Paper No. __
`
`Filed on behalf of Petitioner by:
`Michael N. Rader, Reg. No. 52,146
`Adam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 43,988
`Gregory S. Nieberg, Reg. No. 57,063
`Marie McKiernan (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`Tel: 617-646-8000
`Fax: 617-646-8646
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTER LT, UAB;
`OXYSALES, UAB; AND CORETECH LT, UABTHE DATA COMPANY
`TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01109TBD
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`_____________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.1 et seq.
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 1 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... xiv
`Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................. xiv
`Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................... xiv
`1.
`United States Patent & Trademark Office .............................. xiv
`2.
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board ......................... xiv
`3.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ................ xv
`Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ........... xvi
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`CERTIFICATION OF STANDING ............................................................... 2
`II.
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ................................................................ 2
`IV. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 43
` Alleged Invention ................................................................................ 43
`Challenged Claims .............................................................................. 54
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 87
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 98
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION ....................................................................... 98
`PO’s Litigation Argument Regarding “Client Device” ...................... 98
`District Court Constructions ................................................................ 98
`
`VI. GROUND 1: Claims 1, 12-14, 21-27—Anticipated by Plamondon ....... 1110
`Plamondon (Ex. 1010) .................................................................... 1110
`Claim 1 ........................................................................................... 1615
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 2 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`Preamble ............................................................................... 1615
`Step 1B ................................................................................. 1918
`2.
`Step 1C ................................................................................. 2019
`3.
`Step 1D ................................................................................. 2221
`4.
`Step 1E ................................................................................. 2423
`5.
`Claim 12 ......................................................................................... 2625
`1.
`Element 12A ........................................................................ 2625
`2.
`Element 12B ......................................................................... 2827
`Claim 13 ......................................................................................... 2827
`1.
`Element 13A ........................................................................ 2827
`2.
`Element 13B ......................................................................... 2928
`Claim 14 ......................................................................................... 2928
`Claim 21 ......................................................................................... 3029
`Claim 22 ......................................................................................... 3130
`Claim 23 ......................................................................................... 3130
`1.
`Element 23A ........................................................................ 3130
`2.
`Element 23B ......................................................................... 3231
`Claim 24 ......................................................................................... 3231
`Claim 25 ......................................................................................... 3433
`Claim 26 ......................................................................................... 3433
`Claim 27 ......................................................................................... 3433
`
`VII. GROUND 2: Claims 28-29—Obvious Over Plamondon ....................... 3635
`Claim 28 ......................................................................................... 3635
`Claim 29 ......................................................................................... 3635
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 3 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. GROUND 3: Claims 15-17—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of RFC
`2616 .......................................................................................................... 3736
`Claim 15 ......................................................................................... 3736
`Claim 16 ......................................................................................... 3938
`1.
`Element 16A ........................................................................ 3938
`2.
`Element 16B ......................................................................... 4039
`Claim 17 ......................................................................................... 4140
`
`IX. GROUND 4: Claims 17-18—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of RFC
`1122 .......................................................................................................... 4241
`Claim 18 ......................................................................................... 4342
`Claim 17 ......................................................................................... 4342
`
`X. GROUND 5: Claim 2—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of IEEE
`802.11-2007 .............................................................................................. 4443
`IEEE 802.11-2007 (Ex. 1022) ........................................................ 4443
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 4544
`1.
`Element 2A .......................................................................... 4544
`2.
`Element 2B ........................................................................... 4544
`XI. GROUND 6: Claims 2-5, 19-20—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of
`Price .......................................................................................................... 4645
`Price (Ex. 1023) .............................................................................. 4645
`Plamondon-Price Combination ...................................................... 4746
`Claim 2 ........................................................................................... 4948
`1.
`Element 2A .......................................................................... 4948
`2.
`Element 2B ........................................................................... 5049
`Claim 3 ........................................................................................... 5251
`Claim 4 ........................................................................................... 5352
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 4 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5 ........................................................................................... 5453
`Claim 19 ......................................................................................... 5554
`1.
`Element 19A ........................................................................ 5554
`2.
`Element 19B ......................................................................... 5655
`3.
`Element 19C ......................................................................... 5756
`Claim 20 ......................................................................................... 5857
`
`XII. GROUND 7: Claims 6-11—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of
`Kozat ......................................................................................................... 5857
` Kozat (Ex. 1024) ............................................................................ 5857
`Plamondon-Kozat Combination ..................................................... 6059
`Claim 6 ........................................................................................... 6362
`1.
