throbber
Tnals@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 49
`Entered: March 8, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`THE DATA COMPANY TECHNOLOGIESINC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Record of Oral Argument
`Held: February 10, 2023
`
`  
`

` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ  ÿ
` ÿÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ
`  ÿ  ÿ!ÿ"#ÿ
`ÿ
`%&'ÿ()(ÿ)ÿ)'ÿ*)')*+ÿ,--&.ÿ
`ÿ
`/////////////////ÿ
`ÿ
`0-,*ÿ1ÿ)ÿ*&)2ÿ)'ÿ))2ÿ0,)*'ÿ
`/////////////////ÿ
`ÿ
`1ÿ'))ÿ.,)3ÿ.1,2,4&(ÿ&. !ÿ
`  
` !ÿÿ ÿÿ
`0*&41ÿ'))ÿ2' !ÿ
`  ÿ,5 ÿ
`/////////////////ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ&*"""#ÿ
`  ÿ"!!"ÿ0ÿ
`/////////////////ÿ
`ÿ
`*
` ÿ
`6ÿ, ÿ)
7 ÿ
`1ÿÿ-8  9ÿ"!ÿ"#ÿ
`/////////////////ÿ
`ÿ
`06
` ÿ1,)(ÿ2 ÿ4&)&!ÿ(1&2)ÿ- ÿ(1)!ÿ ÿÿ
`*%((22ÿ ÿ.)((!ÿ)7  ÿ  ÿ:
 ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`
`Before THOMASL. GIANNETTI, SHEILA F. McSHANE,and
`RUSSELLE. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`

`

`MICHAEL RADER, ESQUIRE
`ADAM WICHMAN,ESQUIRE
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS,P.C.
`605 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
`New York, NY 10158
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PATENT OWNER:
`
`The above-entitled matter came on for hearing on Friday,
`February 10, 2023, commencingat 11:01 a.m., by video/by telephone.
`
`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
`
`THOMAS DUNHAM, ESQUIRE
`ELIZABETH O'BRIEN, ESQUIRE
`ROBERT HARKINS, ESQUIRE
`CHERIAN LLP
`1901 L Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿ!"ÿ
` ÿ#ÿ!"ÿ
`#ÿ$ ÿ%ÿ&ÿ ''ÿ
`(ÿ)*+,ÿ-
.
ÿ  )ÿ/00+ÿ
`
1ÿ20+3ÿ2ÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ#ÿ
`ÿÿ "ÿ!"ÿ
`4ÿ5ÿ!"ÿ
`ÿ&ÿ!"ÿ
`ÿ ÿ
`6ÿÿ +
ÿ#ÿ
`#
`7)* 8 0 ÿ ÿ (ÿ
`ÿÿ)
ÿ
`90-

* /
,ÿ:
`
+ÿ;
`:
ÿ0 ÿ<0+ÿ)

`+* 8ÿ0 ÿ+*,
`=ÿÿ
`
`
9+.
`+=ÿÿ  ÿ;0::
;* 8ÿ
` ÿÿ
`':'ÿ9=ÿ-*,
0>9=ÿ
/
?)0
'ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿÿ
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`PROCEEDINGS
`
`Inc. v. Bright Data Limited, and this is IPR2022-00138.
`
`I'm Judge McShane, and Judges Cass and Giannetti
`
`should also be visible to you.
`
`Can we have appearances, please, for Petitioner.
`
`MR. RADER: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`Michael Rader on behalf of the Petitioner, and with
`
`me is Adam Wichman.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: This case is The Data Company Technologies
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿÿ"#$%ÿ
`%
ÿ$%ÿ"#
ÿ
`
`ÿ&'(
` )ÿ"
# &*&+$
%ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ,ÿ-,ÿÿ.$+# ÿ
`
`ÿ/$'$
0ÿ
` 0ÿ #$%ÿ$%ÿ   ,ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1'ÿ20+
ÿ#
`
ÿ
` 0ÿ20+
%ÿ
`%%ÿ
` 0ÿ$
`
$ÿ
`ÿ%#&2*0ÿ
`*%&ÿ3
ÿ-$%$3*
ÿ &ÿ)&2,ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿ4
ÿ#
`-
ÿ
`((

`.
` 
%ÿ(*

`%
ÿ5&.ÿ
$ $&
.,ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`6ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,ÿ !ÿÿ"#
` 7ÿ)&2ÿ8&2.ÿ& &.,ÿ
`9ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ$#
`
*ÿ
`0
.ÿ& ÿ3
#
`*5ÿ&5ÿ #
ÿ
$ $&
.ÿ
` 0ÿ4$ #ÿ
`ÿ'
ÿ$%ÿ 0
`'ÿ:$#'
` ,ÿ
`;ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿÿ7
`),ÿÿ 0ÿ)&2ÿ4$**ÿ3
ÿ(.
%
$ +ÿ5&.ÿ
`ÿ
$ $&
.ÿ.,ÿ
`0
.<ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,ÿ !ÿÿ:$ #ÿ #
ÿ(
`
*1%ÿ(
.'$%%$& ÿ.,ÿ:$#'
` ÿ
` ÿ
` 0ÿÿ4&2*0ÿ*$7
ÿ &ÿ%(*$ ÿ&2.ÿ
`.+2'
ÿ $'
,ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿÿ7
`),ÿÿ"#
` 1%ÿ5$
,ÿÿ"#
` 7ÿ)&2,ÿ
`NONONONONOF&FF-F-F-YFFSUSFhuESES|llULSEURhWwWNYKF&§OoOoDOHHDABPWNYOKFOS
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 0ÿ4#&ÿ0&ÿ4
ÿ#
`-
ÿ5&.ÿ
`
ÿ4
.<ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ,ÿ !ÿÿ&&0ÿ'&. $ +ÿ8&2.ÿ& &.%,ÿÿ"#$%ÿ$%ÿ"&'ÿ
`6ÿ2 #
`'ÿ&5ÿ#
.$
` ÿ// ÿ5&.ÿ
`
ÿ4
.ÿ
` 0ÿ4$ #ÿ'
ÿ$%ÿ&3
. ÿ
`9ÿ
`.7$ %ÿ
` 0ÿ*$=
`3
#ÿ1.$
,ÿÿ 0ÿ*$7
ÿ.,ÿ
`0
.ÿ.,ÿ
`.7$ %ÿ
` 0ÿÿ
`ÿ4&2*0ÿ*$7
ÿ &ÿ%(*$ ÿ&2.ÿ $'
ÿ #$%ÿ'&. $ +ÿ
`%ÿ4
**,ÿ
`;ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿÿ7
`),ÿÿ"#
` 1%ÿ5$
,ÿÿ"#
` 7ÿ)&2ÿ-
.)ÿ
` ÿ'2#,ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ **ÿ.$+# ,ÿÿ.$
5*)ÿ1'ÿ+&$ +ÿ &ÿ(.&-$0
ÿ%&'
ÿ
` ÿ+
.
`*ÿ+2$0
` 
,ÿÿÿ
`**ÿ #$%ÿ #
ÿ%($
*,ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5ÿ
` ÿ
` )ÿ $'
ÿ02.$ +ÿ #
ÿ(.&
0$ +ÿ)&2ÿ
&2
.ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Okay. And youwill be presenting for
`
`Petitioner, Mr. Rader?
`
`MR. RADER: With the panel's permission, Mr. Wichman
`
`and I would like to split our argument time.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Okay. That's fine. Thank you.
`
`And whodo wehave for Patent Owner?
`
`MR. DUNHAM: Good morning, Your Honors. This is Tom
`
`Dunham of Cherian LLP for Patent Owner, and with meis Robert
`
`Harkins and Elizabeth O'Brien. And like Mr. Rader, Mr. Harkins and I
`
`would like to split our time this morning as well.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Okay. That's fine. Thank you very
`
`much.
`
`All right. Briefly, I'm going to provide some
`
`general guidance. I call this the spiel.
`
`If at any time during the proceeding you encounter
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`technical or audio difficulties, please let us know or
`
`contact the team members whoprovided you with the connection
`
`information.
`
`We havethe entire record available to us as wesit
`
`here, including the demonstratives. We -- we don't have a
`
`preference. Some folks want to actually launch their own
`
`demonstratives through the platform here, but we also have a
`
`set of demonstratives ourselves that we can refer to. So
`
`it's up to you how you wantto present them.
`
`Whenreferring to the demonstrative slide, please do
`
`to the slide numbers,it helps us a lot in terms of reconciling the transcript to
`
`so clearly and explicitly by number. And definitely, if you give us the cites
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`
 
`ÿÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ

`
ÿ
ÿÿ  ÿÿÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ

`!ÿ!
!"
ÿ ÿ#
ÿ$ÿ  ÿ 
ÿ
  ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ !
`  %ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ&
ÿ
`#
ÿ 
ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
`#
`
`"
ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ
ÿ ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ  'ÿ 
ÿ
!  
` #
%ÿÿ&
ÿÿ
ÿ ( ÿ
`#
ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ



%ÿÿ)!
ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
` 
`$ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`*ÿ
!  
` #
ÿ 'ÿ 
ÿ
` !ÿ

ÿ" ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`#
ÿ
`ÿ
`+ÿ
ÿÿ
!  
` #
ÿ
#
ÿ 
` ÿ
ÿ
` ÿ

ÿ %ÿÿ)ÿ
`ÿ (ÿÿ ÿ$ÿ ÿ$ÿ
` ÿ ÿ

ÿ 
!%ÿ
`,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ&
ÿ

 'ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
!  
` #
ÿ
ÿ

`
ÿÿ
`ÿÿ

`$ÿ
` ÿ
- $ÿ"$ÿ !"
%ÿÿ. ÿ
 
$ÿÿ$ÿ'#
ÿÿ 
ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
ÿ !"
ÿ ÿ
ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ
!ÿÿ
  'ÿ 
ÿ 
`  ÿ ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ
!  
` #
%ÿ
`NONONONONOF&FF-F-YFFSUSOUS|hlSEFhhlUrRhWwWNYK|§OFOoOnKHABPWDNYK-|OC
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ.ÿ
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ

` 'ÿ
ÿ

`ÿ
`ÿ
` $(ÿ' 'ÿ ÿ
`#
ÿ*ÿ! 
ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ
`'!
ÿ
`*ÿ 
`%ÿÿ
 
ÿ ÿ'ÿ ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ!
`$ÿ

#
ÿ
`+ÿ
"
`ÿ !
%ÿÿ
`
ÿ/
ÿ!
`$ÿ

ÿ ÿ
 
ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ

#
ÿ
"
`ÿ !
ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ
"
`ÿÿ' 'ÿ
`,ÿ ÿ"
ÿ!
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
ÿ 
` ÿ
 
ÿ
`
ÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
"
`%ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ0
ÿ
` $"$ÿ
`#
ÿ
` $ÿ1
  2ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ3 ÿ

` 'ÿ
` $ÿ1
  %ÿÿ)ÿ  ÿ 
` ÿ4%ÿ
`
ÿ
` ÿ$ÿ!
`$ÿ
%ÿÿ. ÿÿ$ÿ ÿ ÿ

#
ÿ
"
`ÿ !
2ÿ
`
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ4%ÿ.056ÿÿ7
ÿ7ÿ8 %ÿÿ&
(ÿ
ÿ ÿ

#
ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`the
`
`demonstratives.
`
`As discussed in the oral hearing order, each
`
`party's going to have 60 minutes to present its arguments
`
`total. Petitioner will go first and then may reserve
`
`rebuttal time. Patent Owner may presentits response, and it
`
`can reserve sur-rebuttal time, and the sur-rebuttal is going
`
`to be limited to the issues that Petitioner raised in its
`
`rebuttal.
`
`Does anybody have any questions?
`
`Not hearing any questions. So, with that, Mr. Rader,
`
`you may proceed. And do you wishto reserve rebuttal time?
`
`25
`
`MR. RADER: Yes, Your Honor. We'd like to reserve 15
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`minutes.
`
`JUDGE McSHANE: Thank you.
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
`
`MR. RADER: Okay. Well, thank you very much, Your
`
`Honors.
`
`Again, my nameis Michael Raderon behalf of the
`
`Petitioner, The Data Company Technologies Inc., and we're
`
`very pleased to be able to present argument to you today in
`
`this case.
`
`Weknowthat this is one of numerous IPRsbefore the
`
`Board on the '510 patent and related patents with the same
`
`specification. And as Judge McShane mentionedin the
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
` 
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !"#$ÿÿ%&
` 'ÿ()ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ*"+ÿ"#%ÿ*#ÿ!"+,ÿ*,ÿ %%*#ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"$ÿÿ*'
`(ÿÿ-
..ÿ &
` 'ÿ()ÿ/
0(ÿ&ÿ1)0ÿ
`ÿ!) )0ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"2
` ÿ(ÿ
`
ÿÿ&
`
.ÿ
`3
0ÿ) ÿ4
&
`.5ÿ)5ÿ &
ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`6ÿ
 )
0ÿ%&
ÿ
`
`ÿ7)8
` (ÿ%
& ).)2
ÿ ÿ
` 3ÿ9
:0
ÿ
`;ÿ/
0(ÿ8.

