23-2414

This case, currently in litigation at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under case number 23-2414, involves a patent dispute centered on U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319. The parties involved are Bright Data Ltd. (formerly known as Luminati Networks Ltd.) as the patent owner, and Oxylabs, which collectively refers to Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB, as the alleged infringers. Bright Data is an operating company specializing in web data collection and proxy network services, while Oxylabs operates a residential proxy network service. The core of the alleged infringement revolved around Oxylabs' residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler, which Bright Data claimed utilized technologies covered by its patents.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, generally relates to computer networking, specifically methods and systems for managing and providing access to a network of distributed computing devices, often characterized as residential proxy technologies. The procedural posture of this specific appeal, 23-2414, is an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the invalidation of claims from patent 10,257,319. This invalidation was previously affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a decision issued on August 1, 2025, which the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently refused to review, making the invalidity findings final. This indicates that the appeal to the Federal Circuit likely stemmed from a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or a district court finding of invalidity that was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The underlying district court litigation where these patents were first asserted by Bright Data against Oxylabs was Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG in the Eastern District of Texas.

The case is notable due to the invalidation of patents related to residential proxy technologies, an area crucial for web data collection, market research, and cybersecurity. The Supreme Court's refusal to review the Federal Circuit's affirmation of invalidity has solidified the unpatentability of these specific claims, potentially impacting the competitive landscape for companies operating in or developing residential proxy network services. This outcome may offer more freedom to operate for other entities in the industry, as the invalidated patents no longer pose an infringement risk.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes for the litigation involving patent 10257319:

Parties Involved:

• Appellant (Federal Circuit): Bright Data, Ltd.
• Challenger/Appellee (Federal Circuit): Major Data UAB
• Petitioner (PTAB IPR): OXYSALES, UAB
• Patent Owner (PTAB IPR): LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.

It appears that Bright Data, Ltd. and Luminati Networks Ltd. are related entities, as are Major Data UAB and Oxysales, UAB, given their respective roles as patent owner/appellant and challenger/petitioner concerning the same patent.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Filing: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2020-01266, was initiated concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319. OXYSALES, UAB, was the Petitioner, and LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD. was the Patent Owner.
• Unpatentability Finding: The underlying action, which led to the Federal Circuit appeal, involved a finding that US10257319B2 was unpatentable. This indicates that the PTAB likely issued a final written decision finding the patent claims unpatentable.

Federal Circuit Appeal (Case No. 23-2414):

• Appeal Filing: Bright Data, Ltd. appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-2414) on September 22, 2023. The appeal sought to overturn the finding that US10257319B2, directed at systems providing faster and more efficient data communication, was unpatentable. The challenger in the appeal was Major Data UAB.
• Federal Circuit Decision: On August 1, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an order affirming the unpatentability determination. The court's order stated: "ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED." This means the lower tribunal's finding of unpatentability was upheld in its entirety, with no remand.
• Outcome: The Federal Circuit's affirmance confirmed that the claims of US10257319B2 are unpatentable and can no longer be enforced as granted. The decision concluded Bright Data's appellate options at this level.

Overall Outcome:

The patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 ultimately resulted in a finding of unpatentability for the patent. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 1, 2025, effectively invalidating the patent claims and precluding their enforcement. The appeal to the Federal Circuit originated from an underlying invalidity or cancellation action, which was likely the Inter Partes Review at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Counsel Identified for Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd. in CAFC Case 23-2414

In the patent infringement case 23-2414, Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) is the plaintiff-appellant at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case, titled Bright Data Ltd. v. Major Data UAB, involved an appeal by Bright Data Ltd. seeking to overturn a finding that its U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 was unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability ruling on August 1, 2025.

Counsel of record representing Bright Data Ltd. in related appellate proceedings concerning patent 10257319 includes:

• Robert M. Harkins Jr.
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant appellate counsel.
  • Firm: Cherian LLP
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated for Cherian LLP in the provided search results, patent litigation firms often have presences in major legal hubs.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Harkins represented Bright Data Ltd. in a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court (No. 25-779, filed January 5, 2026), seeking review of Federal Circuit decisions, including the one concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, which involved arguments about claim construction and prosecution disclaimer. This indicates his involvement in complex patent appeals.

Further details regarding additional counsel (e.g., of counsel, local counsel, in-house) for Bright Data Ltd. in this specific Federal Circuit case were not explicitly detailed in the public search results. Filings are generally publicly accessible via PACER, but specific attorney roles beyond the main counsel listed on briefs are often not readily summarized in news reports or case overviews.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case (23-2414, involving patent 10257319) because the specific parties involved in this Federal Circuit appeal cannot be definitively determined from the publicly available search results.

While previous patent litigation between Finjan, Inc. (plaintiff) and Cisco Systems, Inc. (defendant) has been noted, including appeals to the Federal Circuit, the provided search snippets do not explicitly link Federal Circuit case 23-2414 to these parties or specifically to patent 10257319. The Federal Circuit cases identified in the search results, such as 2019-2074 and 2019-2146, involved a different patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,647,633).

Without confirmed party names for the specific case 23-2414 and patent 10257319, identifying defendant's counsel is not possible.