The Court issued its claim construction[1] opinion (a so-called Markman[2] opinion), which proved to be critical for the later stages of Case No. 299. With this decision, at Oxylabs’ request, the Court invalidated one of the three independent claims of Bright Data’s patents (Claim 108) as indefinite and issued an order construing the claims of Bright Data’s patents.

Oxylabs filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings[3] (a so-called Alice Motion[4]) seeking a ruling that Bright Data’s patents were invalid for impermissibly claiming an abstract idea.

Oxylabs also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that Oxylabs did not infringe Bright Data’s patents. Both motions (i.e., Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Summary Judgment) were pending, and if the Court had granted either of them, the lawsuit would have concluded on the merits in Oxylabs’ favor.

On December 12, 2018, in Case No. 299, Bright Data asserted certain non-patent claims against Oxylabs. Oxylabs wrote to Bright Data on September 10, 2019, and advised that these additional claims asserted in Case No. 299 were frivolous and that the continued pursuit of the claims would subject Bright Data to liability for Oxylabs’ attorney’s fees. On November 4, 2019, rather than pursue these additional non-patent claims asserted in Case No. 299, Bright Data voluntarily withdrew them without prejudice.

Bright Data filed two new patent lawsuits against Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ technologies allegedly infringed on five additional patents, U.S. Patents 10,469,614, 10,257,319, 10,484,510 (Case No. 395) and 10,484,511 10,637,968 (Case No. 396). In Case No. 395, Bright Data also once again asserted the same additional non-patent claims, which Bright Data voluntarily withdrew in Case No. 299 back in November 2019.

During the Pretrial Conference[5] (one month before jury trial), the parties resolved Case No. 299 by settlement. Therefore, all pending motions were not resolved on their merits.

As the settlement was reached by both parties, Case No. 299 was dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. An important point to note is that Bright Data agreed to resolve the case while fully understanding that it can never again assert infringement against Oxylabs’ accused products on the same patents.

After witnessing what we believed to be continuous efforts of Bright Data to mislead the market regarding Oxylabs’ products, Oxylabs sued Bright Data and its investor EMK Capital LLP on the following claims: unfair competition, false advertising, false patent marking, defamation/business disparagement, tortious interference with prospective business relations, tortious interference with the existing contract, breach of contract, and conspiracy (Case No. 73).

Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Bright Data, and claims against Bright Data’s investor EMK Capital LLP and Hola (Hola VPN Ltd. and Hola Networks Ltd.) in Case No. 395. The claims asserted by Oxylabs include: violation and conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws of the United States, monopolization and attempted monopolization of the residential proxy marketplace, and the filing of sham patent-infringement lawsuits against competitors, including Oxylabs. To promote fair marketplace practices, Oxylabs sought to redress the injuries it has suffered and hold Bright Data, EMK Capital, and Hola accountable for their actions.

The Court issued its Claim Construction Opinion and Order, which will be critical for the later stages of Case No.395. This decision invalidated one of the patent claims asserted by Luminati (now Bright Data).

All parties involved in Case No. 73 agreed on a stipulation which ended the case. Therefore, all pending motions were not resolved on their merits.

Luminati (now Bright Data) and Oxylabs dismissed their non-patent claims through stipulation. Oxylabs’ antitrust claims against EMK were dismissed after the Court found that EMK could not conspire under the antitrust laws with its related entity, Bright Data.

The parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Patent Infringement Claims Against Metacluster LT, UAB (the “Stipulation”). In the Stipulation, Bright Data represented what acts it accused of infringement and Metacluster represented that it had not performed any such acts. Subject to the Stipulation, Bright Data moved to dismiss its claims of infringement against Metacluster with prejudice, and defendants agreed to the dismissal. Based on the parties’ Stipulation, the Court entered an Order on July 2, 2021, dismissing Bright Data’s claims against Metacluster with prejudice.

The jury issued a verdict finding certain claims infringed and not invalid. While we are disappointed in the decision, we thank the jury for their service. We note that the jury’s decision relates solely to a claim for monetary damages. Oxylabs is legally entitled to continue providing the accused services. The Court has not issued any orders related to continued use of Oxylabs’ residential proxy service. We intend to continue to pursue our positions both with the District Court and, if necessary, at the Court of Appeals. Oxylabs continues to offer its services in an uninterrupted manner.

Oxylabs has filed the lawsuit against Bright Data claiming the infringement of three patents of Oxylabs. Oxylabs alleges that its competitor infringes on Oxylabs’ patents claiming Smart Proxy Rotator and web script management technologies for the provisioning of web scraping and other business services.

On February 10, 2022, the District Court entered an Order denying Bright Data’s request for an injunction. The Order is available here.

The Court issued a sua sponte order staying and administratively closing Case No. 396 (concerning the alleged infringement of Bright Data patents on data center IP technologies) pending any appeal and entry of a final and non-appealable judgment in Case No. 395 (concerning the alleged infringement of Bright Data patents on residential proxy technologies).