Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Paper 54
`Entered: September 27, 2023
`
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-014921
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting Motion to Seal
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`1 Joined by the petitioners in IPR2022-00861.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`Paper 54
`Entered: September 27, 2023
`
`
`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,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2021-014921
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, SHEILA F. McSHANE, and
`RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting Motion to Seal
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`1 Joined by the petitioners in IPR2022-00861.
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`On September 3, 2021, NetNut Ltd. (NetNut”) filed a Petition (Paper
`2, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19,
`and 21–29 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 B2 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’319 patent”). Patent Owner, Bright Data Ltd.,2 filed a
`Preliminary Response (Paper 9, “Prelim. Resp.”).
`We determined that NetNut’s Petition established a reasonable
`likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim, and on
`March 21, 2022, we instituted inter partes review as to all challenged claims
`of the ’319 patent and all grounds of unpatentability asserted in the Petition.
`Paper 12 (“Institution Dec.”).
`On April 18, 2022, Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Metacluster LT,
`UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and coretech lt, UAB (collectively, “Petitioner”)3
`filed a “substantially identical” petition challenging the same claims of the
`’319 patent on the same grounds as the Petition filed by NetNut,
`accompanied by a request for joinder to this proceeding. IPR2022-00861
`Papers 1, 7.
`On May 24, 2022, NetNut and Patent Owner submitted a joint motion
`to terminate this proceeding as to NetNut, as a result of a settlement. Paper
`17. On May 27, 2022, we granted the motion and terminated NetNut as a
`party to this proceeding but did not terminate the proceeding. Paper 20.
`
`
`2 Bright Data Ltd. was formerly known as Luminati Networks, Ltd. See Pet.
`1; Prelim. Resp. 11 n.8.
`3 Our references to “Petitioner” also include NetNut prior to its termination
`as a party.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`On October 19, 2022, we instituted inter partes review in IPR2022-
`00861 and granted the joinder request. IPR2022-00861 Paper 19. 4
`Following institution of this proceeding, Patent Owner filed a
`Response. Paper 31 (“PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 40, “Pet.
`Reply”), and Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 41, “PO Sur-reply”).
`An oral hearing was held on June 9, 2023. A transcript of that hearing
`is part of the record. Paper 51 (“Hearing Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). For the reasons we
`discuss below, we determine that Petitioner has proven by a preponderance
`of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–29 of the ’319
`patent are unpatentable.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Matters
`The parties identify several district court proceedings involving the
`’319 patent and a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 (“the ’510
`patent”), including Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-225 (E.D.
`Tex.) (the “NetNut Litigation”);5 and Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.) (the “Teso Litigation”). Pet. 2–3;
`Paper 4, 1–2.
`
`
`4 On August 23, 2022, the USPTO Director, sua sponte, vacated our initial
`decision denying inter partes review in IPR2022-00861 and remanded the
`case to the Board. See IPR2022-00861 Paper 18.
`5 Patent Owner alternatively refers to this case as the “NetNut II Litigation.”
`See Prelim. Resp. 25.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`The parties also identify a number of district court actions involving
`patents related to the ’319 patent. See Pet. 3–4; Paper 4, 2–3.
`The ’319 patent was previously before the Board in IPR2020-01266
`(institution denied). Pet. 4; Paper 4, 1. The ’510 patent is involved in
`IPR2021-01493 (pending), and was previously before the Board in
`IPR2020-01358 (institution denied). Pet. 5; Paper 4, 1. The parties also
`identify a number of other USPTO proceedings involving patents related to
`the ’319 patent. See Pet. 4–5; Paper 4, 2.
`In addition, Patent Owner identifies ex parte reexaminations requested
`for the ’319 and ’510 patents, respectively, Control No. 90/014,875 and
`Control No. 90/014,876. Paper 6, 1–2; Prelim. Resp. 17. Those
`reexamination proceedings have been stayed by the Board. IPR2021-01492,
`Paper 14; IPR2021-01493, Paper 13.
`B. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The Petition filed by NetNut identifies NetNut Ltd. as the only real
`party-in-interest. Pet. 2. The petition in IPR2022-00861 identifies Code200,
`UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and coretech
`lt, UAB as the real parties-in-interest. IPR2022-00861 Paper 1, 3. Patent
`Owner identifies Bright Data Ltd. as the only real party-in-interest. Paper 4,
`1.
