement of the Patent, as noted above. As to the co-petitioners, however, the
`
`Fintiv1 factors, discussed below, show that the Board should not exercise its
`
`discretion to deny institution in view of Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et
`
`al., No. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“Lawsuit”).
`
`
`1 Apple Inc. v. Fintiv Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020)
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020)
`
`
`
`6
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 13 of 87
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Factor 1
`
`The first factor is whether the court may grant a stay if a proceeding is
`
`instituted. The Lawsuit is at a very early stage. The Scheduling Conference did not
`
`occur until May 18, 2020. Ex. 1003. The Docket Control Order issued June 3, 2020.
`
`Ex. 1004. Claim construction is set for November 10, 2020. Id.
`
`No party has requested a stay of the Lawsuit pending the IPR, and the Board
`
`has previously “decline[d] to infer” how a District Court would decide a stay motion.
`
`Fintiv, Paper 15 at 12. Factor 1 is neutral.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 2
`
`The second factor concerns the proximity of the Lawsuit trial date to the
`
`Board’s projected final written decision. While jury selection is currently set for May
`
`3, 2021 (Ex. 1004), Luminati has previously sought to abandon its trial dates as the
`
`“day of reckoning” approaches. In Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet and
`
`Metacluster UAB, No. 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D.Tex.) (“Prior Lawsuit”), Luminati,
`
`on December 23, 2019, filed an opposed motion to reset the trial date just over one
`
`week before the January 3, 2020 pretrial hearing at which co-petitioners’ dispositive
`
`motions regarding Section 101 invalidity and non-infringement were to be heard.
`
`Ex. 1005 at 2. Luminati sought to delay the February 3, 2020 trial date for at least
`
`five months until “after July 2020.” Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 14 of 87
`
`

`

`The parties settled the Prior Lawsuit at the pretrial conference, prior to
`
`resolution of dispositive motions. Ex. 1006.
`
`In view of Luminati’s history and the potential for COVID-related delays
`
`(which are more likely to affect a jury trial), Factor 2 is neutral.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 3
`
`Factor 3 concerns “investment in the parallel proceedings.” The Lawsuit is at
`
`a very early stage, with the Docket Control Order issuing June 2, 2020. Ex. 1004.
`
`Luminati did not provide its infringement contentions, and therefore did not identify
`
`its asserted claims, until May 4, 2020. Id. This Petition was filed less than 3 months
`
`after the asserted claims were disclosed, and over six months before co-petitioners’
`
`statutory deadline for filing an IPR. Id. Expert discovery does not close until January
`
`21, 2021. Id.
`
`Given the early stages of the case, and the prompt filing of this Petition, Factor
`
`3 weighs strongly in favor of institution.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 4
`
`Factor 4 concerns the overlap between the claims at issue in the Petition and
`
`the Lawsuit. Luminati asserts claims 1-2, 8-11, 13, 15-16, 18-20, and 22-23 in the
`
`Lawsuit. In addition to these claims, this Petition also challenges claims 6-7, 17, 21,
`
`and 24, which are not at issue in the Lawsuit. Factor 4 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 15 of 87
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Factor 5
`
`Factor 5 concerns the overlap between the parties in the Petition and the
`
`parties in the Lawsuit. Petitioner Code200 is not a defendant in the Lawsuit, although
`
`it has been sued by Luminati as to alleged infringement of related patents. Ex. 1037.
`
`Factor 5 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 6
`
`Factor 6 concerns “other circumstances.” The challenged Patent is
`
`extraordinarily weak. Luminati has essentially claimed the exchange of standard
`
`Internet information via a typical intermediary computer device to perform web
`
`requests for a client. That basic concept has been well known for decades.
`
`Policy favors the Board instituting review so that Luminati may not continue
`
`to pursue parties with infringement claims based on an invalid alleged invention that
`
`was known well before the 2009 priority date.
`
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PATENT
`
`A.
`
`Claims
`
`Claim 1, the only independent claim of the Patent, is included in the attached
`
`Exhibit 1007, which lists the Challenged Claims.
`
`The Patent claims ordinary devices that exchange standard Internet requests
`
`or content in a routine way. Claim 1 recites the standard use of an intermediary,
`
`where the “first client device” acts as an intermediary to retrieve from a web server
`
`content requested by a “second server,” and send the content to the second server.
`9
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 16 of 87
`
`

`

`The following is an illustration of Claim 1:
`
`The dependent Challenged Claims merely recite additional steps known to a
`
`POSA, including that “TCP/IP” is used or that an HTTP header used in the prior art
`
`
`
`RFC 2616 standard is used.
`
`B.
`
`Specification
`
`The Patent’s specification confirms that the claim terms used in the Patent
`
`have broad and generic meanings and may be satisfied by standard computers.
`
`Figure 3 depicts “peer[s],” a “client,” and an “agent” communicating, with the
`
`“agent” forming a connection to the web server:
`
`
`
`10
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 17 of 87
`
`

`

`
`
`Ex. 1001, Fig. 3. The Patent specification states with respect to Figure 3 that “[t]he
`
`network 100 of FIG. 3 contains multiple communication devices,” that “each
`
`communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent.” Id. at 4:46-55.2
`
`A “communication device” contains “general components of a computer” and
`
`“may serve as a client, agent, or peer.” Id. at 5:54-59. For example, “[t]he
`
`communication device 200 includes a processor 202, memory 210, [and] at least one
`
`storage device 208[.]” Id. at 5:61-64. Other off-the-shelf features of the
`
`“communication device” include “ROM, hard drive, tape, CDROM, etc.” and that
`
`its input/output devices may include a keyboard or mouse. Id. at 6:16-26, 6:63-7:5.
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all emphases in quotations have been added in this Petition.
`11
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1070
`Page 18 of 87
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Priority Date
`
`The Patent claims priority to provisional application 61/249,624 filed on
`
`October 8, 2009. The prior art references asserted in this Petition pre-date the
`
`October 8, 2009 date, and Petitioners do not contest (for purposes of this Petition
`
`only) that the Patent has a priority date of October 8, 2009 (“Priority Date”).
`
`D.
`
`Alleged Benefit of the Patent
`
`Luminati has argued that the Patent allows for the benefit of “untraceability
`
`and anonymity.” Ex. 1008 at 6. Luminati asserts that data center proxies “with a
`
`limited number of commercial IP addresses” could easily be blocked by a web
`
`server, whereas the usage of many “millions