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, UAB,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case No. IPR2022-01109
`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.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES .................................................................................... xiii
`Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1) ................................................. xiii
`Related Matters – § 42.8(b)(2) .......................................................... xiii
`1.
`United States Patent & Trademark Office .............................. xiii
`2.
`United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board ......................... xiii
`3.
`U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas .............. xiv
`Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4) ............. xv
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`CERTIFICATION OF STANDING ............................................................... 2
`II.
`III. UNPATENTABILITY GROUNDS ................................................................ 2
`IV. OVERVIEW .................................................................................................... 4
` Alleged Invention .................................................................................. 4
`Challenged Claims ................................................................................ 5
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ......................................................... 8
`Prosecution History ............................................................................... 9
`
`CLAIM INTERPRETATION ......................................................................... 9
`PO’s Litigation Argument Regarding “Client Device” ........................ 9
`District Court Constructions .................................................................. 9
`
`VI. GROUND 1: Claims 1, 12-14, 21-27—Anticipated by Plamondon ............ 11
`Plamondon (Ex. 1010) ......................................................................... 11
`Claim 1 ................................................................................................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 16
`Step 1B ...................................................................................... 19
`2.
`Step 1C ...................................................................................... 20
`3.
`Step 1D ...................................................................................... 22
`4.
`Step 1E ...................................................................................... 24
`5.
`Claim 12 .............................................................................................. 26
`1.
`Element 12A ............................................................................. 26
`2.
`Element 12B .............................................................................. 28
`Claim 13 .............................................................................................. 28
`1.
`Element 13A ............................................................................. 28
`2.
`Element 13B .............................................................................. 29
`Claim 14 .............................................................................................. 29
`Claim 21 .............................................................................................. 30
`Claim 22 .............................................................................................. 31
`Claim 23 .............................................................................................. 31
`1.
`Element 23A ............................................................................. 31
`2.
`Element 23B .............................................................................. 32
`Claim 24 .............................................................................................. 32
`Claim 25 .............................................................................................. 34
`Claim 26 .............................................................................................. 34
`Claim 27 .............................................................................................. 34
`
`VII. GROUND 2: Claims 28-29—Obvious Over Plamondon ............................ 36
`Claim 28 .............................................................................................. 36
`Claim 29 .............................................................................................. 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. GROUND 3: Claims 15-17—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of RFC
`2616 ............................................................................................................... 37
`Claim 15 .............................................................................................. 37
`Claim 16 .............................................................................................. 39
`1.
`Element 16A ............................................................................. 39
`2.
`Element 16B .............................................................................. 40
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 41
`
`IX. GROUND 4: Claims 17-18—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of RFC
`1122 ............................................................................................................... 42
`Claim 18 .............................................................................................. 43
`Claim 17 .............................................................................................. 43
`
`X. GROUND 5: Claim 2—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of IEEE
`802.11-2007 ................................................................................................... 44
`IEEE 802.11-2007 (Ex. 1022) ............................................................. 44
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 45
`1.
`Element 2A ............................................................................... 45
`2.
`Element 2B ................................................................................ 45
`XI. GROUND 6: Claims 2-5, 19-20—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of
`Price ............................................................................................................... 46
`Price (Ex. 1023) ................................................................................... 46
`Plamondon-Price Combination ........................................................... 47
`Claim 2 ................................................................................................ 49
`1.
`Element 2A ............................................................................... 49
`2.
`Element 2B ................................................................................ 50
`Claim 3 ................................................................................................ 52
`Claim 4 ................................................................................................ 53
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Claim 5 ................................................................................................ 54
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 55
`1.
`Element 19A ............................................................................. 55
`2.
`Element 19B .............................................................................. 56
`3.
`Element 19C .............................................................................. 57
`Claim 20 .............................................................................................. 58
`
`XII. GROUND 7: Claims 6-11—Obvious Over Plamondon in View of Kozat . 58
` Kozat (Ex. 1024) ................................................................................. 58
`Plamondon-Kozat Combination .......................................................... 60
`Claim 6 ................................................................................................ 63
`1.
`Element 6A1 ............................................................................. 63
`2.
`Element 6A2 ............................................................................. 63
`3.
`Element 6B ................................................................................ 64
`4.
`Element 6C ................................................................................ 64
`5.
`Element 6D ............................................................................... 65
`Claim 7 ................................................................................................ 66
`Claim 8 ................................................................................................ 67
`Claim 9 ................................................................................................ 67
`Claim 10 .............................................................................................. 68
`Claim 11 .............................................................................................. 69
`
`XIII. NO BASIS EXISTS FOR DISCRETIONARY DENIAL ............................ 70
`XIV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 71
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`Regulations37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) ...................................................................... 9, 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- vi -
`
`