`
3ÿ )ÿ4
ÿ
`4.
ÿ )ÿ80

ÿ
`02
ÿ )ÿ()ÿ )3
`(ÿ ÿ
`ÿ &ÿ
`
ÿ
`<ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ-
ÿ' )9ÿ &
` ÿ &ÿÿ)
ÿ)5ÿ 
0)ÿ ÿ4
5)0
ÿ &
ÿ
`ÿ)
`03ÿ) ÿ &
ÿ:ÿ8
`
ÿ
` 3ÿ0
.
`
3ÿ8
`
ÿ9 &ÿ &
ÿ
`
ÿ
`ÿ8
5
` ) ÿÿ" 3ÿ
`ÿ32
ÿ &
`
ÿ
)
3ÿ ÿ &
ÿ
` ÿ80
&

`0 2ÿ) 5
0

ÿ &
0
:ÿ
`ÿ)) ÿ
ÿ&
0
ÿ)5ÿ.
`ÿ
`ÿ)  0 ) ÿ)5ÿ &
ÿ=.
ÿ3
/
=ÿ
0ÿ
`ÿ9
..ÿ
`ÿ &
ÿ
`NONYNONONNOYFFSFFFFFSFSFFSFOSEOESllAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿ=
) 3ÿ
0/
0=ÿ
0ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ-&
` ÿ
`'
ÿ%&
ÿ
`
`ÿ7)8
` (ÿ ÿ355
0
ÿÿ &
` ÿ
`6ÿ) &
0ÿ8
`0 
:ÿ8
 ) ÿ80)
3
3ÿ) .(ÿ 3
0ÿ &
ÿ)0 :ÿ
`;ÿ0).
4
`
3ÿ)  0 ) ÿÿ%&
ÿ
`
`ÿ7)8
` (:ÿ8
 ) ÿ)5ÿ
`ÿ)0
ÿ3)
ÿ &
` ÿ4 ÿ ÿ
`33 ) ÿ)0ÿ8
 ) ÿ
`.)ÿ
>8.
` ÿ
`<ÿ&)9ÿ)0ÿ80
`0(ÿ0
5
0

ÿ .
`) 3) ÿ
` 8
`
ÿ7.
`ÿÿ
` ÿ
/
ÿ 3
0ÿ &
ÿ
`
ÿ*9
0:ÿ)  0 ) ÿÿ )ÿ9
ÿ&
`/
ÿ &
` ÿ
> 0
`ÿ
.

ÿ
` ÿ )ÿ
`330
ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ- &ÿ &
` ÿ4
`'20) 3ÿÿ? ÿ9
` ÿ )ÿ
`'
ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ)0ÿ
` ÿ 9)ÿ )ÿ
>8.
` ÿ&)9ÿ:ÿ)02
` @ 2ÿ &
ÿ
`
0
`.ÿ ÿ(ÿ 3ÿ
`
` ÿ
` 3ÿ &
0
5)0
ÿ&)9ÿÿ8.
` ÿ )ÿ)02
` @
ÿ(ÿ80


` ) ÿ) ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`prehearing conference, there's a commonissue here of claim
`
`construction of the "client device" term as well as the
`
`"second server" term.
`
`What makes The Data CompanyIPRs different is that
`
`other parties' petitions proceeded only underthe court's
`
`role-based constructions. The Data Company's petition, of
`
`course, doesthat, but in addition, our petition also explains
`
`how our primary reference, Plamondon,anticipates Claim 1
`
`even under the Patent Owner's construction. So we havethat extra element
`
`to address.
`
`With that background,I just want to take a minute or
`
`two to explain how I'm organizing the material in my mind
`
`and, therefore, how I plan to organize my presentation on
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`Claim 1, and Mr. Wichman will address the dependentclaims.
`
`So on Claim 1, I'll address the primary issues,
`
`including the claim construction. Mr. Wichman will address
`
`all the issues on the dependentclaims, including secondary
`
`considerations.
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`
`ÿÿ
` ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`
!!ÿ 
ÿ
"

ÿ
`!ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ#$ÿ$ ÿ
`ÿÿ%ÿ
`
!!ÿ 
ÿ"
`&ÿ!!'
!ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ ' (ÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ$ ! ' $ ÿÿÿ
` ÿ ÿ
`
!!ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ!!'
!ÿ$ ÿ 
ÿ
"

ÿ
`!ÿ ' (ÿ!
$ 
`&ÿ
`ÿ$ !

` $ !ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ
(
`ÿ $ÿ
`ÿÿÿ)
ÿ 

ÿ
`!ÿ*
 (ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`ÿ
!!

`&ÿ $ÿ!!'
!ÿ
` ÿ

`ÿ$+ÿ $!
ÿ!!'
!ÿ*

`,!ÿ'"ÿ
`-ÿ $ÿ $ÿ!'*!!'
!ÿÿ#$ÿ!!'
ÿ$
ÿ!ÿ$
!ÿ 
`$ $ ÿ
`ÿ
` "
`
ÿ
`ÿ.ÿÿ/ ÿ$+ÿ$'!
ÿ 
ÿ!'*!!'
!ÿ
`
ÿ$
!ÿ
`0ÿ ÿ
` "
`
ÿ
`ÿÿ' 
ÿ 
ÿ$
`%!ÿ$
*
`!
ÿ
`ÿ$ ! ' $ !ÿ
` ÿ!
"
`
`
&ÿ$
!ÿ ÿ
` "
`
ÿ 
`$ $ ÿ
`ÿ' 
ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ1
%!ÿ$ ! ' $ !.ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ2
ÿ!
$ ÿ

`
ÿ!!'
ÿ$+ÿ$'!
ÿ!ÿ 
` ÿ
`ÿ$ ! ' $ ÿ!$'ÿ 
ÿ$
`ÿ
`$" ÿ

.ÿÿ/ ÿÿ
`!$ÿ!
ÿ
`NONYNONONNOYFFSFFFFFSFSFFSFOSEOESllAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿ 

ÿ*
 (ÿ $ÿ"

!ÿ $ÿ 
` ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ1
ÿ!ÿ 
` ÿ !ÿ
`!
ÿ!ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ* ÿ' 3'
ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ

`! ÿ ÿ&ÿ
4"


