DCT
2:18-cv-00483
Luminati Networks Ltd v. Bi Science Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luminati Networks Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: BI Science Inc. (Israel)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP; RuyakCherian LLP
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00483, E.D. Tex., 02/19/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign entity.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s residential proxy service infringes patents related to methods for fetching internet content using a network of intermediate user devices.
- Technical Context: Residential proxy networks route internet traffic through the IP addresses of real-world user devices, enabling commercial activities like anonymous web scraping, ad verification, and price comparison.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex history between the parties, asserting that Defendant’s founder previously had access to Plaintiff’s confidential information and pending patent applications while conducting due diligence on behalf of an investor in Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant hired several of its former employees. The complaint notes that Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant on February 8, 2018, providing notice of the ’866 Patent and inviting licensing discussions, which did not result in an agreement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2013-08-28 | Earliest Priority Date for '044 and '866 Patents |
| 2016-01-19 | U.S. Patent No. 9,241,044 Issued |
| 2017-07-XX | BI Science introduced its "GeoSurf" residential proxy service |
| 2017-08-22 | U.S. Patent No. 9,742,866 Issued |
| 2018-02-08 | Luminati sent letter to BI Science providing notice of the '866 Patent |
| 2018-11-08 | Original Complaint Filed |
| 2019-02-19 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,241,044 - "System and Method for Improving Internet Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,241,044, "System and Method for Improving Internet Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes," issued January 19, 2016 (’044 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes standard Internet protocols like TCP/IP, which can suffer from inefficiencies such as latency and the need to retransmit dropped packets, slowing down content delivery. (’044 Patent, col. 1:24-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to accelerate content fetching by using a distributed network of intermediate devices (referred to as "tunnel devices" or other clients) to retrieve content on behalf of a requesting client. A central "acceleration server" maintains a list of available intermediate devices. When a client requests content, the acceleration server coordinates with the client to select an intermediate device, which then fetches the content from the target data server and relays it back to the client, potentially improving speed and providing anonymity. (’044 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5; col. 51:20-49).
- Technical Importance: This peer-to-peer or distributed fetching architecture can circumvent network bottlenecks and mask the requesting user's identity, which is valuable for data aggregation and market research. (Compl. ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 81. (Compl. ¶33).
- Essential elements of claim 81 include:
- A method for a "first device" to fetch "first content" from a "second server" via a "second device," using a "first server."
- The method requires a specific sequence of communications:
- sending a "first identifier" (of the first device) and a "first request" to the first server;
- receiving a "second identifier" (of the second device) from the first server;
- sending a "second request" (for the content) to the second device using its identifier; and
- receiving the content from the second device.
U.S. Patent No. 9,742,866 - "System and Method for Improving Internet Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,742,866, "System and Method for Improving Internet Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes," issued August 22, 2017 (’866 Patent).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a divisional of the application leading to the ’044 Patent, this patent addresses the same general problem of improving the speed and efficiency of fetching content over the Internet. (’866 Patent, col. 1:23-68).
- The Patented Solution: The invention focuses specifically on a method of "partitioning" content into a plurality of "content slices." For each slice, the method involves selecting a device from a group of available intermediate devices to fetch that particular slice. After the various slices are received from the distributed devices, the requesting client reconstructs the original content. This approach allows for parallel downloading of a single piece of content through multiple routes. (’866 Patent, Abstract; col. 58:43-61).
- Technical Importance: By breaking large content requests into smaller parallel tasks distributed across a network, this method can significantly reduce total download time compared to a single-threaded download from a central server. (Compl. ¶10-11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 15. (Compl. ¶48).
- Essential elements of claim 15 include:
- A method for fetching content from a server via a "group of multiple devices," where each device in the group is a "client device."
- The method requires partitioning the content into "a plurality of content slices."
- For each slice, the method comprises:
- selecting a device from the group;
- sending a request for the specific content slice to the selected device; and
- receiving the content slice from the selected device.
