Paper 1
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_________________________
`
`METACLUSTER LT, UAB,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_________________________
`
`Case PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034
`_________________________
`
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR POST GRANT REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 321
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 2 
`A. 
`Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ..................................... 2 
`B. 
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) .............................................. 2 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
` 
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)) ........................... 8 
`C. 
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4)) ....................................... 9 
`D. 
`III.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 9 
`IV.  THE GROUNDS IN THIS PETITION ARE NOT CUMULATIVE ............. 9 
`V. 
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED .............................................................................. 11 
`A. 
`Claims for Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.204(b)(1)) .................................................................................... 11 
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2)) .............. 12 
`B. 
`VI.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 13 
`VII.  OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY .................................... 13 
`A. 
`RFC 1035 ............................................................................................ 15 
`B. 
`RFC 2616 ............................................................................................ 16 
`C. 
`RFC 791 .............................................................................................. 18 
`VIII.  THE ’034 PATENT ....................................................................................... 21 
`A.  Overview ............................................................................................. 21 
`B. 
`Prosecution History ............................................................................. 23 
`C. 
`Claim Construction (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3)) .................................. 23 
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
` 
`
`

`

`IPR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`IX.  REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§§ 42.22(a)(2) and 42.204(b)(4) .................................................................... 28 
`A.  Ground 1 – Mithyantha Renders Obvious Claims 1-27 ...................... 28 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`B. 
`
` 
`Ground 2 – Mithyantha in View of RFC 2616 Renders Obvious
`Claim 19 .............................................................................................. 85 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
` 
`Ground 3 – Claims 1-27 are Invalid Under Section 101 ..................... 88 
`
`C. 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 101 
`
`X. 
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`

`

`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`1006
`
`RFC 1035
`
`Description
`Ex. # Shorthand
`1001
`’034 Patent U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`1002
`Olivier
`Declaration of Dr. James Olivier
`1003 Olivier CV CV of Dr. James Olivier
`1004
`’604 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604
`1005
`RFC 2616
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Hypertext Transfer
`Protocol – HTTP/1.1, June 1999
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Domain Names –
`Implementation and Specification, November 1987
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`’034 FH
`1007
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 10,440,146
`’146 FH
`1008
`1009 Mithyantha U.S. Patent No. 8,972,602 (issued March 3, 2015)
`1010
`Teso CC
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Document 191,
`Order
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-
`cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Document 97, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200 et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00396 (E.D. Tex.)
`Defendants’ Motion for Hearing Regarding O2 Micro
`Issue, Document 444, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order, Document 453,
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Redacted Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment of Noninfringement or in the Alternative
`Invalidity for the ‘511 Patent, Document 101, Bright Data
`Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, Case No. 2:19-cv-
`00414 (E.D. Tex.)
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments
`1122 Internet Protocol, September 1981
`
`1011 Code200 CC
`Order
`
`1012 Motion for
`Hearing
`
`1013 Supplemental
`CC Order
`
`1014
`
`Tefincom
`’511 MSJ
`
`1015
`
`RFC 791
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`Ex. # Shorthand
`1016
`RFC 793
`
`1017
`
`RFC 2131
`
`1018 Tesonet CC
`Order
`
`1019
`
`BIScience
`CC Order
`
`Description
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments
`1122 Transmission Control Protocol, September 1981
`Internet Engineering Task Force, Request for Comments
`2131 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, March 1997
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Document 121,
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, Case No. 2:18-
`CV-299 (E.D. Tex.)
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order, Document 130,
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Inc., Case No. 2:18-
`CV-483 (E.D. Tex.)
