Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 5497
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TEFINCOM S.A. D/B/A NORDVPN,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00414-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NONINFRINGEMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE INVALIDITY
`FOR THE ’511 PATENT
`
`103106177.1
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB
`EX1014
`Page 1 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 5498
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED........................................................................ 2
`III.
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS .................................................. 3
`A.
`’511 Patent Claim 1 .......................................................................................................... 3
`B.
`Prior Art HAProxy ........................................................................................................... 4
`C.
`Dr. Rhyne’s Infringement Allegations ............................................................................. 7
`1.
` ... 7
`2.
`
` ....................................................................................................................... 9
`THE ACCUSED “SELECTING” FUNCTIONALITY CANNOT MEET DR. RHYNE’S
`IV.
`UNDERSTANDING OF SELECTING “IN RESPONSE TO THE RECEIVING” .................... 10
`Any Accused “Selecting” During
` Occurs Before the “Receiving” Step
`A.
`
`10
` Is Not “Linked” To or “Based On” The
`Any “Selecting” of an
`B.
`Received Content Identifier As Required by Dr. Rhyne .......................................................... 11
`V. TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF DISAVOWS DR. RHYNE’S UNDERSTANDING OF
`SELECTING “IN RESPONSE TO THE RECEIVING,” THE CLAIMS ARE INVALID OVER
`PRIOR ART HAPROXY ............................................................................................................. 13
`VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`103106177.1
`
`Page 2 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 5499
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Rhyne Rebuttal
`Rep.
`Rhyne Tr.
`
`Freedman Rep.
`
`Freedman Rep.
`App’x S
`’511 Patent
`Tefincom CC
`Order
`Supplemental
`CC Order
`Code200 CC
`Order
`Almeroth Rep.
`
`Description
`Shorthand
`Rhyne Infr. Rep. Excerpts of August 19, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr.
`V. Thomas Rhyne on behalf of Plaintiff
`Excerpts of September 12, 2021 Rebuttal Expert Report of
`Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne on behalf of Plaintiff
`Excerpts of rough draft of September 20, 2021 Deposition
`of Dr. V. Thomas Rhyne
`Excerpts of August 19, 2021 Expert Report of Dr. Michael
`J. Freedman on behalf of Defendant
`Excerpts of Appendix S of the August 19, 2021 Expert
`Report of Dr. Michael J. Freedman on behalf of Defendant
`U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511
`Order that claim construction orders from related cases shall
`apply in this case (ECF 63)
`Supplemental Claim Construction Order (ECF 453 in Teso)
`
`Claim Construction Opinion and Order (ECF 97 in
`Code200)
`Excerpts of September 12, 2021 Expert Report of Dr. Kevin
`Almeroth on behalf of Defendant
`Declaration of Duncan Hall regarding HAProxy
`documentation maintained by Internet Archive
`(NORD0183409)
`HAProxy Architecture Guide Version 1.2.18
`(NORD0183519)
`
`HAProxy Reference Manual Version 1.2.18
`(NORD0183552)
`
`HAProxy Architecture Guide Version 1.3.15
`(NORD0183610)
`
`Hall Dec.
`
`HAProxy
`Architecture
`Guide 1.2.18
`HAProxy
`Reference
`Manual 1.2.18
`HAProxy
`Architecture
`Guide 1.3.15
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`G
`
`H
`
`I
`
`J
`
`K
`
`L
`
`M
`
`N
`
`103106177.1
`
`Page 3 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 5500
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Nassau Precision Casting Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`566 Fed. Appx. 933, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`
`103106177.1
`
`Page 4 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5501
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff accuses the prior art.
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 180. To be clear HAProxy
`
`servers, functionality, and the accused configuration scripts are all described in prior art HAProxy
`
`documentation. See Ex. D (Freedman Rep.) at ¶¶ 257-77. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff maintains
`
`its infringement theory, there is no basis to distinguish the prior art. And, to the extent Plaintiff
`
`distinguishes the prior art, any such argument necessarily leads to noninfringement. At deposition,
`
`Dr. Rhyne—who issued separate reports on infringement and validity—chose the latter.
`
`In addressing the HAProxy prior art, Dr. Rhyne focused on a particular step of ’511 Patent
`
`Claim 1: “selecting, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier from the first client
`
`device, an IP address from the group.” Ex. B (Rhyne Rebuttal Rep.) at ¶ 756.