- The method concludes with the step of "constructing the content from the received plurality of content slices."
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Defendant BI Science's "GeoSurf" service, described as a "residential proxy service." (Compl. ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges GeoSurf provides access to a network of over two million residential IP addresses across more than 192 countries, which are used to route customer internet requests. (Compl. ¶10, ¶21).
- The service is marketed for large-scale data harvesting and allows customers to select proxy devices based on geographic location, including specific cities within Texas. (Compl. ¶10, ¶11).
- The system architecture, as alleged, involves a customer device sending a request through a "GeoSurf Gateway" to a "First Server" operated by BI Science, which then directs the request through one of the residential proxy devices in the network to a target website. (Compl. ¶22, ¶36). The complaint provides a diagram illustrating the flow from a customer through a gateway and residential IPs to a target server. (Compl. p. 17).
- The complaint also alleges that BI Science advertises "sticky" residential IPs, which allow a user to maintain the same proxy IP address for a session of a specified duration. (Compl. ¶23; Compl. p. 21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'044 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 81) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for fetching over the Internet a first content... by a first device, identified in the Internet by a first identifier... | A GeoSurf customer utilizes its device ("First Device"), identified by an IP address ("First Identifier"), to access Internet content. The GeoSurf Gateway is also identified as a potential "First Device". | ¶34, ¶36 | col. 52:38-41 |
| ...from a second server identified in the Internet by a third identifier... | The content is located on a target server ("Second Server"), identified by its URL or IP address ("Third Identifier"). | ¶35 | col. 52:33-35 |
| ...via a second device identified in the Internet by a second identifier... | The request is routed through a residential proxy ("Second Device") in the GeoSurf network, identified by its IP address ("Second Identifier"). | ¶34 | col. 52:41-44 |
| ...using a first server... | The process is managed by a server operated by BI Science ("First Server") that implements the GeoSurf service. | ¶34 | col. 51:25-28 |
| (a) sending the first identifier to the first server; (b) sending a first request to the first server; | The customer's device sends a request with its IP address through the GeoSurf Gateway to the First Server. | ¶36, ¶37 | col. 52:45-49 |
| (c) receiving the second identifier from the first server; | The First Server responds by sending the IP address of a residential proxy device ("Second Identifier") back to the customer's device. | ¶37 | col. 52:45-49 |
| (d) sending a second request to the second device using the second identifier... | The customer's device sends a request for the content to the selected residential proxy device. | ¶37 | col. 52:50-57 |
| (e) receiving the first content from the second device. | The residential proxy device forwards the content from the target server back to the customer's device. | ¶37 | col. 52:50-57 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that "at least the GeoSurf Gateway can serve as a 'First Device'" (Compl. ¶36) and also that the customer utilizes "its device to send a request" (Compl. ¶37). This raises the question of which component in the accused system—the end-user's machine or the provider's gateway—constitutes the "first device" as recited in the claim, and whether the alleged sequence of operations matches the claim for either interpretation.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the "First Server" sends the "Second Identifier" (the proxy IP) back to the "First Device" as a distinct step? The analysis may focus on whether the accused system's routing and connection establishment process performs the specific call-and-response sequence required by steps (a) through (c) of the claim.
