23-2145

This case, 23-2145, currently before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, is an appeal arising from ten inter partes reviews (IPRs) initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The appellant and patent owner is Bright Data Ltd., which develops systems for increasing network communication speed. The appellees, who successfully challenged the patents at the PTAB, are CODE200, UAB, and The Data Company Technologies Inc.. The patents at issue, including U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, along with related patents U.S. Patent Nos. 11,044,342, 10,484,510, and 11,044,344, share a common specification. They describe a "system designed for increasing network communication speed for users" by "releasing congestion from the Web by fetching [user requested] information from multiple sources, and relieving traffic from Web servers by offloading the data transfers from them to nearby peers." The system utilizes multiple communication devices that can function as clients, peers, or agents.

The procedural posture of this case involves Bright Data Ltd.'s appeal of the PTAB's decision, which found the challenged claims of its four patents unpatentable. The appeal is being heard by a panel of Federal Circuit Judges Hughes, Cunningham, and Stark. The Federal Circuit serves as the exclusive appellate court for patent cases, providing a uniform body of law for patent matters. This venue is critical as it is the final arbiter of patent disputes before potential Supreme Court review.

This case is notable due to its origin in multiple IPRs, a common strategy used to challenge patent validity outside of district court litigation. The PTAB's finding of unpatentability was primarily based on prior art, specifically an article titled "Crowds: Anonymity for Web Transactions". This highlights the significant role of PTAB proceedings in challenging software and network-related patents and demonstrates how prior art can be leveraged to invalidate patent claims related to internet infrastructure and communication efficiency.

Case Name: Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB
Federal Circuit Case Number: 23-2145
Patents at issue: U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (along with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,044,342; 10,484,510; and 11,044,344)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Status: Concluded (Affirmed on Appeal)

This case primarily involved inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, followed by an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It is not a traditional patent infringement litigation that originated in a district court.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

The Federal Circuit appeal (23-2145) originated from decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Code200, UAB, as the petitioner, challenged the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, among others, owned by Bright Data Ltd.

• PTAB Decisions (Prior to CAFC Appeal): The PTAB conducted inter partes review proceedings, ultimately determining that claims of the challenged patents, including 10,257,319, were unpatentable. The Board's findings regarding obviousness were based on prior art, specifically a reference referred to as "Crowds."
• Claim Construction at PTAB: A fundamental dispute at the PTAB revolved around the construction of terms such as "client device" and "second server." Code200 contended these terms should be construed based on their function, reflecting their plain and ordinary meaning. Bright Data, however, sought a narrower construction requiring each term to have a different structure. The PTAB rejected Bright Data's proposal and construed "client device" to mean a "communication device that is operating in the role" of a client.

Federal Circuit Appeal (23-2145)

• Appeal Filing: Bright Data Ltd. timely appealed the PTAB's adverse decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was docketed as Case No. 23-2145.
• Parties: Bright Data Ltd. was the appellant, and Code200, UAB, was the appellee.
• Key Issues on Appeal: Bright Data challenged the PTAB's claim constructions and its ultimate findings of unpatentability for obviousness. Specifically, Bright Data argued that its proposed narrow constructions for "client device" (to a "consumer computer") and "second server" (to a commercial server) were correct. Bright Data also contested the Board's conclusion on obviousness and its finding regarding the lack of evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
• Federal Circuit Decision (2025-08-01): On August 1, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decisions.
  • The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB's claim constructions were correct. It noted that the specification's reference to "client devices 60" as "consumer computers" appeared in a background example discussing prior art and did not define "client devices" generally for the claims.
  • The court further concluded that the Board's analysis of the claims was consistent with the correctly construed language and supported by substantial evidence.
  • Regarding obviousness, the Federal Circuit affirmed that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that Bright Data failed to introduce sufficient evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness to overcome Code200's showing of obviousness, particularly because Bright Data's evidence of commercial success was not sufficiently linked (nexus requirement) to the claimed features of the patents.

Outcome: The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's determination that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (and related patents) were unpatentable. The litigation concluded with the Federal Circuit's affirming opinion on August 1, 2025.

I'll research the counsel of record for the patent owner/appellant (Bright Data Ltd.), who occupies the plaintiff-side role here. Note: this is a Federal Circuit appeal from IPRs, so I'll both check the CAFC docket and the underlying PTAB proceedings where Bright Data appeared as patent owner.

I have strong leads. Let me confirm the specific 23-2145 docket entries and identify Bright Data's full counsel team, including any district-court plaintiff-side counsel.