`
`C. The ’319 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’319 patent is titled “System Providing Faster and More Efficient
`Data Communication.” Ex. 1001, (54). According to the ’319 patent, there
`is a “need for a new method of data transfer that is fast for the consumer,
`cheap for the content distributor and does not require infrastructure
`investment for ISPs.” Id. at 1:54–56. The patent states that other “attempts
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`at making the Internet faster for the consumer and cheaper for the
`broadcaster,” such as proxy servers and peer-to-peer file sharing, have
`various shortcomings. Id. at 1:58–59; 2:24–2:32; 2:59–3:3.
`The ’319 patent describes a system and method “for faster and more
`efficient data communication within a communication network,” such as in
`the network illustrated in Figure 3, reproduced below (id. at 4:41–44):
`
`Figure 3 is a schematic diagram depicting communication network 100
`including a number of communication devices. Id. at 4:43–45. Due to the
`functionality provided by software stored within each communication
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`device, “each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent,
`depending upon requirements of the network 100.” Id. at 4:46–50.
`
`Client 102 is capable of communicating with peers 112, 114, and 116,
`as well as with one or more agents 122. Id. at 4:56–58. Web server 152
`may be “a typical HTTP server, such as those being used to deliver content
`on any of the many such servers on the Internet.” Id. at 4:63–67.
`Acceleration server 162 includes an acceleration server storage device 164
`with an acceleration server database, which “stores Internet Protocol (IP)
`addresses of communication devices within the communication network 100
`having acceleration software stored therein.” Id. at 5:8–14.
`
`In operation, a client may request a resource on the network, for
`example, through the use of an Internet browser. See id. at 12:62–13:3. If
`server 152 is the target of the request, the client sends the IP address of
`server 152 to acceleration server 162. Id. at 13:8–15. Acceleration server
`162 then prepares a list of agents that can handle the request, which includes
`communication devices “that are currently online, and whose IP address is
`numerically close to the IP of the destination Web server 152.” Id. at 13:19–
`29. The client then sends the original request to the agents in the list to find
`out which “is best suited to be the one agent that will assist with this
`request.” Id. at 13:31–36.
`Each agent responds to the client with information which “can help
`the client to download the requested information from peers in the network.”
`Id. at 13:53–57. “Specifically, each agent responds with whether the agent
`has seen a previous request for this resource that has been fulfilled. In such
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`a case, the agent may then provide the client with the list of peers and
`checksums of the chunks[6] that each of them have.” Id. at 13:57–61.
`The client selects an agent based on a number of factors, and the
`selected agent determines whether data stored in its memory or the memory
`of the peers “still mirrors the information that would have been received
`from the server itself for this request.” Id. at 13:62–14:1, 14:35–38. If the
`selected agent does not have the necessary information to service a request,
`it may “load the information directly from the server in order to be able to
`provide an answer to the requesting client.” Id. at 14:62–67.
`
`D. Illustrative Claim
`The ’319 patent has 29 claims. As noted, claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–
`19, and 21–29 are challenged in the Petition. Pet. 1. Claim 1, the only
`independent claim in the ’319 patent, is illustrative of the claimed subject
`matter and is reproduced below:7
`1. [Preamble] A method for use with a first client device,
`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:
`[1a] receiving, from the second server, the first content
`identifier;
`
`
`6 ”[C]hunks . . . are defined as equally sized pieces of data that together form
`the whole content of the URL, namely, the entire content whose location is
`described by the URL.” Ex. 1001, 10:60–63.
`7 Paragraph references in brackets tracking Petitioner‘s analysis have been
`added.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`
`[1b] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the
`first content identifier;
`[1c] receiving, the first content from the first server over
`the Internet in response to the sending of the first content
`identifier; and
`[1d] sending, the first content by the first client device to
`the second server, in response to the receiving of the first
`content identifier.
`Ex. 1001, 19:16–32.
`E. Prior Art References and Other Evidence
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`1. Michael Reiter & Aviel Rubin, Crowds: Anonymity
`for Web Transactions, ACM Transactions on Information and
`System Security, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Nov. 1998) (Ex. 1006,
`“Crowds”);
`2. Border, et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,795,848 B1 (Sep. 21,
`2004) (Ex. 1012, “Border”);
`3. Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based
`System for Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Ex. 1008,
`“MorphMix”);
`4. Fielding, et al., RFC 2616, Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, Internet Engineering Task Force,
`Network Working Group (June 1999) (Ex. 1013, “RFC 2616”).
`In addition to these references, Petitioner relies on a Declaration of
`
`Keith J. Teruya. Ex. 1005 (“Teruya Decl.”). Patent Owner submitted a
`Declaration of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne with its Preliminary Response.
`Ex. 2006. 8 After institution, Patent Owner submitted a Declaration of Dr.
`
`
`8 According to Patent Owner, Dr. Rhyne’s declaration was previously
`submitted in IPR2020-01266.
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Tim A. Williams. Paper 2065 (“Williams Decl.”).9 Petitioner has submitted
`a transcript of Dr. Williams’s deposition. Ex. 1111 (“Williams Dep.”).
`Patent Owner has submitted a transcript of Mr. Teruya’s deposition from
`IPR2022-00861, also involving the ’319 patent and whose petitioners have
`been joined with this proceeding. Ex. 2067.
`E. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 10.
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. §
`10212
`103
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1, 19, 21–2911
`1, 2, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–29
`1, 12, 14, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27–
`29
`
`Reference(s)10
`
`Crowds
`
`Crowds, RFC 2616
`
`102
`
`Border
`
`
`9 Patent Owner submitted both confidential and public (redacted) versions of
`Dr. Williams’s declaration.
`10 The Petition’s obviousness challenges additionally refer to the
`“[k]nowledge of [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. 10. We
`understand this to refer to a person of ordinary skill in the art’s
`understanding of the applied references and not attempting to supply missing
`limitations or incorporating an unspecified disclosure by reference.
`11 Although the Petition’s listing of the asserted grounds excludes claim 23
`for this ground (see Pet. 10), the Petition includes claim 23 in its analysis of
`anticipation based on Crowds (see id. at 38). Accordingly, we include claim
`23 here.
`12 Because the application from which the ’319 patent issued has an earliest
`effective filing date before March 16, 2013 (Ex. 1001, (60)), citations to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are to the pre-AIA versions. Leahy-Smith America
`Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`1, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, 21, 22,
`24, 25, 27–2913
`1, 17, 19, 21–29
`1, 2, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–29
`
`Basis
`35 U.S.C. §
`103
`
`102
`103
`
`Reference(s)10
`
`Border, RFC 2616
`
`MorphMix
`MorphMix, RFC 2616
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Anticipation and Obviousness
`The Federal Circuit addressed the legal standard for anticipation in
`Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), a prior art reference will anticipate if
`it “disclose[s] each and every element of the claimed invention
`. . . arranged or combined in the same way as in the claim.”
`815 F.3d at 1341 (citation omitted) (footnote omitted). The Federal Circuit
`went on to explain:
`However, a reference can anticipate a claim even if it ‘d[oes]
`not expressly spell out’ all the limitations arranged or combined
`as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the
`reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or
`combination.
`Id. (quoting Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376,
`1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015))
`A claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 “if the
`differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the
`claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective
`
`
`13 Although the Petition’s listing of the asserted grounds does not identify
`claim 19 for this ground (see Pet. 10), the Petition includes claim 19 in its
`analysis of obviousness based on Border and RFC 2616 (see id. at 58).
`Accordingly, we include claim 19 here.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the
`art to which the claimed invention pertains.” 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2011). The
`question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual
`determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level
`of skill in the art; and (4) so-called “secondary considerations,” including
`commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, and
`unexpected results. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`Patent Owner has presented any evidence on the fourth Graham factor. See
`infra, Section III.F.3.
`B. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`According to Petitioner, a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`“would have at least a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science or related
`field (or equivalent experience), and two or more years’ experience working
`with and programming networked computer systems as of the Priority Date.”
`Pet. 20 (citing Teruya Decl. ¶¶ 25–27). Petitioner continues that “[s]uch a
`person would be familiar with the underlying principles of Web, Internet, or
`network communication, data transfer, and content sharing across networks,
`including the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have “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” as of 10/8/2009. Prelim. Resp. 47; PO Resp. 2.
`But Patent Owner acknowledges that its analysis “does not change under the
`Board’s preliminary definition.” PO Resp. 2.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation.
`
`Institution Dec. 17–18. We regarded Petitioner’s more specific definition as
`consistent with the ’319 patent and the prior art before us. See Okajima v.
`Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (prior art itself may reflect
`an appropriate level of skill). For this reason, for the purpose of this
`decision, we continue to apply Petitioner’s formulation. We find, however,
`that this definition and Patent Owner’s definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art are not materially different, and furthermore, that our decision
`would be the same using either definition.
