UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`OXYLABS, UAB,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`
`Case IPR2023-01425
`Patent 11,206,317
`
`____________
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,206,317
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 15
`
`GROUNDS FOR STANDING ...................................................................... 15
`
`III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................... 15
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED PATENT ................................................................... 17
`
`A. Overview of Shribman ........................................................................ 17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 20
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art ..................................................... 20
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`“Client device” (claims 16 and 29) and “server” (claims 1
`and 29) ................................................................................................. 21
`
`VI. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 23
`
`VII. GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ........................................................ 25
`
`A. Ground 1: claims 1, 8, 16, 17, 22, 29, and 30 are rendered
`obvious by Goodell ............................................................................. 26
`
`1.
`
`Overview: Goodell discloses a system by which
`users can view the Internet from a chosen location .................. 26
`
`2.
`
`Independent claim 1 .................................................................. 34
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Preamble ......................................................................... 34
`
`First “identifying” step ................................................... 35
`
`First “sending” step ........................................................ 36
`
`First “receiving” step ...................................................... 38
`
`Second “identifying” step ............................................... 41
`
`Second “sending” step .................................................... 42
`
`i
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`g.
`
`Second “receiving” step .................................................. 43
`
`Dependent claim 8 .................................................................... 44
`
`Dependent claim 16 .................................................................. 44
`
`Dependent claim 17 .................................................................. 45
`
`Dependent claim 22 .................................................................. 46
`
`Dependent claim 29 .................................................................. 46
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`“HTTP server” limitation ............................................... 46
`
`“Same geographical location” limitation ........................ 47
`
`8.
`
`Dependent claim 30 .................................................................. 48
`
`VIII. DISCRETIONARY FACTORS .................................................................... 48
`
`A. General Plastic does not support denying institution ......................... 48
`
`B.
`
`Finitiv does not support denying institution........................................ 56
`
`IX. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 59
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Am. Well Corp. v. Teladoc Health, Inc,
`IPR2022-00038, Paper 10 (PTAB Apr. 21, 2022) ......................................................53
`
`Apple v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) .....................................................56
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.,
`IPR2018-01760, Paper 9 (PTAB May 20, 2019) ........................................................26
`
`Commscope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc.,
`IPR2022-01242, Paper 23 (PTAB Feb. 27, 2023) ......................................................56
`
`General Plastic Indus. Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisa,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) ..................................... 48-49, 51, 53
`
`In re Hall,
`781 F.2d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..........................................................................................24
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC,
`IPR2019-01251, Paper 7 (PTAB Dec. 20, 2019) ........................................................51
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc).....................................................................21
`
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Uniloc Lux’g S.A.
`IPR2017-01797, Paper 8 (PTAB Feb. 6, 2018)...........................................................53
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. CardWare Inc.,
`No. PGR2023-00012, Paper 14 (PTAB Aug. 11, 2023) ...........................................58
`
`SK Hynix Inc. v. Netlist, Inc.,
`IPR2017-00561, Paper 36 (PTAB July 5, 2018) .........................................................26
`
`Valve Corp. v. Ironburg Inventions, Ltd.,
`8 F.4th 1364, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .........................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`Exhibit Description
`U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 (“Shribman”)
`Shribman’s prosecution history
`Declaration of Kevin C. Almeroth
`Curriculum Vitae of Kevin C. Almeroth
`“Perspective Access Networks,” by Geoffrey Goodell, dated July
`2006 (“Goodell”).
`Network Working Group Request for Comments 2616 (“RFC
`2616”) entitled “Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1,” dated
`June 1999.
`Order dated February 8, 2021, from Luminati Networks Ltd. v.
`Code200, No. 2:19-CV-396 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 97
`Catalog entry from Harvard University’s HOLLIS system entitled
`“Perspective access networks.”
`Record from the ProQuest SciTech Premium Collection database
`entitled “Perspective access networks.”
