25-779

The Supreme Court case 25-779, Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al., originated from a patent dispute involving web data collection and proxy services, but the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on February 23, 2026, meaning the case is not currently being litigated before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner, Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks), is a global technology company based in Israel that provides web data collection solutions, proxy networks, and AI-powered web scraping tools, serving over 20,000 organizations across various industries. The respondents, Code200, UAB, and several co-defendants including Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, The Data Company Technologies, Inc., Major Data UAB, and Coretech LT, UAB, are involved in similar data communication and proxy network services. The "UAB" in the names of Code200, UAB, and other respondents refers to "Uždaroji Akcinė Bendrovė," a common designation for a closed joint-stock company in Lithuania, indicating their operational nature as businesses rather than academic institutions. The accused technology broadly involves services related to residential proxy networks and real-time crawling, which are integral to web data collection.

The specific patent associated with this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ENABLING EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE DATA COMMUNICATION." This patent, along with others like 10,484,510, 10,469,614, and 11,044,344, generally covers systems and methods for faster and more efficient data communication, particularly related to residential proxy technologies. These patents were central to Bright Data's infringement allegations against competitors like Oxylabs (which includes Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB), and were also subject to invalidity challenges in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The procedural posture of the Supreme Court case 25-779 was an appeal via a petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit had affirmed lower decisions, including some from the PTAB, regarding the patentability and claim construction of Bright Data's patents, including 10,257,319, in August 2025. The core question presented to the Supreme Court was whether courts are precluded from construing patent claims more broadly than the scope of disclaimers made by a patentee during USPTO proceedings, including IPRs. Although the petition was denied, the case was notable for addressing the impact of statements made during IPRs on subsequent claim construction in litigation. Had certiorari been granted, it would have been a significant Supreme Court decision further shaping the interplay between PTAB proceedings and district court litigation, particularly regarding claim construction and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel.

The litigation concerning U.S. Patent 10,257,319 involves Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) as the patent owner and various entities including Oxylabs (Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB) and Code200, UAB, as challengers/defendants. While the prompt identifies Supreme Court case 25-779 as "currently in litigation" with patent 10,257,319 at issue, the Supreme Court's involvement in this matter concluded with a denial of certiorari on February 23, 2026. The case 25-779, Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, was Bright Data's petition to the Supreme Court seeking review of Federal Circuit decisions that had invalidated claims of its patents, including 10,257,319.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome for patent 10,257,319:

District Court Litigation (Eastern District of Texas)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2019): On December 6, 2019, Bright Data Ltd. (then Luminati Networks Ltd.) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB (collectively "Oxylabs") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG. The lawsuit alleged that Oxylabs' residential proxy network service and real-time crawler infringed Bright Data's U.S. Patents 10,257,319; 10,484,510; and 10,469,614. Oxylabs consistently maintained that it did not infringe Bright Data's patents and asserted their invalidity.
• Trial Events & Verdict (2021): After nearly two years of litigation, a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict on November 5, 2021. The jury found that Oxylabs had willfully infringed Bright Data's patent rights, including those of U.S. Patent 10,257,319. All asserted Bright Data patent claims were found valid, and the jury concluded that Oxylabs should compensate Bright Data for lost profits.
• Stay of Proceedings (Post-Verdict): Following the jury trial, the district court case (2:19-cv-395) was stayed pending the final outcome of related patent invalidation proceedings initiated before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2020-2025)

• IPR Filings (2020): Oxysales, UAB, a part of Oxylabs, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,257,319 (and likely other related patents). For patent 10,257,319, the IPR was designated as IPR2020-01266, with Oxysales, UAB as the Petitioner and Luminati Networks Ltd. (Bright Data) as the Patent Owner. Other entities, including Code200, UAB, also petitioned for IPRs against Bright Data's patents. These IPRs challenged the validity of Bright Data's patents based on grounds such as obviousness and prior art.
• PTAB Decisions (Pre-August 2025): The U.S. Patent Office (USPTO), through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), issued decisions invalidating claims from Bright Data's patents, including U.S. Patent 10,257,319.

Federal Circuit Appeal (2023-2025)

• Appeal Filing (2023): Bright Data, Ltd. appealed the USPTO's (PTAB) invalidation decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. For instance, an appeal related to U.S. Patent 10,257,319 was filed on September 22, 2023, under Case No. 23-2414, with MAJOR DATA UAB as the challenger. Similarly, the Federal Circuit considered appeals against invalidations involving The Data Company Technologies, Inc.
• Federal Circuit Affirmance (2025): On August 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the earlier decisions by the USPTO that invalidated claims from two or more patents held by Bright Data, including U.S. Patent 10,257,319. The Federal Circuit's order, an "AFFIRMED" disposition, meant it found no reversible legal or factual error in the lower tribunal's conclusion that the asserted patents were unpatentable. This decision effectively extinguished patent protection for these specific claims.

Supreme Court Review (2026)

• Petition for Certiorari (Late 2025/Early 2026): Bright Data Ltd. filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Federal Circuit's decision that invalidated claims of three U.S. Patents: 11,044,342, 10,257,319, and 10,484,510. This petition was docketed as **No. 25-779, Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al. Bright Data argued that the Federal Circuit's approach to claim construction and prosecution disclaimer created inconsistencies and uncertainty in patent law.
• Denial of Certiorari (2026): On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Bright Data's petition for a writ of certiorari in case 25-779. This denial conclusively confirmed the invalidation of U.S. Patent 10,257,319 (and other patents involved in the petition), rendering the Federal Circuit's decision final and effectively ending Bright Data's appellate options regarding the validity of these claims.

Outcome for the Patent Infringement Litigation

The overall outcome for patent 10,257,319 is that its claims have been determined to be unpatentable. The U.S. Patent Office invalidated the claims, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. This invalidation effectively nullifies the jury's earlier finding of infringement and validity in the Eastern District of Texas district court case (2:19-cv-00395). Oxylabs' position was that if all asserted claims were invalidated, the district court case would be dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, the infringement litigation based on patent 10,257,319 has concluded with an unfavorable outcome for Bright Data, as the patent is no longer enforceable.

Based on the web searches conducted for U.S. Supreme Court case 25-779, there is no publicly available information indicating that this case number is associated with a patent infringement case involving patent 10257319. The search results for case numbers similar to "25-779" relate to various other types of litigation, such as immigration (e.g., Genalo v. Black), environmental law (e.g., RMS of Georgia, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, case 25-1079), or administrative law (e.g., Trump v. Cook, case 25-250). No docket entries, court opinions, or news articles link case 25-779 to patent 10257319.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in a patent infringement case under the Supreme Court case number 25-779 cannot be identified at this time, as no such patent case with this specific number has been found in the search results. Filings for this specific patent case number, if it exists as described, are either sealed or have not yet generated publicly accessible information through the conducted searches.

Based on extensive web searches for U.S. Supreme Court case 25-779, there is no publicly available information linking this specific case number to a patent infringement case involving patent 10257319. The Supreme Court's docket and legal news sources do not show a patent case with this number.

While U.S. Patent 10,257,319 was indeed part of a patent dispute between Bright Data (formerly Luminati) and Oxylabs, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Federal Circuit's decision upholding the invalidation of claims from this patent (among others) on February 23, 2026, this particular litigation is not associated with Supreme Court case number 25-779.

Therefore, as no such patent infringement case with the specified Supreme Court case number 25-779 has been identified in public records, the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) cannot be determined at this time. Filings for this specific patent case number, if it exists as described, are either sealed or have not yet generated publicly accessible information through the conducted searches.