ÿ ÿ 
` ÿ
ÿ
`)
ÿ!$ÿ
` &ÿ"$ÿ
`ÿ
`-ÿ$ ! ' $ ÿ
!$ !ÿ+$ÿ 
!
ÿ $ÿ
!ÿÿ
ÿ
`)
ÿ+$'ÿ
`ÿ
!$ !ÿ+$ÿ5'(
ÿ
`&
ÿ
`ÿ
`$"  (ÿ$
*
`!
ÿ
`0ÿ$ ! ' $ !ÿÿ
ÿ
`)
ÿ $ÿ
!$ !ÿ+$ÿ5'(
ÿ6! 
`"ÿ
` ÿ
`++ (ÿ $!
ÿÿ
ÿ
`)
ÿ
ÿ !  ' $ ÿ
!$ !ÿ+$ÿ 
ÿ
` ÿ$
`ÿ ÿ)
`$'!ÿ !ÿ
`ÿ
`$"  (ÿ$
*
`!
ÿ$ ! ' $ !ÿ
` ÿ/ ÿ
ÿ
`)
ÿ
` ÿ

`! ÿ 
ÿ
4
`
` $ ÿ"$
 (!ÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ
4
`
!ÿ
`)
ÿ
`$"
ÿ 
ÿ$' %!ÿ$
*
`!
ÿ
`
` ÿ$ ! ' $ !ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`And we haveat least three reexamination proceedings in which
`
`With regard to Claim 1, I view there as being
`
`essentially two issues, and each of those issues breaks up
`
`into two subissues. So issue one is, does Plamondon
`
`anticipate Claim 1? And, of course, the subissues are, does
`
`it anticipate Claim 1 under the Board's role-based
`
`constructions, and separately, does it anticipate Plamondon
`
`under the Patent Owner's constructions?
`
`The second headline issue of course is, what
`
`construction should the Board adopt here? And I also see
`
`there being two piecesto that.
`
`Oneis that this caseisa little bit unique,at
`
`least in my experience, in that we have so manyprior claim
`
`construction decisions for these two terms. We have four
`
`decisions from Judge Payneall adopting role-based
`
`constructions. We have two decisions from Judge Gilstrap
`
`affirming those. We haveten institution decisions from the
`
`Board in various IPRsall adopting role-based constructions.
`
`the examiners have adopted the court's role-based
`
`constructions.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`So onepiece ofthis is, what do we do with all that
`
`history, and what weight should be given to those prior
`
`decisions, particularly from the district court? And the PTO
`
`has provided guidance onthat, andI'll briefly addressthat.
`
`Weaddressedit in our Reply. I'll briefly address
`
`it today.
`
`And then the last issue under claim construction of
`
`course is the merits. Did thosepriortribunals get it
`
`right? What doesthe intrinsic evidence show? And
`
`when Your Honors view theintrinsic evidence with fresh eyes,
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ

ÿÿ ÿÿ
` ÿÿ
ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ 
` ÿÿ  !ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
" ÿ#ÿ$
ÿ"%
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
 ÿ
` #
` !ÿ &ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ# 'ÿÿ( ÿ 
ÿ )*ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ %
ÿ"#
` 
ÿ ÿ 
` ÿ
` ÿ+ÿ$ 
!ÿ
`
ÿ 
` ,ÿ
`ÿ-
ÿ
`

ÿ ÿ ÿ# ÿ
!,ÿÿ+ÿ$ 
!ÿ
`
ÿ
`ÿ ÿ 
`!,ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`.ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ( ÿ 
ÿ 
ÿ
` ÿ#
ÿ# 
ÿ
`&ÿ  #  ÿÿ
`ÿ# 
ÿÿ 
ÿ&
 ,ÿÿ/ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ $#
`ÿ"
ÿ ÿ
`ÿ " 'ÿÿ-
` ÿ
ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ
%

ÿ'ÿÿ( ÿÿ
`0ÿ
ÿ1# ÿ2  ÿ%
ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ
%

ÿ ÿ
ÿ
!
ÿ
`ÿ
ÿÿ ÿ ÿ!#'ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ+&ÿ" "ÿ ÿ
`
ÿ
`ÿ# ÿÿ 
ÿ$#3
4ÿ
` ÿ
` 
`  ÿ# 
ÿ 
ÿ# +ÿ  #  5ÿ
` 
`  ÿ
`ÿ# 
ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ*
+ÿ  #  5ÿ$ 
!ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`NONONONONONOF&FYFFFFFFSPFSUwPSP!huS|lcS|llAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿ  !ÿÿ 
ÿ
`&ÿ  #  ÿ
5ÿ
` ÿ
`!ÿ+ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ $
`$!ÿ 
ÿ$#3ÿÿ&!ÿ &
ÿ
`3 "ÿ!#ÿ  #"ÿ 
ÿ
`.ÿ  ÿ
%

ÿ
` ÿ
6
`  "ÿ!ÿ ÿ
%
!ÿ
`% ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ# +ÿ 
$
`
ÿ  #  ,ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ+ÿ
` ÿ ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ#
,ÿÿ/
ÿ 
`&  ÿ
`0ÿ
` 
`
ÿ7
`&ÿ'ÿÿ( ÿÿ# 
ÿ +ÿ%
!ÿ&
` ÿ ÿ
` ÿ3
ÿ ÿ& ÿ 
ÿ    ÿ$

ÿÿ
` "#&
ÿ 
ÿ
` ÿ
`
ÿ*
ÿ&
`3
ÿ# 
ÿ 
ÿ
` +ÿ
` ÿ   #  ÿ  #  ÿÿÿ 
ÿ# +ÿ 
$
`
ÿ
` ÿ  #  ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
` "#&
ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ*
ÿ&
`3
ÿ# 
ÿ
`
` ÿ ÿ ÿ  #  ,ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`construction, and what arguments the Patent Owner makes under
`
`where will it point you?
`
`So I'm going to addressall four of those buckets:
`
`anticipation under the court's constructions; anticipation
`
`under the Patent Owner's constructions; briefly on the
`
`history of the claim constructions here; andfinally, I'll
`
`spend probably the bulk of my time walking you through the
`
`intrinsic evidence and explaining whyit decisively favors
`
`the district court's role-based constructions.
`
`So I'll start with the first issue. Does Plamondon
`
`anticipate Claim 1? Andof course,it's very important to
`
`keep in mind the distinction between which arguments the
`
`Patent Owner makes underthe Board's
`
`institution construction, which is the court's role-based
`
`its own constructions.
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`It's relatively straightforward because the Patent
`
`does not anticipate. And in fact, underthe court's
`
`role-based construction, Patent Owner makesonly one
`
`argument, and that's what we call the exclusivity
`
`argument. This is pages 34 through 37 of their Patent Owner
`
`Response,andit's the only argument they make underthe
`
`Board -- underthe court's construction.
`
`Owner makesvery, very limited arguments as to why Plamondon
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ

` 
ÿ 
` 
` ÿ!
"
`#
ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿÿ$
ÿ%
`&
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ%
ÿ
`#%
ÿ
`ÿ ÿÿ 
`%  ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ
` "'
`
(ÿÿ) ÿ ÿ
`" ÿ#
ÿ 
ÿ"# ÿ
`ÿ
!
`
ÿ"  #"  ÿ
`
ÿ$
ÿ%
`&
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`#%
ÿ
` ÿ 
` ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ"
`ÿ 
ÿ
*"# ÿ
`ÿ
`#%
(ÿÿ+ÿÿ'
`
ÿÿ #ÿ,ÿÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ$
ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`-ÿ
' 
ÿ
` ÿ ÿ 
ÿ ÿ
`#%
ÿ 
ÿ%
`&
ÿ#
ÿ 
ÿ
`,ÿ
` ÿÿ#
ÿ 
ÿ"# ÿ"  #"  (ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ.ÿ 
ÿ
`#%
ÿÿ 
` ÿ
`ÿ"
ÿ
"
ÿ%# ÿ
*! ÿ
`/ÿ ÿ"
&
ÿ!

`ÿ
` ÿ"
` ÿ

ÿ
*! ÿ

&
ÿ
`ÿ!

`ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ  ÿ0#
`ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ"
ÿ
"
ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ" 

ÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ 
` ÿ 
ÿ
" ÿ

ÿÿ ÿ0#
`ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ
" ÿ

ÿ%# ÿ
*! ÿ ÿ

&
ÿ!

`ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ%# ÿ

ÿ!

`
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
ÿÿ 
ÿ"
(ÿ
`NONONONONNOYFFSFFFFFSFSFFSFOSEOEShlAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ+
` ÿ 
ÿ
*"# ÿ
`#%
(ÿÿ ÿ 
ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`#%
ÿ 
ÿ%
`&
ÿ#
ÿ 
ÿ"# ÿ"  #"  (ÿÿ) ÿ ÿ
`-ÿ # ÿ# ÿ
`ÿÿÿ#ÿ ÿ
`ÿ%%
ÿ 
ÿ"# ÿ
`

` ÿ
`,ÿ
1
"
ÿ 
` ÿ
`#%
ÿ ÿ ÿ"
`%ÿ"  #"  ÿ
" (ÿ
`ÿ.ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ$
ÿÿ#ÿ
` ' ÿ 
ÿ"# ÿ"  #"  ÿ
`/ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ$
ÿÿ

" 
ÿ
` ÿ#ÿ# ÿ
'
ÿ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ 
` ÿ 
ÿ"# ÿ 
ÿ
` ÿÿ (ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ.ÿ ÿ&
ÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿÿ%ÿ 
ÿ
` ÿ
 
ÿ
ÿ1# ÿ ÿ
ÿ#ÿ
(ÿÿ2
ÿ
`
ÿ
*"
'
ÿ
` ÿ

ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
 ÿ 
ÿÿ 
ÿ"
`%ÿ"  #"  ÿ
(ÿ
`
` ÿ+
ÿ
`ÿ"%
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`%
ÿ" "# (ÿÿ
!
`
ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`So the argumentis that a client device must exhibit
`
`only client-like behavior and can neverexhibit server-like
`
`behavior, or else it won't qualify as a client device, and
`
`conversely, they say that the second server-- to qualify as
`
`the second server must exhibit only server-like behavior and
`
`must never behavein the role ofthe client.
`
`That's their exclusivity argument. It's the only
`
`argument they make underthe court's construction. And it
`
`turns out, as I'll show you in a moment, the court already
`
`rejected that argumentin its claim construction decision.
`
`So the Patent Owner, if you adopt the court's construction,
`
`the Patent Owneris effectively saying you should interpret
`
`it in a way that the court itself said is wrong.
`
`So I'd like to refer now to slide 4 from the
`
`Petitioner's set, just to get us oriented. We have excerpted
`
`here on the left three of the claim construction orders.
`
`They all come to the same conclusion. Role-based
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`construction for client device is a communication device
`
`that's operating in the role ofa client.
`
`Andso appliance 200 in Plamondon, which is what we
`
`point to as the client device, if you see in Figure 6A of
`
`Plamondon,step 620 and 625, which we've identified as
`
`corresponding to Step C and D of Claim 1 of the '510 patent,
`
`that's where the appliance 200 requests and receives content
`
`from a server. There's no dispute that that is client
`
`behavior and that appliance 200 is operating in the role of a
`
`client when it doesthat.
`
`So whatdoes the Patent Ownerargue? If you could
`
`advanceto slide 5 of Petitioner's, we've excerpted from the
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`    ÿÿ
ÿ

ÿÿ
`ÿ 
`  ÿ

ÿÿ
` !ÿ"

`  #ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
`ÿ
$ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ% ÿÿ
`""
` 
ÿ ÿ ÿ 
`  ÿ&  ÿÿ&
` ÿ&
ÿ
`ÿ" ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ
ÿ

ÿÿ'ÿ
ÿ ÿ(#
ÿ)%ÿÿ
`ÿ 
`  ÿ
"ÿ) ÿ
` ÿ) ÿ&  ÿ&
!
ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
"  #ÿ ÿ*
"ÿ+ÿ
` ÿ,ÿÿ+
`ÿÿÿ
ÿ!ÿ"
`
ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`)ÿ
` !ÿ&

ÿ
ÿ
`""
` 
ÿ ÿ
-
 ÿ
` ÿ


ÿ
ÿ
`.ÿÿ
`ÿ

$ÿÿ/

!ÿ ÿ"
ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿÿ
ÿ
`ÿ0

`ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
`""
` 
ÿ ÿÿ"

`  #ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ&
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
` $ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ*ÿ&
` ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
`
ÿ1&
ÿ
`#
2ÿÿÿ'ÿÿ
`ÿ
`
` 
ÿ ÿ
ÿÿÿ
 
!ÿ&
!
ÿ
3
"
ÿÿ
ÿ
` ÿ
`
ÿ1&
ÿ
" 
ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ0 ÿ!ÿ
`4
ÿ&
` ÿ
`ÿ
'!
ÿ
`' #ÿ
`#
` ÿ& ÿ



ÿ ÿ 
`  !ÿ
`NONONONONNNOYFKFFFFFFSFSFFSFOSEESllAFFWONYKF&§ODOOWnNHvAFPWONYOKSOS
`ÿ(#
ÿ)%$ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5
` ÿ
'ÿ
`'ÿÿ&
ÿ

ÿ # ÿ
ÿ
`""
` 
ÿ ÿ
`)ÿ"

