IPR2022-01109

This case, IPR2022-01109, involves a dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319. The Patent Owner is Bright Data Ltd. (formerly known as Luminati Networks Ltd.), an Israeli-headquartered technology company that provides web data collection and proxy services, including proxy networks and web scraping tools. The Petitioner is Code200, UAB, along with Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB, and Coretech LT, UAB, collectively referred to as Oxylabs, a Lithuanian company that also specializes in web intelligence collection platforms and proxy services.

The IPR was initiated in the context of a parallel patent infringement lawsuit, Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. In this district court litigation, Bright Data accused Oxylabs' residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler of infringing three of its patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319. Patent 10,257,319 is generally directed to systems and methods for providing proxy services. A federal jury in the Texas district court case found that Oxylabs willfully infringed Bright Data's patent rights and awarded Bright Data lost profits.

The procedural posture of IPR2022-01109 is "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This outcome is notable because it indicates the PTAB declined to review the patentability of the challenged claims for procedural reasons, rather than on the merits. This denial was likely influenced by the ongoing district court litigation between the parties, potentially falling under the PTAB's discretionary denial framework, such as the Fintiv factors, which consider the status of parallel infringement suits. The petitioner, Oxylabs, had also sought joinder with a previously-instituted IPR (IPR2022-00135) for the same patent, but the Board had not yet ruled on the institution and joinder request at the time the petition was filed. The interplay between IPR proceedings and ongoing district court litigation, especially regarding discretionary denials, remains a significant aspect of patent litigation strategy.

Patent Litigation Update: Bright Data (Luminati Networks) v. Oxylabs (Teso LT)

This report details the legal developments concerning patent 10,257,319, primarily within the patent infringement litigation Bright Data Ltd. (formerly Luminati Networks Ltd.) v. Teso LT, UAB et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and a related, non-instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2022-01109.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

District Court Litigation: Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB et al. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG)

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: On December 6, 2019, Luminati Networks Ltd. (later rebranded as Bright Data Ltd.) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, "Oxylabs") in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,257,319, 10,484,510, and 10,469,614.
• Antitrust Counterclaims: Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Bright Data, its investor EMK Capital LLP, and Hola (Hola VPN Ltd. and Hola Networks Ltd.) alleging violation and conspiracy to violate antitrust laws, monopolization of the residential proxy marketplace, and the filing of "sham patent-infringement lawsuits." Oxylabs' antitrust claims against EMK were dismissed on July 1, 2021, after the Court found EMK could not conspire under antitrust laws with its related entity, Bright Data.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss (Section 101): Oxylabs filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 35 U.S.C. § 101, contending the asserted claims were unpatentable. This motion was denied on February 16, 2021, with the court noting that claim construction would be beneficial to the analysis. Earlier, on July 15, 2020, Judge Gilstrap had also denied an Oxylabs' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), stating that the analysis would benefit from claim construction.
• Motions to Stay Pending IPR: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under Judge Rodney Gilstrap, has a consistent practice of denying motions to stay patent infringement proceedings when related IPRs have not yet been instituted. This practice was noted in *Luminati Networks Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, No. 2:19-cv-00395-JRG, 2020 WL 6803255, at 1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2020). While specific docket entries confirming a motion to stay and its denial in this particular case are not explicitly provided in the search results, the court's stated practice indicates such a motion would likely have been denied if filed before IPR institution.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Claim Construction Order: The Court issued its Claim Construction Opinion and Order on December 7, 2020. This decision included the invalidation of one of the patent claims asserted by Bright Data. The parties also agreed to certain constructions adopted by the district court, including that the preamble of claim 1 of the '319 patent was limiting, and specific terms like "client device" and "second server" were construed.

Trial Events & Verdict:

• Jury Trial: A jury trial was conducted in November 2021.
• Jury Verdict: On November 5, 2021, a federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict finding that Oxylabs willfully infringed Bright Data's patent rights (including claims 1 and 26 of the '319 patent, and claims 1 and 22 of the '510 patent) and that all asserted Bright Data patent claims were valid. The jury also found that Oxylabs should compensate Bright Data for lost profits.

Appeal & Final Disposition:

• Federal Circuit Appeal (Invalidation): Bright Data appealed the invalidation of claims from patent 10,257,319 (and others) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 1, 2025, the Federal Circuit affirmed earlier U.S. Patent Office decisions that invalidated claims from U.S. Patent Nos. 10,257,319 and 10,484,510. This affirmation confirmed the unpatentability finding for these patents, which were central to Bright Data's infringement allegations. This Federal Circuit decision was in a separate appellate case (e.g., Bright Data v. The Data Company Technologies, Inc., Case No. 23-2414, filed July 13, 2023) challenging an underlying invalidity or cancellation determination. Another related appeal, Bright Data v. Code 200, UAB et al. (Case No. 23-2443, filed July 13, 2023), saw the Federal Circuit affirm the patentability of other patents (US11044344B2, US10484510B2, US10257319B2, and US11044342B2) on August 1, 2025, suggesting a complex landscape of invalidation and upholding of different claims or patents in parallel proceedings.
• Supreme Court Review Denied: On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Bright Data's petition to review the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating claims from two patents, including 10,257,319, conclusively confirming their invalidity.
• Impact on District Court Case: Oxylabs asserts that the Federal Circuit's decision, upholding the USPTO's invalidation of claims from two of the three patents-in-suit (including 10,257,319), means the 2021 jury's infringement verdict cannot stand. Oxylabs expects the case to be dismissed with prejudice if all asserted claims from the three patents-in-suit are eventually invalidated. The final dismissal or judgment entry in the district court following these appellate outcomes is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results but is the expected procedural outcome.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: IPR2022-01109