`

`
`
`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”)
`
`- vii -
`
`

`

`
`
`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”)
`
`- viii -
`
`

`

`
`
`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”)
`
`- ix -
`
`

`

`
`
`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)
`
`- x -
`
`

`

`
`
`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)
`
`- xi -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`
`- xii -
`
`

`

`
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES
`
` Real Party-In-Interest – § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Petitioners (“Petitioner”) are the Real Parties-in-Interest.
`
` 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
`
`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,
`
`
`1 Luminati Networks Ltd. is now Bright Data Ltd. (“Patent Owner” or “PO”).
`
`- xiii -
`
`

`

`
`
`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.
`
`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”);
` 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”).
`
`
`2 The 397 case was dismissed before Luminati Networks Ltd. changed its name to
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`
`- xiv -
`
`

`

`
`
` Counsel and Service Information – §§ 42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)
`
`Lead Counsel
`Backup Counsel
`
`Service
`Information
`
`George “Jorde” Scott, Reg. No. 62,859
`John Heuton, Reg. No. 62,467
`Craig Tolliver, Reg. No. 45,975
`E-mail:
`
`
`jscott@ccrglaw
`
`
`
`jheuton@ccrglaw.com
`
`
`
`ctolliver@ccrglaw
`Post and hand
`Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza
`delivery:
`
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`
`
`
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Telephone: (214) 521-6400
`Facsimile: (214) 764-8392
`
` power of attorney is submitted with the Petition. Counsel for Petitioner
`
` A
`
`consents to service of all documents via electronic mail.
`
`- xv -
`
`