`Element 6A1 ........................................................................ 6362
`2.
`Element 6A2 ........................................................................ 6362
`3.
`Element 6B ........................................................................... 6463
`4.
`Element 6C ........................................................................... 6463
`5.
`Element 6D .......................................................................... 6564
`Claim 7 ........................................................................................... 6665
`Claim 8 ........................................................................................... 6766
`Claim 9 ........................................................................................... 6766
`Claim 10 ......................................................................................... 6867
`Claim 11 ......................................................................................... 6968
`
`XIII. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ....................... 7069
`Section 314(a): Litigation Involving Unrelated Parties and
`Different Prior Art Does Not Support Discretionary Denial ......... 7069
`1.
`Factors 5 and 4 Strongly Disfavor Discretionary Denial ..... 7169
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 5 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Factors 1-3 Disfavor Discretionary Denial Because
`Petitioner Is Not a Litigation Defendant and There Is No
`Meaningful Overlap Between this IPR and the EDTX
`Cases .................................................................................... 7371
`Factor 6 Favors Institution Because this Petition Is Strong . 7472
`3.
`Section 314(a): The Code200 IPR and NetNut IPR Do Not Support
`Discretionary Denial....................................................................... 7472
`Section 325(d): This Petition’s References and Arguments Were
`Not Addressed During Prosecution ................................................ 7674
`The Recently-Filed Reexamination Request Does Not Support
`Discretionary Denial....................................................................... 7977
`XIV. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 8078
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 6 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Apple v. Uniloc 2017,
`IPR2019-00918, Paper 21 (Oct. 15, 2020) ........................................................... 33
`Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`IPR2014-01330, Paper 29 (Feb. 19, 2016) ........................................................... 42
`Hisense Visual Tech. v. LG Elecs.,
`IPR2020-01164, Paper 15 (Jan. 7, 2021) ............................................................. 44
`CASES
`Adobe v. RAH Color Techs.,
`IPR2019-00627, Paper 41 (Sept. 10, 2019) ......................................................... 77
`Advanced Bionics v. MED-EL,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (Feb. 13, 2020) ................................................ 74, 76, 77
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................. 69, 70, 71
`Apple v. Seven Networks,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (July 28, 2020) ........................................................... 72
`Apple v. Uniloc 2017,
`IPR2019-00918, Paper 21 (Oct. 15, 2020) ........................................................... 32
`Bowtech v. MCP IP,
`IPR2019-00382, Paper 12 (Aug. 6, 2019) ............................................................ 77
`Zillow Grp. v. Int’l Business Machines,
`IPR2020-01655, Paper 8 (Mar. 15, 2021) .............................................................. 9
`Dolby Labs. v. Intertrust Tech.,
`IPR2020-00665, Paper 11 (Feb. 16, 2021) ........................................................... 72
`Ericsson v. Intellectual Ventures II,
`IPR2014-01330, Paper 29 (Feb. 19, 2016) ........................................................... 41
`Facebook v. Onstream Media,
`IPR2020-01525, Paper 11 (April 5, 2021) ........................................................... 72
`
`- vi -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 7 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ................................... 72, 73, 74
`Google v. Jenam Tech.,
`IPR2020-00845, Paper 16 (Oct. 8, 2020) ............................................................. 73
`Hisense Visual Tech. v. LG Elecs.,
`IPR2020-01164, Paper 15 (Jan. 7, 2021) ............................................................. 43
`HyperBranch Med. Tech. v. Confluent Surgical,
`IPR2018-01099, Paper 14 (Nov. 27, 2018) .......................................................... 76
`Kavo Dental Techs. v. Osseo Imaging,
`IPR2020-00659, Paper 10 (June 10, 2020) .......................................................... 69
`MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte v. Adv. Bionics,
`IPR2021-00044, Paper 14 (Apr. 6, 2021) ............................................................ 71
`NetNut v. Bright Data,
`IPR2021-00465, Paper 11 (Aug. 12, 2021) .......................................................... 73
`SHDS v. Truinject,
`IPR2020-00937, Paper 11 (Nov. 17, 2020) .......................................................... 74
`Unified Patents v. NavBlazer,
`IPR2020-00983, Paper 11 (Dec. 16, 2020) .......................................................... 70
`Xilinx v. Arbor Global Strategies,
`IPR2020-01568, Paper 12 (Mar. 5, 2021) ............................................................ 74
`REGULATIONS
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ......................................................................................... 9, 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ............................................................................................8, 9
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 8 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`APPENDIX LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Declaration of Prof. Dave Levin (“Levin”)
`Curriculum Vitae of Prof. Dave Levin
`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, UAB, 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”)
`
`- viii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 9 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`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”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0178217 (“Nguyen”)
`
`- ix -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 10 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`1033
`
`1034
`1035
`1036
`1037
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0125412 (“Glover”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0177513
`(“Kuokkannen”)
`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”)
`
`- x -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 11 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`1050
`
`1051
`1052
`1053
`1054
`1055
`
`1056
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`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. 2008/0298328 (“Sharma”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0204700 (“Sudhakar”)
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0212584 (“Yu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,865,585 (“Samuels”)
`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”)
`Defendants’ Section 282 Disclosure, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et
`al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 450 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2021)
`Docket, Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Case No. 2:21-cv-00225-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Notice of Filing Invalidity Contentions, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom
`S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG, D.I. 37 (E.D.
