Code200 UAB v. Bright Data Ltd

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-00353
• Patent #: 11,044,344
• Filed: December 23, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB
• Patent Owner(s): Bright Data Ltd.
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 6-11, 13, 16, 18-25, 29-34, 36, 39, 41-46

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication
• Brief Description: The ’344 patent discloses a system and method for increasing network communication speed and reducing congestion. The system uses an acceleration server, clients, and peers to intercept communication requests, retrieve content from multiple peer sources in parallel, and offload data transfers from primary web servers.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Crowds - Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 16, 18-23 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Crowds.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Crowds (Michael K. Reiter et al., Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions, Nov. 1998).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the Crowds system, designed to anonymize web browsing by routing requests through a random path of peer computers ("jondos"), discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Petitioner mapped the claim elements to a specific communication path example in Crowds (e.g., initiator jondo 5 → jondo 4 → jondo 6 → web server). In this path, Petitioner asserted that jondo 6 is the claimed "first client device," and jondo 4, an intermediary peer, is the claimed "second server." Crowds allegedly discloses the "first client device" (jondo 6) communicating with the "second server" (jondo 4), receiving a URL from it, sending that URL to the web server, receiving the web page back, and finally sending the received web page to the "second server" for routing back to the originator, thereby meeting all steps of independent claim 1. Dependent claims were argued to be met by inherent functionalities or explicit teachings within Crowds, such as the use of TCP/IP protocols and web browser applications.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Crowds and RFC 1122 - Claims 8, 9, 31, and 32 are obvious over Crowds in view of RFC 1122.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Crowds; RFC 1122 (Internet Engineering Task Force, Requirements for Internet Hosts – Communication Layers, Oct. 1989).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Crowds discloses establishing TCP connections between jondos in a communication path. RFC 1122, a foundational standard for TCP/IP, teaches the optional use of a "keep-alive" mechanism, where messages are periodically sent over an idle TCP connection to ensure the peer is still responsive. Claims 8 and 9 recite periodically communicating and exchanging "keep alive" messages over a TCP connection between the first client device and the second server.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the keep-alive functionality of RFC 1122 with the Crowds system to improve network reliability and resource management. This would allow a jondo to detect when a peer jondo has crashed or become unresponsive, preventing the system from expending resources on a dead connection. It would also prevent connections from being terminated prematurely due to inactivity, a known issue in networked systems.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as implementing TCP keep-alives was a well-known and standard technique for maintaining the integrity of TCP connections at the time.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Crowds and RFC 2616 - Claims 10, 11, 13, 33, 34, and 36 are obvious over Crowds in view of RFC 2616.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Crowds; RFC 2616 (Internet Engineering Task Force, Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1, June 1999).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that jondos in the Crowds system act as HTTP intermediaries (proxies). RFC 2616, the definitive specification for HTTP/1.1, teaches that intermediaries can cache content to improve performance. Claims 10 and 11 require determining that a received web page is valid, which RFC 2616 teaches as part of a cache validation process (e.g., using a "cache validator" and receiving a "special status code" if the content is still valid). Claim 13 adds limitations related to downloading and installing a software application that performs the claimed method steps.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the caching and validation mechanisms of RFC 2616 with the Crowds system for the significant and well-documented performance improvements. Caching would allow jondos to serve content directly, shortening the request/response chain and reducing latency, which would be a direct and predictable benefit.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as caching was a fundamental, proven, and widely implemented feature of the HTTP protocol designed specifically for intermediary devices like the jondos in Crowds.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 39, and 41-46 are obvious over Crowds alone, applying a similar mapping logic as in Ground 1 to the elements of independent claim 24.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner argued that the terms "client device" and "server" should be construed based on the functional role a device is performing in a given transaction, not on its specific hardware or software configuration.
• This position was based on rulings in related district court litigation and the definitions in RFC 2616, which states that its use of "client" and "server" "refers only to the role being performed by the program for a particular connection."
• This construction is critical to Petitioner's invalidity case, as it allows a single type of peer computer (a "jondo") in the Crowds system to simultaneously satisfy the limitations of both a "client device" and a "server" as it forwards requests and responses.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d) would be inappropriate because the patent Examiner committed a material error during prosecution.
• Although Crowds was of record, the Examiner issued no prior-art rejections and instead only allowed the claims after the Applicant overcame obviousness-type double patenting rejections.
• Petitioner contended that Crowds is more material than the art considered in the prosecution of related patents and that the Examiner's failure to appreciate its teachings, especially when supported by new expert testimony, constitutes a material error justifying institution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 2, 6-11, 13, 16, 18-25, 29-34, 36, 39, and 41-46 of the ’344 patent as unpatentable.