`Excerpts from Volume 65, Number 5 of Dissertation Abstracts In-
`ternational B (Sciences and Engineering), dated November 2004
`“Design of a blocking-resistant anonymity system” by Roger Din-
`gledine and Nick Mathewson, Tor Tech Report 2006-11-001, No-
`vember 2006.
`Printout of https://research.torproject.org/techreports.
`Printout of 2006 capture history of afs.eecs.har-
`vard.edu/~goodell/thesis.pdf from the Internet Archive’s Way-
`back Machine
`Printout of 2007 capture history of afs.eecs.har-
`vard.edu/~goodell/thesis.pdf from the Internet Archive’s Way-
`back Machine
`Printout of capture of http://serifos.eecs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/blos-
`som.pl dated September 5, 2006, from the Internet Archive’s
`Wayback Machine
`Printout of https://ethanzuckerman.com/2006/04/06/blossom-tor-
`and-touring-the-internets/ , a blog post entitled “Blossom, Tor and
`touring the Internets,” dated April 6, 2006.
`Printout of search on Google Scholar for “Perspective Access
`Networks.”
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`Exhibit Description
`Printout of capture of http://afs.eecs.harvard.edu/~goodell/blos-
`som/bib/author.html dated September 2, 2006, from the Internet
`Archive’s Wayback Machine
`Printout of capture history of http://afs.eecs.har-
`vard.edu/~goodell/blossom/bib/author.html from the Internet Ar-
`chive’s Wayback Machine
`Printout of capture of http://afs.eecs.harvard.edu/~goodell/blos-
`som/ dated September 2, 2006, from the Internet Archive’s Way-
`back Machine
`Order dated December 7, 2020, from Luminati Networks, Ltd. v.
`Teso LT, UAB, No. 2:19-CV-395 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 191
`Order dated June 24, 2021, from Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`UAB, No. 2:19-CV-395 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 444
`Order dated August 6, 2021, from Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`UAB, No. 2:19-CV-395 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 453
`U.S. Patent No. 6,477,581 to Carpenter
`Order dated February 28, 2023, from Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT,
`UAB, No. 2:19-CV-395 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 636
`Order dated September 7, 2022, from Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefin-
`com S.A., No. 2:19-CV-414 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 219
`Order dated September 7, 2022, from Bright Data Ltd. v.
`Code200, No. 2:19-CV-396 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 283
`Printout of capture of http://youtube.com/ dated August 29, 2005,
`from the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Paper 1, Metacluster LT, UAB v.
`Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-000936
`Memorandum dated June 21, 2022, from Katherine K. Vidal
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0149720 (Aug. 7, 2003) (“Gold-
`stein”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0206586 (Sept. 14, 2006)
`(“Ling”)
`Declaration of Dr. Geoffrey Goodell
`U.S. Patent No. 7,240,100 to Wein
`Order dated June 21, 2023, from Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs,
`UAB, No. 2:23-CV-171 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 28
`Docket sheet downloaded on September 5, 2023, for Bright Data
`Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UAB, No. 2:23-CV-171 (E.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Anthony M. Garza
`
`v
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`Exhibit No.
`1038
`1039
`1040
`1041
`
`Exhibit Description
`Declaration of Thomas Hyatt
`Declaration of Eagle H. Robinson
`Declaration of Daniel Leventhal
`Declaration of Valerie K. Barker
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`
`Petitioner Oxylabs, UAB is a real party in interest, along with Metacluster LT,
`
`UAB; Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; and coretech lt, UAB.1 No
`
`unnamed entity is funding, controlling, or directing this petition or has the oppor-
`
`tunity to control or direct this petition or Petitioner’s participation in any resulting
`
`inter partes review. Petitioner understands and believes that U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,206,317 (“Shribman”; EX1001), is owned by Bright Data Ltd. (“Patent Owner”).
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Patent Owner has accused Petitioner of infringing Shribman in Bright Data
`
`Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UAB, No. 2:23-CV-171 (E.D. Tex.) (“Bright Data Litigation”).
