`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________________
`
` MAJOR DATA UAB,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________________
`
`Case IPR2022-00915
`
`Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL AND
`TO ENTER THE JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. RELIEF REQUESTED .................................................................................. 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 1
`
`III. SEALING OF EXHIBITS 2039, 2041-2044, AND 2065 ............................. 2
`
`A. EXHIBIT 2039 (NETWORK DIAGRAM) .............................................. 2
`B. EXHIBITS 2041-2044 (SOURCE CODE FILES) ................................... 4
`C. EXHIBIT 2065 (EXPERT DECLARATION) ......................................... 5
`
`IV. SEALING OF THE PATENT OWNER RESPONSE ................................ 6
`
`V. ENTRY OF THE JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER .................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Email from Patent Owner to Petitioner Major Data, UAB dated
`May 16, 2022
`
`Emails from Petitioners Code200 UAB, et al. and Petitioner
`Major Data, UAB to the Board dated May 17, 2022
`
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Ninja-Tech, SIA, No. 2:21-cv-434, Dkt.
`18 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2022)
`
`Institution Decision regarding Patent No. 10,257,319, NetNut Ltd.
`v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01492, Paper 12 (PTAB March 21,
`2022)
`
`Institution Decision regarding Patent No. 10,484,510, NetNut Ltd.
`v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2021-01493, Paper 11 (PTAB March 21,
`2022)
`
`Claim Construction Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut Ltd, No.
`2:21-cv-225, Dkt. 146 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2022)
`
`Definition “Consumer”, Cambridge English Dictionary; accessed
`at
`https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/consumer
`on June 10, 2022
`
`Definition “Consumer”, Collins English Dictionary; accessed at
`https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/consume
`r on June 10, 2022
`
`Prosecution History of Patent No. 10,069,936
`
`Network Fundamentals Study Guide, published February 17,
`2015; accessed at
`https://www.webopedia.com/reference/network-fundamentals-
`studyguide/#topologies on June 14, 2022
`
`
`ii
`
`
`EX. 2001
`
`EX. 2002
`
`EX. 2003
`
`EX. 2004
`
`EX. 2005
`
`EX. 2006
`
`EX. 2007
`
`EX. 2008
`
`EX. 2009
`
`EX. 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Patent No. 10,069,936
`
`Alice Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-
`cv-395, Dkt. 303 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2021)
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395, Dkt. 282 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2021)
`(redacted version of Dkt. 277)
`
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395,
`Dkt. 476 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2021)
`
`Jury Verdict, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-
`cv-395, Dkt. 516 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021)
`
`Website, Company information regarding “Major Data, UAB”;
`accessed at https://rekvizitai.vz.lt/en/company/major_data/ on
`June 16, 2022
`
`Website, “The Story of Tesonet” published on October 30, 2017;
`accessed at https://tesonet.com/culture/the-story-of-tesonet/ on
`June 16, 2022
`
`LinkedIn Profile, “Tom Okman”; accessed at
`https://www.linkedin.com/in/tokmanas/ on June 16, 2022
`
`Wikipedia Article, “Tom Okman”; accessed at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Okman on June 16, 2022
`
`Website, “Who Owns NordVPN? Can You Really Trust This
`VPN?”; accessed at https://www.technadu.com/who-owns-
`nordvpn/295187/ on June 16, 2022
`
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, No.
`2:19-cv-414, Dkt. 176 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021)
`
`Docket Control Order, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a
`NordVPN, No. 2:19-cv-414, Dkt. 31 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021)
`
`
`iii
`
`EX. 2011
`
`EX. 2012
`
`
`EX. 2013
`
`
`EX. 2014
`
`EX. 2015
`
`EX. 2016
`
`EX. 2017
`
`EX. 2018
`
`EX. 2019
`
`EX. 2020
`
`EX. 2021
`
`EX. 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Select Portions of Trial Transcript, Day 3 in the case of Bright
`Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.
`Nov. 3, 2021)
`
`Select Portions of Trial Transcript, Day 4 in the case of Bright
`Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.
`Nov. 4, 2021)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Email chain between Petitioner Major Data, UAB and Patent
`Owner regarding discovery requests
`
`Report of Mediation, Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a
`NordVPN, No. 2:19-cv-414, Dkt. 214 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022)
`
`Joint Status Report regarding Mediation, Bright Data Ltd. v.
`Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, No. 2:19-cv-414, Dkt. 215 (E.D.
