23-2442

The Federal Circuit case 23-2442, VLSI Technology LLC v. Coke Morgan Stewart, appears to be a patent appeal, as the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. While the provided search results show a Federal Circuit case 23-2442 concerning PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, and other recent Federal Circuit decisions related to various patent and trade issues, these do not appear to directly correlate with a patent infringement case specifically involving patent 10257319 and parties consistent with a typical patent infringement suit (i.e., operating company vs. NPE, etc.). Instead, the PrimeSource case involves trade issues and the Secretary of Commerce, and other results discuss appeals related to specific patent eligibility issues or IPRs, but not this specific patent and case number combination.

A "Certificate of Interest" found for a Federal Circuit case 23-2158 (VLSI Technology LLC, Appellant, v. Coke Morgan Stewart) mentions the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an intervenor, and discusses a method comprising monitoring master devices coupled to a bus, receiving a request to change a clock frequency of a high-speed clock, and providing the clock frequency as an output to control a clock frequency of a second master device and the bus. This suggests that the correct case for "23-2442" in the prompt might be VLSI Technology LLC v. Coke Morgan Stewart, and it could be related to patent 10257319 if that patent describes such a technology. However, the initial search for "Federal Circuit case 23-2442 parties" directly links to PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States. The provided case number "23-2442" and the patent "10257319" do not seem to align directly in the search results as a patent infringement litigation with the typical parties and procedural posture. Therefore, a clear case overview and background as requested cannot be fully provided with the current information, as there appears to be a discrepancy in the case number provided and the type of litigation for a patent infringement suit involving patent 10257319.

To provide a comprehensive overview, it is crucial to clarify the correct Federal Circuit case number associated with a patent infringement litigation involving patent 10257319, and to distinguish it from the trade-related case that appears under "23-2442" in some search results. Without this clarification, the parties, accused products, technical sketch of the patent, specific procedural posture, and notable aspects cannot be accurately detailed for a patent infringement case.

Given the discrepancy, I cannot confidently provide the requested case overview and background at this time. The provided Federal Circuit case number 23-2442 strongly points to a trade-related case (PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States), not a patent infringement case involving patent 10257319. While a "VLSI Technology LLC" case (23-2158) mentions the Director of the USPTO and a technical description of a patent related to clock frequencies, there is no direct link to case 23-2442 or patent 10257319 in that context in the search results. Therefore, critical information such as the specific parties in a patent infringement context, the accused product, and the detailed procedural posture for an infringement suit related to patent 10257319 in case 23-2442 remains unconfirmed.The Federal Circuit case 23-2442, as identified in initial searches, appears to be PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, a trade-related appeal rather than a patent infringement litigation involving patent 10257319. In this case, PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. and Oman Fasteners, LLC, along with Huttig Building Products, Inc. and Huttig, Inc., were involved as plaintiffs-appellees against the United States. The underlying issue concerned the President's authority to modify actions under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, specifically related to tariffs on steel articles. This case was heard by Circuit Judges Taranto, Chen, and Stoll, and concluded with a reversal of the judgments from the Trade Court and a remand for entry of judgment against PrimeSource and Oman Fasteners.

While the prompt specifically requests information about patent 10257319 in connection with case 23-2442, the search results for this case number consistently point to the trade dispute rather than a patent matter. There is no clear indication in the provided search results that patent 10257319 is at issue in Federal Circuit case 23-2442, nor are there details on the parties, accused products, or technical sketch of that patent within the context of this specific case number. Therefore, a comprehensive overview of a patent infringement litigation for patent 10257319 under case 23-2442 cannot be provided based on the available information, as the case number appears to correspond to a different type of litigation.

Patent 10257319 Litigation: Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB

This case, identified as 23-2442 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, involved U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 and was part of a larger patent dispute concerning data communication systems. The key parties were Appellant Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) and Appellees Code200, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Teso LT, UAB (the latter two associated with Oxylabs).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. District Court Filing & Initial Pleadings (2019):
The dispute originated in 2019 when Bright Data (then Luminati Networks Ltd.) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Oxylabs (including entities such as Oxysales, UAB, and Teso LT, UAB) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:19-cv-00395. The suit asserted infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, which Bright Data claimed related to residential proxy technologies.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2020-2023):
While the district court case was ongoing, parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of the asserted patents. For U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, Oxysales, UAB, filed IPR2020-01266 against Luminati Networks Ltd. The PTAB ultimately issued decisions invalidating claims from Bright Data's patents.

3. District Court Trial and Stay (2021):
The patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas went to a jury trial in 2021. Following the jury's infringement verdict, the case was stayed, pending the final outcome of the related patent invalidation proceedings before the USPTO (PTAB).

4. Federal Circuit Appeal (Filed July 13, 2023):
Bright Data Ltd. appealed the PTAB's unpatentability findings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal, case number 23-2442, specifically challenged the invalidation of claims from U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,484,510 and 10,069,936.

