1
`
`BRIGHT DATA, LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
` ( CAUSE NO. 2:19-CV-395-JRG
` )
` (
` )
` (
`vs.
` )
` ( NOVEMBER 5, 2021
`TESO, LT UAB, et al
` ) MARSHALL, TEXAS
` ( 8:00 A.M.
`Defendants,
`______________________________________________________________
`
`VOLUME 5
`
`______________________________________________________________
`TRIAL ON THE MERITS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`and a jury
`______________________________________________________________
`
`SHAWN M. McROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`100 E. HOUSTON STREET
`MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670
`(903) 237-7464
`shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA, LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
` ( CAUSE NO. 2:19-CV-395-JRG
` )
` (
` )
` (
`vs.
` )
` ( NOVEMBER 5, 2021
`TESO, LT UAB, et al
` ) MARSHALL, TEXAS
` ( 8:00 A.M.
`Defendants,
`______________________________________________________________
`
`VOLUME 5
`
`______________________________________________________________
`TRIAL ON THE MERITS
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
`and a jury
`______________________________________________________________
`
`SHAWN M. McROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`100 E. HOUSTON STREET
`MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670
`(903) 237-7464
`shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`2
`
`FOR DEFENDANTS:
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S
`FOR PLAINTIFF: RUYAKCHERIAN LLP - BERKLEY
` 1936 UNIVERSITY, SUITE 350
` BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94704
` (510) 944-0187
` BY: MR. SUNNY CHERIAN
` MR. ROBERT HARKINS
` Capshaw DeRieux LLP
` 114 E. COMMERCE AVENUE
` GLADEWATER, TEXAS 75647
` (903) 845-5770
` BY: MS. ELIZABETH DeRIEUX
` MANN TINDEL & THOMPSON
` 201 E. HOWARD STREET
` HENDERSON, TEXAS 75654
` (903) 657-8540
` BY: MR. MARK MANN
` MR. GREGORY THOMPSON
` CHARHON, CALLAHAN, ROBSON &
` GARZA, PLLC
` 3333 LEE PARKWAY, SUITE 460
` DALLAS, TEXAS 75219
` (214) 521-6400
` BY: MR. STEVEN CALLAHAN
` NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
` 2200 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 3600
` DALLAS, TEXAS 75201
` (214) 855-8118
` BY: MR. BRETT GOVETT
` NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP -
` HOUSTON
` 1301 McKINNEY, SUITE 5100
` HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010-3095
` (713) 651-5151
` BY: MR. DANIEL LEVENTHAL
` SCHEEF & STONE, LLP - MARSHALL
` P.O. BOX 1556
` MARSHALL, TEXAS 75671-1556
` (903) 938-8900
` BY: MR. MICHAEL SMITH
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`3
`
`OFFICIAL REPORTER: SHAWN M. McROBERTS, RMR, CRR
` 100 E. HOUSTON STREET
` MARSHALL, TEXAS 75670
` (903) 923-7464
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`64
`
`he walked through a very long claim to prove that.
`Our burden of proof is met by way more than the feather.
`We only need the feather, but we've gone well beyond that.
`They don't even dispute how our system works -- their system
`works.
`Invalidity. Now, patents are presumed valid. We start
`with the premise that the Patent Office did its job. They had
`a technical person at the Patent Office review and have a lot
`of back and forth here.
`I want to show you something. We saw these ribbon copies
`of the patent, but they only give this to you after they've
`done a whole review.
`Now, the other side showed you one paragraph that the
`Patent Office had back and forth. But maybe you don't know
`this: When you send -- when you try to get a patent, they
`scrutinize it. And every time you go back and forth debating
`what the patent is and whether you really deserve it, there's
`a piece of paper that goes to the Patent Office. That one
`paragraph is in this 600-plus page stack of paper that
`represents all the back and forth that Bright Data went
`through to make sure that these patents were valid before they
`got them issued. And there's just as thick a stack for the
`'510.
`So they did this process two times. In 2019, they went
`through a huge process at the Patent Office to make sure that
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`65
`
`the patents were valid, and in 2020 they did it again. And
`the Patent Office agreed. That's why their burden is so much
`higher. It's really -- once that's happened, do you really
`want to second-guess the work that those people did?
`You would need a firm belief or conviction or, as Your
`Honor said, an abiding belief or conviction, that this
`absolutely is not valid, that the Patent Office messed up
`twice. Somehow in the 1200 pages of communications, those
`patent examiners were clueless. And if you don't find that,
`you have to say no to invalidity in this case.
`Lack of written description. They say you didn't
`describe this invention in 2009. We already showed you their
`documents describing the patent did say they were doing this
`routing technology. They knew about it. We just proved this
`to you.
`Doctor Rhyne was trying to make it easy on you, and he
`said, look, anybody knows in this time period with this patent
`specification that you can put a client device in a proxy
`server in Figure 3. Okay? That's fair.
`They questioned this. Well, would you really do this?
`Well, we also cited you text that says in the patent that you
`would put a proxy server between the client devices. And
`Doctor Freedman admitted that you would -- that, in fact, a
`client and an agent are actually the same kind of device in
`the system in Figure 3. He said that right on the stand.
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`66
`
`THE COURT: 20 minutes have been used.
`MR. HARKINS: Thank you, Your Honor.
`You place the proxy server between one or more clients.
`Between one or more clients. It says it in the patent at
`column 2, lines 10 to 15. That is support.
`Did you wonder why the Patent Office granted these
`patents? Why did they think it was supported by the patent?
`Because it says it in the patent. And Doctor Freedman didn't
`even discuss it. His position was, I don't see it.
`Is that clear and convincing evidence that the whole
`patent's invalid, that the Patent Office got it wrong and then
`a year later looked at it all over again and got it wrong
`again, because one expert got on the stand who is paid $850 an
`hour to say, I didn't see it?
`I don't think they could possibly meet a clear and
`convincing evidence standard for this. And it was in light of
`that specification, as the other side had said, that the
`Patent Office granted all the patents in this case.
`Doctor Freedman says, I don't see it. Doctor Rhyne and
`the Patent Office twice disagree, they found support. So
`there's no basis for this. And the '614 Patent, the written
`description is not even asserted.
`Now, the argument No. 2 is for Crowds. This is a prior
`art reference. You know, here's the problem. Doctor Freedman
`wouldn't even tell you what the claims mean. He said, I'm not
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`124
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A
`CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM THE RECORD OF
`PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
`I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE TRANSCRIPT FEES
`FORMAT COMPLY WITH THOSE PRESCRIBED BY THE
`COURT AND THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
`UNITED STATES.
`
` 11/05/2021
`S/Shawn McRoberts
`__________________________DATE____________
`SHAWN McROBERTS, RMR, CRR
`FEDERAL OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`Shawn M. McRoberts, RMR, CRR
`Federal Official Court Reporter
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`Code200's Exhibit 1081
`Page 7 of 7
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