`Tex. Aug. 31, 2022)
`
`Declaration of Robert M. Harkins
`
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200,
`UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-396-JRG, Dkt. 97 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`8, 2021)
`
`Order, Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200,
`UAB, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-396-JRG, Dkt. 98 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`9, 2021)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,491,713
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,050,852
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`Definition “Consumer”, Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
`Dictionary, copyright 2008, ISBN 978-0-521-71266-8
`
`
`iv
`
`EX. 2023
`
`EX. 2024
`
`EX. 2025
`
`EX. 2026
`
`EX. 2027
`
`
`EX. 2028
`
`
`EX. 2029
`
`EX. 2030
`
`EX. 2031
`
`EX. 2032
`
`EX. 2033
`
`EX. 2034
`
`EX. 2035
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Definition “Consumer”, Cambridge Academic Content
`Dictionary, copyright 2009, ISBN 978-0-521-69196-3
`
`Definition “Consumer”, Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary
`of American English, copyright 2007, ISBN 978-1-4240-0363-1
`
`Bright Data, “Residential Proxy Network”, accessed at
`https://brightdata.com/proxy-types/residential-proxies on July 29,
`2022
`
`Bright Data, Network Diagram – HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`Appendix to Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams
`
`Source Code File 1 of 4 - HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE
`
`Source Code File 2 of 4 - HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE
`
`Source Code File 3 of 4 - HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE
`
`Source Code File 4 of 4 - HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – SOURCE CODE
`
`EMK Capital, “EMK acquires Luminati”, published August 10,
`2017; accessed at https://www.emkcapital.com/emk-acquires-
`luminati-worlds-largest-ip-proxy-network-brings-transparency-
`internet/ on July 29, 2022
`
`Frost & Sullivan Report, “Global IP Proxy Networks Market,”
`published July 2019
`
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript, Day 3 in the case of Bright Data
`Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB a/k/a UAB
`Teso LT, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2021)
`
`
`v
`
`EX. 2036
`
`EX. 2037
`
`EX. 2038
`
`EX. 2039
`
`EX. 2040
`
`EX. 2041
`
`EX. 2042
`
`EX. 2043
`
`EX. 2044
`
`EX. 2045
`
`EX. 2046
`
`EX. 2047
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Bright Data, “Proxy Services”, accessed at
`https://brightdata.com/proxy-types on July 29, 2022
`
`Excerpts from Trial Transcript, Day 1 in the case of Bright Data
`Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB a/k/a UAB
`Teso LT, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2021)
`
`Oxylabs, “Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now
`Bright Data)”, accessed at https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline on
`August 4, 2022
`
`Earthweb, “16 Best Residential Proxies to Buy in 2022”, last
`updated May 19, 2022; accessed at
`https://earthweb.com/residential-proxies/ on May 19, 2022
`
`SmartProxy, “What is the difference between residential and
`datacenter proxies?”, published June 3, 2021; accessed at
`https://smartproxy.com/blog/what-is-the-difference-between-
`proxy-servers-and-data-centers on May 19, 2022
`
`Microleaves, “Backconnect Residential Proxies”, accessed at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20170913105635/https://microleaves
`.com/services/backconnect-proxies?promotion=dNPa on May 20,
`2022
`
`Oxylabs, “Residential Proxies,” accessed at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20200701171337/https://oxylabs.io/p
`roducts/residential-proxy-pool on May 20, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “When should I use the residential network?”,
`accessed at https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4413156951825-When-should-I-use-the-residential-
`network- on August 2, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “Cost effectiveness of residential IPs”, accessed at
`https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-us/articles/4413161607441-
`Cost-effectiveness-of-residential-IPs on August 2, 2022
`
`
`vi
`
`EX. 2048
`
`EX. 2049
`
`EX. 2050
`
`EX. 2051
`
`EX. 2052
`
`EX. 2053
`
`EX. 2054
`
`EX. 2055
`
`EX. 2056
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Bright Data, “Using the system”, accessed at
`https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-us/articles/4413167165969-
`Using-the-system on August 2, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “Which ports and protocols are supported by Bright
`Data?”, accessed at https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4413222000017-Which-ports-and-protocols-are-
`supported-by-Bright-Data- on August 2, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “How do I integrate Bright Data as my proxy
`network?”, accessed at https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4413213552273-How-do-I-integrate-Bright-Data-as-
`my-proxy-network- on August 2, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “How do I integrate Bright Data into a web browser
