Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 5233
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TEFINCOM S.A. D/B/A NORDVPN
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN
`INVALIDITY GROUNDS
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 1 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 5234
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ................................... 1
`II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (“SUF”) ......................................................... 2
`III. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 3
`IV. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 5
`V. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 2 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 5235
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-12-CV-580, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186738
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2014) ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................... 4
`
`Apple Comput., Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .................................... 4
`
`Barrett v. Atl. Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 1996) .............................................................. 6
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................... 4
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................. 4, 6
`
`MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 248 F. App’x 199 (Fed. Cir.
`2007)............................................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011) .................................................................. 4
`
`Mobile Telcomms. Techs., LLC v. LG Elecs. Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-947-JRG-
`RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92532 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2016) ................................................... 5
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................. 4
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2:14-CV-11, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135915 (E.D. Tex. Oct.
`5, 2015)........................................................................................................................................ 4
`
`ii
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 3 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 5236
`
`Pursuant to Rule 56, Plaintiff respectfully moves for partial summary judgment of no
`
`invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,257,319 (the “’319 Patent), 10,484,510 (the “’510 Patent”),
`
`10,484,511 (the “’511 Patent”), 10,469,614 (the “’614 Patent”), and 10,637,968 (the “’968
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) with regard to the following grounds:
`
`a) lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`b) anticipation/obviousness of the ’319 Patent based on Crowds;
`
`c) anticipation/obviousness of the ’510 Patent based on Crowds;
`
`d) anticipation/obviousness of the ’511 Patent based on Crowds;
`
`e) anticipation/obviousness of the ’319 Patent based on MorphMix;
`
`f) anticipation/obviousness of the ’510 Patent based on MorphMix;
`
`g) anticipation/obviousness of the ’614 Patent based on MorphMix; and
`
`h) anticipation/obviousness of the ’968 Patent based on MorphMix
`
`As addressed separately in Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Invalidity Opinions of
`
`Expert Dr. Michael J. Freedman (“Motion to Strike”), Defendant has not provided an expert
`
`opinion sufficient to support the above grounds for invalidity. To the extent that the Motion to
`
`Strike is granted, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to invalidity on the above grounds
`
`and Bright Data respectfully requests that summary judgment of no invalidity be granted.
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`1.
`
`Whether the Court should grant summary judgment as to lack of patent eligibility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the asserted claims of the ’319, ’510, ’511,’614 and ’968 Patents.
`
`2.
`
`Whether the Court should grant summary judgment as to anticipation/obviousness
`
`of the asserted claims of the ’319, ’510, and/or ’511 Patents based on Crowds: Anonymity for
`
`Web Transactions (“Crowds”) if the Court grants Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Motion to Strike.
`
`3.
`
`Whether the Court should grant summary judgment as to anticipation/obviousness
`
`1
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 4 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5237
`
`of the asserted claims of the ’319, ’510,’614, and/or ’968 Patents based on MorphMix – A Peer-
`
`to-Peer-based System for Anonymous Internet Access (“MorphMix”) if the Court grants
`
`Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Motion to Strike.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (“SUF”)
`
`SUF 1:
`
`Defendant relies upon the opinions of Dr. Freedman for its invalidity and
`
`obviousness claims against the Patents-in-Suit and Defendant has not served an invalidity report
`
`from any other expert.
`
`SUF 2:
`
`Dr. Freedman provided an opinion that the asserted claims of the ’511 and
`
`’968 Patents are invalid as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex. A, Freedman Report, ¶¶ 484-
`
`496.
`
`SUF 3:
`
`Dr. Freedman provided an opinion that all dependent claims of the ’510 and
`
`’614 Patents are invalid as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but did not provide an opinion that
`
`the independent claims of the ’510 and ’614 Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id.
`
`Dr. Freedman did not provide an opinion that any of the ’319 Patent claims are invalid under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. Id.
`
`SUF 4:
`
`The Court issued an order denying Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to
`
`Dismiss Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”), which asserted invalidity of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ex. B, Dkt. No. 84. In its order, the Court incorporated the reasoning
`
`from its orders denying 101 invalidity for the same patents in the cases of Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso
`
`lt, UAB et al., No. 2:19-cv-395, Dkt. No. 303 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2020) (Teso Action Order, Ex.