`1020 RFC Index August 3, 2001 archived Internet Society webpage for
`RFC Index from Internet Archive (Wayback Machine),
`available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20010803120225/
`http://www.rfc-editor.org:80/rfc-index2.html
`’777 Patent U.S. Patent No. 7,734,777 (issued June 8, 2010)
`Teso 101
`Bright Data’s Opposition to 101 Motion, Document 224,
`Opposition
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-
`00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`Order Denying 101 Motion, Document 303, Bright Data
`Ltd. v. Teso LT et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`1021
`1022
`
`1023
`
`Teso 101
`Order
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`Claim Listing
`
`Limitation
`
`A method for use with a first content identified by a
`first content identifier and stored in a first web server,
`for use with a second content identified by a second
`content identifier and stored in a second web server,
`and for use with a third server, the method comprising:
`sending, by a first client device to the third server, the
`first content identifier;
`receiving, by a second client device from the third
`server, the first content identifier;
`sending, by the second client device to the first web
`server, the first content identifier;
`receiving, by the second client device from the first
`web server, the first content;
`sending, by the second client device to the third server,
`the first content;
`receiving, by the first client device from the third
`server, the first content;
`sending, by the first client device to the third server, the
`second content identifier;
`receiving, by the second client device from the third
`server, the second content identifier;
`sending, by the second client device to the second web
`server, the second content identifier;
`receiving, by the second client device from the second
`web server, the second content;
`sending, by the second client device to the third server,
`the second content; and
`receiving, by the first client device from the third
`server, the second content,
`wherein the second client device is a portable device
`that stores, operates, or uses, a mobile operating
`system.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the steps are
`sequentially executed.
`
`- vi -
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Limitation
`No.
`
`1[p]
`
`1[a]
`
`1[b]
`
`1[c]
`
`1[d]
`
`1[e]
`
`1[f]
`
`1[g]
`
`1[h]
`
`1[i]
`
`1[j]
`
`1[k]
`
`1[l]
`
`1[m]
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`Limitation
`
`The method according to claim 1, wherein at least two
`steps are concurrently executed using multitasking or
`multiprocessing.
`The method according to claim 1, further comprising
`receiving, by the third server from the first client
`device, the first content identifier; and in response
`sending, by the third server to the second client device,
`the first content identifier.
`The method according to claim 4, for use with a group
`of devices that includes the second client device, each
`device in the group is identified in the Internet using a
`respective identifier that is an IP address in IPv4 or
`IPv6 form, wherein the identifiers of the devices in the
`group are stored in the third server.
`The method according to claim 5, further comprising
`selecting, by the third server, the second client device
`from the group, in response to the receiving of the first
`content identifier from the first client device.
`The method according to claim 6, wherein the selecting
`comprises randomly selecting.
`The method according to claim 6, wherein the selecting
`is based on an attribute or a characteristic of the
`selected device.
`The method according to claim 6, wherein the selecting
`is based on a physical geographical location of the
`selected device.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the selecting
`is based on a physical geographical proximity to the
`first web server.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the
`selecting is based on the value of the selected device
`identifier.
`The method according to claim 9, wherein the selecting
`is based on past activities.
`The method according to claim 12, wherein the
`selecting is based on a timing of an event.
`
`- vii -
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Limitation
`No.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`Limitation
`
`The method according to claim 1, further comprising
`receiving, by the third server from the second client
`device, the first content; and in response sending, by
`the third server to the first client device, the first
`content.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the first
`content includes, consists of, or comprises, a part or
`whole of files, text, numbers, audio, voice, multimedia,
`video, images, music, or computer program.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the first
`content includes, consists of, or comprises, a part of, or
`a whole of, a web-site page.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein each of the
`identifiers comprises a respective URL.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the first or
`second web server responds to HTTP requests via the
`Internet.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the
`communication with the first or second client device is
`based on, or using, HTTP persistent connection.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the
`communication over the Internet with the first or
`second client device is based on, or according to,
`TCP/IP protocol or connection.
`The method according to claim 1, further comprising
`establishing a connection with the first client device or
`the second client device using TCP, and wherein the
`connection is established by performing ‘Active
`OPEN’ or ‘Passive OPEN’.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the first or
`second client device is communicating over the
`Internet using a VPN.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the third
`server is storing, operating, or using, a server operating
`system.
`
`- viii -
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Limitation
`No.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`Limitation
`
`The method according to claim 23, wherein the server
`operating system consists or, comprises of, or based on,
`one out of Microsoft Windows Server®, Linux, or
`UNIX.