`automation tool?”, accessed at https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4413213588369-How-do-I-integrate-Bright-Data-into-
`a-web-browser-automation-tool- on August 2, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “What is Bright Data Proxy Browser Extension?”,
`accessed at https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-
`us/articles/4413213983633-What-is-Bright-Data-Proxy-Browser-
`Extension- on August 2, 2022
`
`Wikipedia, “Domain Name System”, accessed at
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System on August
`2, 2022
`
`Wikipedia, “Domain Name System”, dated March 20, 2009
`accessed at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20090320152858/https://en.wikipedi
`a.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System on August 17, 2022
`
`Bright Data, “Using BrightData in Android settings”, accessed at
`https://help.brightdata.com/hc/en-us/articles/4413168253969-
`Using-BrightData-in-Android-settings on August 2, 2022
`
`Declaration of Dr. Tim A. Williams – HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`vii
`
`EX. 2057
`
`EX. 2058
`
`EX. 2059
`
`EX. 2060
`
`EX. 2061
`
`EX. 2062
`
`EX. 2063
`
`EX. 2064
`
`EX. 2065
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510, originally
`submitted in IPR2022-00916 as EX. 1002
`
`Deposition Transcript of Mr. Keith J. Teruya (December 15,
`2022)
`
`Excerpts from Tanenbaum, A., et al., “Computer Networks –
`Fifth Edition”, copyright 2011, ISBN 0-13-212695-8
`
`Excerpts from Tanenbaum, A, “Computer Networks – Fourth
`Edition”, copyright 2003, ISBN 0-13-066102-3
`
`Plaintiff’s Sur-reply in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to
`Dismiss, Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso
`LT, UAB a/k/a UAB Teso LT, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395-JRG, Dkt.
`47 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2020)
`
`Joint Protective Order
`
`Redlined version of the Joint Protective Order (compared to
`Default Protective Order)
`
`Executed Acknowledgements from Dr. Tim A. Williams, by lead
`counsel for Patent Owner, and by first back-up counsel for Patent
`Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`EX. 2066
`
`EX. 2067
`
`EX. 2068
`
`EX. 2069
`
`EX. 2070
`
`EX. 2071
`
`EX. 2072
`
`EX. 2073
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54, Patent Owner respectfully requests the
`
`following:
`
`First, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion to
`
`Seal Exhibits 2039, 2041-2044, and 2065, which contain highly confidential
`
`material.
`
`Second, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board grant this Motion
`
`to Seal the Patent Owner Response, which contains highly confidential material.
`
` Third, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board enter the Joint
`
`Protective Order (EX. 2071).
`
`Petitioner does not oppose this Motion.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Board may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person
`
`from disclosing confidential information, including, but not limited to, “[r]equiring
`
`that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial
`
`information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.54(a)(7).
`
`A party may file a motion to seal where the motion to seal contains a
`
`proposed protective order and a certification that the moving party has in good
`
`faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`42.54(a). Generally, “a movant to seal must demonstrate adequately that (1) the
`
`information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a concrete harm would
`
`result upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a genuine need to rely in the trial on
`
`the specific information sought to be sealed, and (4), on balance, an interest in
`
`maintaining confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in having an open
`
`record.” Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., Case
`
`IPR2014-00736, Paper 38, at 2-3 (PTAB Apr. 14, 2015).
`
`III. SEALING OF EXHIBITS 2039, 2041-2044, AND 2065
`
`A. EXHIBIT 2039 (NETWORK DIAGRAM)
`
`Confidentiality: Exhibit 2039 is a highly sensitive, technical, network
`
`diagram of Patent Owner’s commercial services, which has not been publicly
`
`disclosed and Patent Owner has taken steps to guard against its disclosure in, for
`
`example, pending district court litigations. E.g., Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB,
`
`et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)(“Teso Litigation”), Bright Data Ltd. v.
`
`Code200, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-396 (E.D. Tex.)(“Code200 Litigation”), Bright
`
`Data Ltd. v. Tefincom SA, No. 2:19-cv-414 (E.D. Tex.)(“Tefincom Litigation”).
`
`Exhibit 2039 consists entirely of material designated as “HIGHLY
`
`CONFIDENTAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” such that redaction
`
`would not be practical. Exhibit 2039 requires filing entirely under seal and
`
`accordingly, no public version of Exhibit 2039 has been filed.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Consequences of disclosure: Patent Owner would be significantly harmed by
`
`disclosure of Exhibit 2039 insofar as its competitors would be able to access
`
`sensitive technical details regarding Patent Owner’s commercial services.
