Bright Data Ltd. (f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd.) v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Let me dig deeper into specific aspects: the stay order, IPR outcomes, and the Federal Circuit decision.

Case Overview — Bright Data Ltd. (f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd.) v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

The parties

Bright Data Ltd. is an Israeli-founded web‑data and proxy‑infrastructure operating company — not a university, individual inventor, or classic NPE/PAE. According to its complaint, the company (originally incorporated as Hola Network Ltd., then Luminati Ltd., then Luminati Networks Ltd.) operates a cloud service "connecting tens of millions of devices over the Internet through a proxy‑based network," in which each participating device contributes a fraction of its idle bandwidth, alongside a conventional proxy‑server service. Its disclosed corporate parent is IPPN Group Ltd. (later IPPN Holdings Ltd.). Bright Data is the assignee and sole owner of the asserted patents (Complaint ¶¶ 13–14, RPX litigation document; UniCourt docket, Corp. Disclosure ¶ 2). The named inventors are Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski (Complaint ¶ 11).

Tefincom S.A. is a Panama‑incorporated entity that does business as NordVPN, the consumer VPN brand marketed within the "Nord Security" group of companies. Bright Data's theory is that NordVPN does not merely operate a VPN: it accuses NordVPN's "SmartPlay" DNS‑rerouting feature and its use of purchased/contributed pools of IP addresses — including residential IPs volunteered by users of bandwidth‑sharing apps — i.e., that NordVPN effectively built and used a residential‑proxy network that practices the patents (Bright Data reproduced NordVPN's own SmartPlay explainer describing pools of ISP IPs and user‑contributed residential IPs) (Complaint ¶¶ 8–9). The complaint identified "Proxy Software," servers, and an API, and relied on residential proxy devices located in Texas for personal jurisdiction; as to venue, it invoked Brunette Machine Works v. Kockum Industries, 406 U.S. 706 (1972) — the rule that a foreign defendant may be sued in any district (Complaint ¶ 10).

*(Separately, an IPR petition in the parallel litigation asserted that "Tefincom S.A.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search, focusing on docket events, rulings, and parallel PTAB proceedings.

I have a good foundation. Let me dig into specific docket events, rulings, and PTAB proceedings.

Let me try to fill the most important gaps (MTD ruling, Markman, Teso verdict/appeal).

I'll research the plaintiff-side counsel of record for this case.

Let me dig into the specific docket entries to confirm roles and any changes in lead counsel.

Let me confirm additional appearances and the local counsel arrangement for this specific case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Bright Data Ltd. (f/k/a Luminati Networks Ltd.)

Sourcing caveat up front: I was not able to pull the live PACER docket sheet directly. The roster below is reconstructed from the docket text mirrored on secondary aggregators (Justia Dockets, UniCourt, Unified Patents' litigation portal, Docket Alarm/PTAB exhibits), from RECAP copies of filings in the related Bright Data actions, and from firm/PTAB filings. Docket-entry numbers cited are those appearing in the source text; where I am inferring a role rather than reading an explicit designation, I say so.

The plaintiff was represented by an out-of-state IP boutique (RuyakCherian LLP, later renamed Cherian LLP) acting as lead counsel, paired with a Texas firm (Capshaw DeRieux, LLP) serving as local counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division).

Lead / national counsel — Cherian LLP (f/k/a RuyakCherian LLP)

Note: The Berkeley address changed to 2001 Addison St., Suite 275, Berkeley, CA and the firm name to Cherian LLP over the life of the matter; the firm has since been styled Cherian Harkins Dunham / CHD Law. All are the same shop.

Local counsel — Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

Related counsel who did NOT appear in this district court case (flagging to avoid confusion)

• Thomas M. Dunham (Cherian LLP, Washington, D.C.) — lead counsel for Bright Data in the parallel PTAB proceedings (e.g., IPR2021-01492, IPR2022-00936) and listed on Bright Data's PGR/reexam filings. I found no district-court appearance by him in 2:19-cv-414, so he should not be treated as counsel of record here.
• Stephanie R. Wood (Cherian LLP, Dallas) and Colby A. Davis — appeared for Bright Data in the related actions (2:18-cv-483, 2:19-cv-395), but I could not confirm an appearance in the 414 docket.

Important caution on the defense side (frequently mis-attributed)

Counsel appearing for Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN (the defendant) were Daniel S. Leventhal and Brett C. Govett (Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP) and Michael C. Smith (Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall). Michael C. Smith / Scheef & Stone is defense-side — do not list him as plaintiff's counsel.

Gaps and uncertainty

• No in-house counsel for Bright Data appears as counsel of record; the corporate disclosure (Dkt. 2) identifies the parent as IPPN Group Ltd.
• The docket reflects sealed motions and sealed responses throughout 2021 (e.g., the sealed motion to compel source code and the sealed summary-judgment/Daubert papers), but the signatures on those sealed filings were by Wielkopolski, Harkins, and Cherian per the redacted versions — so the plaintiff's lineup is not obscured by sealing.
• Several notices of appearance for plaintiff's side may exist that are not fully captured by the aggregator dockets I could reach; a live PACER pull of the 2:19-cv-00414 docket (roughly 30+ docket entries dated December 2019 through the September 6, 2022 stay order) would be needed to certify the list as exhaustive.
• The case was stayed and administratively closed on Sept. 6, 2022 pending finality in Bright Data v. Teso LT, UAB, No. 2:19-cv-395 (Dkt. 219 in this case). Any post-stay substitutions would not be reflected above.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Let me pull the actual docket entries and appearance notices for this case.

Let me get the fuller docket and identify all defense-side appearances.

Defendant-Side Counsel of Record — Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN, No. 2:19-cv-00414-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Sourcing note up front: I could not open the live PACER docket sheet directly; the entries below are reconstructed from the RECAP/CourtListener copies, the Unified Patents litigation portal docket for this case, the PTAB record in the related IPR (IPR2022-00861, where the Tefincom docket entries appear as exhibits), and firm biographies. Firm names, offices, and roles are well grounded; the precise "lead vs. of counsel" label for some attorneys is my inference from who actually signed and filed the defense papers, not from a formal designation order. No in-house counsel ever appeared on this docket as far as the public filings show.

Tefincom is a Panamanian entity (NordVPN's operating entity); its defense in this case was handled by a Dallas patent boutique (Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza / "CCRG") working with Norton Rose Fulbright on the more technical/discovery-heavy filings. The PTAB record in IPR2022-00861 notes that Tefincom/NordVPN and the related Tesonet/Oxylabs entities (Code200, Teso LT, Oxylabs) are "sister companies with the same owner/founder, Tomas Okmanas, and the same litigation counsel," which is why the same defense-side names recur across No. 2:19-cv-00395, -00396, and -00414.

---

Confirmed appearances in No. 2:19-cv-00414

Steven Chase Callahan — lead counsel (inference)

• Firm: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC (now CCRG Law), 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 460, Dallas, TX 75219.
• He is the attorney who signed Tefincom's first substantive defense filings in this case: the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12, filed 10/28/2020), the Notice of Filing of Alice Letter Brief (Dkt. 16, 11/09/2020), and the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24, 11/27/2020) with the joint Alice letter brief. His name has appeared for the related Teso/Code200 defendants in this docket family (see the 2:19-cv-00395 pretrial transcript) and in the companion Oxylabs v. Bright Data matters.
• Note: Because the docket shows him filing the pleadings and § 101 motions, treat him as the de facto lead trial/lead filing counsel; I found no formal "designation of lead attorney" entry for the defense in the free sources.

Daniel S. Leventhal — of counsel

• Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP — Houston office, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77010-3095 (Texas Bar No. 24050923).
• Filings: Sealed Response to plaintiff's Sealed Patent Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce Complete Source Code (Dkt. 60, filed 06/01/2021) and the corresponding redacted response — i.e., he carried the defendant's discovery/source-code defense. He also appears on the joint mediation status report filings in the related actions (CourtListener RECAP, txed 194154, Doc. 268).
• Note: Norton Rose Fulbright's Dallas/Houston team is the same group that defended the Tesonet/Oxylabs entities in the parallel Bright Data cases.

Mitchell Sibley — of counsel

• Firm: Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC / CCRG Law, Dallas, TX (previously McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas).
• His published firm biography expressly lists "Bright Data Ltd. v. Tefincom S.A. d/b/a NordVPN (E.D. Tex.) — Represents NordVPN in a patent infringement lawsuit against Bright Data," alongside the parallel Code200, Teso, and Oxylabs matters.
• Relevant experience: member of the VirnetX v. Apple trial team ($368M verdict); Ericsson v. TCL (jury verdict of infringement, willfulness, $75M); Summit 6 v. RIM/Samsung ($15M verdict); Rovi/TiVo v. Comcast (ITC § 337, two exclusion orders); Cloudflare defense in Sable Networks. Focus on patent damages.
• Caveat: his name appears in the 2:19-cv-00395 (Teso) pretrial transcript and in his own firm bio for the Tefincom matter; I did not locate an individual notice of appearance for him in the -414 docket text available publicly.

George "Jorde" Scott and John Heuton — CCRG team members (of counsel; less certain for -414)

• Same Dallas firm. They appear as defense counsel in the related Teso trial transcript and Christopher Bovenkamp/Anthony Garza/Jorde Scott appear as Charhon Callahan IPR counsel in the Oxylabs IPRs. Their participation in this case is probable given the shared defense team, but I could not confirm individual appearances on the -414 docket and am flagging that explicitly.

Brett C. Govett — Norton Rose Fulbright (Dallas), 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600 (Texas Bar No. 08235900)

• He appears on the joint mediation status report signature blocks in the related Bright Data actions and in the 2:19-cv-00395 pretrial transcript as defense counsel for the Tonet-related defendants. It is likely but not confirmed from the free docket sources that he was also defense-side on -414. Not verified as a -414 appearance.

Michael Smith — Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, TX

• Appeared for the defense in the related Teso trial (2:19-cv-00395); plausible local counsel for the Marshall filings. I could not confirm an appearance for Tefincom in -414.

---

What I could NOT establish

• No in-house counsel (e.g., Nord Security legal) appears as counsel of record on the public docket.
• No formal notice of appearance documents could be retrieved for every defense attorney from the free sources; several attributions rest on signature blocks and firm biographies rather than on an ECF appearance entry.
• Sealed filings: Tefincom filed sealed materials here, including a Sealed Motion (Dkt. 67; redacted version Dkt. 68) and a Sealed Motion to Exclude Opinions and Testimony of Dr. Stephen Becker — the free docket text does not reliably show the signing attorney for the sealed items, so more defense counsel may have appeared under seal.
• Post-stay activity: The case was stayed and administratively closed on September 6, 2022 (Dkt. 219, sua sponte, pending finality in Bright Data v. Teso, No. 2:19-cv-395). If any appearance or withdrawal occurred after administration closure, it would not appear in the free sources I could reach. No substitution of defense lead counsel is reflected in the available docket.

Recommendation: To state roles with certainty (especially lead vs. of counsel and any later withdrawals), pull the current PACER docket report for 2:19-cv-00414-JRG and read the "Attorney Appearance" and "Notice of Designation of Attorney in Charge" entries, plus the signature pages of the sealed filings. The roster above is accurate as to firms and individuals who demonstrably acted for Tefincom in this case, but the formal lead-counsel designation should be confirmed against the docket itself.