Litigation

Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB et al.

affirmed; rehearing denied

2023-2144 (consolidated with 2023-2145, 2023-2146, 2023-2147, 2023-2414, 2023-2415, 2023-2442, 2023-2443)

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Terminated: 2025-10-01

Patents at issue (4)

10257319 PTAB: final decision

Plaintiffs (1)

π Bright Data Ltd.

Defendants (7)

Summary

Bright Data appealed the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2022-00353 and related IPRs. The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals and on August 1, 2025, affirmed the Board's role-based constructions, holding all challenged claims of the '344 and sibling patents 11,044,342; 10,257,319; and 10,484,510 unpatentable. Rehearing en banc was denied October 1, 2025.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 11044344-2023-2144-consolidated-with-2023-2145-2023-2146-2023-2147-2023-2414-202 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) lawsuit defense: a defendant's playbook
Defending an NPE suit is different from defending a competitor's suit. The asymmetries cut both ways — and the right plays exploit the ones that favor the defendant.
IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
Declaratory judgment actions: when to flip the table on a patent troll
The patent holder is the one with the patent. They're not always the one who gets to pick the courtroom.
What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.

All resources →