`The method according to claim 23, wherein the server
`operating system consists or, comprises of, or based on,
`one out of Microsoft Windows Server® 2003 R2,
`2008, 2008 R2, 2012, or 2012 R2 variant, Linux™ or
`GNU/Linux based Debian GNU/Linux, Debian
`GNU/kFreeBSD, Debian GNU/Hurd, Fedora™,
`Gentoo™, Linspire™, Mandriva, Red Hat® Linux,
`SuSE, and Ubuntu®, UNIX® variant Solaris™,
`AIX®, Mac™ OS X, FreeBSD®, OpenBSD, and
`NetBSD®.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the second
`client device is a cellular telephone device.
`The method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile
`operating system is one out of Android version 2.2
`(Froyo), Android version 2.3 (Gingerbread), Android
`version 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), Android Version
`4.2 (Jelly Bean), Android version 4.4 (KitKat), Apple
`iOS version 3, Apple iOS version 4, Apple iOS version
`5, Apple iOS version 6, Apple iOS version 7, Microsoft
`Windows® Phone version 7, Microsoft Windows®
`Phone version 8, Microsoft Windows® Phone version
`9, and Blackberry® operating system.
`
`- ix -
`
`
`
`Claim
`
`Limitation
`No.
`
`24
`
`24
`
`25
`
`25
`
`26
`
`26
`
`27
`
`27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Challenged Claims recite well-known concepts of a server routing HTTP
`
`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`requests and responses through proxy devices to retrieve content from a web server.
`
`Specifically, Claim 1 of the ’034 Patent recites routing of “content identifiers”
`
`(HTTP requests) and return routing of the received “content” over the following
`
`path: [green] “first client device” – [purple] “third server” – [red] “second client
`
`device” – [blue] “web server.” EX1001, Claim 1. This concept, as well as the
`
`recited routing elements, were well known by 2013.
`
`Mithyantha discloses routing “Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)” traffic
`
`“flow[ing] from [green] client to [purple] first appliance [200a], from first appliance
`
`to [red] second appliance [200b] …, and from second appliance to [blue] server, and
`
`vice versa.” EX1009, 21:26-30, 54:17-23.
`
`
`
`
`
`EX1001, FIG. 13 (annotated)
`
`EX1009, FIG. 1B (annotated)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`Mithyantha further discloses Claim 1’s recitation that the claimed “second
`
`client device is a portable device that stores, operates, or uses, a mobile operating
`
`system,” disclosing that appliance 200b may be a “mobile telephone” and include
`
`an “operating system[] for mobile computing devices.” EX1009, 13:65-14:2, 16:58-
`
`64, 16:27-50. Mithyantha renders the Challenged Claims obvious.
`
`Further, the Challenged Claim are unpatentable as directed to the abstract idea
`
`of sending internet requests and responses through an intermediary device rather
`
`than the original requestor. Claim 1 recites nothing other than single-word
`
`functional recitations of “sending” and “receiving” “content identifiers” or “content”
`
`and using a “portable device,” which the patent describes not as inventive, but rather
`
`lists as nothing more than one in a laundry list of conventional hardware options for
`
`performing the abstract method. EX1001, 169:5-22.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Party in Interest (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties-in-interest are the Petitioner Metacluster LT, UAB
`
`(“Metacluster”) as well as Code200, UAB (“Code200”); Teso LT, UAB (“Teso”);
`
`and Oxysales, UAB (“Oxysales”); and Coretech LT, UAB.
`
`B. Related Matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`
`Litigation
`The ’034 Patent is a continuation of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,742,866 (the ’866
`
`Patent) and a divisional of 9,241,044 (the ’044 Patent). The ’034 Patent also shares
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`a common specification and priority claim with the ’866 Patent and U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,469,614 (the ’614 Patent). PO has accused Teso, Metacluster, and Oxysales of
`
`infringing claims of the ’614 Patent in Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, Case No.