`
`
`
` Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at
`
`171:7-172:10.
`
` Id. at 174:20-175:16.
`
` Id. at 178:11-179:3.1 Rather,
`
` Id.
`
`Dr. Rhyne’s distinction of the prior art is fatal to his infringement theory.
`
` See Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 180.
`
`
`1 All emphasis added unless otherwise indicated.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 5502
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`Neither party requested construction of “in response to the receiving of the first content
`
`identifier” and, thus, Dr. Rhyne is free to offer his opinion of a POSITA’s view of the plain
`
`language of this term. But that view must apply equally for infringement and validity. See Nassau
`
`Precision Casting Co. v. Acushnet Co., 566 Fed. Appx. 933, 938 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accepting Dr.
`
`Rhyne’s testimony above, the Court should grant partial summary judgment of noninfringement
`
`of the ’511 Patent on
`
` of Plaintiff’s
`
` infringement theories (presented in the alternative)
`
`because they cannot be reconciled with his deposition testimony.2 Alternatively, to the extent Dr.
`
`Rhyne’s infringement theory in which “in response to the receiving” is met by selecting “upon”
`
`receiving is accepted, Dr. Rhyne has conceded that the prior art HAProxy meets all claim elements,
`
`and the Court should grant summary judgment of invalidity.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`
`1) Accepting Dr. Rhyne’s deposition testimony on what is required for the “selecting” step
`
`of ’511 Patent Claim 1 to be “in response to the receiving of the first content identifier,” whether
`
`two of Plaintiff’s three infringement theories are contrary to Dr. Rhyne’s testimony.
`
`2) Alternatively, if the “selecting” step of ’511 Patent Claim 1 is “in response to the
`
`receiving of the first content identifier” when occurring “upon receiving” the content identifier
`
`without considering the contents of “the first content identifier,” whether the asserted claims are
`
`invalid.
`
`
`2
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 5503
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`’511 Patent Claim 1
`
`’511 Patent Claim 1 recites:
`
`1. A method for fetching, by a first client device, a first content identified by a first
`content identifier and stored in a web server, for use with a first server that stores a
`group of IP addresses, the method by the first server comprising:
`
`[1] receiving, from the first client device, the first content identifier;
`
`[2] selecting, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier from the first
`client device, an IP address from the group;
`
`[3] sending, in response to the selecting, the first content identifier to the web server
`using the selected IP address;
`
`[4] receiving, in response to the sending, the first content from the web server; and
`
`[5] sending the received first content to the first client device,
`
`wherein the first content comprises a web-page, an audio, or a video content, and
`wherein the first content identifier comprises a Uniform Resource Locator (URL).
`
`Ex. F (’511 Patent) at Claim 1.
`
`2.
`
`Because the claim recites that Step 2 is “in response to the receiving” (Step 1), Step
`
`2 necessarily occurs after Step 1. Likewise, because the claim recites that Step 3 is “in response
`
`to the selecting” (Step 2), Step 3 necessarily occurs after Step 2.
`
`3.
`
`The elements of Claim 1 can be roughly divided into two general concepts. First,
`
`Step 1, a portion of Step 3 (“sending … the first content identifier to the web server”), Step 4, and
`
`Step 5 recite a “first server” acting as a conventional proxy server. Second, the preamble recites
`
`the first server “stor[ing] a group of IP addresses,” Step 2 requires “selecting, in response to the
`
`receiving of the first content identifier from the first client device, an IP address from the group,”
`
`and Step 3 further requires performing the sending to the web server “in response to the selecting”
`
`and “using the selected IP address.” Id.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`Page 7 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 5504
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`4.
`
`The Court construed “sending . . . the first content identifier to the web server using
`
`the selected IP address” to mean “sending . . . the first content identifier to the web server using
`
`the selected IP address as either a sending address or a receiving address.” Ex. H (Supplemental
`
`CC Order) at 7.3
`
`5.
`
`No party requested, and the Court did not construe the phrase “in response to the
`
`receiving of the first content identifier from the first client device” in Step 2. See Ex. I (Code200
`
`CC Order).
`
`6.
`
`(Rhyne Tr.) at 178:11-179:3.
`
` Id. Specifically:
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`B.
`
`7.
`
`Prior Art HAProxy
`
`“HAProxy is a free, very fast and reliable solution offering high availability, load
`
`balancing, and proxying for TCP and HTTP-based applications.” Ex. D (Freedman Rep.) at ¶ 258.
