`
`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
`
`