'866 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 15) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for fetching a content... via a group of multiple devices... wherein each of the devices in the group is a client device. | The GeoSurf service uses a network ("Group") of numerous residential proxy devices, which are alleged to be client devices. | ¶49 | col. 61:1-3 |
| ...the method comprising the step of partitioning the content into a plurality of content slices... | The complaint alleges that requested content "may be divided into portions ('Content Slices') identifiable by their own identifiers." | ¶27, ¶49 | col. 58:43-48 |
| ...and for each of the content slices, comprising the steps of: (a) selecting a device from the group; | The GeoSurf customer is permitted to select a proxy user device from the network. | ¶50 | col. 58:49-51 |
| (b) sending over the Internet a first request to the selected device... the first request including the content slice identifier... | The customer sends a request for a portion of the content to the selected proxy device. | ¶50 | col. 58:51-56 |
| (c) ...receiving over the Internet the content slice from the selected device; | The selected proxy device responds with the requested content slice, which is forwarded to the customer's device. | ¶51 | col. 58:57-59 |
| ...wherein the method further comprising the step of constructing the content from the received plurality of content slices... | The customer's client device "constructs the content from the plurality of Content Slices." | ¶51 | col. 58:60-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's central allegation for infringement of this patent relies on the accused service "partitioning the content into a plurality of content slices." The complaint's language that content "may be divided into portions" (Compl. ¶27, ¶49) suggests this may be an inference about capability rather than a direct observation of the service's operation. A key question will be what evidence exists that the GeoSurf service actually performs this partitioning function.
- Scope Questions: Does a user selecting a single proxy for a session, as depicted in a screenshot discussing "Sticky IPs" (Compl. p. 21), satisfy the claim requirement of "for each of the content slices... selecting a device from the group"? This raises the question of whether the accused selection process is performed on a per-slice basis as the claim language may require, or on a per-session or per-request basis.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "identifier" (’044 Patent, claim 81)
- Context and Importance: Claim 81 recites a "first identifier," "second identifier," and "third identifier" associated with different devices and servers. The infringement theory depends on mapping these terms to specific data points in the accused system, such as IP addresses and URLs. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether each of these terms can be read broadly as "network address" or if the patent's context requires them to be distinct types of identifiers exchanged in a specific manner.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides that an identifier "may be an IP address, a URL, or an HTTP header" and that the first and second content identifiers may be identical. (’044 Patent, col. 61:66-col. 62:2).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim structure requires a specific sequence where the "first identifier" is sent to the "first server" to receive the "second identifier," which is then used to contact the "second device." This functional relationship may support a narrower construction where each identifier must be the specific type of information needed to perform its recited role in the sequence. (’044 Patent, col. 167:23-40).
The Term: "partitioning the content into a plurality of content slices" (’866 Patent, claim 15)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of claim 15. The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused GeoSurf service performs an action that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on whether making multiple, independent requests for different resources on a webpage constitutes "partitioning" a single "content."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "partitioning may be based on file or program level" and may be based on "multiple webpages," which could support an interpretation where fetching different files from a single webpage qualifies as fetching "slices." (’866 Patent, col. 58:58-61).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides detailed examples of byte-level partitioning, where a single data object is divided into overlapping or non-overlapping byte ranges (e.g., "a first slice... may include byte #1 to byte #120"). (’866 Patent, col. 93:49-67). This could support a narrower construction requiring the division of a single file or data stream.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges BI Science induces infringement by providing its GeoSurf service to customers with the knowledge and intent that their use will infringe the asserted patents. This is based on allegations that BI Science provides instructions and advertises the service's allegedly infringing features. (Compl. ¶40, ¶54, ¶27). A screenshot of a Google search result shows an ad for GeoSurf explicitly targeting users of "Luminati." (Compl. p. 9).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that BI Science had actual notice of the '866 Patent at least as of a February 8, 2018 letter and of the '044 Patent at least as of January 8, 2018, and that it continued its allegedly infringing conduct despite this notice. (Compl. ¶18, ¶38, ¶43, ¶52, ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the operational flow of the accused GeoSurf service, with its customer, gateway, and server components, be mapped onto the specific multi-device, multi-identifier communication sequence required by claim 81 of the ’044 Patent? The outcome may depend on how flexibly terms like "first device" and "identifier" are construed.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: does the accused GeoSurf service actually perform the "partitioning" of content into "slices" for parallel retrieval, as required by claim 15 of the ’866 Patent? The case may turn on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused system divides single data objects for distributed fetching, or whether making separate requests for distinct web page elements is sufficient to meet the claim limitation.