`
ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ
`ÿ
ÿ
` ÿ
"ÿ) ÿ
` ÿ) ÿ&
ÿ
`.ÿ ÿ#
ÿ ÿ
"ÿ)ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ
`""
` 
ÿ ÿ&
`ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ0
`6ÿ ÿ
ÿ
-

ÿÿ
` ÿ
` !ÿ
ÿ
"ÿ
` !ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ& ÿ*
"ÿ7ÿÿ+
`ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ!ÿ"
`
$ÿÿ5
ÿ
` ÿ ÿ#
ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
"ÿ
ÿ
`
ÿ1&
ÿ
`'ÿ&
ÿ
` !ÿ
` ÿ

6
ÿ0

`ÿ
` ÿÿ
ÿ
`""
` 
ÿ ÿ ÿ #
ÿ
` ÿ-
`
ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ

$ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ/
` !ÿ
ÿ
3 'ÿ#ÿÿ'ÿ&ÿ ÿ
ÿ
`
` ÿ  ÿ !ÿ    $ÿÿ/
ÿ  ÿ ÿ ! ÿ
`'ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`Patent Owner Response onthis slide, but I'll summarize what
`
`they're saying, again, with reference to Plamondon's
`
`Figure 6A.
`
`Whatthey say is, well, even though the appliance 200
`
`operates in the role of a client at steps 620 and 625, when
`
`it gets to step 615 and the appliance 200 forwards the
`
`content back to the requester -- and that's the step that's
`
`identified with Step E of Claim 1 in the '510 patent. When
`
`it gets to that step, the Patent Ownersays, well, that's
`
`server-like behavior, and so the appliance 200 no longer
`
`qualifies at that momentasa client device.
`
`That's their exclusivity gloss, if you will, on the
`
`district court's construction. The district court didn't say
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`that, but that's the Patent Owner's gloss.
`
`There's a threshold problem with this exclusivity
`
`argumentthat's insurmountable. This exclusivity argument
`
`would render the claim impossible to practice, inoperable, no
`
`one could everinfringe it because, as the Patent Owner
`
`explains, the preamblestates that it's the client device
`
`that must carry out each step. Andyet, as the Patent Owner
`
`states, someofthe steps, for example, Step E, requires
`
`server-like behavior.
`
`So if it was true that the district court meant in
`
`its role-based construction to require exclusive behavior,
`
`client-like behavior, then no client could ever practice Step
`
`1E of the claim because,as they say, Step 1E is server-like
`
`behavior. Therefore, the claim could not be practiced. It
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
` 
` ÿ ÿ 
` ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 

ÿ
`ÿ 
!ÿ"
#ÿ$ ÿ $ÿ
%&$'$ (ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`#
ÿ 
` ÿ$ #
`
ÿÿ $ÿ
%&$'$ (ÿ
`#
ÿ
`ÿ!ÿ
!
ÿ 
ÿ&
`$#ÿ$#"$
ÿ ÿ"
`& $&
ÿ$ "

`
ÿ ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ&!ÿ
'
ÿ$ )$ 
ÿ$ ÿ
&
`
ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿ
`ÿ
%"
`$ ÿ 
ÿ"

`#
ÿ
`
ÿ 
` ÿ$ ÿ 
ÿ&$
ÿ!
'$&
ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`*ÿ 
` ÿ# ÿ&
`(ÿ ÿ

`&ÿ
"ÿÿ+ !ÿ(
ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿ
`,ÿ
`
ÿ#
ÿ)ÿ 
ÿ
"ÿ)ÿ
%
`#"
ÿ-
"ÿ.ÿ
/$
ÿ
`ÿ
'
$0
ÿ

`'$ÿ
`1ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ-ÿ$)ÿ$ ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ 
` ÿ 
ÿ!$ $& ÿ& ÿ#

` ÿ$ ÿ
`ÿ$ ÿ

`
!ÿ&  & $ ÿ ÿ
/$
ÿ
%&$'
ÿ

`'$ÿ
`ÿ&$
$0
ÿ

`'$ÿ 
ÿ ÿ&$
ÿ&!ÿ
'
ÿ"
`& $&
ÿ-
"ÿ
` ÿ.ÿ)ÿ 
ÿ&
`$#ÿ
&
`
ÿ
`ÿ 
(ÿ
`(ÿ-
"ÿ.ÿ$ÿ
'
$0
ÿ
`ÿ

`'$ÿÿ 

)
ÿ 
ÿ&
`$#ÿ&!ÿ  ÿ
ÿ"
`& $&
!ÿÿ ÿ
`S|llULEllAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`NONONONONNWNfFFFFFFFYFSFUSFOhl
`ÿ!ÿ&'
ÿ ÿ
#!$#
ÿ
` (

ÿ$ ÿ 
ÿÿ"
`
ÿ$&ÿ
`ÿ'$(ÿ$ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ"
#ÿ)#ÿ
`ÿ&
`$#ÿ&  & $ ÿ
`*ÿ"
"
& $'
ÿ
`,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ2
ÿ"$
!ÿ $ÿ ÿ ÿ"
`
ÿ1ÿ)ÿÿ
"(ÿ$
)ÿ
`ÿ
` !ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ
ÿ
`!ÿ ÿ
` 
ÿ$ ÿ$ ÿ-
"(ÿÿ 

ÿ
`1ÿ$ÿ ÿ
` 
ÿ ÿ 
` ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ3ÿ$ ÿ
`!!$ $ ÿ
` !ÿ$0
(ÿ
&
`
ÿ)ÿ
` ÿ'
ÿ4 ÿ
` ÿ
%"
`$
!ÿ 
ÿ!$ $& ÿ& ÿ$ 
)ÿ$ ÿ$ ÿ&
`$#ÿ
` ÿ&  & $ ÿ$&ÿ
'
ÿ
%&
"
!ÿ

ÿ)#ÿ.%$$ ÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿ 
ÿ""
ÿ
) ÿ&
ÿ)ÿ$!
ÿÿ 
ÿ!$ $& ÿ& ÿ$ 
)ÿ
`
` ÿ
4
&
!ÿ $ÿ
`#
ÿ
`ÿ"
` ÿ)ÿ$ ÿ&
`$#ÿ&  & $ ÿÿ-ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`would cover no embodiment anywherein the '510 patent, which
`
`obviously is a huge problem from a claim construction
`
`perspective.
`
`Wepointed this out on page 19 of our Reply brief,
`
`and the Patent Owner had no answerin its Sur-Reply. There
`
`is no answerto that.
`
`Now,in addition and likely because of whatI've just
`
`explained, the district court itself in its claim
`
`construction, which we've excerpted here from Exhibit 1082 on
`
`the upperleft corner of slide 5, the district court itself
`
`rejected this argumentas part of its claim construction. So
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`it said, “The client device is defined by the role of the
`
`communication deviceas a client rather than by the
`
`components of the device,” and -- here's the key language--
`
`“regardless of any additional role the device mayserve,
`
`including as a server.”
`
`So the exclusivity argumentis not in fact an
`
`argument underthe district court's construction for
`
`non-anticipation. It's an argumentthat directly contradicts
`
`the district court's -- the black-and-white words of the
`
`district court's instruction.
`
`So the bottom line is that because the district court
`
`itself rejected this exclusivity argument, the Patent Owner
`
`actually has no responseto anticipation by Plamondon under
`
`the district court's construction if you adoptthat.
`
`If we could advanceto slide 6, I'll just briefly
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
` ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ
ÿ