`
`2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex.) (“Teso Litigation”), BI Science of infringing claims of
`
`the ’614 Patent in Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd., Case No. 2:19-
`
`CV-00397 (E.D. Tex.), and Tefincom S.A. of infringing claims of the ’614 Patent in
`
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A NordVPN, 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(the “Tefincom Litigation”). PO has accused Tesonet and Metacluster of infringing
`
`claims of the ’044 and ’866 Patents in Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, 2-
`
`18-cv-00299 (E.D. Tex.) (“Tesonet Litigation”), BIScience of infringing claims of
`
`the ’044 and ’866 Patents in Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Ltd. a/k/a
`
`BIScience Inc., 2-18-cv-00483 (E.D. Tex.), and IP Ninja Ltd. of infringing claims of
`
`the ’044 and ’866 Patents in Luminati Networks Ltd. v. IP Ninja Ltd., 2-19-cv-00196
`
`(E.D. Tex.). Together, these actions are the “Related Litigation,” and the patents
`
`asserted in the Related Litigation are referred to in this Petition as the “Related
`
`Patents.”
`
`There is no litigation involving the ’034 Patent. The table below lists litigation
`
`involving patents claiming common priority to the ’034 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case
`
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. D/B/A
`NordVPN, 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No.
`2:19-CV-00395 (E.D. Tex.).
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Science (2009) Ltd.,
`Case No. 2:19-CV-00397 (E.D. Tex.) (closed)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. IP Ninja Ltd. 2-19-cv
`00196 (E.D. Tex.) (closed)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Ltd. a/k/a
`BIScience Inc. 2-18-cv-00483 (E.D. Tex.) (closed)
`Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet
`2-18-cv-00299 (E.D. Tex.) (closed)
`
`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`Subject Matter
`
`’614 Patent
`
`’614 Patent
`
`’614 Patent
`
`’866 Patent, ’044 Patent
`
`’866 Patent, ’044 Patent
`
`’866 Patent, ’044 Patent
`
`
`Administrative Proceedings
`The related ’614 Patent was the subject of a petition for inter partes review in
`
`IPR2020-01506. The Board exercised its discretion and declined to institute review
`
`based on the Fintiv factors – the Board considered, but did not discuss any specific
`
`aspect of, the substantive merits of each petition within that framework. Code200,
`
`UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd., Case No. IPR2021-01506, Paper 10 at 8-13 (PTAB
`
`Feb. 16, 2021).
`
`Additionally, the ’866 Patent and ’044 Patent are the subject of IPR petitions
`
`in IPR2021-01503 and IPR2021-01502. The table below lists IPR petitions for
`
`patents claiming common priority to the ‘034 Patent.
`
`IPR Proceeding
`Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`
`- 4 -
`
`Subject Matter
`’866 Patent
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR Proceeding
`Case No. IPR2021-01503
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2021-00465
`BI Science Ltd. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2020-00167
`Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2021-01502
`NetNut Ltd. v. Bright Data Ltd. f/k/a
`Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2021-00458
`BI Science Ltd. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2020-00166
`Code200, UAB et al v. Bright Data Ltd.,
`Case No. IPR2021-01506
`
`
`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`Subject Matter
`
`’866 Patent
`
`’866 Patent
`
`’044 Patent
`
`’044 Patent
`
`’044 Patent
`
`’614 Patent
`
`To the extent not listed above, presently, every U.S. application and U.S.
