Bright Data, Ltd. v. Oxylabs

This patent infringement litigation, Bright Data, Ltd. v. Oxylabs, involves two direct competitors in the web data collection and proxy services industry. Plaintiff Bright Data, Ltd., formerly known as Luminati Networks, is an Israeli technology company that provides web data collection and proxy network solutions, including residential, datacenter, and mobile proxies, as well as web scraping tools, serving a wide range of industries globally. Defendant Oxylabs, based in Lithuania, is also a market-leading web intelligence collection platform offering various proxy networks and Web Scraper APIs for businesses to gather and analyze public web data. The dispute centers on Oxylabs' offerings, specifically its residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler (now known as a Web Scraper API), which Bright Data alleges infringe its intellectual property.

The core patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, among others in related litigation. Generally, the patents asserted by Bright Data in these disputes relate to residential proxy technologies and communication devices configured to operate in various roles, such as clients or servers, within a network to facilitate content transmission. The procedural posture places this case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, specifically before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne for certain proceedings, with District Judge Rodney Gilstrap often presiding over such patent matters. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for rapid adjudication ("rocket docket") and plaintiff-friendly juries, though recent Supreme Court decisions have aimed to limit venue options. The case itself is currently stayed and administratively closed, indicating a pause in proceedings.

This case is notable as part of an extensive and ongoing legal battle between two prominent operating companies in the competitive web intelligence market. While a related case (2:19-cv-00395) saw a jury verdict in favor of Bright Data finding willful infringement and awarding lost profits, the validity of several Bright Data patents has been extensively challenged through parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed PTAB decisions invalidating claims from some of Bright Data's patents, including those forming a basis of allegations in the related 2:19-cv-395 case, and the Supreme Court later declined to review these invalidations. These IPR outcomes likely contributed to the decision to stay and administratively close the present district court litigation, demonstrating the significant impact of PTAB proceedings on district court patent disputes.

The patent infringement litigation Bright Data, Ltd. v. Oxylabs (2:19-cv-00396) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involved U.S. Patents 10,484,511 and 10,069,968, asserted by Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) against Oxylabs (Code200, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB). While U.S. Patent 10,257,319 was also at issue in a related case (2:19-cv-00395), its claim construction was adopted in 2:19-cv-00396. The case is currently stayed and administratively closed.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcomes:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims):

  • The lawsuit, Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code 200, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB, Case No. 2:19-cv-00396, was filed in 2019.
  • Specific details regarding the exact filing date of the complaint, answer, or counterclaims for this particular case are not immediately available in the provided search results beyond general references to the case number.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

  • Prior to July 28, 2020, Oxylabs filed a sealed opposed motion to stay the proceedings in 2:19-cv-00396 (ECF No. 28). As of that date, a stay pending IPR had not yet been granted.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • A Markman order (ECF No. 97) was issued in this case on February 8, 2021. This order adopted the same claim constructions for terms such as "client device" and "second server" that were previously established in the related case Bright Data v. Oxylabs f/k/a Teso LT, UAB et al., No. 2:19-cv-00395 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2020).

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • The available information does not detail specific discovery milestones for this case.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • This specific case (2:19-cv-00396) did not proceed to trial. A separate but related case, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395, which also involved Patent 10,257,319, resulted in a federal jury verdict on November 5, 2021. In that trial, the jury found that Oxylabs willfully infringed Bright Data's patent rights, that all asserted patent claims were valid, and that Oxylabs should compensate Bright Data for lost profits.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal — Final Disposition:

  • The case 2:19-cv-00396 is currently in a status of "Stayed and administratively closed." The specific date of the order for this disposition is not available.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and their Effect on the Litigation:

  • U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319:
    • Inter Partes Review (IPR2021-01492) challenging all asserted claims of the '319 patent was instituted on March 21, 2022.
    • Another Inter Partes Review (IPR2022-00135) challenging all asserted claims of the '319 patent was instituted on June 1, 2022.
    • An Ex Parte Reexamination for the '319 patent resulted in a Non-Final Office Action on November 12, 2021, rejecting all patent claims asserted against Oxylabs. This reexamination was subsequently stayed due to IPR2021-01492.
    • Most significantly, on August 1, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (along with other Bright Data patents, 10,484,510 and 10,069,936) in an appeal involving Bright Data, Ltd. and The Data Company Technologies, Inc. (Federal Circuit Case No. 23-2145). This ruling means that Patent 10,257,319 is no longer enforceable. This unpatentability finding likely played a role in the administrative closure of 2:19-cv-00396, especially since the claim constructions for the '319 patent were adopted in this case.
  • U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511 and 10,069,968: While these patents were specifically mentioned as being involved in 2:19-cv-00396, detailed IPR proceedings or Federal Circuit outcomes directly pertaining to these specific patents in the context of this case were not found in the search results. However, the broader context of other Bright Data patents facing IPRs and unpatentability findings suggests a general trend affecting the patent portfolio.

Counsel of Record for Bright Data, Ltd. in Bright Data, Ltd. v. Oxylabs (2:19-cv-00396)

Based on available information from related proceedings and firm announcements, Cherian LLP (now Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP) has represented Bright Data, Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) in patent litigation, including cases in the Eastern District of Texas and appeals.

The following counsel from Cherian LLP (now Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP) have been identified as representing Bright Data in patent litigation contexts relevant to this case:

• Korula T. Cherian
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Founder and former Senior Partner, now Partner Emeritus).
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP (formerly Cherian LLP)
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; Berkeley, California (firm also lists Houston, Texas and San Francisco Bay Area).
  • Experience: Mr. Cherian has focused his practice on complex intellectual property litigation and licensing, litigating dozens of patent cases before federal district courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the ITC. He is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Robert M. Harkins, Jr.
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Senior Managing Partner, now a named partner).
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP (formerly Cherian LLP)
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; Berkeley, California (firm also lists Houston, Texas and San Francisco Bay Area).
  • Experience: Mr. Harkins has practiced intellectual property law for decades and has successfully represented clients in patent disputes. He was also noted as leading a team for Cherian LLP in an IP dispute for another client.
• Thomas M. Dunham
  • Role: Partner (now a named partner).
  • Firm: Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP (formerly Cherian LLP)
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; Berkeley, California (firm also lists Houston, Texas and San Francisco Bay Area).
  • Experience: Mr. Dunham has practiced Intellectual Property law for decades and is part of a firm recognized for its experience in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB and complex trial matters.

While Korula T. Cherian is explicitly named as "Counsel of Record" for Bright Data Ltd. in a related Supreme Court case (Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB), which also involved defendants from this Eastern District of Texas case (2:19-cv-00396), the specific docket entries for the district court case listing all counsel of record are not directly available in the search results. However, Cherian LLP has openly stated their representation of Bright Data in the Eastern District of Texas. The firm, now Cherian Harkins Dunham LLP, has offices in Washington, D.C., and Texas, indicating a capacity for local and lead counsel roles in the Eastern District of Texas. Other attorneys at the firm, such as Michael Woods, Elizabeth O'Brien, Stephanie Wood, and Hunter Palmer, have also been mentioned in connection with the firm's patent litigation successes for clients.

The defendant, Oxylabs, is represented by attorneys from the law firm Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, with local counsel from Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC.

Here are the details for the counsel of record:

Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP

• Charles Everingham IV

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Dallas, Texas (with additional offices in Austin, Houston, Waco, Los Angeles, Seoul, and South Florida).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Everingham is a highly experienced intellectual property and patent litigation attorney, and a former U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas. During his time on the bench, he managed numerous Markman proceedings and trials of complex patent cases involving various industries, including medical devices, computer hardware and software, and telecommunications. He has been recognized as a leading practitioner in intellectual property law by Chambers USA and The Best Lawyers in America. (Note: Some sources indicate Mr. Everingham retired from Miller Fair Henry PLLC in November 2025, suggesting his role in this case may have concluded or transitioned, but he was listed as active in the case for previous filings.)

• Michael C. Wilson

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Co-Chair of Patent Litigation)
  • Firm & Office Location: Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wilson is a trial lawyer with a passion for complex and technical cases. He frequently represents inventors, technology companies, and other businesses in disputes involving patent infringement and trade secret claims in various federal and state courts, including the Eastern District of Texas. He has a track record of significant jury verdicts and has successfully defended high-value cases.

• D. Clay Ryerson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: While specific details on his experience in Bright Data v. Oxylabs are not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, Munck Wilson Mandala is recognized for its strong intellectual property and patent litigation practice.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC

• It is common for firms outside the Eastern District of Texas to associate with local counsel for cases in that venue. Ward, Smith & Hill is a prominent East Texas law firm, and Charles Everingham IV joined them as a partner in January 2020 after leaving Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Given his extensive experience as a former Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas, he likely serves as local counsel or plays a significant local role.

The case docket (2:19-cv-00396) refers to "Oxylabs, UAB" and "Code200, UAB" as real parties in interest for the petitioner in related IPRs, and as defendants in this litigation. The case has been stayed and administratively closed, which may impact the active roles of counsel.