`
`C) and Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB et al., No. 2:19-cv-396, Dkr. No. 98 (E.D. Tex. Dec.
`
`30, 2020) (Code200 Action Order, Ex. D) explaining:
`
`[T]he method claims of the ’319, ’510, and ’614 Patents, “while including generic
`computers and common Internet communication protocols, recite a broader
`network that is itself the claimed improvement. Rather than a mere categorization
`
`2
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 5 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 5238
`
`of data, the pairing of servers and peer-proxies describes a network structure that
`improves the ability of those actors to communicate.”
`
`[T]hat the claims of the ’511 and ’968 Patents include “an architecture comprised
`of a clients, servers, and web servers configured into an architecture to facilitate
`providing requested content using an IP address that is selected from a group of IP
`addresses and used to fetch the content.” Accordingly, the Court found that the
`claims of the ’511 and ’968 Patents “embody technology-based solutions that
`improve the performance of networks,” clearing the hurdle established by Alice
`Step One..
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that the Asserted Claims are not directed to an abstract
`concept under Alice Step One, and the Court need not reach Alice Step Two.
`
`Order (Dkt. No. 84) at 4-5 (emphases added, internal citations omitted)
`
`SUF 5:
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike filed concurrently herewith moves to strike
`
`Dr. Freedman’s opinion in SUF Nos. 2-3.
`
`SUF 6:
`
`Dr. Freedman provided an opinion that the Crowds reference anticipates
`
`and/or renders obvious the ’319 Patent, ’510 Patent, and ’511 Patent. Ex. A, Freedman Report
`
`¶¶ 112-143, Appx. A, E, M.
`
`SUF 7:
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike filed concurrently herewith moves to strike
`
`Dr. Freedman’s opinion in SUF No. 6.
`
`SUF 8:
`
`Dr. Freedman provided an opinion that the MorphMix reference anticipates
`
`and/or renders obvious the ’319 Patent, ’510 Patent,’614 Patent and ’968 Patent. Ex. A, Freedman
`
`Report, ¶¶ 144-168, Appx. B, F, N.
`
`SUF 9:
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike filed concurrently herewith seeks to strike
`
`Dr. Freedman’s opinion in SUF No. 8.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Summary judgment should be rendered if the pleadings and materials show that there is no
`
`genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as matter of law.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In order to prevail, a party moving for summary judgment must show the
`
`3
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 6 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 5239
`
`absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to an essential element of the non-moving
`
`party’s claim. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the movant has made this
`
`showing, the burden then shifts to the party opposing summary judgment to designate specific
`
`facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324. To survive a motion for summary
`
`judgment, the nonmovant must show that there are genuine factual issues that can only be resolved
`
`by the trier of fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
`
`Patents are presumed valid. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011).
`
`Therefore, “[o]ne attacking the validity of a patent must present clear and convincing evidence
`
`establishing facts that lead to the legal conclusion of invalidity.” Apple Comput., Inc. v. Articulate
`
`Sys., Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 26 (Fed. Cir. 2000). At summary judgment, “a moving party seeking to
`
`have a patent held not invalid . . . must show that the nonmoving party, who bears the burden of
`
`proof at trial, failed to produce clear and convincing evidence on an essential element of a defense
`
`upon which a reasonable jury could invalidate the patent.” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 251
`
`F.3d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Expert witnesses are prohibited from arguing claim scope to the jury. See O2 Micro Int’l
`
`Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361-1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that it
`
`was improper for the district court to submit a dispute over the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term
`
`to the jury). Expert witnesses may not add limitations beyond the Court’s express constructions,
`
`“interpret” the Court’s constructions, or reargue claim construction positions the Court has already
`
`rejected. SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 2:14-CV-11, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135915 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Oct. 5, 2015) (Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 322 at 5). (granting motion to
`
`strike expert opinion that relied upon “an assumption [that was] contrary to the Court’s claim
`
`4
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 7 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 5240
`
`construction order.”); see also Mobile Telcomms. Techs., LLC v. LG Elecs. Mobilecomm U.S.A.,
`
`Inc., No. 2:13-cv-947-JRG-RSP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92532, at *8-10 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2016)
`
`(granting motion to strike portions of expert testimony that were inconsistent with the court’s claim
`
`construction order); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1-12-CV-580, 2014 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 186738, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2014) (“Expert testimony regarding claim
`
`construction is not admissible.”) (citations omitted).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Defendant relies upon Dr. Freedman to support Defendant’s claim of invalidity on the
`
`grounds of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and anticipation and obviousness under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 with regard to the Crowds and MorphMix references. SUF 1-4, 6 and 8.
