PTAB

IPR2021-01493

NetNut Ltd v. Bright Data Ltd

Title: System and Method for Relaying Web Content via an Intermediate Device
Brief Description: The ’510 patent discloses a system for distributing web content, purportedly using a peer-to-peer network. The claimed method involves an intermediate device ("first client device") that receives a content request, establishes a TCP connection with a requesting device ("second server"), sends a request to a web server ("first server"), receives the content, and forwards that content to the requesting device over the established TCP connection.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Crowds (Michael Reiter & Aviel Rubin, "Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions," a 1998 ACM article).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Crowds, which describes an anonymity system for web transactions, discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. The system uses a randomized path of intermediary nodes called "jondos" to relay requests. Petitioner mapped the claimed "first client device" to the final jondo in a path before the target web server, the "second server" to a preceding jondo in the same path, and the "first server" to the target web server. Crowds was asserted to teach establishing TCP/IP connections between jondos, sending a request with a URL (the "first content identifier") to the web server, receiving the requested content, and forwarding that content back along the path to the preceding jondo over the established TCP connection.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Border (Patent 6,795,848).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Border, which describes a proxy server system for relieving network latency, anticipates the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped the claimed "first client device" to Border’s "upstream server," the "second server" to Border's "downstream server," and the "first server" to Border’s "web server." Border was alleged to explicitly disclose a persistent TCP connection ("P-TCP") between the upstream and downstream servers. The system operates by the upstream server sending a GET request (the content identifier) to the web server, receiving the HTML content, and forwarding it to the downstream server over the pre-established P-TCP connection, thus meeting all limitations of claim 1.

Prior Art Relied Upon: MorphMix (Marc Rennhard, "A Peer-to-Peer-based System for Anonymous Internet Access," a 2004 doctoral thesis).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that MorphMix, which discloses a peer-to-peer system for anonymous internet access, anticipates the challenged claims. The system creates an anonymous "tunnel" of connected nodes. Petitioner mapped the claimed "first client device" to the final node in the tunnel (node "c"), the "second server" to an intermediate node (node "b"), and the "first server" to the target web server ("s"). MorphMix was asserted to teach that TCP connections exist between nodes. In this architecture, an intermediate node forwards a payload containing "application data" (the content identifier) to the final node, which sends the request to the server. The server's response is then sent back along the same path over the established TCP connections.
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on Crowds, Border, and MorphMix, each individually combined with RFC 2616 and the general knowledge of a POSITA. These grounds argued that any claim limitations not directly anticipated would have been obvious additions, such as implementing keep-alive messages or startup identification protocols based on established internet standards.

Petitioner argued that the claim constructions adopted by a district court in related litigation are appropriate and should be applied in the IPR. The key constructions are:
- "client device": Construed broadly as a "communication device that is operating in the role of a client." Petitioner emphasized this construction is not limited to consumer computers and allows a device to act as a client in one context and a server in another.
- "second server": Construed as "a device that is operating in the role of a server and that is not the first client device."
The importance of these constructions is that they are role-based, not hardware-based. This broad interpretation allows prior art systems, where nodes or servers in a proxy chain can serve dual roles (acting as a server to one device and a client to another), to be mapped directly onto the claim limitations.

Petitioner presented extensive arguments that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate, addressing both Fintiv and General Plastic factors.
- Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued for institution because the IPR was filed very early in the co-pending district court litigation, well before a trial date was set, before an answer was due, and before any substantive proceedings or invalidity contentions had occurred.
- General Plastic Factors: The patent was subject to a prior IPR (IPR2021-01358) by a different party, which was denied institution. Petitioner argued this should not preclude the present petition because: (1) Petitioner is unrelated to the prior petitioner; (2) the prior denial was based on discretionary Fintiv factors, not the merits of the prior art, and thus provided no "roadmap" to improve the invalidity case; and (3) Petitioner acted quickly, filing its petition within two months of being sued on the ’510 patent.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-2, 6-11, 13, and 15-24 of the ’510 patent as unpatentable.