`
`Importance: Exhibit 2039 is referenced in the expert declaration (Exhibit
`
`2065), the appendix to the expert declaration (Exhibit 2040), and the Patent Owner
`
`Response (“POR”). Patent Owner, and its expert, rely on Exhibit 2039 to provide
`
`context to Patent Owner’s source code (see discussion of Exhibits 2041-2044
`
`below) and to establish nexus as it relates, in particular, to secondary
`
`considerations of non-obviousness. Exhibit 2039 provides the best evidence of the
`
`technical details of Patent Owner’s commercial services and there are no public
`
`versions of the network diagram.
`
`Balance of interests: Patent Owner’s interest in protecting this highly
`
`sensitive information outweighs the Public’s interest in a complete file history. To
`
`serve the Public’s interest, public versions of the expert declaration and the POR
`
`are submitted concurrently. The harm to Patent Owner, if Exhibit 2039 were
`
`disclosed, and Patent Owner’s need to rely on Exhibit 2039, favor sealing Exhibit
`
`2039.
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to seal Exhibit 2039.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`B. EXHIBITS 2041-2044 (SOURCE CODE FILES)
`
`Confidentiality: Exhibits 2041-2044 contain highly sensitive source code,
`
`which has not been publicly disclosed and Patent Owner has taken steps to guard
`
`against its disclosure in, for example, pending district court litigations. E.g., the
`
`Teso, Code200, and Tefincom Litigations. Exhibits 2041-2044 consist entirely of
`
`material designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’
`
`EYES ONLY” such that redaction would not be practical. Exhibits 2041-2044 are
`
`additionally designated as “SOURCE CODE” subject to the restrictions on
`
`printing, transport, and transmission in the Joint Protective Order (EX. 2071)
`
`discussed below. Exhibits 2041-2044 require filing entirely under seal and
`
`accordingly, no public versions of these exhibits have been filed.
`
`Consequences of disclosure: Patent Owner would be significantly harmed by
`
`disclosure of Exhibits 2041-2044 insofar as its competitors would be able to access
`
`sensitive technical details regarding Patent Owner’s source code.
`
`Importance: Exhibits 2041-2044 are referenced in the expert declaration
`
`(Exhibit 2065), the appendix to the expert declaration (Exhibit 2040), and the POR.
`
`Patent Owner, and its expert, rely on Exhibits 2041-2044 to show the operation of
`
`Patent Owner’s commercial services and to establish nexus as it relates, in
`
`particular, to secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Exhibits 2041-2044
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`provide the best evidence of the technical details of Patent Owner’s commercial
`
`services and there are no public versions of the source code.
`
`Balance of interests: Patent Owner’s interest in protecting this highly
`
`sensitive information outweighs the Public’s interest in a complete file history. To
`
`serve the Public’s interest, public versions of the expert declaration and the POR
`
`are submitted concurrently. The harm to Patent Owner, if Exhibits 2041-2044 were
`
`disclosed, and Patent Owner’s need to rely on Exhibits 2041-2044, favor sealing
`
`Exhibits 2041-2044.
`
`Accordingly, good cause exists to seal Exhibit 2041-2044.
`
`C. EXHIBIT 2065 (EXPERT DECLARATION)
`
`Exhibit 2065 is the expert declaration, which references highly sensitive
`
`material in Exhibits 2039 and 2041-2044, discussed above. Additionally, Exhibit
`
`2065 references highly sensitive financial information, including monthly revenue
`
`of Patent Owner’s commercial services. Patent Owner has taken steps to guard
`
`against the disclosure of this highly sensitive material in, for example, pending
`
`district court litigations. E.g., the Teso, Code200, and Tefincom Litigations.
`
`Exhibit 2065 is designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”.
`
`To serve the Public’s interest, a public version of the expert declaration is
`
`submitted concurrently. The public version redacts information that refers to or
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`incorporates highly sensitive material. For the same reasons as discussed above,
`
`the harm to Patent Owner, if Exhibit 2065 were disclosed in its entirety, and Patent
`
`Owner’s need to rely on Exhibit 2065, favor sealing Exhibit 2065.
`
`IV. SEALING OF THE PATENT OWNER RESPONSE
`
`The POR references highly sensitive material in Exhibits 2039, 2041-2044,
`
`and 2065, discussed above. The POR is designated as “HIGHLY
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. To serve the
`
`Public’s interest, a public version of the POR is submitted concurrently. The public
`
`version redacts information that refers to or incorporates highly sensitive material
`
`from Exhibits 2039, 2041-2044, and 2065. For the same reasons as discussed
`
`above, the harm to Patent Owner, if the POR were disclosed in its entirety, and
`
`Patent Owner’s need to submit the POR to defend the validity of the challenged
`
`patent, favor sealing the POR.