`
`patent claiming, or which may claim, the benefit of the alleged priority of one or
`
`more of the patent applications to which the ‘034 Patent claims priority follows:
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 9,241,044
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 9,742,866
`
`3. U.S. Patent No. 10,277,711
`
`4. U.S. Patent No. 10,440,146
`
`5. U.S. Patent No. 11,012,530
`
`6. U.S. Patent No. 10,652,357
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`7. U.S. Patent No. 10,659,562
`
`8. U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614
`
`9. U.S. Patent No. 10,440,146
`
`10. U.S. Patent No. 10,652,358
`
`11. U.S. Patent No. 10,721,325
`
`12. U.S. Patent No. 10,469,615
`
`13. U.S. Patent No. 10,924,580
`
`14. U.S. Patent No. 11,012,529
`
`15. U.S. Patent No. 10,447,809
`
`16. U.S. Patent No. 10,999,402
`
`17. U.S. Patent No. 11,005,967
`
`18. U.S. Patent No. 11,012,530
`
`19. U.S. Patent No. 11,233,872
`
`20. U.S. Patent No. 11,316,950
`
`21. U.S. Patent No. 11,349,953
`
`22. U.S. Patent No. 11,303,724
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 11,310,341
`
`24. U.S. Patent No. 11,272,034
`
`25. U.S. Patent No. 10,986,208
`
`26. U.S. Patent No. 11,336,745
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`27. U.S. Patent No. 11,336,746
`
`28. U.S. Patent No. 10,979,533
`
`29. U.S. Patent No. 11,102,326
`
`30. U.S. Patent No. 11,178,250
`
`31. U.S. Patent No. 11,388,257
`
`32. U.S. Serial No. 16/593,999
`
`33. U.S. Serial No. 16/865,364
`
`34. U.S. Serial No. 16/865,366
`
`35. U.S. Serial No. 17/146,649
`
`36. U.S. Serial No. 17/194,272
`
`37. U.S. Serial No. 17/194,273
`
`38. U.S. Serial No. 17/396,789
`
`39. U.S. Serial No. 17/518,595
`
`40. U.S. Serial No. 17/518,594
`
`41. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,660
`
`42. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,696
`
`43. U.S. Serial No. 17/563,751
`
`44. U.S. Serial No. 17/681,754
`
`45. U.S. Serial No. 17/681,755
`
`46. U.S. Serial No. 17/681,758
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`47. U.S. Serial No. 17/681,759
`
`48. U.S. Serial No. 17/681,761
`
`49. U.S. Serial No. 17/714,180
`
`50. U.S. Serial No. 17/714,185
`
`51. U.S. Serial No. 17/717,084
`
`52. U.S. Serial No. 17/717,086
`
`53. U.S. Serial No. 17/828,340
`
`54. U.S. Serial No. 17/828,379
`
`55. U.S. Serial No. 17/828,423
`
`56. U.S. Serial No. 17/861,367
`
`57. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/014,880 (U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614)
`
`58. U.S. Re-examination No. 90/019,025 (U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614)
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3))
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Lead Counsel
`Eagle H. Robinson (Reg. No. 61,361) Daniel S. Leventhal (Reg. No. 59,576)
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`D.
`
`Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(4))
`Lead Counsel
`Back-Up Counsel
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`Eagle H. Robinson
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
`Fulbright Tower
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`1301 McKinney Street, Suite 5100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Houston, Texas 77010
`512.536.3083 (telephone)
`713.651.8360 (telephone)
`512.536.4598 (facsimile)
`713.651.5246 (facsimile)
`eagle.robinson@nortonrosefulbright.com
`daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`
`Petitioners consent to electronic service.
`
`III. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(a), Petitioner certifies that the ’034 Patent is
`
`available for post grant review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting a post grant review on the grounds identified in this Petition. The ’034
`
`Patent has not been subject to a previous final written decision in an estoppel-based
`
`AIA proceeding.
`
`IV. THE GROUNDS IN THIS PETITION ARE NOT CUMULATIVE
`The factors considered under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d) do not weigh in
`
`favor of exercising discretion to deny institution. The ’034 patent has not been
`
`challenged in any prior PGR petition. As such, none of discretionary factors 1-5 set
`
`forth in General Plastic apply to this Petition. See General Plastic Co., Ltd. v. Canon
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, at 15-16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19)
`
`(precedential).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`Additionally, no prior art rejections were made during prosecution of the ’034
`
`patent. Mithyantha and RFC 2616 were among over 500 references submitted in
`
`IDSs during prosecution, however, none were substantively discussed by the
`
`Examiner. EX1007, 69-71/863, 82-87/863, 302-310/863, 706-850/863. The
`
`Examiner did not issue any rejections beyond a double-patenting rejection over the
`
`related U.S. Pat. No. 10,440,146 Patent (the “’146 Patent”). Id., 106-115/863. As
`
`set forth below, the Examiner erred by allowing the claims over the Grounds in this
`
`Petition, and the lack of analysis during prosecution weighs against discretionary
`
`denial. Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Ges.m.b.H
`
`et al., No. IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 at 10-11 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2020).