`
`Shribman is related to a number of other Bright Data patents claiming com-
`
`mon priority, including U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511 (the ’511 Patent), U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 10,257,319 (the ’319 Patent), 10,484,510 (the ’510 Patent), and 10,637,968 (the
`
`’968 Patent) (“Related Patents”). Patent Owner has accused Code200, Metacluster,
`
`and Oxysales of infringing claims of the ʼ511 Patent and the ’968 Patent in Bright
`
`Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, Case No. 2:19-cv-00396 (E.D. Tex.) (“Code200
`
`
`1 Metacluster, Oxysales, and Teso are no longer named operating companies. Meta-
`cluster and Oxysales were merged into Teso. Afterwards, Teso changed its name to
`Oxylabs (Petitioner). For completeness, Petitioner nevertheless names Metacluster,
`Oxysales, and Teso as RPIs.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`Litigation”). Patent Owner has also accused Teso, Metacluster, and Oxysales of in-
`
`fringing claims of the ’319 and ’510 Patents in Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB,
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.) (“Teso Litigation”). Together, these actions are
`
`the “Related Litigation,” and the patents asserted in the Related Litigation are re-
`
`ferred to in this Petition as the “Related Patents.”
`
`The table below lists litigation involving patents claiming common priority to
`
`Shribman:
`
`Case
`
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB
`et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-00395
`(E.D. Tex.).
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A.,
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00414 (E.D.
`Tex.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. NetNut, Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:21-CV-00225 (E.D.
`Tex.) (closed)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Sci-
`ence (2009) Ltd., Case No. 2:19-
`CV-00397 (E.D. Tex.) (closed)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200,
`UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-CV-
`00396 (E.D. Tex.)
`v.
`Luminati Networks Ltd.
`NetNut, Ltd., Case No. 2:20-CV-
`00188 (E.D. Tex.) (closed)
`
`Subject
`matter
`Related
`Patents
`
`Status
`
`Stayed pending
`EX1025 at 3.
`
`IPRs/EPR, see
`
`Related
`Patents
`
`Stayed pending resolution of Teso
`Litigation, see EX1026.
`
`Related
`Patents
`
`Related
`Patents
`
`Dismissed after settlement.
`
`Dismissed without prejudice.
`
`Related
`Patents
`
`Stayed pending resolution of Teso
`Litigation, see EX1027.
`
`Related
`Patents
`
`Dismissed after settlement.
`
`Before the Bright Data litigation, in April 2022, RPI Metacluster filed an IPR
`
`petition challenging all of Shribman’s claims. Metacluster LT, UAB v. Bright Data
`
`Ltd., No. IPR2022-00936, see EX1029 (petition). The Board did not institute an IPR
`
`8
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`because Petitioner “ha[d] not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged
`
`claims.” No. IPR2022-00936, Paper 8 at 2.
`
`RPIs to this Petition previously sought review of Related Patents in IPR2021-
`
`00122, IPR2020-01266, IPR2021-00249, and IPR2020-01358, in which the Board
`
`exercised its discretion and declined to institute review based on the Fintiv factors.