`
`V. ENTRY OF THE JOINT PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`With this Motion to Seal, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board
`
`enter the Joint Protective Order (EX. 2071). Patent Owner respectfully submits that
`
`the Joint Protective Order (EX. 2071) is consistent with the integrity and efficient
`
`administration of the proceeding. See Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`(November 2019)(“TPG”) at 115. The parties have agreed to the terms of the Joint
`
`Protective Order and Petitioner does not oppose this Motion.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`The Joint Protective Order is based on the Board’s default protective order,
`
`with modifications as shown in the Redlined Version of the Joint Protective Order
`
`(EX. 2072). The Joint Protective Order deviates from the Board’s default
`
`protective order primarily by defining two levels of confidentiality:
`
`“CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE
`
`ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. The Joint Protective Order includes a second tier
`
`for “highly confidential” material that is for “outside attorneys’ eyes only” and not
`
`to be shared with the petitioner or its in-house counsel. See EX. 2071, paragraph 5.
`
`As outlined in paragraph 4 of the Joint Protective Order, “highly confidential”
`
`material may include unpublished technical information, trade secret information,
`
`financial information, or computer source code. These modifications are directed
`
`to preserving the highly confidential nature of Bright Data’s network diagram,
`
`financial information, and source code, which require a higher level of protection
`
`than what is offered in the default protective order.
`
`Due to the highly confidential nature of computer source code, the
`
`producing party is to clearly mark computer source code as “SOURCE CODE”
`
`subject to the additional provisions for “source code material” and “source code
`
`documents” outlined in paragraph 6 of the Joint Protective Order. The provisions
`
`in paragraph 6 of the Joint Protective Order relate to printing, transport, and
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`transmission of “source code material” and “source code documents” that include
`
`excerpts of source code material.
`
`Patent Owner certifies that it has in good faith conferred with Petitioner
`
`and the parties have no disputes regarding the Joint Protective Order.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the proposed modifications are
`
`appropriate for at least four reasons:
`
`First, the parties agree to the proposed modifications, which are consistent
`
`with the integrity and efficient administration of the proceeding. “The Board will
`
`consider changes agreed to by the parties, and generally will accept such proposed
`
`changes if they are consistent with the integrity and efficient administration of the
`
`proceedings.” TPG at 115.
`
`Second, this highly sensitive information has been previously produced in
`
`pending district court litigations, e.g., the Teso, Code200, and Tefincom
`
`Litigations, and was previously marked with confidentiality designations based on
`
`the District Court Protective Order in each of those cases. Those protections should
`
`be maintained in this proceeding.
`
`Third, Patent Owner would be significantly harmed if this highly sensitive
`
`material were disclosed to the petitioner or in-house counsel to the petitioner, given
`
`the business nature of the confidential information. Petitioner has represented that
`
`it “filed its IPRs in preparation for entering the U.S. market in competition with
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Patent Owner.” Paper 16 at 3. Patent Owner cannot share highly confidential
`
`materials with an emerging competitor in the same market.
`
`Fourth, the Board has previously granted modified protective orders with a
`
`“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” tier.
`
`See, e.g., Varian Medical Systems, Inc., et al. v. Best Medical International, Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00071, Paper 43 at 4-5 (PTAB Oct. 23, 2020)(granting proposed
`
`modifications in Paper 32); see also, e.g., Echelon Fitness Multimedia, LLC v.
`
`Peloton Interactive, Inc., IPR2020-01541, Paper 56 at 87-88 (PTAB March 2,
`
`2022)(public version of Paper 54; granting proposed modifications in Paper 31).
`
`Thus, Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board enter the Joint
`
`Protective Order (EX. 2071) in this proceeding. Furthermore, Patent Owner
`
`understands that the terms of a protective order take effect upon the filing of a
`
`Motion to Seal by a party, and remain in place until lifted or modified by the
`
`Board. See TPG at 107.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITS
`
`This Motion is within the 15 page-limit, in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.24(a)(1)(v).
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915 of Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned hereby certifies that
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO SEAL AND TO ENTER THE JOINT
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER and all exhibits thereto were served on the undersigned
`
`date via email, as authorized by Petitioner, at the following email addresses:
`
`rhuang@mkwllp.com
`
`vma@mkwllp.com
`
`jbartlett@mkwllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: January 6, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Thomas M. Dunham
`Thomas M. Dunham
`Reg. No. 39,965
`
`Cherian LLP
`1901 L Street NW, Suite 700
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 838-1567
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PATENT OWNER,
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`
`12
`
`