`Tex. Mar. 3, 2021)
`
`- xi -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 12 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`1072
`1073
`1074
`
`Docket, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., Case No.
`2:19-cv-397-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Motion for Summary Judgement, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 282 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021)
`RESERVED
`Amended Complaint, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a
`NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG, D.I. 22 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12,
`2020)
`Docket, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Docket, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Case No.
`2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (as of Nov. 2, 2021)
`Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, Bright
`Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 157
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2020)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,257,319, Code200, UAB, et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01266, Paper 18 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2020)
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent
`No. 10,484,510, Code200, UAB, et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`IPR2020-01358, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2020)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319,
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01266,
`Paper 5 (PTAB Jul. 14, 2020)
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510,
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd., IPR2020-01358,
`Paper 5 (PTAB Jul. 28, 2020)
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,069,936
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-
`JRG, D.I. 493 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 21, 2021)
`
`- xii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 13 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1075
`
`1076
`
`1077
`1078
`
`1079
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain
`Invalidity Grounds, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A
`NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG, D.I. 97 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 27,
`2021)
`Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of the ’319,
`’510, and ’511 Patents, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A
`NordVPN, Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00414-JRG D.I. 99 (E.D. Tex.
`Sep. 29, 2021)
`Declaration of Adam R. Wichman
`Revised Joint Pretrial Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case
`No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, D.I. 490 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2021)
`Comparison between current Petition and petition in IPR2022-00135
`(TDC IPR petition)
`
`
`
`- xiii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 14 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
` Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioners (“Petitioner”) is are the Real Partiesy-in-Interest. Without
`
`conceding that the following parties are in fact RPIs, Petitioner also identifies:
`
`Avantis Team Technologies Ltd. and Cytronix Ltd.
`
` Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`A decision in this proceeding could affect or be affected by the following:
`
`1.
`
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (“the ’319 patent”) is a continuation of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,069,936, which is a division of U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604, which
`
`claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/249,624.
`
`The following claim the benefit of the filing date of the ’319 patent: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 10,491,712; 11,044,344; 10,484,510; 11,044,342; U.S. Patent
`
`Application Nos. 17/332,023; 17/332,077.
`
`Reexamination No. 90/014,875 is a reexamination of the ’319 patent.
`
`2.
`
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`The ’319 patent was at issue in Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd. f/k/a Hola Networks Ltd., Case No. IPR2020-01266 (“Code200 IPR”).1
`
`
`1 Luminati Networks Ltd. is now Bright Data Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`- xiv -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 15 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`The ’319 patent is also at issue in NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case No.
`
`IPR2021-01492 (“NetNut IPR”). NetNut filed its petition on September 3, 2021,
`
`using the same prior art and patentability arguments that were presented in the
`
`Code200 IPR petition (which the Board denied on discretionary grounds). The
`
`NetNut IPR was instituted on March 21, 2022 (Paper 12). On April 18, 2022,
`
`Petitioner filed Case No. IPR2022-00861, which is substantially identical to the
`
`NetNut IPR, as well as a Motion for Joinder (Paper 7). On April 21, 2022, Major
`
`Data UAB filed Case No. IPR2022-00915, which is also substantially identical to
`
`the NetNut IPR, as well as a Motion for Joinder (Paper 3). The Motions for Joinder
`
`in Case Nos. IPR2022-00861 and IPR2022-00916 are currently pending.PO has
`
`not yet filed a preliminary patent owner response, and the Board has not ruled on
`
`institution.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`The ’319 patent is or has been at issue in the following cases, collectively
`
`referred to herein as “the EDTX cases”:
`
` Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00225-JRG
`(“the 225 case”);
` Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom SA d/b/a NordVPN, Civil Action No.