`
`More recently, the Board granted institution of inter partes review of the ’319 and
`
`’510 Patents in IPR2021-01492 (pending) and IPR2021-01493 (pending) filed by
`
`non-party NetNut.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner and RPIs filed additional IPR petitions challenging
`
`patents claiming common priority with Shribman:
`
` IPR2022-00103 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,044,342 (all challenged
`
`claims unpatentable, Paper 38),
`
` IPR2022-00353 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,044,344 (all challenged
`
`claims unpatentable, Paper 38),
`
` IPR2022-00687 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,190,622 (instituted,
`
`pending trial),
`
`
`
`The table below lists IPR petitions for patents claiming common priority to
`
`Shribman.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`IPR Proceeding
`Teso LT, UAB v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd., Case No. IPR2021-00122
`Teso LT, UAB v. Luminati Networks
`Ltd., Case No. IPR2021-00249
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Net-
`works Ltd., Case No. IPR2020-01266
`Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Net-
`works Ltd., Case No. IPR2020-01358
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case
`No. IPR2021-01492
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd., Case
`No. IPR2021-01493
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-00103
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-00353
`Data Company Techs. Inc. v. Bright
`Data Ltd., Case No. IPR2022-00135
`Data Company Techs. Inc. v. Bright
`Data Ltd., Case No. IPR2022-00138
`Metacluster LT, UAB v. Bright Data
`Ltd., Case No. IPR2022-00687
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-00861
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-00862
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-00915
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-00916
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-01109
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2022-01110
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2023-00038
`Code200, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2023-00039
`
`Subject Matter
`’511 Patent
`
`’968 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`’342 Patent
`
`’344 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`’622 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`’319 Patent
`
`’510 Patent
`
`10
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`To the extent not listed above, presently, U.S. applications and U.S. patents
`
`claiming, or which may claim, the benefit of the alleged priority of one or more of
`
`the patent applications to which the ’317 Patent claims priority include:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 10,069,936
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 10,225,374
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 10,313,484
`
`6. U.S. Patent No. 10,469,628
`
`7. U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510
`
`8. U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511
`
`9. U.S. Patent No. 10,491,712
`
`10. U.S. Patent No. 10,491,713
`
`11. U.S. Patent No. 10,523,788
`
`12. U.S. Patent No. 10,582,013
`
`13. U.S. Patent No. 10,582,014
`
`14. U.S. Patent No. 10,616,375
`
`15. U.S. Patent No. 10,637,968
`
`16. U.S. Patent No. 10,785,347
`
`17. U.S. Patent No. 10,805,429
`
`11
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`18. U.S. Patent No. 10,931,792
`
`19. U.S. Patent No. 10,958,768
`
`20. U.S. Patent No. 10,986,216
`
`21. U.S. Patent No. 11,038,989
`
`22. U.S. Patent No. 11,044,341
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 11,044,342
`
`24. U.S. Patent No. 11,044,344
`
`25. U.S. Patent No. 11,044,345
`
`26. U.S. Patent No. 11,044,346
`
`27. U.S. Patent No. 11,050,852
`
`28. U.S. Patent No. 11,089,135
`
`29. U.S. Patent No. 11,128,738
`
`30. U.S. Patent No. 11,178,258
`
`31. U.S. Patent No. 11,190,622
`
`32. U.S. Patent No. 11,206,217
`
`33. U.S. Patent No. 11,228,666
`
`34. U.S. Patent No. 11,233,879
`
`35. U.S. Patent No. 11,233,880
`
`36. U.S. Patent No. 11,233,881
`
`37. U.S. Serial No. 17/019,267
`
`12
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`38. U.S. Serial No. 17/146,728
`
`39. U.S. Serial No. 17/194,336
`
`40. U.S. Serial No. 17/331,980
`
`41. U.S. Serial No. 17/332,001
`
`42. U.S. Serial No. 17/332,023
`
`43. U.S. Serial No. 17/395,526
`
`44. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,578
`
`45. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,616
`
`46. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,497
`
`47. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,531
`
`48. U.S. Serial No. 17/518,601
`
`49. U.S. Serial No. 17/518,603
`
`50. U.S. Serial No. 17/332,077
`
`51. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,875 (U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319)
`
`52. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,827 (U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511)