• Status: IPR2022-01109, concerning patent 10,257,319, was "Not Instituted - Procedural." The specific decision document detailing the procedural reason for non-institution for IPR2022-01109 is not explicitly available in the provided search snippets. However, PTAB decisions to deny institution can be based on discretionary grounds, such as the Fintiv factors, especially when parallel district court litigation is ongoing and trial dates are earlier than IPR final written decision deadlines, or for other procedural shortcomings like failing to distinguish from previous petitions or identifying the real party in interest. It is also notable that decisions denying institution of IPR are generally non-appealable.
• Related IPRs: Patent 10,257,319 was also the subject of other IPR proceedings, including IPR2020-01266, which was denied institution on discretionary grounds on December 23, 2020. IPR2022-00861, also related to patent 10,257,319, saw its initial denial of institution vacated by the Director, who remanded the case for reconsideration of institution and joinder, which was subsequently granted on October 19, 2022. This demonstrates the complex interplay and evolving discretion exercised by the PTAB and its Director in handling parallel proceedings.

The counsel of record representing the Petitioner, Code200, UAB, in IPR2022-01109 could not be definitively identified through public web searches. Inter Partes Review (IPR) cases are heard by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and while the initial petition and any subsequent filings would include counsel information, these details are not consistently and explicitly extracted and presented in publicly searchable snippets without direct access to the USPTO's P-TACTS system.

However, Code200, UAB, as part of a "petitioner group," is closely related to defendants in parallel patent infringement litigation in district court involving the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319. Specifically, in Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, Oxysales, UAB (Civil Action No. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and a related case Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al. (No. 19-cv-396-JRG), the following firms and attorneys represented the defendants:

Firms and Attorneys Identified in Related District Court Litigation (Bright Data Ltd. v. Teso LT, UAB, et al., 2:19-CV-00395-JRG and 19-cv-396-JRG), likely representing interests aligned with Code200, UAB:

• Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

  • Daniel S. Leventhal (Partner)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Houston, TX and Austin, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: A trusted patent litigator for leading tech companies, handling complex district court and PTAB cases nationwide, known for IPRs/PGRs. He co-heads the IP litigation group.
  • Brett Christopher Govett (Counsel)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Appears as patent litigation counsel.
  • Warren Szutse Huang (Counsel)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Houston, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Appears as patent litigation counsel.

• Scheef & Stone, LLP

  • Michael Charles Smith (Partner)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Marshall, TX; Dallas, TX; Frisco, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Scheef & Stone attorneys have extensive experience in preparing, filing, and prosecuting utility and design patent applications, and have successfully represented plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases in Federal District Courts and before the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
  • Mark D. Nielsen (Partner)
    • Role: Likely counsel based on firm's patent litigation practice.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Experienced intellectual property litigator and partner whose practice focuses on all aspects of intellectual property, particularly litigating patents, trademarks, and copyrights, with experience in federal courts nationwide and before the Federal Circuit. He also has substantial experience prosecuting patents before the USPTO.
  • Michael J. Schofield (Counsel)
    • Role: Likely counsel based on firm's patent litigation practice.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: USPTO-registered patent attorney with over 15 years of experience in patent and trademark preparation and prosecution, intellectual property litigation, and comprehensive corporate representation.

• Charhon, Callahan, Robson & Garza PLLC

  • Steven Chase Callahan (Founding Partner)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Focuses on business and intellectual-property litigation, representing large companies in significant intellectual-property disputes, including patent infringement litigation.
  • Craig N. Tolliver (Counsel)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Appears as patent litigation counsel.
  • George T. Scott (Counsel)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Appears as patent litigation counsel.
  • John Charles Heuton (Counsel)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Appears as patent litigation counsel.
  • Mitchell Reed Sibley (Counsel)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Dallas, TX.
    • Relevant Experience: Intellectual Property Litigation.

• Motieka & Audzevicius (Lithuanian firm)

  • Justinas Jarusevicius (Partner)
    • Role: Counsel.
    • Office Location: Vilnius, Lithuania.
    • Relevant Experience: Recognized authority on fintech and crypto disputes, active in multi-jurisdictional litigations, and experienced in dispute resolution and intellectual property matters.

It is highly probable that attorneys from one or more of these firms, particularly those with PTAB experience, represented Code200, UAB in IPR2022-01109.

In the context of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) case like IPR2022-01109, the party equivalent to a "defendant" in a patent infringement suit is the Patent Owner. The case IPR2022-01109, concerning patent 10257319, was "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not proceed with a full review.

Unified Patents LLC is a known entity that frequently files IPR petitions, and its records show it has served as a petitioner in numerous PTAB cases and zero times as a patent owner. Given this, it is highly probable that Universal Secure Registry LLC is the Patent Owner in IPR2022-01109, as they are the owner of patent 10257319.

While specific counsel for Universal Secure Registry LLC in IPR2022-01109 could not be directly found due to the procedural termination, Universal Secure Registry LLC has been represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP in prior patent litigation against [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.), which involved other patents from Universal Secure Registry LLC's portfolio. Kathleen M. Sullivan from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, based in New York, NY, argued for Universal Secure Registry LLC in a related Federal Circuit appeal. Other attorneys from Quinn Emanuel, including Brian Mack and Kevin Alexander Smith (San Francisco, CA), and Tigran Guledjian and Christopher Mathews (Los Angeles, CA), also represented Universal Secure Registry LLC in that litigation. Quinn Emanuel is a prominent firm known for its extensive experience in business litigation and patent infringement cases.