`C. Claim Construction
`For this inter partes review, the Board applies the same claim
`
`construction standard as that applied in federal courts. See 37 C.F.R
`§ 42.100(b) (2019). Under this standard, claim terms “are generally given
`their ordinary and customary meaning” as understood by a person of
`ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips v.
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citations
`omitted). “In determining the meaning of the disputed claim limitation, we
`look principally to the intrinsic evidence of record, examining the claim
`language itself, the written description, and the prosecution history, if in
`evidence.” DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 469 F.3d
`1005, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–17).
`Extrinsic evidence is “less significant than the intrinsic record in
`determining ‘the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips,
`415 F.3d at 1317 (citation omitted).
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Petitioner asserts that the district court’s claim constructions in the
`
`Teso Litigation,14 are appropriate in this case. Pet. 21. In particular,
`Petitioner points to two claim construction orders in that case—the “Teso
`Order” (Ex. 1017) and the “Teso Supplemental Order” (Ex. 1020). Pet. 21–
`22.
`In the Teso Litigation, the parties agreed to certain constructions that
`
`were subsequently adopted by the district court. Id. at 21. Thus, the district
`court construed the preamble of claim 1 of the ’319 patent to be limiting, and
`construed certain other terms to have their “plain and ordinary meaning.”
`Id. In addition, the district court construed certain disputed terms, including
`“client device” and “second server.” Id. at 21–22. The district court
`construed “client device” as “communication device that is operating in the
`role of a client.” Ex. 1017, 12. 15 The district court initially construed
`“second server” as “server that is not the client device.” Id. at 14. Later, the
`court granted the defendants’ request for clarification as to the scope of this
`construction, and in a supplemental order, determined that a “second server”
`is “a device that is operating in the role of a server and that is not the first
`client device.” Ex. 1020, 8, 11.
`Initially, Patent Owner agreed that we should apply the claim
`constructions in the Teso Order for the preamble, “client device,” and
`“second server.” Prelim. Resp. 48. For “second server,” Patent Owner
`
`
`14 Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D.
`Tex.). The case caption in this litigation was later changed to identify
`plaintiff as Bright Data Ltd. Ex. 1020, 1.
`15 Unless otherwise specified, citations to exhibits use the page numbers
`assigned by the parties and not the original page numbers.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`initially proposed that we apply the district court’s construction of that term
`from the Teso Order (“server that is not the client device”). Id. (citing
`Ex. 1017, 14). Patent Owner quoted from the Teso Supplemental Order
`(Ex, 1020) which states that the district court “is not now changing the scope
`of the terms in any way,” and alleged that Petitioner is “seeking a broader
`construction of the term ‘second server’ to remove the requirements that it
`be a server.” Prelim. Resp. 49.
`For the purposes of our Institution Decision, we adopted the district
`court’s construction for the “second server” as clarified in the Teso
`Supplemental Order. Institution Dec. 19 (citing Ex. 1020, 11). Thus, we
`adopted the district court’s original construction, with the clarification that
`the second server is “a device that is operating in the role of a server and that
`is not the first client device.” Id. (citing Ex. 1020, 8). We determined that
`this construction is consistent with the extrinsic evidence offered by
`Petitioner, as well as the construction of “server” adopted by the Board in
`IPR2021-00458, involving a patent similar to the ’319 patent. Id. at 19–20
`(citing Ex. 1018, 5; IPR2021-00458, Paper 11. 21). Specifically, we adopted
`the district court’s clarification that “a component can be configured to
`operate in different roles—so long as it does not simultaneously serve as
`more than one of: the client device, the first server/second server, and the
`web server.” Id. at 20 (citing Ex. 1020, 10 (internal quotation marks
`omitted)).
`Post-institution, Patent Owner objects to what it describes as the
`Petitioner’s “purely role-based” constructions. PO Resp. 8–27. Patent
`Owner contends that “[t]he purely role-based constructions contradict the
`Court’s Orders because they refer to generic devices operating in a particular
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`role.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner continues, ‘[t]he purely role-based
`constructions fail to account for the physical/structural differences between
`client devices and servers.” Id. (emphasis added)
`More specifically, Patent Owner now contends that the Petitioner
`“deviated from the Court’s construction for the term ‘client device’ and
`do[es] not attribute any special meaning to the term ‘communication
`device.’” Id. at 8. Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner “treat[s]
`client devices and servers as interchangeable general purpose computers.”