`
`53. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,816 (U.S. Patent No. 10,637,968)
`
`54. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,652 (U.S. Patent No. 10,637,968)
`
`55. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,624 (U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511)
`
`56. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,876 (U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510)
`
`57. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/019,041 (U.S. Patent No. 10,491,713)
`
`13
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`58. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,940 (U.S. Patent No. 11,044,346)
`
`59. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,920 (U.S. Patent No. 11,050,852)
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Petitioner appoints Anthony M. Garza (Reg. No 57,334) of Charhon Callahan
`
`Robson & Garza PLLC as lead counsel, and George “Jorde” Scott (Reg. No. 62,859)
`
`and Christopher T. Bovenkamp (Reg. No. 44,551) with the same firm as back-up
`
`counsel.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`
`Service of any documents to lead and back-up counsel can be made via hand
`
`delivery to Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza PLLC, 3333 Lee Parkway, Ste. 460,
`
`Dallas, TX 75219. Petitioner consents to electronic service to the following ad-
`
`dresses: agarza@ccrglaw.com, cbovenkamp@ccrglaw.com, jscott@ccrglaw.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner seeks inter partes review of claims 1, 8, 16, 17, 22, 29, and 30 of
`
`Shribman (EX1001). The challenged claims, directed to requesting webpages while
`
`specifying a geographic location, are rendered obvious by a dissertation by Geoffrey
`
`Goodell entitled “Perspective Access Networks” (“Goodell”), as evidenced by this
`
`petition and the supporting declaration of Kevin Almeroth, EX1003.2
`
`II. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`
`Petitioner certifies that Shribman is available for inter partes review. Peti-
`
`tioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review on the grounds
`
`identified herein. Patent Owner served the counterclaim that ultimately inured into
`
`the severed Bright Data Litigation on February 24, 2023, less than a year before the
`
`filing of this petition. Shribman has not been subject to a previous final written de-
`
`cision in an estoppel-based AIA action.
`
`III. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND
`
`Web communications and routing were well-known prior to the priority date.
`
`RFC 2616, which Shribman recognizes “define[s]” “the HTTP protocol,” was pub-
`
`lished a decade earlier, in 1999. EX1001, 16:21-22; EX1006, 1; EX1003 ¶¶44-45.
`
`In addition to describing “client” and “server” operations, RFC 2616 discloses multi-
`
`hop routing using “proxy” devices running an “intermediary program which acts as
`
`
`2 Dr. Almeroth’s CV is attached, EX1004.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`both a server and a client for the purpose of making requests on behalf of other cli-
`
`ents.” EX1006, 10. That is, while communication may be “accomplished via a single
`
`connection (v) between the user agent (UA) and the origin server (O),” “more com-
`
`plicated situation[s]” were also known “when one or more intermediaries are present
`
`in the request/response chain,” such as an illustrated chain with “three intermediaries
`
`(A, B, and C).” Id., 12; EX1003 ¶45.
`
`
`
`Shribman recognizes that converting URLs to IP addresses is “known by one
`
`having ordinary skill in the art,” and is thus not described in the patent. EX1001,
`
`13:15-18; EX1003 ¶73.
`
`One of skill in the art would understand, by 2009, that the geographic location
`
`of a user could be determined. EX1003 ¶48. For example, U.S. Patent No. 6,477,581
`
`to Carpenter (filed April 9, 1996) states that many techniques are available to acquire
`
`the geographic location of a client, including accepting user input specifying the
`
`location of a client, and using an automated position-sensing system, such as GPS.
`
`EX1024, 2:34-52, 4:60-62, 5:20-28, 5:66-6:2, 6:46-7:23, 8:40, Fig. 2 block 50, cls.
`
`1-4, 6-11. One of skill in the art would also understand, well before 2009, that the
`
`geographic location of a user could be used to help select an appropriate proxy
`
`through which to access the internet or web content. Id., 5:23-43.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`
`One of skill in the art would understand, well before 2009, that audio and
`
`video files may be requested and provided using HTML. EX1003 ¶46. For example,
`
`in 1999, RFC 2616 disclosed the HTML header field “Accept” which “can be used
`
`to specify certain media types that are acceptable for response.” EX1006, 100. An
`
`example disclosed in RFC 2616 specified “audio” in the field, which would request
`
`“any audio type.” Id., 101. Further, the Internet Archive shows that YouTube al-
`
`lowed users to watch videos over HTML as early as 2005. EX1028.
`
`Content-delivery networks (“CDNs”) were well known to a POSITA before
`
`2009. EX1003 ¶47. For example, companies like Akamai began providing commer-
`
`cial CDN services in the late 1990s. Id. CDNs are described, for example, in U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,240,100 to Wein (filed in 2001). EX1034, 1:15-52. Wein discloses a
`
`network of “surrogate” origin servers, located at strategic locations, for delivering
`
`high-quality streaming-media delivery. Id. A POSITA would have been familiar
`
`with CDNs by 2009. EX1003 ¶47.
`
`IV. THE CHALLENGED PATENT
`
`A. Overview of Shribman
`
`Shribman is entitled “System providing faster and more efficient data com-
`
`munication.” EX1001, cover. The “Summary of the Invention” discloses a system
`
`with (i) a client communication device requesting data from a data server, (ii) an
`
`agent communication device, assigned to the data server, that “keeps track of which
`
`17
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`client communication devices have received responses to data requests,”(iii) a peer
`
`communication device for storing portions of data received in response to data re-
`
`quests, and (iv) an acceleration server for assigning agent communication devices
`
`to data servers and communicating that information the client communication de-
`
`vices. EX1001, 3:12-34. This system is shown at Figure 3:
`
`Shribman further describes acceleration server 162 as maintaining a list of IP ad-
`
`dresses of communication devices within the network. Ex.1001, 5:15-20, 10:25-33.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`When an in-network communication device requests information (such as from web
`
`server 152), that communication device is designated as a “client.” Id., 5:20-25. Soft-
`
`ware (on the client) routes these requests for information through the communication
`
`network, rather than querying the web server directly. Id., 8:60-64, 9:27-36. A dif-
`
`ferent in-network communication device is designated as an “agent.” Id., 5:21-34.
`
`The client sends its request for information to the agent, and the agent obtains and
`
`returns (to the client) a list of in-network peer devices that may have the requested
`
`information. Id., 9:44-50.
`
`More particularly, Shribman discloses that, when a client requests a webpage
`
`(such as the URL www.aol.com/index.html), the client looks up the IP address of
`
`the appropriate web server and sends that IP address to the acceleration server. Id.
`
`12:62-13:15. The acceleration server responds with a list of “suitable” agents. Id.,
`
`13:16-30. The client next sends its original webpage request to the listed agents in
`
`order to evaluate which agent is “best suited to” assist with the request. Id., 13:31-
`
`36. After selecting an agent, the client sends the agent requests for data. Id., 14:10-
`
`23. The agent determines, on a data-chunk-by-data-chunk basis, whether it or other
`
`in-network peers have previously stored each chunk of the requested data. Id. 14:24-
`
`41. For each chunk, the agent either (i) sends the client a list of peers that have pre-
`
`viously stored the chunk, sorted by geographic proximity to the client or (ii) loads
`
`and stores the information directly from the web server, and informs the client that
`
`19
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`the agent is the only peer for that information. Id., 14:52-67. The client then requests
`
`the data chunks from the agent and peers. Id., 15:12-23.
`
`The independent claim at issue has little to do with the disclosed system. In-
`
`stead of the using the described four-role system (client, acceleration server, agent,
`
`peer) to interact with a web server, the claim discloses two devices: a first device
`
`that requests webpages and a second device that stores a list of IP addresses that are
`
`each associated with a geographical location. EX1001, cl. 1. The first device sends
`
`a URL along with a geographic location to the second device. Id. The first device
`
`then receives a webpage from the second device in response to the received URL
`
`and geographic location. Id. The claim then requires the first device to send a second
`
`URL and geographic location, which results in a second webpage. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Prosecution History
`
`The prosecution history includes no substantive analysis of any prior art. The
`
`Examiner initially rejected all claims for double patenting over the related ’511 Pa-
`
`tent. EX1002, 240-245. After Patent Owner filed an e-TD, id., 420, the Examiner
`
`allowed all pending claims, id., 422-430.