`
`As of May 2008, the HAProxy web page made publicly available documentation divided into
`
`
`3 Claim construction in this matter is governed by the Orders and final constructions entered in
`Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso lt, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-395 (“Teso”) and Bright Data Ltd. v.
`Code200, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-396 (“Code200”). Ex. G (Tefincom CC Order).
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`Page 8 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 5505
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`sections including Ex. L (HAProxy Architecture Guide 1.2.18), Ex. M (HAProxy Reference
`
`Manual 1.2.18), and Ex. N (HAProxy Architecture Guide 1.3.15) (collectively, “HAProxy
`
`Documentation”). Ex. K (Hall Dec.) at ¶¶ 5-7.
`
`8.
`
`As described in the HAProxy Documentation, prior art HAProxy servers served an
`
`intermediary between the client and Server A:
`
`
`
`Ex. L (HAProxy Architecture Guide 1.2.18) at NORD0183520; Ex. D (Freedman Rep.) at ¶ 262.
`
`9.
`
`Dr. Rhyne agreed that the HAProxy server in the middle of the diagram is a
`
`“server.” Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 162:2-11. Dr. Rhyne agreed that the “client” on the left of the
`
`diagram “can be the first client device of the claim.” Id. at 162:17-22. Dr. Rhyne agreed that
`
`“server A” on the right of the diagram is a “web server.” Id. at 162:23-163:10. Dr. Rhyne agreed
`
`“that HA proxy received a first content identifier from a client.” Id. at 167:12-15. Dr. Rhyne
`
`agreed “that HA proxy sends that first content identifier to a web server identified as server A.”
`
`Id. at 167:16-168:3. Dr. Rhyne agreed that “in response to the sending of the [URI1] by HA proxy
`
`[to] server A, HA proxy receives content corresponding to [URI1] in an [HTTP 200 OK] message.”
`
`Id. at 168:5-10. Dr. Rhyne agreed that “HA proxy then in turns sends the received content back
`
`to what is labeled a client.” Id. at 168:11-20.
`
`10.
`
`The HAProxy Documentation further discloses HAProxy configuration scripts
`
`stored on the HAProxy server include a series of rows with different sending instructions and a
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`Page 9 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 5506
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`“balance” command indicating how to select among the rows. Ex. D (Freedman Rep.) at ¶ 262.
`
`One example is shown below:
`
`
`
`Ex. L (HAProxy Architecture Guide 1.2.18) at NORD0183520; Ex. D (Freedman Rep.) at ¶ 265.
`
`11.
`
`Dr. Rhyne agreed that in the example above that the text “balance roundrobin”
`
`“means that HA proxy will select one of the four rows that begin with server as each message
`
`arrives in a round Robin fashion.” Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 171:7-14. And, Dr. Rhyne agreed that
`
`because “there is a different IP address” in each row, “when HA proxy in action performs its round
`
`Robin balance it is going to select one of those four IP addresses as the destination IP address
`
`based on its round Robin methodology.” Id. at 171:20-172:10. As discussed above, Dr. Rhyne
`
`testified that selecting using a “round robin” methodology does not meet the claim language of
`
`selecting “in response to the receiving of the first content identifier from the first client device”
`
`because the claimed selection must be “based on receiving that identifier” and in a “round robin”
`
`methodology “there’s no link” to the actual content identifier. Id. at 178:11-179:3.
`
`12.
`
`The prior art HAProxy Documentation also discloses another balance method
`
`called “leastconn” in which “[t]he server with the lowest number of connections receives the
`
`connection” and “[r]ound-robin is performed within groups of servers of the same load.” Ex. N
`
`(HAProxy Architecture Guide 1.3.15) at NORD0183625-26. Like “round robin,” this balance
`
`method is automatic and is not linked to the actual content identifier.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`Page 10 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 5507
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`13.
`
`In rebutting the mapping of Defendant’s invalidity expert, Dr. Freedman, Dr. Rhyne
`
`asserted only that Dr. Freedman’s mapping of Claim 1 fails to show HAProxy discloses the
`
`“selecting” step (Step 3) of Claim 1 or that the “sending” (Step 4) is in response to the “selecting”
`
`because that step was not performed. See Ex. B (Rhyne Rebuttal Rep.) at ¶¶ 753-61. Specifically,
`
`Dr. Rhyne asserts that HAProxy does not disclose the activities mapped to selecting as being “in
`
`response to an event associated with a client device, such as receiving of a content identifier.” Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 756, 758, 760. Dr. Rhyne does not raise any independent challenge for any dependent claim
`
`other than reiterating the absence of the claimed “selecting.” Id. at ¶¶ 762-72.
