Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: September 15, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting Motion to Seal and Protective Order
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`Paper 51
`Entered: September 15, 2023
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MAJOR DATA UAB,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
`SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`Granting Motion to Seal and Protective Order
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`We have authority to hear this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 6. This Final Written Decision issues pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons discussed herein, we determine that
`Petitioner, Major Data UAB, has shown by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–29 of U.S. Patent No.
`10,257,319 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’319 patent”) are unpatentable. See 35
`U.S.C. § 316(e) (2018); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d) (2019).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Procedural History
`Major Data UAB (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17–19, and 21–29
`of the ’319 patent (the “challenged claims”). Bright Data Ltd.1 (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 12. With authorization from
`the panel, Petitioner filed a Preliminary Reply (Paper 16), and Patent Owner
`filed a Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 17). Based upon the record at that time,
`we instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims on grounds
`presented in the Petition. Paper 18 (“Institution Decision” or “Dec.”).
`After institution, Patent Owner filed a Response (Paper 30,
`“PO Resp.”), Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 37, “Pet. Reply”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Sur-reply (Paper 38, “PO Sur-reply”).
`
`
`1 According to Petitioner, Bright Data Ltd. was formerly known as Luminati
`Networks, Ltd. See Pet. 1.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`On June 9, 2023, an oral hearing was held. A transcript of the hearing
`is made part of the record. See Paper 48.
`B. 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”); and Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.) (the “Teso Litigation”). Pet. 3–4;
`Paper 6, 2–3. The parties also identify a number of district court actions
`involving patents related to the ’319 patent. Id.
`According to the parties, the ’319 patent has been before the Board in
`IPR2020-01266, IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00135, and IPR2022-00861.
`Pet. 4; Paper 6, 1–2. The parties also identify a number of other USPTO
`proceedings involving patents related to the ’319 patent. See Pet. 4–6; Paper
`6, 1–2.
`In addition, Patent Owner identifies ex parte reexaminations requested
`and ordered for the ’319 and ’510 patents, respectively, Control No.
`90/014,875 and Control No. 90/014,876, and which have been stayed. Paper
`6, 2; IPR2021-01492, Paper 14; IPR2021-01493, Paper 13.
`C. Real Parties-in-Interest
`Petitioner identifies Major Data UAB as the real party-in-interest.
`Pet. 2. Patent Owner “certifies that Bright Data Ltd. is the real party-in-
`interest.” Paper 6, 1. In its Response, Patent Owner does not challenge
`Petitioner’s identification of Major Data UAB as the real party-in-interest.
`See generally PO Resp.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`D. The ’319 Patent
`The ’319 patent is titled “System Providing Faster and More Efficient
`Data Communication.” Ex. 1001, code (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 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):
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`
`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
`device, “each 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.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`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
`a case, the agent may then provide the client with the list of peers and
`checksums of the chunks 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,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`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.
`
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’319 patent has 29 claims. Claim 1 is the only independent claim
`of the ’319 patent, and is illustrative of the claimed subject matter.2
`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:
`[a] receiving, from the second server, the first content
`identifier;
`[b] sending, to the first server over the Internet, a
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the
`first content identifier;
`[c] receiving, the first content from the first server over
`the Internet in response to the sending of the first content
`identifier; and
`[d] 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.
`
`
`2 Paragraph references in brackets proposed by Petitioner. See Pet. 25–34.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`F. 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. Marc Rennhard, MorphMix – A Peer-to-Peer-based
`System for Anonymous Internet Access (2004) (Ex. 1008,
`“MorphMix”);
`3. Border, et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,795,848 B1 (Sep. 21,
`2004) (Ex. 1012, “Border”); and
`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 relies on the
`Declaration of Tim A. Williams, Ph.D. Ex. 2065 (“Williams Decl.”).
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`G. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability. Pet. 11.
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`1, 19, 21–22, 24–294
`1, 2, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–29
`1, 12, 14, 21, 22, 24, 25,
`27–29
`1, 12, 14, 15, 17–18, 21, 22,
`24, 25, 27–296
`1, 17, 19, 21–29
`1, 2, 14, 15, 17–19, 21–29
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`1025
`103
`102
`
`Reference(s)3
`Crowds
`Crowds, RFC 2616
`Border
`
`103
`102
`103
`
`Border, RFC 2616
`MorphMix
`MorphMix, RFC 2616
`
`
`3 Petitioner’s obviousness challenges additionally refer to the “[k]nowledge
`of [a person of ordinary skill in the art].” Pet. 11. We understand this to
`refer to a person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of the applied
`references and not to supplying missing limitations or incorporating an
`unspecified disclosure by reference to supply missing claim limitations.
`General knowledge in the art, unsupported by the references, cannot supply
`a missing limitation. See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial
`Practice Guide 36 (Nov. 2019), available at https://www.uspto.gov/
`TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated.
`4 We note that Petitioner’s listing of the asserted grounds excludes claim 23
`for this ground. See Pet. 11. However, Petitioner includes claim 23 in its
`analysis of anticipation based on Crowds (see id. at 35).
`5 Because the application from which the ’319 patent issued has an earliest
`effective filing date before March 16, 2013 (Ex. 1001, code (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.
`6 We note that Petitioner’s listing of the asserted grounds excludes claim 19
`for this ground. See Pet. 11. However, Petitioner includes claim 19 in its
`analysis of obviousness based on Border (see id. at 57).
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`III. ANALYSIS OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS
`A. Applicable Legal Standards
`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
`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).
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`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. 16. 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. at 16–17 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 25–27).
`
`Patent Owner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have had “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.” PO Resp. 2 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 25). Patent
`Owner notes that its analysis does not change under the Board’s preliminary
`assessment of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the Institution Decision,
`wherein Petitioner’s proposed level of qualifications was adopted. Id.; Dec.
`15.
`We regard 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). Therefore, we adopt Petitioner’s formulation.
`C. Claim Construction
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2023), we apply the claim
`construction standard as set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under Phillips, 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. Id. at 1312–
`13 (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).
`Only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only
`to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy. See Nidec Motor Corp. v.
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999).
`
`Petitioner contends that the district court’s constructions in Luminati
`Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., No. 2:19-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.) (the
`“Teso Litigation”)7, are appropriate for use in this case. Pet. 17–19. In
`particular, Petitioner points to two claim construction orders in that case—
`the “Teso Order” (Ex. 1017) and the “Teso Supplemental Order” (Ex. 1020).
`According to Petitioner, the parties in the Teso Litigation agreed to certain
`
`
`7 The case caption in the Teso Litigation was later changed to identify the
`plaintiff as Bright Data Ltd. See Ex. 1020, 1.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`constructions that were subsequently adopted by the district court. Pet. 17.
`There, 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.
`Petitioner also points out that the district court in the Teso Litigation
`construed certain disputed claim terms, including “client device” and
`“second server.” Id. at 17–18. There, the district court construed “client
`device” as a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client.”
`Id.; Ex. 1017, 12. The district court also initially construed “second server”
`as a “server that is not the client device.” Pet. 18. Later, the court granted
`defendants’ request for clarification as to the scope of this construction, and
`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.” Id. (emphasis omitted); Ex.
`1020, 8, 11.
`
`Patent Owner now proposes constructions for the claim terms “client
`device” and “second server” that are different than those determined by the
`district court in the Teso Litigation. See PO Resp. 22–31. We discuss
`Patent Owner’s proposed constructions below.
`Client Device
`1.
`In our Institution Decision, we concurred with the district court’s
`reasoning and agreed with its construction for the claim term “client device”
`as a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client.” Dec.
`17–18.
`In its Response, Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art “would understand the term ‘client device’ to mean a ‘consumer
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`computer,’” or alternatively, “would understand the term ‘client device’ to
`mean a ‘consumer communication device.’” PO Resp. 22. Patent Owner
`argues that “[t]hese proposed constructions are consistent with the claim
`language, the specification, and the prosecution histories distinguishing
`client devices and servers.” Id. at 22–23.
`Patent Owner’s proposed construction of the claim term “client
`“device” as a “consumer computer,” however, was previously considered,
`and rejected, by the district court in the Teso Litigation. See, e.g., Ex. 1017,
`10–12. Patent Owner takes issue with the evidence and the reasoning used
`by the district court to reject Patent Owner’s previously proposed
`construction. See, e.g., PO Resp. 23–27.
`Patent Owner argues that the district court’s rejection of its proposed
`construction of a “client device” as “consumer computer” is wrong for three
`reasons. Id. at 23–24. First, Patent Owner asserts that, although the district
`court found that there was no express lexicography in the specification, the
`specification states that “computers of consumers” are “referred to herein as
`client devices” and the term “client device” is used in the claims. Id. at 23
`(citing Ex. 1001, 2:44–46). Patent Owner asserts that “the term ‘client
`device’ has a special meaning in the context of the ’319 Patent” and that,
`therefore, upon reading the specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`“would understand a ‘client device’ is a consumer computer in the context of
`the ’319 Patent.” PO Resp. 23 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 112).
`Second, Patent Owner disagrees with the district court’s finding that
`in the specification the term “consumer” refers to a consumer of content as
`opposed to a broadcaster of content. PO Resp. 24 (citing Ex. 1017, 11).
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues, instead, that the common understanding of
`“consumer” is “a person who buys goods or services for their own use” or
`“someone who buys goods or services for personal use.” PO Resp. 24
`(citing Ex. 2007; Ex. 2035, 5; Ex. 2037, 4; Ex. 2065 ¶ 119.