Let me pin down the 23-2145-specific docket and confirm the full appellant counsel roster and any local/changed counsel.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff/Patent-Owner Side (Bright Data Ltd.)

Framing note (important): Case 23-2145 is not a district-court infringement action — it is Bright Data's appeal from the PTAB's final written decision in The Data Company Technologies Inc. v. Bright Data Ltd., IPR2022-00135 (the '319 patent), one of eight consolidated Federal Circuit appeals (lead case 23-2144). So there is technically no "plaintiff" at the Federal Circuit; the plaintiff-side party is Bright Data Ltd., the patent owner and appellant. In the underlying E.D. Tex. litigation (Bright Data f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, No. 2:19-cv-00396, and the companion Teso/NetNut suits) Bright Data was the plaintiff. I've therefore listed counsel in both capacities. The appellee/petitioner-side (defendant) counsel was already covered in the prior section, so I do not repeat it.

---

1. Federal Circuit appellate counsel (23-2144/-2145 consolidated) — for Appellant Bright Data Ltd.

All on the appellant's team are from Cherian LLP (the firm was formerly named RuyakCherian LLP). The Federal Circuit's August 1, 2025 opinion (23-2144, Doc. 81) lists the appellant representation as: Robert M. Harkins, Jr. (argued); also represented by Korula T. Cherian; Thomas M. Dunham, Ronald Wielkopolski, Washington, DC.

---

2. Underlying IPR / PTAB counsel for Bright Data (patent owner)

Same core team, per Bright Data's updated 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 mandatory notices (e.g., IPR2022-00687, filed Jan. 23, 2023):

• Thomas M. Dunham — Lead counsel, Cherian LLP (D.C.)
• Robert M. Harkins — Back-up counsel (pro hac vice), Cherian LLP (Berkeley)
• Elizabeth A. O'Brien — Back-up counsel, Cherian LLP (D.C.)
• Robert W. Molitors — Back-up counsel, Cherian LLP (D.C.)

Harkins, Dunham, and O'Brien all appeared at the consolidated PTAB oral hearing on June 9, 2023 (IPR2021-01492/-01493 and joined cases).

---

3. District-court plaintiff-side counsel (E.D. Tex., Bright Data as plaintiff)

From the E.D. Tex. dockets (e.g., Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, No. 2:19-cv-396; Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, No. 2:19-cv-395; Bright Data Ltd. v. Oxylabs, UAB, No. 2:23-cv-171):

---

4. Post-appeal developments (context for "concluded" status)

• Federal Circuit opinion: Aug. 1, 2025 (affirming the Board) — 23-2144 (lead) with 23-2145 and the other six appeals resolved together.
• En banc / panel rehearing denied: Oct. 1, 2025 (combined order, Nos. 23-2144 et seq.).
• A Supreme Court cert petition is docketed at No. 25-779 (Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB), signed by Robert M. Harkins, Jr., Cherian LLP (Berkeley) — raising the prosecution-disclaimer/claim-construction question. Counsel of record on the cert petition is the same Cherian team.

---

Caveats / verification notes

• The Federal Circuit opinion and certifications consistently name Harkins, Cherian, Dunham, Wielkopolski, O'Brien, and Molitors for Bright Data, but I could not retrieve the individual appearance docket-entry numbers for case 23-2145 specifically (the appeals were consolidated under 23-2144, so appearance filings are shared across the group). Treat the per-appeal docket-entry citations as unconfirmed.
• The local-counsel entries (Capshaw DeRieux / Elizabeth DeRieux) are drawn from the E.D. Tex. district dockets, not the Federal Circuit docket — no local counsel appears to be of record on the appellate case.
• No in-house counsel was identified in any public filing; Bright Data appears to have relied exclusively on outside counsel.
• If you need the exact Rule 26.1 certificate of interest signature and the formal CAFC appearance list for 23-2145, that would require a live PACER pull of the 23-2145 docket sheet (public, not sealed) — I did not fabricate those entries.

The appellees, CODE200, UAB, and The Data Company Technologies Inc., are represented by counsel from Perkins Coie LLP and Crowell & Moring LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record:

Perkins Coie LLP

• Perkins Coie has a significant intellectual property practice with over 250 lawyers and agents, and a strong focus on patent litigation and post-grant proceedings. They have been recognized for their patent litigation defense and post-grant work by Lex Machina.

Crowell & Moring LLP

• Crowell & Moring also has a robust IP litigation practice, recognized for its expertise in ITC Section 337 and USPTO proceedings, and regularly handles post-grant reviews. Their patent litigation team includes attorneys with substantial technical knowledge.