`Id. at 9.
`For the reasons that follow, we do not agree with Patent Owner’s
`argument that we should not follow Petitioner’s proposed constructions for
`“client device” and “second server,” which adopt the district court’s
`constructions of these terms. Instead, we maintain the construction for those
`terms we adopted for our Institution Decision.
`Contentions of the Parties
`1.
` Client Device
`a)
`As noted supra, Patent Owner’s position on construction issues has
`shifted during the course of this proceeding. Initially, Patent Owner agreed
`that we should apply the role-based claim construction for client device in
`the Teso Order: ‘“client device’ means [a] ‘communication device that is
`operating in the role of a client.”’ Prelim. Resp. 48 (quoting Ex. 1017, 12)
`(emphasis omitted). As the case progressed, while maintaining its support
`for the district court’s constructions, Patent Owner presented a few twists.
`Referring both to “client device” and “second server,” according to Patent
`Owner’s new theory, the district court “expressly rejected referring to these
`terms as generic devices operating in a particular role.” PO Resp. 9. Patent
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Owner now contends that “[t]he Court found that a “client device” is a
`physical communication device, which has a special meaning in the context
`of the specification.” Id. Patent Owner argues that “[a] communication
`device in the context of the specification is not simply any device that
`communicates over the Internet.” Id. According to Patent Owner, in the
`NetNut Litigation (see supra), NetNut “proposed a construction of “client”
`as ‘a device operating in the role of a client.’” Id. at 10 (citing Ex. 2021,
`14). Patent Owner argues that “the Court expressly rejected removing the
`word ‘communication’ from its construction of this term.” Id. (citing Ex.
`2021, 14) (emphasis omitted). From this, Patent Owner concludes that
`“‘communication device’ has a special meaning in the context of the
`specification as referring to a ‘client device.’” Id. Further, Patent Owner
`contends a ‘“client device’ in the context of the specification is not merely a
`general-purpose computer.” Id. at 10–11.
`Patent Owner expands on this newly-proposed construction of “client
`device” by equating the term “client device” with “consumer computer” or,
`alternatively, a “consumer communication device.” PO Resp. 22. Patent
`Owner contends these newly-proposed constructions are “consistent with the
`claim language, the specification, and the prosecution histories
`distinguishing client devices and servers.” Id. at 22–23.
`In its Sur-reply, Patent Owner relies on an additional theory, based on
`the alleged “novel architecture” of the claims. PO Sur-reply 6–7. And at
`oral argument Patent Owner relied heavily on yet another theory, the “at-
`every-moment construction.” Hearing Tr. 42:7–10. See discussion infra.
`Petitioner responds that “[t]he District Court rejected [Patent
`Owner’s] ‘consumer computer’ argument three times.” Pet. Reply 12.
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Petitioner argues that “Judge Payne ruled that ‘client device’ is ‘defined by
`the role’ and not ‘by the components of the device.’” Id. (citing Ex. 1112,
`13). 16 Petitioner also points to an order in the Teso litigation, in which
`Patent Owner’s former expert Dr. Rhyne was instructed by Judge Gilstrap
`“not to testify before the jury that a client device cannot be a server.” Id. at
`13 (citing Ex. 1116, 4).
`Petitioner argues that the district court’s constructions are consistent
`with the intrinsic evidence in the case. Pet. Reply 13–17. Petitioner points
`out that the specification describes a communication device 200 that can
`“function in different ‘roles,’” e.g., client, peer or agent. Id. at 14 (citing
`Ex. 1001 9:20–26). Petitioner points to an annotated Figure 3 submitted to
`the district court by Patent Owner which equates client 202 with the claimed
`second server and the claimed client device with agent 222. Id.
`Petitioner cites RFC (“Request for Comment”) 2616, which describes
`the protocol for HTTP, as support for its role-based construction. Id. at 15.
`This RFC, which is cited in the ’319 patent, states that “[a]ny given program
`may be capable of being both a client and a server; our use of these terms
`refers only to the role being performed by the program for a particular
`connection.” Ex. 1013, 8. Finally, Petitioner argues that the Patent Owner’s
`prosecution history arguments, based on a parent patent, are incorrect for
`several reasons. Id. at 15–17. Among other reasons, Petitioner argues, the
`cited history refers to a “cache server,” and the different clams of the parent
`application do not recite “client device.” Id. at 16.