`
`Dr. Rhyne’s Infringement Allegations
`
`C.
`
`14.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 153; Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.)
`
`at 130:22-131:7
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`15.
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 154; Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 149:21-150:15.
`
`16.
`
`Dr. Rhyne testified
`
`:
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 5508
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 38:11-39:23. Dr. Rhyne further testified:
`
` Id. at 41:18-43:2.
`
`17.
`
`Dr. Almeroth
`
`likewise confirmed
`
`
`
`J (Almeroth Rep.) at ¶ 170. But
`
` Id. And,
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 5509
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
` Id. at ¶ 171.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`18.
`
`Dr. Rhyne alleged:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 180. Dr. Rhyne does not provide any explanation of why selecting “
`
`
`
`” meets his view how this selecting is “in response to the receiving of the first
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne
`
`content identifier.” Id.
`
`19.
`
`To show alleged infringement, Dr. Rhyne cited to
`
`:
`
`Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 180, n.111, n.112. Dr. Rhyne explained that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. at ¶ 180.
`
`20.
`
`Dr. Almeroth further explained that
`
`¶ 164.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 9 -
`
` Ex. J (Almeroth Rep.) at
`
`
`
` Id. In fact,
`
`Page 13 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 5510
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`IV.
`
`THE ACCUSED “SELECTING” FUNCTIONALITY CANNOT MEET DR.
`RHYNE’S UNDERSTANDING OF SELECTING “IN RESPONSE TO THE
`RECEIVING”
`
`A.
`
`Any Accused “Selecting” During
`“Receiving” Step
`
` Occurs Before the
`
`As discussed in Section III.C.1, above, Dr. Rhyne asserted that Defendant practices the
`
`’511 Patent when
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 153.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 149:21-150:15. But this “selecting” cannot be the
`
`claimed “selecting” because it occurs before the accused “receiving.”
`
`Specifically, ’511 Patent Claim 1 recites, in part:
`
`[1] receiving, from the first client device, the first content identifier;
`
`[2] selecting, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier from the
`first client device, an IP address from the group;
`
`[3] sending, in response to the selecting, the first content identifier to the web server
`using the selected IP address;
`
`Ex. F (’511 Patent) at Claim 1. Based on the plain language, the claimed selecting must occur
`
`chronologically after the claimed receiving of the content identifier. But, here, the accused
`
`selecting occurs before the accused receiving. As such, the accused selecting cannot meet Step 2.
`
`Dr. Rhyne mapped the “receiving” step to
`
` Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 38:11-39:23.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 5511
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
` Id. at 41:18-43:2. That is,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See also Ex. J (Almeroth Rep.) at ¶ 194.
`
`Thus, the accused “selection” of an IP address during
`
` cannot meet the
`
`plain language of the claim because it occurs before the alleged “receiving” step. Dr. Rhyne does
`
`not and could not accuse
`
` as meeting the “receiving” step because
`
`
`
` does not contain the “content identifier” that “identifies the first content” as recited in
`
`the preamble. Ex. F (’511 Patent) at Claim 1. Nor is
`
` sent to the web server as
`
`required by Step 3. See Ex. J (Almeroth Rep.) at ¶ 170. Therefore, the Court should grant partial
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement for this theory.
`
`B.
`
` Is Not “Linked” To or “Based On” The
`Any “Selecting” of an
`Received Content Identifier As Required by Dr. Rhyne
`
`As discussed in Section III.C.2, above,
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 153.
`
` Id. at ¶ 180.
`
`Tr.) at 178:11-179:3.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. C (Rhyne
`
`Page 15 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 5512
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.; see
`
`Section III.C.2, above (citing to Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Rep.) at ¶ 180, n.111 and reproducing
`
`Further, Dr. Rhyne explained that
`
`).
`
` Id. at ¶ 180.
`
` Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 178:11-179:3.
`
`Finally, Dr. Rhyne’s
`
` As Dr. Almeroth
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. J (Almeroth Rep.) at ¶ 164.
`
` Ex.
`
`C (Rhyne Tr.) at 178:11-179:3.