`
`C.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`As of October 8, 2009 (Shribman’s earliest claimed priority date) a POSITA
`
`would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in computer science or related field (or
`
`equivalent experience), and at least two years’ experience working with and
`
`20
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`programming networked computer systems. EX1003, ¶41. The prior art and the ’317
`
`Patent evidence this level of skill. A POSITA would have been familiar with the
`
`field of technology described in Section III including the underlying principles of
`
`web, internet, network communication, data transfer, and content sharing across net-
`
`works, including the HTTP and TCP/IP protocols. EX1003, ¶¶44-48.
`
`V. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`Claims should be given “their ordinary and customary meaning” as under-
`
`stood by a POSITA at the time of the claimed invention. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc); 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`A.
`
`“Client device” (claims 16 and 29) and “server” (claims 1 and
`29)
`
`Certain challenged claims use the terms “client device” and “server,” which
`
`are also found in the ’511 Patent and Related Patents. EX1007, 5; EX1021, 3-4. As
`
`discussed below, across three Orders the district court repeatedly confirmed that
`
`“client” and “server” refer to the role the device plays, not to particular hardware
`
`characteristics. The Board, in instituting IPRs on the ’319 and ’510 Patents, stated:
`
`“We credit the district court’s interpretation of the claim terms. Accordingly, for the
`
`purposes of this decision we adopt the construction of a ‘client device’ as ‘commu-
`
`nication device that is operating in the role of a client.’” IPR2021-01493, Paper 11
`
`at 22; see also IPR2021-01492, Paper 12 at 19 (“we adopt the district court’s original
`
`construction, with the clarification that the second server is ‘a device that is operating
`
`21
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`in the role of a server and that is not the first client device’”), 13 (“we agree with
`
`Petitioner’s claim constructions, specifically, that ‘the devices in question may be
`
`configured to operate in different roles and are characterized by the function they
`
`perform (i.e., sending or receiving), not by any physical properties’”).
`
`In each of the Teso (for the ’319 and ’510 Patents) and Code200 (for the ’511
`
`and ’968 Patents) Orders, the Court held that “client device” means “communication
`
`device that is operating in the role of a client” and rejected Patent Owner’s conten-
`
`tion that the term required a “consumer computer.” EX1021, 10-12; EX1007, 11-13.
`
`In the Code200 Order, the Court, in construing the term “first server,” ad-
`
`dressed “whether one component can simultaneously serve as more than one of: the
`
`client device, the first server[], and the web server,” concluded “[i]t cannot,” and
`
`construed “first server” as “server that is not the client device or the web server.”
`
`EX1007, 13-15. Subsequently, it became apparent that “server” required further con-
`
`struction, and Petitioner requested a clarified construction of: “a device that is oper-
`
`ating in the role of a server and that is not the first client device or the web server.”
`
`EX1022, 2 (emphasis in original). The District Court declined to formally change
`
`the construction, but confirmed “Defendants’ understanding of the scope of the con-
`
`struction[], as represented by the requested clarification[] …, is correct” and “al-
`
`ready embedded in” the original construction. EX1023, 7-11. The Court confirmed
`
`that “a component can be configured to operate in different roles—so long as it does
`
`22
`
`

`

`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,317 to Shribman
`
`
`not ‘simultaneously serve as more than one of: the client device, the first server/sec-
`
`ond server, and the web server.’” Id., 10 (emphasis in original).
`
`RFC 2616, which the ’317 Patent confirms “define[s]” “the HTTP protocol,”
`
`further confirms role-based constructions are correct: “Any 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.” EX1001, 16:21-
`
`22; EX1006, 9; EX1003 ¶45.
`
`RFC 2616 also provides further guidance on each of these “roles,” defining a
`
`“client” as “establish[ing] connections for the purpose of sending requests” and a
`
`“server” as “accept[ing] connections in order to service requests by sending back
`
`responses.” EX1006,