PTAB

IPR2020-01358

Code200 UAB v. Luminati Networks Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Web Content Retrieval via Intermediary Device
  • Brief Description: The ’510 patent relates to a method for using a "first client device" as an intermediary proxy to retrieve web content from a web server on behalf of a "second server." The first client device then forwards the retrieved content to the second server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-2, 6-7, 15-16, and 18-23 by Crowds

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Crowds (a 1998 article titled “Anonymity for Web Transactions”).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Crowds, a system for protecting user anonymity on the web, anticipates the challenged claims. In Crowds, user computers ("jondos") form random paths to relay HTTP requests to web servers. Petitioner mapped claim 1 by identifying the final jondo in a path as the "first client device," an intermediate jondo as the "second server," and the target server as the "web server." Crowds allegedly discloses all method steps: (a) establishing a TCP connection between jondos, (b) the final jondo sending a content identifier (URL) to the web server, (c) receiving the content from the web server, and (d) sending the received content back to the intermediate jondo over the established TCP connection.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner emphasized that Crowds explicitly describes using a large network of ordinary users' computers as nodes, achieving the same benefits of anonymity and scalability that the patent owner argued for the ’510 patent.

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 1, 6, 10, 15-20, and 23-24 by Border

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Border (Patent 6,795,848).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Border, which relates to retrieving web content using proxy servers to relieve traffic congestion, anticipates the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped the claimed "first client device" to Border’s upstream proxy server (107) and the "second server" to its downstream proxy server (105). Border’s system allegedly discloses all steps of claim 1: (a) a persistent TCP connection is established between the upstream and downstream servers, (b) the upstream server sends a URL request to the web server, (c) the upstream server receives the HTML content, and (d) it forwards the content to the downstream server over the TCP connection.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner noted that Border explicitly teaches using general-purpose personal computers to operate as proxy servers and discloses benefits of relieving traffic congestion and network latency, directly overlapping with the alleged benefits of the ’510 patent.

Ground 3: Anticipation of Claims 1-2, 6-8, 13, 15-16, and 18-23 by MorphMix

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: MorphMix (a 2004 doctoral thesis on a peer-to-peer anonymous internet access system).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that MorphMix, a peer-to-peer system for anonymous internet access, anticipates the challenged claims. In MorphMix, a series of nodes establish an anonymous tunnel to a web server. Petitioner mapped the "first client device" to the final node in the tunnel, the "second server" to an intermediate node, and the target as the "web server." The system allegedly discloses all steps of claim 1: (a) TCP connections exist between nodes, (b) the final node sends the content identifier to the web server, (c) the final node receives the content, and (d) it sends the content back to the intermediate node.
    • Key Aspects: MorphMix explicitly states it supports HTTP (versions 1.0 and 1.1) and that any computer connected to the internet can join the network, reinforcing the argument that the claimed method was known in the context of peer-based proxy networks.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combining each of the primary references (Crowds, Border, and MorphMix) with the general knowledge of a POSA and the disclosures of RFC 2616 (the specification for HTTP/1.1). These grounds argued that any minor element not explicitly disclosed by the primary reference would have been an obvious implementation detail to a POSA, such as using standard HTTP features for cache validation (claims 10-11) or periodic keep-alive messages (claims 8-9).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner argued that no express claim construction was necessary, as the plain and ordinary meanings of the terms should apply. However, Petitioner highlighted that the roles of "first client device" and "second server" are functional and not tied to any specific hardware.
  • Petitioner supported this by pointing to the patent's specification and the Patent Owner's own representations in parallel litigation, where the Patent Owner equated "first client device" with an "agent" and "second server" with a "client" from a system diagram. This broad interpretation, Petitioner argued, allows for these roles to be fulfilled by peer nodes in a network (as in Crowds or MorphMix) or by chained proxy servers (as in Border), which are implemented on general-purpose computers.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The core arguments were:
    • The parallel district court litigation was at a very early stage, with the scheduling conference having only recently occurred and claim construction months away.
    • The trial date was set for May 2021, well after the Board’s projected Final Written Decision (FWD), and Petitioner noted the Patent Owner had a history of seeking to delay trial dates in other matters.
    • The petition challenges several claims not at issue in the district court case, meaning an IPR would be the only forum to address their validity.
    • One of the petitioners (Code200) was not a defendant in the parallel litigation involving the ’510 patent, further weighing against denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 6-11, 13, and 15-24 of Patent 10,484,510 as unpatentable.