`Third, Patent Owner disagrees with the district court’s finding that the
`term “consumer” does not appear in connection with the description of the
`claimed invention, contending instead that the specification “defines client
`devices as consumer computers.” PO Resp. 24.
`Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand a client device is a ‘communication device’ in the context of the
`specification” and that “a client device is a consumer computer with specific
`software to operate in accordance with the claims.” PO Resp. 25 (citing Ex.
`2065 ¶¶ 113, 114; Ex. 1017; Ex. 1020; Ex. 2006; see also Ex. 1001 at 4:44–
`50; 5:21–29; 9:12–50). Patent Owner argues that “[i]n the context of the
`specification, a client device would be understood to be, more specifically, a
`consumer computer like a laptop, desktop, tablet, or smartphone.” PO Resp.
`25 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 118). Patent Owner further argues that a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “would understand that a client device is typically
`portable and easily moved, like, for example, a laptop, desktop, tablet or
`smartphone.” PO Resp. 26 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 122).
`Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand that a client device is typically understood (a)
`to be regularly switched off and taken offline; (b) to be capable
`of processing only a limited number of requests at any given
`time, which may for example include a single user login; and/or
`(c) to have lesser fault tolerance, lesser reliability, and lesser
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`scalability, prioritizing value to client device users over system
`costs. EX.2065 at ¶123.
`PO Resp. 27. “These client device-attributes,” Patent Owner argues,
`“distinguish a client device from a server.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art “would
`understand there are structural differences between client devices and
`servers in the context of the specification and there is no contradictory
`disclosure in the specification or in the prosecution histories.” Id. (citing Ex.
`2065 ¶ 126). “Rather,” Patent Owner argues, “client devices are repeatedly
`distinguished from servers in the specification and the prosecution
`histories.” PO Resp. 27.
`We have considered Patent Owner’s evidence and arguments that the
`district court’s construction of the claim term “client device” is incorrect.
`For the reasons discussed below, however, we determine that the evidence of
`record supports the district court’s construction of the term “client device” as
`a “communication device that is operating in the role of a client” that we
`adopted in our Institution Decision and continue to apply here. Conversely,
`we find that the evidence does not support Patent Owner’s view that a
`“client device” is a “consumer computer,” or alternatively, a “consumer
`communication device,” where the “client device” cannot be a server.
`Claim Language
`a)
`Under Phillips, we begin with the language of the claims themselves.
`See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In claim 1, the method is for use with a “first
`client device.” In step 1[b], the first client device, “send[s], to the first
`server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`comprises the first content identifier,” which serves to request content from
`the first server (web server). See Ex. 1001, 19:24–26. In step 1[b], the first
`client device is acting as a client in requesting content. In step 1[d], the first
`client device “send[s], the first content by the first client device to the
`second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier.”
`See id. at 19:30–32. In step 1[d], the first client device is acting as a server
`to forward content.
`The parties address the issue that the “first client device” acts in
`differing roles in claim 1. Petitioner asserts that the claim’s required
`functionality is consistent with the district court’s determinations on the
`role-based nature of the term and the specification. Pet. Reply 13– 16.
`Patent Owner agrees that under a role-based construction, “a client device
`may operate in the role of a server at some points in time.” PO Resp. 25.
`According to Petitioner, in district court Patent Owner “affirmatively
`argued in its claim-construction brief that the claimed ‘second server’
`mapped to the Client 102 role (in green) and the ‘client device’ mapped to
`the Agent 122 role (in red), per PO’s annotated Figure 3” confirming a role-
`based construction. Pet. Reply 14–15 (citing Ex. 1126, 8; Ex. 1004, 19–20).
`Patent Owner’s annotated version of Figure 3 of the ’319 patent is shown
`below.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`
`
`As shown above, Patent Owner’s annotated Figure 3 of the ’319
`patent, presented in the district court litigation, equates the claimed “first
`client device” (shown in red) to agent 122, which sends the first content
`identifier to the web server (arrow C), receives content requested from the
`web server (arrow D), and sends that content to client 102 (the second
`server) (arrow E). Ex 1126, 4. Thus, under this understanding, the “first
`client device” (agent 122) is acting as a client when it sends the first content
`identifier to the web server and receives content in response, and is acting as
`a server when it sends content to client 102 in response to a request for the
`content from client 102. This reflects a role-based interpretation of the claim
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`terms; different devices are defined by their function and can be either
`clients or servers depending on the function they perform.
`Patent Owner argues that “the district court briefing was taken out of
`context and merely used to illustrate the lines of communication.” PO Sur-
`reply 9, n.4 (citing PO Resp. 6–7, n.1). We do not agree. We find that the
`cited district court testimony speaks for itself and is consistent with the role-
`based nature of the “first client device” and “second server” claim terms.8
`The district court found that the interpretation of the term “client
`device” should be consistent with its role and claimed functionality, and we
`agree. More particularly, the district court indicated that the function of a
`component serves to define the term. Ex. 1020, 7–10. For instance, the
`district court found that, under the steps of claim 1, the “client device”
`operates as an intermediary to perform steps including “send[ing], to [a] web
`server over an Internet, the first content identifier” to request content and
`also to “send[] the received first content.” Ex. 1017, 3–4 (second two
`alterations in original). Consistent with the claim language, the district court
`recognized 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,
`
`
`8 We note that Patent Owner’s argument that “a server is not a client device
`and that a client device is not a server” (PO Resp. 15) is not supported by the
`claim language, which describes a “client device” that acts as a client to
`request content from the web server as well as a server to forward content.
`We discuss this issue in more detail below.
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`10 (emphasis omitted). That is, although the district court determined that a
`single component could not simultaneously serve more than one function at
`any particular time, components could operate in different roles, such as the
`claimed “client device.” Id. For related patents that share substantially
`identical specifications to that of the ’319 patent, the district court similarly
`found that the role-based construction applies “regardless of any additional
`role the device may serve, including as a server.” Ex. 1112, 13. We agree
`with the district court’s construction of “client device” as “a device that is
`operating in the role of a client” because this interpretation is consistent with
`the limitations of the claims. See Ex. 1020, 10.
`Specification
`b)
`The district court’s interpretation of the term “client device,” adopted
`here, is also consistent with the ’319 patent specification. The ’319
`specification, when describing the “multiple communication devices”
`depicted in Figure 3, states that the same components may assume different
`roles: “[d]ue to the functionality provided by software stored within each
`communication device, which may be the same in each communication
`device, each communication device may serve as a client, peer, or agent,
`depending upon the requirements of the network.” Ex. 1001, 4:46–50
`(emphases added). Thus, the ’319 specification indicates that the
`components identified in Figure 3 may play different roles that perform
`different functions based on their stored software. Id.
`Further, according to the ’319 specification, a communication device
`includes memory 210, which stores software 212 with accelerator
`application 220, which includes client, peer and agent modules. Ex. 1001,
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`5:58–6:40, 9:20–26, Fig. 4, Fig. 6. The ’319 specification also explains that
`“each of the [software modules] comes into play according to the specific
`role that the communication device 200 is partaking in the communication
`network 100 at a given time.” Id. at 9:23–25 (emphasis added). The ’319
`specification thus supports the role-based function of the network
`components, with components operating in different roles at different times,
`which is consistent with the claim language.
`In contrast, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art, when considering Figures 1 and 3 of the ’319 patent, would understand
`that a server is not a client device and that a client device is not a server. PO
`Resp. 15 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 82). Patent Owner argues that proxy server 6 of
`Figure 1 “must be structurally different from agent 122 of Figure 3,” and
`that “purely role-based constructions do not account for the structural
`differences between a proxy server (in Figure 1) and a proxy client device
`(in Figure 3) and therefore, the purely role-based constructions are not
`appropriate.” Id.
`For example, Patent Owner asserts with respect to Figure 1 that
`“proxy server 6 (i) receives requests from client devices 14,16 and (ii) sends
`requests to web server 32.” PO Resp. 16 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 85). Patent
`Owner argues that if a person of ordinary skill in the art “were to apply the
`purely role-based constructions, proxy server 6 would be (i) operating in the
`role of a server and (ii) operating in the role of a client.” Id.
`Patent Owner makes a similar argument with respect to Figure 3.
`With respect to Figure 3, Patent Owner asserts that “agent 122 (i) receives
`requests from client devices and (ii) sends requests to web server 152.” PO
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00915
`Patent 10,257,319 B2
`
`Resp. 17 (citing Ex. 2065 ¶ 90). Patent Owner argues that if a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “were to apply the purely role-based constructions,
`agent 122 would be (i) operating in the role of a server and (ii) operating in
`the role of a client.” Id.
`Patent Owner’s expert, Dr. Williams, testifies that if a person of
`ordinary skill in the art “were to apply the purely role-based constructions,
`proxy server 6 (in Figure 1) and agent 122 (in Figure 3) would be operating
`in the same roles at a given point in time,” and that “there is nothing to
`distinguish the architectures of Figure 1 and Figure 3.” Ex. 2065 ¶ 92.
`According to Dr. Williams, purely role-based constructions are not
`appropriate because they fail to account for structural differences between
`proxy servers and proxy client devices. Id. ¶ 93.
`We do not find that the evidence of record supports Patent Owner’s
`assertions on this issue. Dr. Williams’s testimony, and Patent Owner’s
`arguments, are based upon a modified version of Figure 3, which inserts
`“proxy server 6” between “client device” an
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
