Case 2:21-cv-00434-JRG Document4 Filed 11/29/21 Page 1 of 1 PagelID #: 108
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`[1 Trademarksor
`Patents.
`( 1] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKETNO. 2:21-cv-434
`
`DATEFILED 11/29/21
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`Ninja-Tech, SIA
`
`PATENT OR
`1 10,257,319 B2
`
`ne OF PATENTTe
`4/9/2019
`
`2 10,484,510 B2
`
`11/19/2019
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`
`Bright Data Ltd.
`
` CLERK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`11 Amendment
`ne OF PATENT
`TRADEMARK
`
`1 Answer
`
`1 Cross Bill
`
`(1 Other Pleading
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`aB
`
`o
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECISION/JJUUDGEMENT
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon terminationof action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 1 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 1 of 459
`
`

`

`ase 2:2]-cv-00225-JRG-RSP Document4 Filed O6/1G/21 Page lof l Pageib & 98
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`L] Trademarks or
`[MW Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:21-cv-225
`PLAINTIFF
`
`Bright Data Ltd
`
`DATE FILED
`6/18/2021
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`NetNut Ltd.
`
`PATENT OR
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`1 10,257,319
`
`2 10,484,510
`
`4/9/2019
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`11/19/2019
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director©Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 2 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 2 of 459
`
`

`

`Case 2:2)-cv-00225-URG Document4 Filed Oo/18/21 Page lofi PagelD #:
`
`9&8
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`L] Trademarks or
`[MW Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:21-cv-225
`PLAINTIFF
`
`Bright Data Ltd
`
`DATE FILED
`6/18/2021
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`NetNut Ltd.
`
`PATENT OR
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`1 10,257,319
`
`2 10,484,510
`
`4/9/2019
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`11/19/2019
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director©Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page3 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 3 of 459
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00073-3RG Document 74 Filed 04/29/21 Page Loli PagelD #: 612
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`MailStop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATIONOF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( ( the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKE
`
`2 30.ve00073-JRG
`
`DATEFILED
`
`3/5/2020
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`for the Eastern District of Texas
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Code200, UAB|Luminati Networks Ltd. and EMK Capital LLP
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`Motion to Dismiss Casein its Entirety. Road A. OTscke
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Order dated April 20, 2021 dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice pursuantto Joint Stipulation and
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`
`
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 4 of 459
`
`

`

`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 11
`Entered: February 2, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`CODE200, UAB; TESO LT, UAB; METACLUSTERLT, UAB;
`AND OXYSALES, UAB,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKSLTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Before THOMASL. GIANNETTI, SHEILA F. McSHANE,and
`RUSSELLE. CASS,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McSHANE,Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 US.C. § 314
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 5 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 5 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`Background and Summary
`
`Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales,
`
`UAB (“Code200”or “Petitioner”)! filed a Petition requesting inter partes
`
`review of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, and 15-24 of U.S. Palent No. 10,484,510
`
`B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’510 patent’) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, along
`
`with the supporting Declaration of Michael Freedman, Ph. D. Paper 5
`
`(“Pet.”); Ex. 1009. Luminati Networks Ltd. (“Luminati” or “Patent Owner’)
`
`filed a Preliminary Responseto the Petition. Paper 9 (Prelim. Resp.”).
`
`Wehave authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides that an
`
`inter partes review maynotbeinstituted “unless .
`
`.
`
`. the information
`
`presented in the petition .
`
`.
`
`. showsthat there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition.”
`
`Forthe reasons that follow, we exercise our discretion under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The parties identify the related litigations, Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`
`Teso LT, UABetal., 2:19-cv-00395-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (“the 395 district court
`
`case”) and Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A NordVPN, 2:19-
`
`cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 6, 2.
`
`The parties also note another petition has been filed in IPR2020-
`
`01266, whichis directed to U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, which claims the
`
`' Petitioner additionally identifies coretech It, UAB asa real party-in-
`interest. Pet. 2.
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 6 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 6 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`benefit of the same provisional application, and is a continuation of the same
`
`application, as the °510 patent. Pet. 2; Paper6, 2.
`
`C.
`
`The ’510 Patent
`
`The 510 patentis titled “System Providing Faster and More Efficient
`
`Data Communication”and issued on November 19, 2019, from an
`
`application filed on February 17, 2019. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (45), (54).
`
`The application for the °510 patent is a continuation of several applications,
`
`and other related applications include a divisional application and a
`
`provisional application. See id., code (60). The ’510 patent is subject to a
`
`terminal disclaimer. Jd., code (*).
`
`The ’510 patent is directed to a system and method for increasing
`
`network communication speed for users, while lowering network congestion
`
`for content owners andinternet service providers (ISPs). Ex. 1001, code
`
`(57). The system employs network elements including an acceleration
`
`server, clients, agents, and peers, where communication requests generated
`
`by applications are intercepted by the client on the same machine. Jd. The
`
`IP address of the server in the communication request is transmitted to the
`
`acceleration server, which providesa list of agents to use for this IP address.
`
`Id.
`
`The communication request is sent to the agents. Ex. 1001, code (57).
`
`One or more of the agents respond withalist of peers that have previously
`
`seen someorall of the content whichis the responseto this request (after
`
`checking whetherthis data is still valid). Jd. The client then downloads the
`
`data from these peers in parts and in parallel, thereby speeding up the Web
`
`transfer, releasing congestion from the Web by fetching the information
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page7 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 7 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`from multiple sources, and relieving traffic from Webservers by offloading
`the data transfers from them to nearby peers. Jd.
`
`Challenged claim 1 is the only independent claim. Claim 1 of the
`
`510 patent is reproduced below.
`
`1. A methodfor use with a web server that responds to
`Ilypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) requests and stores a first content
`identified by a first content identifier, the method bya first client
`device comprising:
`
`establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection
`with a secondserver;
`
`sending, to the web serverover an Internet, the first content
`identifier;
`
`receiving, the first content from the web server overthe Internet
`in responseto the sending ofthe first content identifier; and
`
`sending the received first content, to the second server over the
`established TCP connection, in response to the receiving of thefirst
`content identifier.
`
`Ex. 1001, 19:18-31.
`
`D.—Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims of the °510 patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Claims Challenged
`
`Reference(s)
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`
`* The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287-88 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C.§ 103, effective March 16,
`2013. Because the 510 patent claimspriority to a provisional application
`that was filed before this date, with Petitioner not contesting that priority, the
`pre-AIA versions of §§ 102, 103 apply. See Ex. 1001, code (60); Pet. 12.
`3 Michael K. Reiter, Crowds: Anonymityfor Web Transactions, ACM
`Transactions on Information and System Security, Vol. 1, No. 1, November
`1998, at 66—92 (Ex. 1011).
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page8 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 8 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`| 35 U.S.C. §
`Claims Challenged
`1, 2, 6-11, 13,
`103(a)
`15, 16, 18-23
`2 120
`
`Reference(s)
`;
`Crowds, RFC 2616
`
`
`
`
`
`1, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-20,
`22-24
`
`
`l, 2, 6-8, 13, 15, 16,
`183
`1020
`
`Voy8113; 1,18|
`rosea)
`MorphMix, REC 2616
`
`103(a)
`
`Border, RFC 2616
`«6
`
`Pet. 15-16.
`
`\
`
`II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL UNDER§ 314(a)
`
`A. Overview
`
`Patent Ownerrequests that we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a) to deny the Petition under Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“Fintiv”). Prelim.
`
`Resp. 4-16.
`
`In assessing whether to exercise such discretion, the Board weighs the
`
`following factors:
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one
`maybe granted if a proceeding1s instituted;
`2. proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board's projected
`statutory deadline for a final written decision;
`
`3. investmentin the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties;
`
`\
`
`4 Hypertext Transfer Protocol—HTTP/1.1, Network Working Group, RFC
`2616, The Internet Society, 1999 (Ex. 1018).
`>U.S. Patent No. 6,795,848, issued September 21, 2004 (Ex. 1017).
`6 Marc Rennhard, MorphMix—APeer-to-Peer-based System for
`AnonymousInternet Access (2004) (Ph.D.dissertation, Swiss Federal
`Institute of Technology) (Ex. 1013).
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 9 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 9 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`4. overlap betweenissuesraised in the petition and in the
`parallel proceeding;
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendantin the parallel
`proceeding are the same party; and
`6. other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`discretion, including the merits.
`
`Fintiv at 6. Recognizing that “there is same overlap among these factors”
`
`and that “[s]ome facts may be relevant to more than onefactor,” the Board
`
`“takes a holistic view of whetherefficiency and integrity of the system are
`best served by denying or instituting review.” Jd.
`
`Asidentified above, the 395 district court case, which involves the
`
`°510 patent, is pending in the Eastern District of Texas. See Pet. 2; Paper6,
`
`2; Prelim. Resp. 4-5. The 395 district court case has a Docket Control Order
`
`entered that set December 14, 2020,as the deadline for completing fact
`discovery, January 21, 2021, as the deadline for completing expert
`
`discovery, and May 3, 2021, for jury selection andtrial. Ex. 1004, 1,3. The
`
`parties have advised usthat the date for jury selection has been movedto
`
`May 10, 2021. The Court has conducted a claim construction hearing, and
`
`on December7, 2020, issued a Claim Construction Opinion and Order.
`
`Paper 10; Ex. 2017.
`
`Petitioner advised us that the presiding judge in the 395 district court
`
`case, Judge Gilstrap, has continued jury trial dates in other cases scheduled
`
`for trial from December 2020 through February 2021, due to the COVID-19
`
`pandemic. See Ex. 3001. We have not, however, been informed of any
`
`change in the May 10, 2021 jury selection date in the 395 district court case.
`
`Weaddress each Fintiv factor below.
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 10 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 10 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`B. Factor 1 — Stay ofRelated Litigation Proceeding
`
`Petitioner filed a motion to stay the 395 district court case, which was
`
`denied without prejudice as premature because it was filed in advance of the
`
`Board’s decision to institute inter partes reviews on anyofthe asserted
`
`patents in the litigation.’ Ex. 2015, 3. Althoughthe district court denied the
`
`~ motion without prejudice, with refiling permitted within 24 days of the
`
`Board’s institution decisions for the asserted patents, Patent Owner argues
`
`that the District Court has not indicated one way or the other whether a stay
`
`is likely to be granted at that time. Prelim. Resp. 6—7.
`
`Because the Board has previously “decline[d] to infer” how a District
`
`Court would decide a stay motion, Petitioner asserts that this factoris
`
`neutral. Pet. 7 (quoting Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15
`
`at 12 (PTAB May13, 2020) (informative)). Patent Owner argues that
`
`becausethe District Court has not granted a stay and “would notlikely grant
`
`a stay given the lateness of the Petition, this factor favors denial of
`
`institution.” Prelim Resp. 7.
`
`Wedecline to speculate on the likelihood of how the District Court
`
`may rule on a future motion to stay. Accordingly, we find that this factoris
`
`neutral.
`
`C. Factor 2 — Proximity of Court’s Trial Date
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the Petition should be denied becausejury
`
`selection in the 395 district court case is scheduled approximately nine
`
`monthsbefore a final determination would issue in this case. Prelim. Resp.
`
`4, 7-10.
`
`’ Three patents, the °510 patent as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 10,469,614 and
`10,257,319, are asserted in the 395 district court case. Ex. 2015, 1.
`
`7
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 11 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 11 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Petitioner alleges that Patent Ownerhas previously soughtto delay
`
`trials as the set trial date approaches. Pet. 7 (referring to Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, No. 2:18-cv-00299-JRG (E.D. Tex.)). Petitioner
`
`arguesthatin light of Patent Owner’s history and the potential for COVID-
`
`related delays, Factor 2 is neutral. /d. at 8. Patent Owner respondsthat the
`
`previouslitigation has been misrepresented by Petitioner, and instead Patent
`
`Ownerfiled a motion to consolidate the referenced case with another case to
`
`accelerate the date by which the ’510 patent infringement claims could be
`
`tried. Prelim. Resp.7.
`
`As mentioned above, Petitioner additionally brings to our attention
`
`Judge Gilstrap’s Order to continue jury trials from December 2020 through
`
`February of 2021, but the communication notes that Petitioner does not
`
`know what impact the continuances may have onthetrial date in this case.
`
`See Ex. 3001. Patent Ownerasserts that the Judge Gilstrap’s Order does not
`
`impact the schedulefortrial in the case, and “no other facts can be inferred
`
`from the Order.” Jd.
`
`As Patent Ownerasserts, the related jury trial in the 395 district court
`
`case is currently scheduled to occur approximately nine months before a
`
`final determination would issue in this case. Although there may be a delay
`
`in the trial date, presuming that there would be delay would be conjecture at
`
`this time. Accordingly, this factor favors discretionary denial of inter partes
`
`review.
`
`D. Factor 3 — Investmentin the Parallel Proceeding
`
`Petitioner notes that this Petition was filed less than three monthsafter
`
`the asserted claims were disclosed in the 395 district court case. Pet. 8.
`
`However, it is undisputed that at this time that claim construction briefing
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 12 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 12 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`has been completed, a Markman hearing was conducted, and a claim
`
`construction order issued in the 395 district court case, which includes
`
`interpretation of claim terms associated with the ’510 patent. See Ex. 2016.
`
`Underthe Docket Control Order, fact discovery in that case was completed
`
`on December 14, 2020, and expert discovery was completed on January 21,
`
`2021. See Ex. 1004, 1,3. The parties have not advised us of any changes to
`
`those dates as scheduled.
`
`Accordingly, in view ofthe status of the progress of the 395 district
`
`court case, we agree with Patent Ownerthat this factor favors denial of
`
`institution of inter partes review. See Prelim. Resp. 12.
`
`E. Factor 4 — Overlap With Issues Raised in Parallel Proceeding
`
`Petitioner asserts that because claims 1, 2, 8-11, 13, 15, 16, 18-20,
`
`22, and 23 are asserted in the 395 district court case, but the Petition also
`
`challenges claims 6, 7, 17, 21, and 24 of the ?510 patent, this factor weighs
`
`in favorof institution. Pet. 8.
`
`Patent Ownerarguesthat the overlap ofthe issues raised in Petition
`
`and the 395 district court case are substantial. Prelim Resp. 12. More
`
`specifically, Patent Owner contends that the Crowds, MorphMix, Border,
`
`and RFC 2616 priorart asserted in the challenges in this proceedingareall
`
`identified in the invalidity contentions in the 395 district court case. Id.
`
`(citing Ex. 2006, ff 3-4). Patent Owneralso asserts that only claim 1 of the
`
`°510 patent is independent, and the additional claims challenged in the
`
`Petition are all dependent. Jd. at 12-13. As such, Patent Ownerarguesthat
`
`there is no other independent claim at issue here that is not asserted in the
`
`district court case, and the resolution of the patentability of independent
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 13 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 13 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`claim 1 in the district court is also likely to have an impact on the additional
`
`dependentclaims challenged here. Jd. at 13.
`
`In light of the commonpriorart asserted here and in the 395 district
`
`court case, as well as the commonchallenge to the sole independent claim of
`
`the °510 patent, we agree with the Patent Ownerthat the overlap in issues
`
`between the two proceedings is substantial. Accordingly, we determine that
`
`this factor favors denial of institution of inter partes review.
`
`F. Factor 5 — Commonality ofParties in Parallel Proceedings
`
`Petitioner asserts that Code200 is a named petitioner here, but is not a
`
`defendant in the 395 district court case. Pet. 9. Patent Owner arguesthat
`
`three of the four named petitioners are also defendants in the 395 district
`
`court case. PO Resp. 13. Patent Owneralso asserts that there is a close
`
`corporate relationship between Code200 andthe other petitioners because
`
`they share a commonparent company. Jd. at 14 (citing Ex. 2013, Ex. 2014).
`
`Petitioner does not challenge this contention.
`
`Given the commonality of most of the parties in this proceeding and
`
`395 district court case, we find that this factor favors denial ofinstitution.
`
`G. Factor 6 — Other Circumstances
`
`Petitioner contends that the challenged patent is “extraordinarily
`
`weak,” and policy favors instituting review underthese circumstances. Pet.
`
`9. Patent Ownerdisagrees, arguing that Petitioner’s reading of the claimsis
`
`unreasonable andtheasserted prior art is weak. Prelim. Rep. 15—16.
`
`We have reviewed Petitioner’s unpatentability arguments and Patent
`
`Owner’s preliminary responses, and based on the limited record before us,
`
`we do notfind that the merits outweigh the other Fintiv factors favoring
`
`denial of institution.
`
`10
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 14 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 14 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`H. Conclusion
`
`The majority of the Fintiv factors, and particularly factor 2, the
`
`proximity ofthetrial date in the 395 district court case, favor the denial of
`
`institution. Thus, based on our assessmentof the Fintiv factors, we exercise
`
`our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review.
`
`Ill. ORDER
`
`Accordingly,it is:
`
`ORDEREDthatthe Petition is denied as to all grounds andall
`
`challenged claims of the 510 patent.
`
`“Ul
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 15 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 15 of 459
`
`

`

`IPR2020-01358
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Craig Tolliver
`George Scott
`CHARHON, CALLAHAN, ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC
`ctolliver@tolliverlawfirm.com
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas Dunham
`Don Livornese
`RUYAKCHERIAN LLP
`tomd@dunham.cc
`donl@ruyakcherian.com
`
`12
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 16 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 16 of 459
`
`

`

`x
`Case 2:19-cv-00397-JRG Document4 Filed i2/og/19 Page 1ofi PagelD a 396
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:19-cv-397
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATEFILED
`12/6/2019
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd
`
`BI Science (2009) Ltd.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT CLERK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 17 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 17 of 459
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00395-JRG Document 4 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #: 379
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKETNO.
`2:19-cv-395
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATEFILED
`12/06/2019
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, MARSHALL DIVISION
`DEFENDANT
`
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 18 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 18 of 459
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00397-JRG Document 4 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 1 PagelD #: 398
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`_] Trademarks or
`[7 Patents.
`( (] the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:19-cv-397
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATEFILED
`12/6/2019
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd
`
`BI Science (2009) Ltd.
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT CLERK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`L] Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`L] Answer
`
`C] Cross Bill
`
`L] Other Pleading
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgementissued:
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy 1—Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Casefile copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 19 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 19 of 459
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 4 Filed 12/31/19 Page 1of1PagelD#: 391
`
`AO 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ONTHE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. f 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. i 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`onthe following
`CJ Trademarksor
`LC Patents.
`( (J the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. i 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:19-cv-414
`PLAINTIFF
`
`Luminati Networks Ltd.
`
`DATE FILED
`1231/2019
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`O Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`CJ Answer
`
`O CrossBill
`
`C1 Other Pleading
`
`In the above’ entitled case, the following decision has been rendered orjudgementissued:
`
`DECISION) UDGEMENT
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy 1° Uponinitiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3° Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2” Uponfiling document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director
`Copy 4’ Case file copy
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 20 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 20 of 459
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`16/278,107
`
`ISSUE DATE
`
`11/19/2019
`
`131926
`
`7590
`
`10/30/2019
`
`MayPatents Ltd. c/o Dorit Shem-Tov
`P.O.B 7230
`Ramat-Gan, 5217102
`ISRAEL
`
`PATENT NO.
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`10484510
`
`HOLA-005-US 10
`
`4936
`
`ISSUE NOTIFICATION
`
`The projected patent numberandissue date are specified above.
`
`Determination of Patent Term Adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 (b)
`(application filed on or after May 29, 2000)
`
`The Patent Term Adjustment is 0 day(s). Any patent to issue from the above-identified application will include
`an indication of the adjustmenton the front page.
`
`If a Continued Prosecution Application (CPA) wasfiled in the above-identified application, the filing date that
`determines Patent Term Adjustmentis the filing date of the most recent CPA.
`
`Applicant will be able to obtain more detailed information by accessing the Patent Application Information
`Retrieval (PAIR) WEBsite (http://pair-uspto. gov).
`
`Any questions regarding the Patent Term Extension or Adjustment determination should be directed to the Office
`of Patent Legal Administration at (571)-272-7702. Questions relating to issue and publication fee payments
`should be directed to the Application Assistance Unit (AAU) of the Office of Data Management (ODM) at
`(571)-272-4200.
`
`APPLICANT(s) (Please see PAIR WEBsite http://pair.uspto.gov for additional applicants):
`
`WEB SPARK LTD., Netanya, ISRAEL;
`Derry Shribman, Tel Aviv, ISRAEL;
`Ofer Vilenski, Moshav Hadar Am, ISRAEL;
`
`The United States represents the largest, most dynamic marketplace in the world andis an unparalleled location
`for business investment, innovation, and commercialization of new technologies. The USA offers tremendous
`resources and advantages for those who invest and manufacture goods here. Through SelectUSA, our nation
`worksto encourage andfacilitate business investment. To learn more about why the USAis the best country in
`the world to develop technology, manufacture products, and grow your business, visit SelectUSA. gov.
`IR103 (Rev. 10/09)
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 21 of 459
`
`Code200 Exhibit 1002
`Page 21 of 459
`
`

`

`
`
`
`16/278107
`Application Number
`
`
`INFORMATION DISCLOSURE
`First Named Inventor|Derry Shribman
`
`STATEMENT BY APPLICANT
`( Not for submission under 37 CFR 1.99)
`
`Filing Date
`2/17/2019
`
`
`| 2459
`
`Art Unit
`
`Examiner Name
`
`MINH~-CHAU NGUYEN
`
` Attorney Docket Number
`
`| HOLA-005-US10
`
`Pages,Columns,Lines
`Name of Patentee or
`
` where RelevantKind|Publication
`Examiner Cite|Foreign Document
`Applicant of cited
`Number3
`Code?4) Date
`Passages or Relevant
`Document
`Figures Appear
`
` If you wish to add additional Foreign Patent Documentcitation information please click the Add button
`
`publisher, city and/or country where published. Examiner] Cite
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`P597869POTStet?Al =
`
`
`
`P010090562
`
`P01 1068784
`
`05/2014
`
`AM
`
`:
`2010-12-08
`
`elefonaktiebolaget L M
`ricsson (Publ)
`
`e2011-08-06
`
`Al
`
`Azuki Systems, Inc
`
`NON-PATENT LITERATURE DOCUMENTS
`
`Include nameof the author (in CAPITAL LETTERS),title of the article (when appropriate), title of the item
`(book, magazine, journal, serial, symposium, catalog, etc), date, pages(s), volume-issue number(s),
`
`TS
`
`Screen captures from YouTube videoclip entitle "nVpn.net | Double your Safety and use Socks5 + nVpn”"38 pages,
`ast accessed 11/20/2018 <https:/Avww.youtube.com/watch?v=LOHct2kSnn4>
`
`Screen captures from YouTube videoclip entitle "Andromeda" 47 pages, publicly known and available as ofat least
`P011 <htips:/Avww.youtube.com/watch?v=yRRYpFLOKNU=
`
`Spy