Bright Data, Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Bright Data, Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., centers on a fierce competitive battle between two major players in the web data collection and proxy service industry: Bright Data (formerly Luminati Networks) and Oxylabs. Plaintiff Bright Data, an Israeli-headquartered technology company, operates a comprehensive web data platform, providing proxy networks, web scraping tools, and datasets to over 20,000 enterprises globally for business intelligence, AI, e-commerce, and market research. The defendants, Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB, collectively operate as Oxylabs, a Lithuanian-based direct competitor. Oxylabs likewise offers web intelligence solutions, including premium proxies and data scraping services for large-scale public web data extraction to a global client base. Bright Data accused Oxylabs' residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler products, particularly their underlying Smart Proxy Rotator and web script management technologies, of infringing its patents.

The core patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 (the '319 patent), which generally relates to a system and method for dynamic IP address management within proxy networks, specifically for providing residential proxy services. The litigation unfolded in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue has historically been a popular choice for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and juries often perceived as sympathetic to patentees, contributing to a higher likelihood of plaintiff verdicts and significant damage awards. Despite Supreme Court rulings like TC Heartland aiming to restrict venue, plaintiffs have adapted strategies, such as targeting foreign entities, to maintain filings in this district.

This case is notable as part of a protracted and high-stakes legal battle between two leading competitors vying for dominance in the rapidly growing web data collection industry, which is increasingly critical for AI development and various other sectors. A jury in the Eastern District of Texas initially found in November 2021 that Oxylabs willfully infringed Bright Data's patents, including the '319 patent, and that all asserted claims were valid, ordering monetary damages. However, the case's trajectory was significantly impacted by parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Oxylabs at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO and subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in August 2025, upheld decisions invalidating claims from the '319 patent and other Bright Data patents, primarily based on obviousness and prior art. This invalidation by the Federal Circuit meant the 2021 jury's infringement verdict could not stand. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to review this decision in February 2026, making the invalidation of the patents final and conclusively impacting Bright Data's ability to enforce its patent rights against Oxylabs.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation Bright Data, Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., presented in chronological order:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

• 2019-12-06 – Complaint Filed: Bright Data, Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB (collectively referred to as "Oxylabs") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,257,319 ('319 patent), 10,484,510 ('510 patent), and 10,469,614 ('614 patent). Bright Data specifically asserted claims 1 and 26 of the '319 patent.

• 2020-05-11 – Markman Hearing Scheduled: A Markman hearing for claim construction was set to take place. The court subsequently issued a Claim Construction Opinion and Order. For the '319 patent, the parties agreed to certain constructions adopted by the district court.

• 2020-10-30 – Motion to Dismiss Denied: The court denied Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 35 U.S.C. § 101.

• 2020-12-23 – IPR2020-01266 Denied Institution: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of IPR2020-01266, which challenged claims of the '319 patent, on discretionary grounds.

• 2021-06-24 – Motion for Hearing Regarding O2 Micro Issue: Oxylabs filed a motion for a hearing to address a dispute regarding the proper interpretation and/or application of the Court's construction of certain "server" claim terms, citing an O2 Micro issue. Bright Data opposed the request.

• 2021-07-02 – Dismissal of Claims Against Metacluster (Partial): Based on a stipulation by the parties, the court entered an order dismissing Bright Data's claims against Metacluster with prejudice.

• 2021-09-09 – Order on Pretrial Motions and Motions in Limine: The court issued an order addressing various pretrial motions, including motions in limine. A key ruling on Oxylabs' Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. impacted Bright Data's damages strategy, leading it to proceed at trial solely on a lost profits theory, asserting $9,343,595.00 in lost profits.

• 2021-11-01 – Trial Commences: The jury trial began.

• 2021-11-05 – Jury Verdict Filed: A jury verdict form was filed. The jury found that Oxylabs willfully infringed at least one claim of the asserted patents (including claims 1 and 26 of the '319 patent), that none of the asserted patents were invalid (specifically, defendants did not prove claims 1 and 26 of the '319 patent or claims 1 and 22 of the '510 patent to be invalid by clear and convincing evidence), and awarded Bright Data $7,474,876.00 in lost profits.

• 2021-12-12 – Case Stayed for Mediation: Following the trial, the court ordered Bright Data and Oxylabs to mediate their disputes, staying all deadlines in the case.

• 2022-01-06 – Mediation Unsuccessful: The parties were unable to resolve their disputes at the scheduled mediation, and the stay was lifted regarding Bright Data's motion for injunctive relief.

• 2022-02-10 – Motion for Injunctive Relief Denied: The court denied Bright Data's post-trial motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against infringement, concluding that Bright Data had not met its burden to show irreparable injury or that money damages would be inadequate.

• 2022-07-25 – IPR2022-00861 Denied Institution (Initially): The PTAB initially denied institution of IPR2022-00861, filed by Code200, UAB (including Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB) challenging claims 1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 of the '319 patent, based on discretionary grounds under the General Plastic factors. An ex parte reexamination, Control No. 90/014,875, for the '319 patent was stayed around this time.

• 2022-08-23 – PTAB Director Reverses IPR Denial: USPTO Director Kathi Vidal sua sponte reversed the PTAB's denial of institution in IPR2022-00861 and IPR2022-00862, clarifying the application of General Plastic factors and remanding the cases for reconsideration of institution and joinder.

• 2023-06-23 – IPR2022-00103 Final Written Decision (Unpatentable): In a separate, but related, IPR proceeding (IPR2022-00103), patent 11,044,342 (part of the same patent family as the '319 patent) was found unpatentable in a Final Written Decision.

• 2025-08-01 – Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patents: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld earlier USPTO decisions that invalidated claims from two of Bright Data's patents at issue in the district court litigation, which Bright Data claims are related to residential proxy technologies. This decision impacts the 2021 jury's infringement verdict in the district court case, which had been stayed pending the outcome of these PTAB proceedings.

• 2026-01-05 (approx.) – Certiorari Petition Filed: Bright Data 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 (including the '319 patent and '510 patent), arguing issues regarding claim construction and prosecution disclaimer.

• 2026-02-23 – Supreme Court Rejects Certiorari Petition: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Bright Data's petition to review the Federal Circuit's decision, conclusively confirming that the two patents in question are invalid. Oxylabs has stated that if all asserted claims from the three patents-in-suit are eventually invalidated, they expect the district court case to be dismissed with prejudice.

The current posture of the district court case (2:19-cv-00395-JRG) is that it has been stayed, with the Federal Circuit's affirmation of patent invalidation and the Supreme Court's rejection of certiorari having a significant impact on the jury's infringement verdict.

Here is the counsel of record representing Bright Data, Ltd. in Bright Data, Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, based on a February 10, 2022, court opinion in the case:

RuyakCherian LLP (Washington, DC & Berkeley, CA)

• Colby Alexander Davis
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: RuyakCherian LLP is a litigation boutique, and some of its attorneys are noted for intellectual property litigation.
• Craig Hoovler
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: RuyakCherian LLP is a litigation boutique, and some of its attorneys are noted for intellectual property litigation.
• Ronald Wielkopolski
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: RuyakCherian LLP is a litigation boutique, and some of its attorneys are noted for intellectual property litigation.
• Thomas M. Dunham
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: RuyakCherian LLP is a litigation boutique, and some of its attorneys are noted for intellectual property litigation.
• Robert M. Harkins, Jr.
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Berkeley, CA
  • Experience Note: Was involved in a meet and confer on behalf of Bright Data in June 2021 regarding a motion for hearing on an O2 Micro issue. RuyakCherian LLP is a litigation boutique, and some of its attorneys are noted for intellectual property litigation.
• Korula T. Cherian
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: RuyakCherian LLP, Berkeley, CA
  • Experience Note: RuyakCherian LLP is a litigation boutique, and some of its attorneys are noted for intellectual property litigation.

Goodwin Procter, LLP (Washington, DC)

• Amadou Kilkenny Diaw
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Goodwin Procter, LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Goodwin Procter has an established Intellectual Property Litigation practice.

Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Gladewater, TX)

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, TX
  • Experience Note: Practicing in the Eastern District of Texas, her firm frequently acts as local counsel in patent infringement cases.
• Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, TX
  • Experience Note: Practicing in the Eastern District of Texas, his firm frequently acts as local counsel in patent infringement cases.

Mann Tindel & Thompson (Henderson, TX)

• Gregory Blake Thompson
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Mann Tindel & Thompson, Henderson, TX
  • Experience Note: His firm often serves as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
• James Mark Mann
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Mann Tindel & Thompson, Henderson, TX
  • Experience Note: His firm often serves as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendants (Teso LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB) in Bright Data, Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al.:

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

• Brett Christopher Govett
  • Role: Lead Counsel (appears to have filed motions on behalf of Teso LT, UAB, and is part of the defense team noted for a "complete defense victory" in a related appeal).
  • Firm & Office: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in patent litigation, particularly for technology companies, and successfully defended the defendants in a related Federal Circuit appeal concerning data communication patents.
• Daniel S. Leventhal
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Regularly appears in patent litigation cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Warren Szutse Huang
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Identified as counsel for defendants in the case, suggesting involvement in patent litigation.
• Felicia J. Boyd
  • Role: Counsel (moved for pro hac vice appearance).
  • Firm & Office: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (likely, given Govett's motion for her), office location to be confirmed but likely a different Norton Rose Fulbright office than Dallas/Houston.
  • Experience Note: Expertise in intellectual property litigation, frequently serves as lead counsel in complex patent disputes.

Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC

• Steven Chase Callahan
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Named as counsel for the defendants, indicating experience in litigation.
• Craig N. Tolliver
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for the defendants in the case, suggesting involvement in patent litigation.
• George T. Scott
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Identified as counsel for defendants.
• John Charles Heuton
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for the defendants.
• Mitchell Reed Sibley
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Identified as counsel for defendants.

Scheef & Stone, LLP

• Michael Charles Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel (commonly seen for Marshall, TX location in Eastern District of Texas cases).
  • Firm & Office: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, TX.
  • Experience Note: Frequently serves as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Motieka & Audzevicius

• Justinas Jarusevicius
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Motieka & Audzevicius (international firm, likely Vilnius, Lithuania, given defendants' origin).
  • Experience Note: Represents the Lithuanian defendant entities.

Gabriel Scott Culver

• Role: Counsel.
• Firm & Office: Not explicitly stated in the provided search snippet. Further research would be needed to identify his firm and office location definitively, though he appeared on behalf of Teso LT, UAB.
• Experience Note: Filed a notice of appearance for Teso LT, UAB.