`
`Bright Data filed the Motion to Strike to strike those same opinions from Dr. Freedman. SUF 5, 7
`
`and 9.
`
`In summary, Bright Data moved to strike Dr. Freedman’s patent ineligibility opinion
`
`because (a) he only provided a patent eligibility opinion with regard to the dependent claims, but
`
`no opinion regarding the independent claims, of the ’510 and ’614 Patents and no opinion
`
`regarding any claim of the ’319 Patent (SUF 3), (b) he provided no opinion regarding the
`
`abstractness of the ’511 and ’968 that the Court has not already rejected in its September 24, 2021
`
`Order denying the motion to dismiss (SUF 2 and 4). In addition, in the Motion to Strike, Bright
`
`Data moved to strike Dr. Freedman’s opinions regarding Crowds, because Dr. Freedman
`
`impermissibly treats the disclosed “jondos” of Crowds as interchangeable computers without
`
`consideration of the Court’s Claim Construction Orders. SUF 7. Similarly, Bright Data moved to
`
`strike Dr. Freedman’s opinions regarding MorphMix, because Dr. Freedman impermissibly treats
`
`the disclosed “nodes” of MorphMix as interchangeable computers without consideration of the
`
`Court’s Claim Construction Orders. SUF 9.
`
`5
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 8 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 5241
`
`To the extent that the Motion to Strike is granted, Dr. Freedman will be precluded from
`
`offering these opinions and there will be no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. See Barrett
`
`v. Atl. Richfield Co., 95 F.3d 375, 383 (5th Cir. 1996) (summary judgment may follow a Daubert
`
`exclusion when the plaintiff has no other admissible evidence on an issue); MEMC Elec. Materials,
`
`Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 248 F. App’x 199, 203 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming the
`
`district court’s grant of summary judgment to accused infringer when patentee’s expert report was
`
`properly excluded leaving no genuine issues of material fact on the issue of infringement). As the
`
`Patents-in-Suit are presumed valid and Defendant has the burden of proof, summary judgment of
`
`no invalidity on the grounds granted in the Motion to Strike is warranted. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr
`
`Labs., Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Bright Data respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment of no invalidity
`
`with regard to (a) the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 101, (b) the asserted
`
`claims of the ’319, ’510, and ’511 Patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on Crowds; and
`
`(c) the asserted claims of the ’319, ’510, ’614, and ’968 Patents under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
`
`based on MorphMix.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 27, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Ronald Wielkopolski
`J. Mark Mann
`State Bar No. 12926150
`mark@themannfirm.com
`G. Blake Thompson
`State Bar No. 24042033
`blake@themannfirm.com
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`
`6
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 9 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 5242
`
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`(903) 657-8540
`(903) 657-6003 (fax)
`
`S. Calvin Capshaw
`State Bar No. 03783900
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux
`State Bar No. 05770585
`Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
`114 E. Commerce Ave.
`Gladewater, TX 75647
`Telephone: 903-845-5770
`ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
`ederieux@capshawlaw.com
`
`Korula T. Cherian
`Robert Harkins
`RuyakCherian LLP
`1936 University Ave, Ste. 350
`Berkeley, CA 94704
`sunnyc@ruyakcherian.com
`bobh@ruyakcherian.com
`
`Ronald Wielkopolski
`Thomas Dunham
`Colby A. Davis
`RuyakCherian LLP
`1091 L. St. NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20006
`ronw@ruyakcherian.com
`tomd@ruyakcherian.com
`colbyd@ruyakcherian.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 10 of 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 97 Filed 09/29/21 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 5243
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served this 27th day of September 2021, with a copy of this document via ECF
`
`or electronic mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/
`
`Ronald Wielkopolski
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document is being filed under seal pursuant to the
`
`Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`
`
`/s/
`
`Ronald Wielkopolski
`
`
`
`8
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1075
`Page 11 of 11
`
`