`
`Moreover, the Grounds in this Petition are not cumulative of the examination
`
`of the ’146 Patent. There, Applicants overcame a Wang-Bornstein-Van Phan
`
`obviousness rejection by arguing non-combinability and that the mapped prior art
`
`failed to teach or suggest (among other limitations) receiving at a first server
`
`first/second content identification and sending the first/second content identification
`
`to first/second content servers via intermediate/tunnel devices. EX1008, 66-68/1065,
`
`167-174/1065, 302-333/1065. The Grounds here do not rely on Wang, Bornstein,
`
`or Van Phan, and Mithyantha establishes arguments that have not been considered
`
`for claims of the ’034 patent, including sending first/second content identification
`
`from a server to multiple servers 106a-n, via intermediate/tunnel devices 200’/200b-
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`n. Accordingly, discretionary denial under either of §§ 314(a) or 325(d) is not
`
`warranted.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner has accused Petitioner of harassment in other PTAB
`
`proceedings based on the fact that Petitioner has challenged patents that are not
`
`asserted in litigation against Petitioner. Patent Owner has done so despite the fact
`
`that those challenged patents are related to ones Patent Owner has asserted against
`
`Petitioner. Ultimately, Petitioner has a legitimate interest in challenging the ’034
`
`Patent based on Patent Owner’s ongoing litigation. As described in Section II.B.1,
`
`the Challenged Claims share common claim terms and language with several patents
`
`asserted in litigation. As such, and particularly under the present circumstances, the
`
`fact that the ’034 Patent is not asserted in litigation is not inconsistent with the AIA’s
`
`purpose of encouraging meritorious validity challenges to improve patent quality.
`
`See, e.g., Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-00182,
`
`Paper 11 at 18-20 (PTAB May 25, 2022) (citing Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v.
`
`U.S. Well Servs., LLC, IPR2021-01316, Paper 9 at 9 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2022);
`
`Coalition for Affordable Drugs VI, LLC v. Celgene Corp., IPR2015-01092, Paper
`
`19 at 4 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2015)).
`
`STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF REQUESTED FOR EACH
`CLAIM CHALLENGED
`A. Claims for Which Review Is Requested (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(1))
`Petitioner requests review and cancellation of claims 1-27.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`B.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(2))1
`Ground 1: Claims 1-27 are invalid under § 103(a) over U.S. Pat. No.
`
`8,972,602 (“Mithyantha”).
`
`Mithyantha was filed on June 15, 2012—over a year before the earliest
`
`claimed priority date of the ’034 Patent, and is prior art under post-AIA §102(a)(2).
`
`Ground 2: Claim 19 is invalid under § 103(a) over U.S. Pat. No. 8,972,602
`
`(“Mithyantha”) in view of RFC 2616.
`
`RFC 2616 was published in 1999 and is thus prior art under post-AIA
`
`§102(a)(1). EX1005, 1/114 (“June, 1999); EX1002, ¶42.2 The ’034 Patent explicitly
`
`recognizes RFC 2616 and its publishing date in the “Background” section: “HTTP
`
`version 1.1 was standardized as RFC 2616 (June 1999).” EX1001, 4:67-5:1. RFCs
`
`posted on the Internet are published in the ordinary course by established standards
`
`organizations, and are intended to be viewed by the interested Internet engineering
`
`
`1 All Grounds are supported by a POSITA’s general knowledge. Koninklijke Philips
`
`N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`2 RFC 2616 was obtained from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2616
`
`(EX1002, ¶37) and was publicly indexed no later than 2001. EX1020, 20/109, 1/109
`
`(RFC Index archived Aug. 3, 2001).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`audience at large as of their dates of publication as stated on the cover of each.
`
`EX1002, ¶39.
`
`Ground 3: Claims 1-27 are invalid under § 101.