`
`
`
`
`
` Therefore, the Court should grant
`
`partial summary judgment of noninfringement for this theory.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 12 -
`
`Page 16 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 5513
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`V.
`
`TO THE EXTENT PLAINTIFF DISAVOWS DR. RHYNE’S UNDERSTANDING
`OF SELECTING “IN RESPONSE TO THE RECEIVING,” THE CLAIMS ARE
`INVALID OVER PRIOR ART HAPROXY
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. A (Rhyne Infr. Report) at ¶ 180. To the extent selecting “upon receiving content
`
`requests” is sufficient to meet the limitation of selecting “in response to the receiving of the first
`
`content identifier from the first client device,” the Court should grant summary judgment of
`
`invalidity.
`
`Dr. Rhyne’s report challenges Dr. Freedman’s mapping only for the “selecting” step and
`
`any subsequent interlinked elements and only based on selecting not being “in response to the
`
`receiving of the first content identifier from the first client device.” See Ex. B (Rhyne Rebuttal
`
`Rep.) at ¶¶ 753-61; see also § III.B (listing Dr. Rhyne’s deposition testimony affirmatively
`
`confirming HAProxy discloses the other steps of Claim 1).
`
` Ex. C (Rhyne Tr.) at 171:7-14.
`
` Id. at 171:20-172:10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`independent challenge to Dr. Freedman’s mapping of any dependent claim (see Ex. B (Rhyne
`
`Rebuttal Rep.) at ¶¶ 762-72), the Court should find all asserted dependent claims invalid, as well.
`
` Further, because Dr. Rhyne raises no
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 13 -
`
`Page 17 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 5514
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons discussed, if Dr. Rhyne’s deposition testimony regarding a POSITA’s
`
`understanding of “in response to receiving the content identifier” is accepted, the Court should
`
`grant partial summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’511 Patent. If the scope of that term
`
`used in Dr. Rhyne’s infringement mapping is accepted, the Court should grant summary judgment
`
`of invalidity.
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 14 -
`
`Page 18 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 5515
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`Date: September 27, 2021
`
`By: /s/ Daniel S. Leventhal
`
`SCHEEF & STONE, LLP
`
`Michael C. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 18650410
`Michael.Smith@solidcounsel.com
`113 East Austin Street
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Tel: (903) 938-8900
`Fax: (972) 767-4620
`
`CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON
`& GARZA, PLLC
`
`Steven Callahan
`Texas State Bar No. 24053122
`scallahan@ccrglaw.com
`Craig Tolliver
`Texas State Bar No. 24028049
`ctolliver@ccrglaw.com
`George T. “Jorde” Scott
`Texas State Bar No. 24061276
`jscott@ccrglaw.com
`Mitchell Sibley
`Texas State Bar No. 24073097
`msibley@ccrglaw.com
`John Charles Heuton (pro hac vice)
`New York State Bar: 4305371
`jheuton@ccrglaw.com
`3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Tel: (214) 521-6400
`Fax: (214) 764-8392
`
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`
`Brett C. Govett
`Texas State Bar No. 08235900
`Arthur P. Licygiewicz
`Ohio State Bar No. 0068458
`art.licygiewicz@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Brett.govett@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Brandy S. Nolan
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 15 -
`
`Page 19 of 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00414-JRG Document 101 Filed 09/29/21 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 5516
`
`RESTRICTED – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY and RESTRICTED – SOURCE CODE
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24070337
`Brandy.nolan@nortonrosefulbright.com
`2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7932
`Tel: (214) 855-8000
`Fax: (214) 855-8200
`
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`Texas State Bar. No. 24050923
`Daniel.leventhal@nortonrosefulbright.com
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010-3095
`Tel: (713) 651-5151
`Fax: (713) 651-5246
`
`Brett McKean
`Texas State Bar No. 24057994
`Brett.mckean@nortonrosefulbright.com
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701-4255
`Tel: (512) 536-3094
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Counsel for Tefincom S.A. dba NordVPN
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing document was served by email on September 27, 2021 pursuant to
`Local Rule CV-5(a) on all counsel who have consented to electronic service.
`
`
`/s/ Daniel S. Leventhal
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(B), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing pleading is filed
`under seal pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order.
`
`/s/ Daniel S. Leventhal
`Daniel S. Leventhal
`
`103106177.1
`
`- 16 -
`
`Page 20 of 20
`
`