`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners’ Reply in Support of Motion for Joinder
`
`
`
`
`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.
`____________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2022-01109
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`____________
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`JOINDER TO INTER PARTES REVIEW IPR2022-00135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Board determined in two separate proceedings that petitioners “demon-
`
`strated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing” with respect to four different primary
`
`references invalidating the ’319 patent claims. See “TDC IPR,” IPR2022-00135, Pa-
`
`per 12 (Plamondon); “NetNut IPR,” IPR2021-01492, Paper 11 (Crowds, Border,
`
`Morphmix). The Board denied Petitioners’ motion to join the NetNut IPR because
`
`(i) Petitioners asserted grounds previously asserted in Petitioners’ prior IPR2020-
`
`1266 (“1266 IPR”) and failed to stipulate not to raise these same grounds at trial
`
`(IPR2022-00861, Paper 17 at 11-12); (ii) Petitioners previously conducted a jury
`
`trial challenging the validity of two of the challenged claims based on Crowds (id.
`
`at 14-15); (iii) Petitioners sought to also join the present co-pending TDC IPR; and
`
`(iv) the PTAB had terminated NetNut from the NetNut IPR (id. at 15-16).
`
`None of these facts is present here. First, Petitioners seek to join the TDC IPR
`
`based on the Plamondon reference, which was not included in the 1266 IPR. Peti-
`
`tioners had no knowledge of Plamondon prior to TDC filing its IPR. Thus, Petition-
`
`ers could not have stipulated not to use it at trial, which began before TDC filed its
`
`IPR. In any event, Petitioners hereby stipulate not to rely on Plamondon in any future
`
`trial concerning the ’319 patent. Second, Petitioners did not rely on the unknown
`
`Plamondon reference in the Texas litigation. See Ex. 1086, Defendants’ Disclosure
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282 (ECF No. 450) (listing patents and publications relied
`
`1
`
`
`
`on in the Texas litigation for anticipation of the ’319 patent or as showing the state
`
`of the art). Third, the Board denied Petitioners’ motion to join the NetNut IPR—
`
`thus, the present petition is Petitioners’ first and only opportunity to challenge the
`
`validity of the ’319 patent in view of Plamondon. Fourth, TDC remains a party to
`
`the TDC IPR and Petitioners seek an understudy role.
`
`Bright Data opposes joinder, arguing that Petitioners should have (i) known
`
`of Plamondon in 2020; (ii) included Plamondon in the 1266 IPR; and (iii) made the
`
`same arguments in the 1266 IPR and jury trial that TDC makes in its IPR. As shown
`
`below, Bright Data’s arguments are unpersuasive, and the Board should exercise its
`
`discretion and grant Petitioners’ Motion for Joinder.
`
`II.
`
`IF JOINDER IS GRANTED, THE PRESENT IPR WOULD BE
`PETITIONERS’ FIRST AND ONLY INSTITUTED IPR CHALLENGE
`TO THE ’319 PATENT
`Patent Owner argues that the present Petition represents a “fifth bite at the
`
`invalidity apple” and that the Board should deny joinder because Petitioners should
`
`have been aware of Plamondon before TDC filed its IPR. Paper 11 at 1, 8, 11, and
`
`13 (citing General Plastic). But if the current IPR is instituted, it will represent Pe-
`
`titioners’ first and only IPR directed to the ’319 patent that will have been instituted.
`
`With respect to General Plastic, that decision sought to “take undue inequities
`
`and prejudices to Patent Owner into account.” General Plastic at 17. The inequities
`
`and prejudices considered “undue” involve situations typified by “[m]ultiple,
`
`2
`
`
`
`staggered petitions challenging the same patent and same claims,” in which petition-
`
`ers could “strategically stage their prior art and arguments in multiple petitions, us-
`
`ing our decisions as a roadmap, until a ground is found that results in the grant of
`
`review.” Id.; see also Intel Corp. v. VLSI LLC, IPR2022-00366 at 11 n.8 (“Intel”).
`
`Petitioners seek an understudy role in this case—no roadmap exists. See
`
`IPR2022-00861, Paper 17 at 13 (no “road mapping” exists in copycat petition). Pe-
`
`titioners did not use a prior decision to craft new arguments. Instead, TDC (a third
`
`party) put forth its own arguments. Contrary to Patent Owner’s argument (Paper 11
`
`at 15), the Petition does not introduce any new arguments or evidence. Moreover,
`
`Petitioners could not have stipulated not to use Plamondon at trial because Petition-
`
`ers were not aware of Plamondon, and could not have reasonably learned of its ex-
`
`istence until the filing of the TDC IPR, which took place after trial began.