`

`
`
`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 are parties
`
`to the 395 case involving the ’319 patent.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`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 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Ground Reference(s)
`1
`Plamondon
`2
`Plamondon
`3
`Plamondon, RFC 2616
`4
`Plamondon, RFC 1122
`5
`Plamondon, IEEE 802.11-2007
`6
`Plamondon, Price
`7
`Plamondon, Kozat
`
`
`Claim(s)
`1, 12-14, 21-27
`28-29
`15-17
`17-18
`2
`2-5, 19-20
`6-11
`
`Basis
`§ 102
`
`§ 103
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. OVERVIEW
`
` Alleged Invention
`
`The ’319 patent “relate[s] to…improving data communication speed and
`
`bandwidth efficiency on the Internet.” 1:23-25.4 In particular, the patent describes
`
`an “acceleration server” that directs requests from clients to “agents” (i.e., proxies),
`
`that in turn issue requests to web servers. 13:19-15:42, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`
`4 Unless otherwise noted, citations in this section are to the ’319 patent (Ex. 1001).
`
`Throughout the petition emphasis is added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Figure 3 shows a communication network practicing the alleged invention,
`
`including “client 102…capable of communication with one or more peers 112,
`
`114, 116 and one or more agents 122,” a “Web server 152…from which the
`
`client…is requesting information,” and an “acceleration server 162.” 4:54-5:10.
`
`Levin Decl. (Ex. 1003, “Levin”) ¶¶ 82-83.
`
`When a client seeks “a resource on a network” (e.g., a webpage) hosted by a
`
`web server, it sends the web server’s IP address to an acceleration server “to obtain
`
`a list of communication devices that the client…can use as agents.” 12:62-13:15.
`
`If an agent locates peer(s) having the content, the agent directs the client to the
`
`peer(s); otherwise, the agent acts a proxy and itself obtains the content from the
`
`web server for the client. 13:50-61, 14:62-15:11; Levin ¶¶ 84-85. The patent
`
`admits that proxy devices were known in the prior art. Fig. 1, 2:8-23, 2:40-58.
`
` Challenged Claims
`
`The ’319 patent has 29 claims. The claim wording varies from the wording
`
`in the figures and the rest of the specification. For its district court claim
`
`construction brief, PO created an annotated figure, reproduced below, mapping
`
`claim 1 to Figure 3. Ex. 1005, 4. PO’s color textual annotations reflect the
`
`wording in independent claim 1.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`’319 Patent, Fig. 3 (with PO’s color annotations).
`
`
`
` The claims’ “second server” is the specification’s “client 102.”
` The claims’ “client device” is the specification’s “agent 122.”
` The claims’ “first server” is the specification’s “web server 152.”
`
`PO argued that this annotated Figure 3 depicts a system practicing method claim 1.
`
`Ex. 1005, 4; Ex. 1007, 14. The arrows purportedly indicate the claimed method
`
`steps.5
`
`
`5 Claim 1 of the ’319 patent includes steps B-E. Step A appears in dependent
`
`claim 24.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Table 1 below associates steps B-E in PO’s annotated Figure 3 with the
`
`corresponding elements in claim 1 and includes PO’s coloring. Ex. 1005, 4-5.6
`
`Table 1: Challenged claim 1
`
`1P1 A method for use with a first client device,
`
`1P2
`
`1P3
`
`1P4
`
`1B
`
`1C
`
`1D
`
`1E
`
`for use with a first server that comprises a web server that is a
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) server that responds to HTTP
`requests,
`
`the first server stores a first content identified by a first content
`identifier,
`
`and for use with a second server, the method by the first client device
`comprising:
`
`receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier;
`
`sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier;
`
`receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in
`response to the sending of the first content identifier; and
`
`sending, the first content by the first client device to the second
`server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier.
`
`
`6 1P1 through 1P4 comprise the preamble.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`PO admits the claims describe how “a client device serves as a proxy
`
`between the server and web server.” Ex. 1005, 2. Such proxies were well-known
`
`in the prior art. Levin ¶¶ 61-64, 101-104, 203-204.
`
`Dependent claims add other conventional networking features. For example,
`
`claim 12 requires “storing” (e.g., caching) content by the first client device; claim
`
`17 requires “periodically communicating between the second server and the first
`
`client device”; and claims 22-24 recite using basic Internet techniques like TCP/IP
`
`protocol, URLs, and web browsers.
`
` Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`PO has argued that a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) for the
`
`’319 patent is “an individual who, as of October 8, 2009…had a Master’s Degree
`
`or higher in the field of Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, or
`
`Computer Science or as of that time had a Bachelor’s Degree in the same fields
`
`and two or more years of experience in Internet Communications.” Ex. 1008, 18.
`
`For purposes of this IPR, Petitioner adopts PO’s proposal for the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Levin ¶¶ 30-37.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Prosecution History
`
`Filed in 2018, the ’319 patent claims priority, through several applications,
`
`to a provisional filed October 8, 2009. During prosecution, the Examiner provided
`
`a single office action rejecting all claims under Sections 101 and 103, the latter
`
`based on US2006/0212542 (“Fang”) in view of US2011/0035503 (“Zaid”). Ex.
`
`1002, 119-132. In response, the applicants argued, inter alia, that Fang failed to
`
`disclose claim limitations 1B-1D. Id., 168-169. The Examiner subsequently
`
`allowed the claims without meaningful explanation. Id., 652-653; Levin ¶¶ 86-92.
`
`V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`The court in the EDTX cases construed several ’319 patent claim terms.
`
`Exs. 1006, 1009. Those constructions are relevant here. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`
`
`PO’s Litigation Argument Regarding “Client Device”
`
`PO argued that the ’319 patent contributed to the art by implementing proxy
`
`server functionality in a “client device,” which PO argued should be construed as a
`
`“consumer computer,” excluding a “server.” Ex. 1005, 10-13.
`
` District Court Constructions
`
`The district court rejected PO’s argument because the specification does not
`
`limit “client device” to “consumer computer” and excluding servers is “not
`
`supported by the specification.” Instead, the district court construed “client
`
`device” as a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client,”
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`and confirmed that a device meeting this construction still qualifies as a “client
`
`device” if it also acts as a ser