`
`
`16 Petitioner cites Judge Gilstrap’s order adopting Magistrate Judge Payne’s
`constructions. Pet. Reply 12 (citing Exs. 1113, 1114).
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
` Second Server
`b)
`Patent Owner contends that the district court “acknowledged that
`servers are not disclosed as a type of ‘communication device’ in the
`specification.” PO Resp. 11. From this, Patent Owner reasons that “[t]he
`purely role-based constructions are not appropriate because they fail to
`recognize the special meaning of ‘communication device’ in the context of
`the specification.” Id. at 12.
`Petitioner responds that “[a]lthough [Patent Owner] cites to a selective
`excerpt stating that ‘a server is not a communication device,’ the Court’s
`actual statement rejected PO’s argument ‘that a client device is specifically
`not a server.’” Pet. Reply 13 (citing Ex. 1020, 10).
`Analysis – Client Device and Second Server
`2.
`Patent Owner’s representations of the district court’s rulings on claim
`
`construction are incomplete and inaccurate. For the reasons discussed, we
`find that the claim construction rulings by the district court in the Teso and
`NetNut district court litigations support Petitioner and do not favor Patent
`Owner.
`
`In the earlier Teso litigation, Patent Owner argued that “client device”
`in the ’319 patent should be construed as a “consumer computer.” Ex. 1017,
`10. The district court rejected that construction: “[T]he Court finds the
`language on which [Patent Owner] relies is not sufficient to redefine the
`meaning of the term to ‘consumer computer.’” Id. at 11. The district court
`also rejected Patent Owner’s argument that “a client device is specifically
`not a server.” Id. The district court reasoned that “[the ’319 patent] do[es]
`not include servers as a type of ‘communication device,’ but that is not
`sufficient to construe ‘client device’ as unable to act as a server in all cases.”
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Id. at 12. Instead, the district court adopted a role-based construction for
`“client device”: a “communication device that is operating in the role of a
`client.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The district court in the Teso Litigation also rejected Patent Owner’s
`structural argument that a client device must have a “client dedicated
`operating system.” Id. at 14–15. In reaching this conclusion, the district
`court explained that “[Patent Owner] cites nothing from the intrinsic record
`showing a client device must have a ‘client dedicated operating system.’"
`Id. at 15.
`
`In the later claim construction order in the NetNut Litigation, the
`district court referred to its earlier Teso claim construction orders and
`concluded that “[n]either [Patent Owner] nor Defendant persuasively
`justifies departing from the Court's prior construction and analysis.”
`Ex. 1115, 13. The court specifically rejected again Patent Owner’s
`argument trying to limit the construction of “client device” to a consumer
`device. Id. The court reasoned that “[Patent Owner’s] argument that it is
`indisputable that the specification never refers to a server as a
`communication device . . . does not justify limiting the Court's construction
`to consumer devices.” Id. at 13–14 (internal quotation marks omitted). And
`the court reminded the parties that “the Court has previously found that ‘a
`component can be configured to operate in different roles--so long as it does
`not 'simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client device, the first
`server/second server, and the web server.’” Id. at 14 (citing Ex. 1017, 10).
`
`The Teso district court also construed “second server.” Ex. 1017, 13–
`14. The court noted that “[t]he parties dispute whether the second server
`must be a distinct device from the client device and the web server.” Id. at
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2021-01492
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`13. The court concluded that “[b]oth the claims and specification show that
`the client device and second server are different devices.” Id. at 13-14.
`However, the court also made it clear that a given device can perform
`multiple roles: “Client, peer, agent, and server are roles a device can
`perform.” Id. at 14. The court provided the following example: “Nothing in
`the intrinsic record suggests one device cannot perform both the role of a
`web server and a second server. To construe the claim in such a way would
`improperly import a limitation into the claim language.” Id. at 14.
`
`The district court clarified this statement in the supplemental Teso
`order, explaining that “a component can be configured to operate in different
`roles—so long as it does not ‘simultaneously serve as more than one of: the
`client device, the first server/second server, and the web server.’” Ex. 1020,
`10. In making this clarification, the district court explained that “[t]he Court
`is not changing the construction of ‘first server’ and ‘second server,’ as this
`understanding is already embedded in those terms’ construction.” Id. at 11.
`Further, in the NetNut Litigation, the district court endorsed the statement in
`the Teso supplemental orde
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