ÿÿ

ÿÿ 
ÿ !
ÿ!ÿ 
ÿÿ!""# 
` ! ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ
` 
ÿ 
` ÿÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ!"$!
ÿ!ÿ 
ÿ

%ÿ
` ÿÿ
&ÿ 
ÿ'
ÿ
` (#
`(
ÿÿ
`ÿ
(
` 
ÿ!ÿ
` ÿ
` !
`ÿ !
ÿ 
ÿ

ÿ"
`ÿ

ÿ
`ÿ # (ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ

)%ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ*!ÿ 
ÿ
+# ÿ
` (#"
ÿÿ ! ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`,ÿ
` (#"
ÿ# 
ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ!# &ÿ!  # ! ÿ! ÿÿ
`-ÿ ! 
` $
` ! )ÿÿ &ÿ
` ÿ
` (#"
ÿ 
` ÿ
 ÿ!
` ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ!# &ÿÿ 
ÿ
`'
` .
ÿ.! ÿ!ÿ 
ÿ
`/ÿ  ÿ!# &ÿ  # ! )ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ*!ÿ 
ÿ! !"ÿ
ÿÿ 
` ÿ

`#
ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ!# ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ
0

ÿ ÿ
+# ÿ
` (#"
ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ1.
ÿ
` ÿ
` #
`ÿ
`ÿ !ÿ
$! 
ÿ !ÿ
` $
` ! ÿÿ 
`"! ! ÿ# 
ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ  ÿ!# &ÿ!  # ! ÿÿ!#ÿ
`!$ ÿ 
` )ÿ
`NONONONONNOYFFSFFFFFSFSFFSFOSEOEShlAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ.
ÿ!#ÿ
`
` 
ÿ !ÿ
ÿ,ÿ&ÿ0# ÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ$
ÿ! ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ )ÿÿÿ.! & ÿ$
ÿ
`ÿ! ÿ!ÿ "
ÿ! ÿ
`,ÿ ÿ

`#
ÿ ÿÿ
ÿ! ÿ ÿ!# ÿ
$ÿ 
ÿ# ÿ
` ÿ
`-ÿ 
`ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ1.
ÿ
`
` 
ÿ  !#(ÿ ÿ
+$
ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ  !#(ÿ ÿ!# 
ÿ
` ÿ
` (#"
ÿ 
` ÿ
 ÿ!
` ÿ 
ÿ
`/ÿ
+# ÿ
` (#"
)ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ*!ÿ 
ÿ
` (#
ÿ 
` ÿ 
ÿ
`#
ÿ

ÿ!ÿ 
ÿ
` ÿ


` ÿ ÿ 
` ÿ 
`ÿ.ÿ.
ÿ

ÿ !ÿ
`ÿ2" ! ÿ
` ÿ

2ÿ 
ÿ
` (#
ÿ !
ÿ

ÿ   (
ÿ
` ÿ!   #
ÿ
` ÿ
ÿ

ÿ

ÿ !#(ÿ 
ÿ$
` 
ÿ
`!  (ÿ !ÿ 
ÿ
`
` ÿ
`
ÿ1.
ÿ

ÿ
$ÿ!ÿ 
ÿ
`"ÿ # (ÿ*
$ÿ3ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ
`
`devices," they argued those devices infringed and constituted
`
`pile onalittle bit. I won't spenda lot of time on
`
`it becausethis is set forth in our Reply brief, but at
`
`trial, the Patent Owner advancedthroughits expert and
`
`through its counsel an argumentthat directly contradicts the
`
`exclusivity argument.
`
`So they argued that the accused devices of the
`
`defendant in that trial, which werereferred to as "minion
`
`client devices even though they practiced, according to the
`
`Patent Owner, every step of the claim, including Step E,
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`whichis server-like behavior.
`
`And of course, when they made that argument, they
`
`were operating under the court's construction. They were in
`
`court. They weretrying a case before the court that had
`
`entered that construction.
`
`Sotheir trial strategy directly
`
`contradicts and rules out the exclusivity argument they're
`
`making now.
`
`If we could turn to slide 7 from the Petitioner's --
`
`again, I'll be brief here -- we excerpt from twoofthe
`
`reexamination proceedings. The '510 patent itself was under
`
`reexamination before that was stayed in view ofthis IPR.
`
`The examinerthere rejected the exclusivity argument, saying,
`
`A client device is a device that acts, at least at some point
`
`-- not all the time butat least at some point -- as a
`
`client. And similarly, a server is a device thatacts, at
`
`least at some point, as a server.
`
`In addition to the reexaminations we've excerpted
`
`here, I'll just briefly point out Your Honors gave us leave
`
`to file two exhibits, 1118 and 1119, from another
`
`reexamination of a patent with the same specification just a
`
`couple days ago.
`
`Exhibit 1118 was the Patent Owner's response to an
`
`earlier rejection in which they made the exclusivity
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`ÿÿ


ÿ

`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ !ÿ"ÿ#
ÿ
ÿ 
$ÿ%
`!
ÿ 
` ÿ
`&#%
ÿ 
$ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ

ÿ'

`  &ÿ# !
ÿ 
ÿ# (ÿ  #  ÿÿ)
$ÿ

ÿ ÿ
`ÿ# ÿÿ)
$ÿ

ÿ $ &ÿ
`ÿ
`
ÿ
"
ÿ 
ÿ# ÿ 
` ÿ
`!ÿ
`ÿ

!ÿ 
` ÿ  #  ÿÿ*ÿ 
ÿ 
`ÿ 
`
&$ÿ!
 $ÿ
`ÿ 
`! ÿ
` !ÿ#
ÿ# ÿ 
ÿ
+# $ÿ
`&#%
ÿ 
$(
ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`,ÿ%
` &ÿ ÿ
`-ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ"ÿ
ÿ#!ÿ # ÿ ÿ!
ÿ-ÿ"%ÿ 
ÿ
 
(ÿÿ
`ÿ
`&
` ÿ(ÿ
ÿ
"ÿ

ÿÿ
ÿ
+
' ÿ"%ÿ ÿ"ÿ 
ÿ
`.ÿ
+
`%
`  ÿ'
! &ÿÿ)
ÿ(ÿ'
`
ÿ 
"ÿ
`ÿ# !
ÿ
`ÿ
+
`%
`  ÿ
"
ÿ 
` ÿ
`ÿ
`$
!ÿ ÿ
ÿ"ÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿ)
ÿ
+
`%
ÿ 

ÿ
/

!ÿ 
ÿ
+# $ÿ
`&#%
ÿ
`$ &ÿ
` ÿ ÿ
ÿ!

