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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["23-2145 Federal Circuit counsel Bright Data Ltd.", "Bright Data Ltd. v. CODE200, UAB Federal Circuit counsel", "23-2145 CAFC docket", "Bright Data Ltd. patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in the Federal Circuit case 23-2145.
The plaintiff is Bright Data Ltd.
I need to find the attorneys representing Bright Data Ltd. in this appeal, along with their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience.
I will use web search, focusing on the Federal Circuit docket for case 23-2145, firm websites, and legal news sources.Here is the identified counsel of record representing Bright Data Ltd. in the Federal Circuit case 23-2145:

• Robert F. Alpert

  • Role: Counsel of Record
  • Firm: Robert Alpert Law
  • Office Location: Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Mr. Alpert frequently represents clients in appeals before the Federal Circuit, often in patent and PTAB-related matters.

• David E. Boundy

  • Role: Of Counsel (as listed on various filings, though specific "lead" or "of counsel" designations can vary by document)
  • Firm: Potter Minton
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Boundy is known for his work in intellectual property law, particularly patent and trade secret litigation, and has authored legal publications on patent matters.

• Meredith L. De Ment

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Minton
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. De Ment practices intellectual property law with a focus on patent prosecution and litigation.

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.