5. Federal Circuit Decision (August 1, 2025):
The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion on August 1, 2025, in Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, affirming the unpatentability findings made by the lower tribunal (the PTAB) for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,484,510, 10,257,319, and 10,069,936. The court found no reversible legal or factual error in the PTAB's conclusion that these patents were unpatentable.

6. Supreme Court Denial of Certiorari (February 23, 2026):
Bright Data's efforts to challenge the Federal Circuit's decision ceased when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected its petition to review the Federal Circuit's invalidation of the patents on February 23, 2026. This denial conclusively affirmed the invalidation of the patents.

7. Outcome and Final Disposition:
With the Federal Circuit's decision, upheld by the Supreme Court, the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (and the other two patents) were definitively declared unpatentable. This outcome effectively extinguished patent protection for these claims. Oxylabs has stated its position that the Federal Circuit's decision means the 2021 jury's infringement verdict in the Eastern District of Texas cannot stand. It is expected that the district court case will be dismissed with prejudice as a result of the patent invalidations.

Bright Data Ltd., the appellant in the Federal Circuit case 23-2442, was represented by counsel from Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP (formerly Cherian LLP). The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record for Bright Data Ltd. in the Federal Circuit appeal, which was decided on August 1, 2025:

• Robert M. Harkins, Jr.

  • Role: Lead Counsel (argued for appellant)
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP, with offices in Berkeley, CA and Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Harkins is the firm's Managing Partner, a trial lawyer focusing on intellectual property disputes including patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark litigation, with 30 years of experience, and has been recognized as a top-rated IP litigation attorney by Super Lawyers and IP Stars. He previously served as director of Intellectual Property and Litigation for a Silicon Valley semiconductor company.

• Korula T. Cherian

  • Role: Of Counsel (also represented appellant)
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP, with offices in Berkeley, CA and Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Cherian is a Partner Emeritus at the firm he founded in 2015, specializing in complex intellectual property litigation and licensing, with extensive experience in patent cases before federal district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the ITC.

• Thomas M. Dunham

  • Role: Of Counsel (also represented appellant)
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP, with offices in Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Dunham is a Partner with over thirty years of experience securing, enforcing, and defending Intellectual Property rights in Federal District Courts, Federal Circuit appeals, and before the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as in PTAB post-grant proceedings.

• Elizabeth A. O'Brien

  • Role: Of Counsel (involved in related IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP, with offices in Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Ms. O'Brien focuses primarily on patent litigation, both in federal court and before the USPTO, and has experience in patent prosecution, transactions, and managing post-grant matters. She was promoted to Counsel at Cherian LLP in March 2025.

In the Federal Circuit case 23-2442, Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, The Data Company Technologies Inc., Major Data UAB, Coretech LT, UAB, Bright Data Ltd. is the appellant, appealing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that found claims of its patents, including 10257319, unpatentable. The appellees are the entities who successfully challenged the patentability in the underlying inter partes reviews (IPRs) and are considered the defendants in the context of defending the PTAB's unpatentability decision.

The counsel of record representing the defendant-appellees include:

For Code200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB:

• Daniel S. Leventhal
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, D.C. (also associated with Austin/Houston, TX offices). [cite: 4, 11 in previous turn]
  • Experience: Co-heads Norton Rose Fulbright's IP litigation group and is a high-tech patent litigator. He handles a wide range of patent-related matters, particularly in the semiconductors, telecom, and retail industries. He is noted for his calm demeanor in high-stress situations and ability to deliver compelling narratives. [cite: 4, 11, 12 in previous turn]

For The Data Company Technologies Inc. (d/b/a Nimble):

• Michael N. Rader
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC, New York, NY. [cite: 1, 3, 5, 6 in previous turn]
  • Experience: Co-chairs Wolf Greenfield's New York office and is a former co-chair of the firm's Litigation Practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer in patent infringement, trade secret, and IP-related contract cases across various jurisdictions, including the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He is recognized as a top IPR practitioner. [cite: 1, 5, 6, 10 in previous turn]
• Adam R. Wichman, PhD
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC, Boston, MA. [cite: 1 in previous turn, 2, 7, 8, 9 in previous turn]
  • Experience: Represents clients in IPR and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the PTAB and appeals to the Federal Circuit. His experience spans patent and complex civil litigation involving integrated circuits, power electronics, semiconductor fabrication, consumer electronics, software, signal processing, and medical devices. He previously clerked for Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [cite: 2, 7, 8, 9 in previous turn]

Specific counsel for appellees Major Data UAB and Coretech LT, UAB were not explicitly identified in the available public records beyond being listed as co-defendants with Code200, UAB in related proceedings. It is likely they share counsel with the Code200 group via Norton Rose Fulbright, but this cannot be definitively confirmed from the provided information.