`2:19-cv-00414-JRG (“the 414 case”);
`
`- xv -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 16 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
` Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., Civil Action No.
`2:19-cv-397-JRG (“the 397 case”)2; and
` Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB a/k/a UAB Teso LT et al., Civil
`Action No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (“the 395 case”).
`
` Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Service
`Information
`
`
`
`George “Jorde” ScottMichael N. Rader, Reg. No.
`52,14662,859
`John HeutonAdam R. Wichman, Reg. No. 62,46743,988
`Craig TolliverGregory S. Nieberg, Reg. No. 45,97557,063
`Marie McKiernan (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`E-mail:
`
`
`jscott@ccrglawMRader-
`PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`jheuton@ccrglaw.comAWichman-
`PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`
`ctolliver@ccrglawGNieberg-
`PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Marie.McKiernan@wolfgreenfield.com
`Post and hand
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`delivery:
`
`
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`
`
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219Wolf, Greenfield &
`Sacks, P.C.
` 600 Atlantic Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Boston, MA 02210-2206
`
`
`
`Telephone: (214) 521-6400617-646-8000 Facsimile:
`(214) 764-8392617-646-8646
`
`
`2 The 397 case was dismissed before Luminati Networks Ltd. changed its name to
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`
`- xvi -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 17 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`A power of attorney is submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`- xvii -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 18 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-29 of the ’319 patent
`
`(Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The ’319 patent describes methods that purportedly provide “faster and more
`
`efficient” network communication. The claimed methods are overbroad and read
`
`directly on the prior art. For example, claim 1 covers basic proxy server
`
`functionality in which a device requests content from a web server through an
`
`intermediary device. This functionality was conventional long before the ’319
`
`patent and is described in Plamondon (Ex. 1010), the primary reference here.
`
`Patent Owner (“PO”) has asserted the ’319 patent in litigations against third
`
`parties in the Eastern District of Texas (“the EDTX cases”).3 There, PO defended
`
`the patentability of claim 1 on the ground that it recites networking devices in a
`
`purportedly novel configuration: a device requesting content (which it calls a
`
`“server”), an intermediary device or proxy (which it calls a “client device”), and a
`
`device storing the content (which it calls a “web server”). PO calls this a “server-
`
`client device-web server architecture.” Plamondon discloses this exact
`
`architecture.
`
`
`3 Petitioners Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB isare not
`
`partiesy to the 395 caseany litigation involving the ’319 patent.
`
`- 1 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 19 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`The dependent claims recite implementation details that Plamondon and
`
`other publications described long before the ’319 patent. Indeed, in several cases
`
`the dependent claims cover networking methods described in foundational
`
`protocols and comments that define the Internet. All challenged claims are
`
`unpatentable.
`
`This Petition is being submitted concurrently with a motion for joinder.
`
`Specifically, Petitioner requests institution and joinder with The Data Company
`
`Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00135 (“the TDC IPR”), which the
`
`Board instituted on June 1, 2022. This Petition is substantially identical to the
`
`petition in the TDC IPR and contains the same grounds (based on the same prior
`
`art and supporting evidence) against the same claims, and differs only as necessary
`
`to reflect the fact that it is filed by a different petitioner. See Ex. 1079 (illustrating
`
`minimal changes between the instant Petition and the petition in IPR2022-00135).
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF STANDING
`
`The ’319 patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is not barred or estopped
`
`from requesting IPR of its claims. 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a). The one-year bar date of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) does not apply to an IPR petition if it is accompanied by a
`
`timely joinder motion. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS
`
`Petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1-29 as follows:
`
`- 2 -
`
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code 200's Exhibit 1079
`Page 20 of 109
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ground Reference(s)
`1
`Plamondon
`2
`Plamondon
`3
`Plamondon, RFC 2616
`4
`Plam