`
`VI. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A POSITA as of August 28, 20133—the ’034 Patent’s earliest claimed priority
`
`date—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
`
`programming networked computer systems. EX1002, ¶33. The prior art and the
`
`‘034 Patent also evidence this level of ordinary skill. Here, the background
`
`technology described in Section VII and the prior art described in Section IX
`
`demonstrate that a POSITA would have been familiar with the underlying principles
`
`of Web, Internet, network communication, data transfer, and content sharing across
`
`networks, including DNS, HTTP, and TCP/IP protocols. EX1002, ¶33.
`
`VII. OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY
`The ’034 Patent assumes that a POSITA reviewing the patent would possess
`
`a basic understanding of Internet communications, including usage of HTTP web
`
`requests and corresponding responses, the Domain Name Service (DNS) protocol,
`
`
`3 All statements in this Petition about the knowledge and skills of, and what would
`
`have been obvious to, a POSITA are offered from this perspective as of this date.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`and the TCP/IP protocol. EX1002, ¶36. The inventors named on the ’034 Patent
`
`did not invent the Internet protocols to which they cite, both because the ’034 Patent
`
`specification refers to the existing protocols and because, as discussed below, DNS,
`
`HTTP, and TCP/IP were defined and well known to a POSITA well prior to the
`
`priority date of the ’034 Patent. For example, the ‘034 Patent discloses that data
`
`servers may be “HTTP servers, sometimes known as web servers.” EX1001, 31:57-
`
`59. The Patent also defines the Internet in terms of TCP/IP: “The Internet is a global
`
`system of interconnected computer networks that use the standardized Internet
`
`Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) . . . .” Id., 1:31-33.
`
`The ’604 Patent (the specification of which is incorporated into the
`
`specification of the ’034 Patent) also discloses that the web server may be “a typical
`
`HTTP server, such as those being used to deliver content on any of the many such
`
`servers on the Internet.” EX1004, 4:54-55. The ’604 Patent further admits that HTTP
`
`and TCP/IP are known to a POSITA, stating, “As is known by those having ordinary
`
`skill in the art, TCPIP is a relatively low-level protocol, as opposed to HTTP, which
`
`is a high level protocol.” EX1004, 16:52-54.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`
`A. RFC 1035
`DNS was defined in a few dozen RFCs, including RFC 1035, published in
`
`November 1987.4 EX1006, 1/55; EX1002, ¶39. A POSITA has long understood,
`
`since well before the August 2013 priority date, that web servers are commonly
`
`identified by domain names in URLs, such as “uspto.gov.” EX1002, ¶40. A
`
`POSITA familiar with Internet requests and the commonly employed methodologies
`
`for Internet requests would have also understood that the selection of an IP address
`
`is a standard aspect of Internet communications. EX1002, ¶40. Indeed, clients using
`
`HTTP for internet communications rely on the Domain Name Service. EX1006,
`
`94/114 (stating that “clients using HTTP rely heavily on the Domain Name
`
`Service”); EX1002, ¶40. Through a DNS process, a domain name is resolved (using
`
`a DNS resolver) to an IP address so that the web server may be contacted via TCP/IP.
`
`EX1006, 3, 43-46/55; EX1002, ¶41. A DNS resolver running on a client device or
`
`server will typically have the IP addresses of many DNS names stored in its DNS
`
`
`4 RFC 1035 was published by the Network Working Group of the Internet
`
`Engineering Task Force (IETF) in November 1987. EX1016, 1. RFC 1035 was
`
`obtained from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc10351/ (EX1002, ¶39) and was
`
`publicly indexed no later than 2001. EX1020, 79/109, 1/109 (RFC Index archived
`
`Aug. 3, 2001).
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`PGR2022-00052
`Patent 11,272,034 B2
`cache, leading to much lower latency when determining the IP address associated
`
`with a domain name, e.g., when sending a web request. EX1006, 47/55; EX1002,
`
`¶41. Once a domain name is resolved to an IP address associated with a web server,
`
`a client’s web browser can construct the HTTP request using the resolved IP address
`
`as the destination IP address. See Section VII.C; EX1002, ¶41.
`
`B. RFC 2616
`Web communications and routing were well-known prior to the priority date.
`
`RFC 2616, which the ‘034 Patent confirms “standardized” version 1.1 of “HTTP,”
`
`was published