PTAB

IPR2023-01425

Oxylabs UAB v. Bright Data Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System providing faster and more efficient data communication
  • Brief Description: The ’317 patent discloses a method for fetching webpages using a first device that communicates with a second device. The first device sends a URL and a specified geographical location to the second device, which stores a list of IP addresses associated with various geographical locations, and in response, receives a webpage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Goodell - Claims 1, 8, 16-17, 22, 29-30 are obvious over Goodell.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Goodell ("Perspective Access Networks," a dissertation by Geoffrey Goodell, July 2006).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Goodell, which describes "perspective access networks," discloses or renders obvious every limitation of the challenged claims. In Goodell's system, a client (the claimed "first device") can specify not only a resource to access (e.g., a URL) but also a "perspective" (the claimed "geographical location") from which to view it. Goodell's "directory servers" (the claimed "second device") store information about network forwarders, including their IP addresses and associated geographical metadata. The petition asserted that Goodell's client device sends a request including the resource and perspective to the directory server. The directory server, which can also act as a forwarder, then facilitates the retrieval of the webpage and its return to the client. Petitioner contended that repeating this process for a second URL and location, as required by claim 1, would have been an obvious and routine use of the disclosed system. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Goodell's client is a "client device" (claim 16), its use of a web browser is an "application" (claim 17), and its system allows for successive requests from the "same geographical location" (claim 29).
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As this is a single-reference obviousness challenge, the motivation was derived directly from Goodell's explicit purpose. Goodell's stated goal was to create an infrastructure allowing users to specify the location from which they wish to view the internet. A POSITA would therefore be motivated to implement the steps of identifying a URL and a location, sending that information to a server managing location data, and receiving the corresponding webpage, as this directly achieves the objective taught by Goodell.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Petitioner argued a POSITA would have a high expectation of success because Goodell described not only the theoretical framework for perspective access networks but also a functioning real-world prototype named "Blossom" built upon the existing Tor network.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "Client device" and "server": Petitioner argued that these terms should be construed based on the role a device plays in a given transaction, not on its specific hardware characteristics. Citing district court orders and PTAB decisions involving related patents, Petitioner asserted that a "client device" is a "communication device that is operating in the role of a client." This role-based construction is critical to the invalidity argument, as the devices in Goodell's network (clients, directory servers, forwarders) are defined by their function in a given communication path.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • General Plastic Factors (Follow-on Petition): The petition argued against discretionary denial of this follow-on petition. Petitioner contended it did not know of the Goodell reference at the time of its first petition and could not have reasonably found it through a standard IPR-focused prior art search. Goodell was allegedly discovered only after a subsequent, broader search for product-based prior art was initiated in response to co-pending district court litigation. Petitioner further asserted that Goodell is non-cumulative to the art used in the prior petition (Goldstein and Ling), as Goodell uniquely discloses an architecture allowing a user to select both a URL and a specific location perspective for viewing it.
  • Fintiv Factors (Parallel Litigation): Petitioner argued against denial under Fintiv, stipulating that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue in the parallel Bright Data litigation the same grounds, or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition. Petitioner also asserted that the co-pending district court case is in its early stages with minimal investment, and that the court is reasonably likely to grant a stay pending the outcome of the IPR, weighing against discretionary denial.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1, 8, 16-17, 22, and 29-30 of the ’317 patent as unpatentable.