PTAB

IPR2021-01492

NetNut Ltd v. Bright Data Ltd

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Proxy Network for Content Retrieval
  • Brief Description: The ’319 patent relates to a method for retrieving content from a web server using an intermediate proxy architecture. The claimed method involves a "first client device" acting as a proxy between a "second server" (a requesting device) and a "first server" (the target web server that stores the content).

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 19, and 21-29 are anticipated by Crowds; Claims 1-2, 14-15, and 17-19 are obvious over Crowds in view of RFC 2616 and General Knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Crowds (a 1998 ACM article on web anonymity), RFC 2616 (the HTTP/1.1 specification), and general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Crowds system for anonymous web browsing, which uses a randomized path of proxies called "jondos," discloses every limitation of claim 1. In an example path where a request is forwarded from jondo 5 → jondo 4 → jondo 6 → web server, Petitioner mapped "jondo 6" as the "first client device," "jondo 4" as the "second server," and the target web server as the "first server." This mapping relies on the functional roles of the devices: jondo 6 acts as a client to the web server, while jondo 4 acts as a server to the preceding jondo. The forwarded HTTP request, containing a URL, was mapped to the "first content identifier."
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Petitioner contended that because Crowds is directed at improving HTTP communications, a POSITA would naturally combine its teachings with established internet standards like RFC 2616. This combination would have been obvious to implement features recited in dependent claims, such as determining content validity (claims 14-15) using standard cache-control headers or ensuring persistent connections (claims 17-18) using keep-alive messages.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as combining a proxy system with standard, well-defined internet protocols was a routine and predictable task.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 12, 14, 21-22, 24-25, and 27-29 are anticipated by Border; Remaining claims are obvious over Border in view of RFC 2616 and General Knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Border (Patent 6,795,848) and RFC 2616.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Border, which describes a system to reduce network latency using a chain of proxy servers, anticipates the claims. Petitioner mapped the "first client device" to Border’s upstream proxy server (107), the "second server" to the downstream proxy server (105), and the "first server" to the web server (109). The data flow disclosed in Border—where a request travels from a browser to the downstream server, then to the upstream server, and finally to the web server, with content returning along the same path in reverse—was argued to directly correspond to the method steps of claim 1.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Border expressly cites and incorporates RFC 2616. Petitioner argued that a POSITA implementing Border's system would be strongly motivated to use the more detailed and standardized cache control mechanisms from RFC 2616 (e.g., "expires," "max-age") to better achieve Border's stated goal of avoiding stale data and improving latency.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The integration was argued to be predictable because Border already operates within an HTTP framework, making the adoption of additional standardized HTTP features from RFC 2616 straightforward.

Ground 3: Claims 1, 17, 19, and 21-29 are anticipated by MorphMix; Remaining claims are obvious over MorphMix in view of RFC 2616 and General Knowledge.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: MorphMix (a 2004 doctoral thesis on a peer-to-peer anonymity system) and RFC 2616.
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that MorphMix, a system that creates anonymous tunnels through a circuit of peer nodes, anticipates the claims. In a circuit from initiator (a) → node (b) → node (c) → server (s), Petitioner mapped the "first client device" to the final node (c), the "second server" to the intermediate node (b), and the "first server" to the target web server (s). The "application data" payload, which includes the web request and is passed from node b to node c, was identified as the "first content identifier." Petitioner highlighted that MorphMix nodes can function as both clients and servers simultaneously, aligning with the patent's functional claim language.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): Since MorphMix is designed to support web browsing (HTTP traffic), a POSITA would have been motivated to combine its teachings with the definitive HTTP standard, RFC 2616. This would ensure proper handling of web content, such as by using a URL as the content identifier, which is a fundamental aspect of HTTP.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in applying standard HTTP conventions to the MorphMix system to facilitate its primary purpose of anonymous web browsing.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "client device": Petitioner adopted the district court's construction of "a communication device that is operating in the role of a client." This broad, functional definition is critical to Petitioner's arguments, as it allows intermediate proxies in the prior art (like a jondo, upstream server, or MorphMix node) to qualify as the claimed "client device" when they request content from a subsequent server, rejecting the Patent Owner's narrower interpretation limited to end-user computers.
  • "second server": Petitioner adopted the court's construction of "a device that is operating in the role of a server and that is not the first client device." This construction supports Petitioner's mapping by allowing the same type of device to function as a server in one context (serving the initial request) and a client in another, a common feature of the peer-to-peer and chained-proxy systems cited as prior art.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition was filed very early in the co-pending district court litigation, before an answer to the complaint was due and with no trial date set. Petitioner argued a Final Written Decision (FWD) from the PTAB was therefore highly likely to issue before a district court trial.
  • Petitioner also argued against denial based on a prior IPR filed by a different party (IPR2020-01266). Petitioner asserted it has no relationship with the prior petitioner and filed this IPR promptly after being sued on the ’319 patent. Furthermore, the prior petition was denied on discretionary grounds, not on the merits, providing no substantive guidance to Petitioner.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-29 of Patent 10,257,319 as unpatentable.