PTAB
IPR2022-00135
Data Co Technologies Inc v. Bright Data Ltd
1. Case Identification
- Case #: IPR2022-00135
- Patent #: 10,257,319
- Filed: November 3, 2021
- Petitioner(s): The Data Company Technologies Inc.
- Patent Owner(s): Bright Data Ltd.
- Challenged Claims: 1-29
2. Patent Overview
- Title: Network Communication Method and System
- Brief Description: The ’319 patent describes methods and systems for improving data communication speed and bandwidth efficiency. The invention uses an intermediary "client device" (acting as a proxy) to manage content requests from a "second server" (the end-user) to a "first server" (a web server storing the content).
3. Grounds for Unpatentability
Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1, 12-14, and 21-27 by Plamondon
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Plamondon (Application # 2008/0228938).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Plamondon discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Plamondon describes a system for accelerating network traffic using a network optimization "appliance 200" that acts as a proxy between a "client 102" and a "server 106." Petitioner mapped the challenged claims’ "first client device" to Plamondon's
appliance 200, the "second server" to Plamondon’sclient 102, and the "first server" to Plamondon’sserver 106. Plamondon'sappliance 200receives a content request (e.g., a URL) fromclient 102, sends a corresponding HTTP request toserver 106, receives the content fromserver 106, and sends the content toclient 102, directly corresponding to the steps of independent claim 1. Dependent claims related to caching, TCP/IP protocols, and use of a web browser were also argued to be explicitly taught by Plamondon's disclosure of the appliance's functionality.
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Plamondon discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Plamondon describes a system for accelerating network traffic using a network optimization "appliance 200" that acts as a proxy between a "client 102" and a "server 106." Petitioner mapped the challenged claims’ "first client device" to Plamondon's
Ground 2: Claims 15-17 are obvious over Plamondon in view of RFC 2616
- Prior Art Relied Upon: Plamondon (Application # 2008/0228938) and RFC 2616 (Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1, June 1999).
- Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that claim 14, which adds determining the validity of received content, is anticipated by Plamondon's disclosure of validating cached content. Claim 15 further requires this determination to be based on an HTTP header according to RFC 2616. Petitioner argued that while Plamondon describes validating cached objects (e.g., using a conditional HTTP GET request and receiving a "304 Not Modified" response), RFC 2616 explicitly defines this standard method.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing Plamondon's caching and validation system, which uses HTTP, would have naturally consulted RFC 2616, the governing standard for HTTP/1.1 at the time. This standard provided the exact mechanism for cache validation described, making the combination a matter of applying a known industry standard to improve a known system.
- Expectation of Success: The combination was expected to succeed because it involved using a well-defined protocol (RFC 2616) for its intended purpose within the type of network proxy system described by Plamondon.
Ground 3: Claims 6-11 are obvious over Plamondon in view of Kozat
Prior Art Relied Upon: Plamondon (Application # 2008/0228938) and Kozat (Application # 2009/0055471).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims reciting peer-to-peer (P2P) functionality. Kozat teaches a P2P content delivery network where a central "control server" directs a requesting client to other peers that have cached the desired content. Petitioner argued for combining Kozat's P2P system with Plamondon's architecture by implementing Kozat's control server functionality within Plamondon's
appliance 200. In this combination, whenclient 102requests content,appliance 200(acting as the control server) identifies other peer clients that hold the content and, based on criteria like distance or response time, directs the requesting client to retrieve the content from a selected peer. - Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to augment Plamondon’s proxy system with the well-known P2P benefits of increased transfer speeds and reduced server load. Kozat's P2P technique provided an effective way to pair peers and efficiently distribute requests, directly enhancing the performance of Plamondon's system.
- Expectation of Success: Success would be expected as both references use conventional network hardware and protocols. The combination involved integrating a known P2P management technique (Kozat) into a known network optimization appliance (Plamondon) to achieve the predictable result of a more efficient, distributed content delivery system.
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed claims reciting peer-to-peer (P2P) functionality. Kozat teaches a P2P content delivery network where a central "control server" directs a requesting client to other peers that have cached the desired content. Petitioner argued for combining Kozat's P2P system with Plamondon's architecture by implementing Kozat's control server functionality within Plamondon's
Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including: claims 2-5 and 19-20 over Plamondon and Price (for automatic software updates); claim 2 over Plamondon and IEEE 802.11-2007 (for MAC address identification in wireless networks); and claims 17-18 over Plamondon and RFC 1122 (for TCP keep-alive messages).
4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- Petitioner adopted claim constructions from a parallel district court litigation for the purposes of the IPR.
- "client device": Construed as "a communication device that is operating in the role of a client." Petitioner emphasized the court's rejection of Patent Owner's attempt to limit this term to a "consumer computer" and exclude servers. This construction was critical because Plamondon's
appliance 200, which functions as the claimed "client device," is often a server-type device. - "second server": Construed as "a device that is operating in the role of a server and that is not the first client device." This construction supported mapping to Plamondon's
client 102, which could also function as a server to other clients.
5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued extensively that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and §325(d) would be improper.
- Arguments against Fintiv Denial (§314(a)): Petitioner contended that denial based on parallel district court litigation was unwarranted because there was no meaningful overlap. Key factors strongly disfavored denial: Petitioner was not a defendant in any litigation involving the ’319 patent (Fintiv factor 5), and the primary prior art reference, Plamondon, was not being used by any defendant in the parallel cases (Fintiv factor 4).
- Arguments against §325(d) Denial: Petitioner argued that the petition's references and arguments were not the same or substantially similar to those considered during prosecution. The primary reference, Plamondon, was never considered by the Examiner. While a co-inventor's related patent (Samuels) was of record, Petitioner argued that Plamondon contains extensive, material disclosures not found in Samuels that directly anticipate the claims.
6. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-29 of the ’319 patent as unpatentable.