`
`Patent Owner does not argue and provides no evidence that Petitioners had
`
`actual knowledge of Plamondon before TDC filed its IPR. See Paper 11 at 9. Instead,
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioners should have known of Plamondon because it
`
`shares a named inventor and assignee with Samuels (id. at 8-9), which is one of over
`
`200 prior-art references listed on the face of the ’319 patent. Ex. 1001.
`
`Patent Owner further argues that Petitioners should have known of Plamon-
`
`don because it shares an assignee, Citrix Systems, with Mithyantha. See Paper 11 at
`
`8-9. Mithyantha, however, is not prior art to the ’319 patent and Petitioners used
`
`3
`
`
`
`Mithyantha as a prior-art reference to a different patent in a different patent family
`
`(i.e., US Patent No. 10,469,614). Further, Mithyantha is one of thousands of patents
`
`owned by Citrix Systems. Ex. 1087. Patent Owner’s attempt to impute knowledge
`
`to Petitioners of thousands of patents, including Plamondon, because they are owned
`
`by a common assignee is not supported. See OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech.
`
`LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 17 at 11-12 (Dec. 23, 2021) (declining to impute
`
`knowledge to petitioner of prior art used in a prior litigation).1
`
`III. PETITIONERS’ CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION
`ALWAYS BEEN CONSISTENT
`If and when Petitioners become primary petitioners, Petitioners’ claim-con-
`
`POSITION HAS
`
`struction position will remain consistent with their prior position in prior IPR filings
`
`and the Texas litigation. For example, Petitioners have always argued, and the Board
`
`has repeatedly agreed, that a device—be it a jondo of Crowds, a proxy server of
`
`Border, a node of MorphMix, or an appliance of Plamondon—can act as a “server”
`
`or a “client” depending on the role played by the device. See, e.g., NetNut IPR, Paper
`
`
`1 Further, whether Plamondon is more material to the validity of the ʼ319 patent than,
`
`for example, Crowds, Morphmix, or Border, as Patent Owner argues, is irrelevant,
`
`and Patent Owner cites no authority to the contrary. Paper 11 at 9. In fact, the Board
`
`has instituted multiple IPR proceedings based on all four primary references. See
`
`TDC IPR (Plamondon); NetNut IPR (Crowds, Border, Morphmix).
`
`4
`
`
`
`11 at 28-30, 35, 39-40; TDC IPR, Paper 12 at 34-35. Thus, Petitioners’ position has
`
`been and will remain consistent.
`
`IV. JOINDER WOULD NOT WASTE RESOURCES OR RISK
`INCONSISTENT OUTCOMES
`As noted above, if the Board grants joinder, it would represent Petitioners’
`
`sole opportunity in the PTAB to obtain a merits-based decision regarding the validity
`
`of the ’319 patent (whether in view of Plamondon or otherwise).2 Joinder does not
`
`risk inconsistent outcomes because the TDC IPR shares no overlapping primary
`
`prior art references with either Petitioners’ prior petitions or the Texas litigation.
`
`Moreover, joinder would not waste resources because TDC remains a party and Pe-
`
`titioners merely seek to join in an understudy role. None of the Board precedent
`
`Patent Owner cites supports denying joinder here. Thus, “[a]llowing Petitioner[s]
`
`the opportunity to pursue a decision on the merits from the Board at this time” is in
`
`the interests of justice, particularly “the desires to improve patent quality and patent-
`
`system efficiency.” See Intel, Paper 14 at 9.
`
`For these reasons, the Board should grant joinder.
`
`
`2 The Office ordered Petitioners’ EPR No. 90/014,875 pertaining to the ’319 patent
`
`and issued a non-final office action March 25, 2022. SMF No. 8. The EPR, however,
`
`is stayed (id.), which is a further justification for joinder to allow Petitioners to con-
`
`tinue their challenge to the ’319 patent.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON
`& GARZA, PLLC
`
`/George “Jorde” Scott /
`
`George “Jorde” Scott (Reg. No. 62,859)
`(Lead Attorney for Petitioners)
`Craig Tolliver (Reg. No. 45,975)
`John C. Heuton (Reg. No. 62,467)
`3333 Lee Parkway
`Suite 460
`Dallas, TX 75219
`(214) 521-6400
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that the
`
`above Reply was served on counsel for Patent Owner via email on August 12, 2022,
`
`as authorized by Patent Owner, at the following email addresses:
`
`Thomas Dunham tomd@ruyakcherian.com
`Elizabeth O’Brien elizabetho@ruyakcherian.com
`
`The above Reply was also served via e-mail on August 12, 2022 on Petition-
`
`ers’ counsel in pending The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`
`IPR2022-00135:
`
`Michael Rader MRader-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`Adam Wichman AWichman-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`Gregory Nieberg GNieberg-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON &
`GARZA, PLLC
`
`/George “Jorde” Scott/
`
` George “Jorde” Scott (Reg. No. 62,859)
`
`
`
`(Lead Attorney for Petitioner)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`