Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting. Let me start with the IPR itself and the parallel district court litigation.

Excellent leads. Let me dig deeper into the IPR denial, the parallel district court cases, and the parties' corporate identities.

Case Overview and Background

*IPR2020-01506 — Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd. (PTAB), linked to Luminati/Bright Data v. Teso LT, UAB et al., No. 2:19-cv-395-JRG (E.D. Tex.)*

A note on framing: IPR2020-01506 is not itself an infringement suit — it is an inter partes review filed by the accused infringers against a patent being asserted against them in district court. The "accused product" and venue questions below therefore trace to the co-pending E.D. Texas litigation that the IPR was designed to counter.

The parties. The petitioners — Code200, UAB; Teso LT, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB; and Oxysales, UAB (later joined by parent Coretech LT, UAB) — are Lithuanian entities of the Oxylabs group, an operating company (oxylabs.io) that sells data-center and residential proxy networks and a "Real-Time Crawler" web-data-extraction service. Oxylabs' own answer admits that Teso, Metacluster, Oxysales, and Code200 "are all owned by Coretech," and later PTAB filings confirm a restructuring in which Oxysales and Metacluster merged into Teso, which then renamed itself Oxylabs, UAB; the group later added The Data Company Technologies, Inc. and Major Data UAB. Oxylabs is affiliated with the Tesonet/NordVPN circle (Tesonet co-founder Tomas Okmanas is named in the complaints). The patent owner, Luminati Networks Ltd., is an Israeli operating company — formerly Hola Networks Ltd., the operator of the Hola VPN service — that runs one of the largest commercial residential proxy networks and renamed itself Bright Data Ltd.; its corporate disclosure identifies IPPN Group Ltd. as a 10%+ owner. This is thus an operating-company-versus-operating-company fight, not a classic NPE patent assertion, although Luminati/Bright Data's serial filing against proxy and web-scraping competitors (Oxylabs, BIScience, NetNut, Tefincom/NordVPN) and its practice-marking/notice letters give the campaign an NPE-like flavor.

The technology and the patent at issue. The accused instrumentalities are Oxylabs'

I'll research this case across PTAB, district court, and Federal Circuit sources.

Let me dig into the institution decision and the related district court cases.

Now let me find the district court trial verdict and claim construction in the parallel Teso litigation.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners (plaintiffs) in this IPR proceeding.

Let me dig into the actual IPR2020-01506 filings and decision, which list counsel of record.

I have good context. Now let me pin down the specific counsel of record in the IPR2020-01506 filings themselves.

I'll research the counsel of record in this matter. Note an important framing issue I need to resolve: IPR2020-01506 is an IPR where Luminati is the patent owner, not a defendant — so I should check both the PTAB counsel and the parallel district court defendant counsel. Let me search.

I have strong leads. Now let me pin down the PTAB-side counsel of record in IPR2020-01506 specifically, plus confirm the district court defendant-side roster.

Let me pin down the specific PTAB counsel of record for IPR2020-01506 (both petitioner and patent-owner sides) and verify the parties' corporate/firm details.

I've hit my search-step limit, so let me synthesize what the sources establish — and flag one significant framing issue up front.

Counsel of Record — IPR2020-01506 (Code200, UAB et al. v. Luminati Networks Ltd.)

Threshold clarification (important)

The metadata for this "case" labels the petitioners (Code200, Teso, Metacluster, Oxysales) as Plaintiffs and Luminati Networks Ltd. as the "defendant." That is a metadata convention, not the litigation reality:

• IPR2020-01506 itself is an inter partes review, not an infringement suit. It has no plaintiff or defendant — it has a Petitioner (the Oxylabs entities) and a Patent Owner / Respondent (Luminati, now Bright Data Ltd.). The proceeding was denied institution on Feb. 16–17, 2021 (Paper 10; termination reflected Feb. 16, 2021), and the Board's denial rested on discretionary (Fintiv) grounds — a later petition recites that "[t]he Board exercised its discretion and declined to institute review based on the Fintiv factors." A related docket confirms the panel was Judges Russell Cass, Sheila McShane, and Thomas Giannetti (Docket Alarm, IPR2020-01506).
• The real "infringement case" with actual defendants is the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation: Luminati/Bright Data v. Teso LT, UAB et al., No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, and Luminati/Bright Data v. code200, UAB et al., No. 2:19-cv-00396-JRG — where Code200, Oxysales, Metacluster, and Teso are the defendants. The '614 patent was asserted in that campaign (the IPR petition cites "Amended Complaint … Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Code200, UAB et al., 2:19-cv-00396-JRG" as Ex. 1032).

Because the question says "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case," I provide both rosters below: (A) the party the metadata calls "defendant" (the patent owner, Luminati/Bright Data) — the technically correct answer for the IPR — and (B) the accused infringers/defendants in the parallel suits, who are also the petitioners here.

---

A. Patent Owner = the metadata "Defendant": Luminati Networks Ltd. (now Bright Data Ltd.)

Firm of record in the IPR: RuyakCherian LLP (also styled "Cherian LLP" in later PTAB papers). The docket confirms the patent owner filed its '614 Patent Mandatory Notice of Patent Owner (Paper 7) and a "RuyakCherian POA" power of attorney (Paper 8) on Sept. 25, 2020 (Patexia/Docket Alarm docket for IPR2020-01506). Caveat: the IPR docket entries confirm the firm, but the individual attorney names on the POA are behind the downloadable document and I could not verify them directly.

Individual attorneys known to represent Luminati/Bright Data in this patent family: