IPR2022-00135

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2022-00135, involved petitioner Unified Patents LLC, an organization known for challenging patents on behalf of its members to deter assertions, and patent owner Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.). Bright Data is an operating company specializing in residential proxy network services and real-time crawler technology. The IPR targeted U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, which describes a system for faster and more efficient data communication, focusing on network architecture, proxy infrastructure, and data-routing optimization.

The patent at issue in this IPR was also asserted by Bright Data in parallel district court litigation against Oxylabs (comprising Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB) in Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Oxylabs, a competitor also providing proxy network services and real-time crawler technology, was accused of infringing the '319 patent through its residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler. The district court case was presided over by Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, a prominent judge in patent litigation. The PTAB, in IPR2022-00135, issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims of the '319 patent unpatentable, a decision which was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 1, 2025.

This case is particularly notable due to the intense competition between Bright Data and Oxylabs in the proxy services market, marked by multiple legal disputes, including antitrust counterclaims filed by Oxylabs against Bright Data in the district court. Unified Patents' involvement as the petitioner highlights the strategy of using IPRs to address patents asserted by operating companies, not just Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). A significant aspect is the Federal Circuit's affirmation of the PTAB's unpatentability finding for all challenged claims of the '319 patent, despite a jury in the related district court case having previously found that Oxylabs had not proven invalidity for some claims. This outcome effectively invalidates the asserted claims of the patent, foreclosing Bright Data's ability to enforce them as originally granted and underscoring the powerful impact of PTAB decisions on parallel litigation.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2022-00135, concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, involved Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) as the Patent Owner and Oxylabs (comprising Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB) as the Petitioner. This IPR was part of broader disputes between the parties, including a parallel patent infringement litigation in district court.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2022-00135, presented chronologically, along with related litigation:

• 2019-12-06: District Court Complaint Filed
  Bright Data Ltd. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Oxylabs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, styled Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et. al., Case No. 2:19-cv-395. This lawsuit asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, among other patents. Oxylabs, in turn, filed antitrust counterclaims in this district court action and a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.

• 2021-11-05: District Court Jury Verdict
  A federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict in Case No. 2:19-cv-395. The jury found that all asserted Bright Data patent claims, including those of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319, were valid and that Oxylabs had willfully infringed Bright Data's patent rights. The jury further concluded that Oxylabs should compensate Bright Data for its lost profits.

• 2022 (Date not specified): IPR Petition Filed
  Oxylabs filed a petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2022-00135, challenging the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319. This IPR was one of several filed by Oxylabs against Bright Data's patents, some of which were denied institution or terminated.

• PTAB Final Written Decision (Date not specified, but prior to appeal)
  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00135, determining that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 were unpatentable.

• 2025-08-01: Federal Circuit Appeal Decision
  Bright Data Ltd. appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision for IPR2022-00135 (along with other related IPRs) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was docketed as Bright Data Ltd., v. Code200 UAB, Case No. 23-2144. On August 1, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO's decision, upholding the PTAB's finding that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 were unpatentable.

In IPR2022-00135, Oxylabs LT, UAB is the Petitioner, challenging patent 10257319, which is owned by Bright Data Ltd.. The counsel of record representing the petitioner, Oxylabs LT, UAB, includes:

Eagle H. Robinson

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
• Office Location: Austin, TX
• Experience Note: Mr. Robinson is a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright and leads the firm's IP Transactions and Patent Prosecution in the United States. He has experience representing both patent owners and petitioners in patent validity trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has been recognized as a top-performing attorney defending petitioners in IPR proceedings.

While documents mention the designation of "Back-Up Counsel" for Oxylabs LT, UAB, specific names for backup counsel in IPR2022-00135 were not explicitly identified in the provided search results.

In the district court litigation, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, the defendants, Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, "Oxylabs"), were represented by the following counsel:

• Steven Chase Callahan

  • Firm: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX

• Craig N. Tolliver

  • Firm: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX

• George T. Scott

  • Firm: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX

• John Charles Heuton

  • Firm: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX

• Mitchell Reed Sibley

  • Firm: Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX

• Brett Christopher Govett

  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX

• Daniel S. Leventhal

  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX

• Warren Szutse Huang

  • Firm: Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX

• Michael Charles Smith

  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP
  • Office Location: Marshall, TX

• Justinas Jarusevicius

  • Firm: Motieka & Audzevicius
  • Role: Likely local counsel given the firm's international presence and the other counsel's locations.
  • Office Location: Unspecified in the provided search results, but Motieka & Audzevicius is a Lithuanian firm.

It is important to note that while the IPR case IPR2022-00135 was brought by Unified Patents LLC, the district court case involved Oxylabs (Teso LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Metacluster LT, UAB) as defendants, who were accused of infringing the '319 patent. The counsel listed above represent Oxylabs in that district court action.