ÿÿ
`ÿ!

ÿ 
` ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ

` ÿ
` ÿ%
ÿ' ÿ
`ÿÿ  ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ %
ÿ# ÿ
` ÿ

` ÿ
` ÿ%
ÿ' ÿÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ
`NONYNONONNOYFFSFFFFFSFSFFSFOSEOESllAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿ
ÿÿ !ÿ%
`$ÿ
`ÿ

ÿÿ
`ÿ!

ÿ 
` ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ
`ÿ

` ÿ
` ÿ%
ÿ' ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ
`,ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ
`!!  ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
+
`%
`  ÿ
(
ÿ
+
'
!ÿ
`-ÿ

ÿ(ÿ/# ÿ
"$ÿ' ÿ# ÿ0#ÿ1 ÿ&
`
ÿ#ÿ

`
ÿ
`ÿ ÿ"
ÿ ÿ
+ ÿÿ
` !ÿ.ÿ"%ÿ
`  
ÿ
`.ÿ
+
`%
`  ÿ"ÿ
`ÿ'
`
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`%
ÿ'
"
`  ÿ/# ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ#'
ÿ!
`$ÿ
`&ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ2+ ÿÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ3
(ÿ
' 
ÿ ÿ
` ÿ
` ÿ

`
ÿ
/
  ÿ ÿÿ 
$ÿ%
`!
ÿ 
ÿ
+# $ÿ
` ÿ
`&#%
ÿÿ3 ÿ'
`&
ÿ ÿ #&ÿ -ÿ"ÿ2+ ÿÿ"ÿ$#ÿ'# ÿ
`
` ÿ 
ÿ'
`&
ÿ!
ÿ$ÿ!
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
" &ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ
`
`argument. On pages 24 through 27 of Exhibit 1118, if you put
`
`those pages side by side with their briefing in this
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00138
`Patent 10,484,510 B2
`
`case, you'll see it's exactly the same argument.
`
`And Exhibit 1119 is the examinerin that case's
`
`advisory action rejecting that argument and concluding,
`
`quote, on page 2, The arguments are not found persuasive.
`
`Patent Owner's contentions rely on an overly narrow
`
`interpretation of the claimed client device, server, and
`
`second server that would require improper importing of
`
`limitations, including negative limitations, into the claims.
`
`AndI'll just note as well that each of these three
`
`the one I just referred to -- if you look, you'll see, as you
`
`probably know, they work in teams of three. There's no
`
`overlap, so there are nine different Central Reexam Unit
`
`examiners that have all cometo the same conclusion.
`
`So the bottom line is that under the district court's
`
`reexaminations-- the two that are excerpted on slide 7 and
`
`   ÿ
`
`
ÿÿ ÿ
`
`
`
ÿÿ
ÿ ÿ

` ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ
` 
!ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ" #ÿ$% ÿ&ÿÿ 
ÿ

`
ÿ ÿ 
` ÿ
`
ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿ
`#'ÿ
`  ÿ
(
  ÿ 
` ÿ
` 
ÿ
` #ÿ # ÿ
`ÿ)
ÿ ÿ*
`
ÿ ÿ+
ÿ
` 
ÿ
`
ÿ  ÿ, #ÿ*

`'
!ÿ
`ÿ
`
ÿ-.
ÿ
 ÿ
ÿ ÿ
` ÿ'
ÿ
`.ÿ
`ÿ
*

`  ÿ,ÿ 
ÿ
`
#ÿ
ÿ#
'
ÿ
'
ÿ
` #ÿ
`ooOoNDDNnHFPWWNO
`/ÿ
 #ÿ
'
ÿ 
` ÿ.#ÿ
)
ÿ**
ÿ*  ÿ,ÿ
`0ÿ
`  ÿ # ÿ

` '
ÿ
`  ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`!ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ" #ÿÿ( ÿ 
ÿ
`ÿ.
ÿ 
` ÿ

`ÿ,ÿ 

ÿ 
ÿ
`&ÿ

`
`  ÿÿ 
ÿ .ÿ 
` ÿ
`
ÿ

*
#ÿ ÿ#
ÿ0ÿ
` #ÿ
`ÿ 
ÿ
ÿÿ( ÿ
,

#ÿ ÿÿ,ÿÿ1ÿÿ
ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ*%
`%ÿ1 .ÿ 
ÿ.1ÿ ÿ

`ÿ,ÿ 
!ÿÿ+

ÿ ÿ
` ÿ'

`*ÿÿ 

ÿ
`
ÿ 
ÿ#,,

ÿ2

`ÿ

`ÿ3  ÿ
`ÿ

`
ÿ 
` ÿ
`'
ÿ
`ÿ
ÿ ÿ 
ÿ
`
ÿ  !ÿ
`NYNONONONOWNFFPFPFPFPSUSFhuS|llSlAaFFWONYK&COOOWnsNHvAFPWONYKSOS
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ4ÿ 
ÿ% ÿ
ÿÿ 
` ÿ #
ÿ 
ÿ#  ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ/ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5367$ÿ7"88$++9ÿÿ2 
!ÿÿÿ
`0ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ:!ÿ"6$9ÿÿ;

`!ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5367$ÿ7"88$++9ÿÿ+ÿÿ5#
ÿ7
`
!ÿ
`&ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
,
ÿÿ

`'
ÿ 
ÿ

`ÿ.ÿÿ.
  ÿ#ÿ
` ÿ.
ÿ '
ÿ 
ÿ

`ÿ '
ÿ 
ÿ,
` ÿ 
` ÿ 

ÿ*

`  ÿ
` ÿ #
ÿ
`ÿ#,,

ÿ
`ÿ    ÿ
` #
`#ÿ%
`#
 ÿ
` ÿ

`
`%
ÿ
*

`  <ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ:!ÿ"6$9ÿÿ  !ÿÿ4ÿ .ÿ* ÿ ÿ 
` !ÿ
`
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ4ÿ

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket