[email protected]
Log in
Careers
About Us
Instant help
en
English
中文

The Latest Information Regarding All Legal Proceedings Between Oxylabs and Luminati (Luminati Networks Ltd.)

Our commitment to a fair market in which innovation thrives through legitimate competition

The story’s first chapter dates back to July 2018, when Luminati (Luminati Networks Ltd.) sued Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ technology infringed Luminati’s patents. Oxylabs maintained the position that it does not, nor did it at any point, infringe Luminati’s patents.

In fact, Luminati’s allegations were resolved in the first concluded case, as a settlement was reached between both parties, resulting in all claims and counterclaims in the case being dismissed with prejudice. Hence, our existing and future partners should not be concerned regarding Luminati’s messages regarding Oxylabs' products.

It is essential to mention that, to our knowledge, there is no Court decision finding that any proxy service provider infringes on Luminati’s patents.

That said, little did we know at the time, for Luminati, it wasn’t necessarily all about winning the case. As further actions against us have shown, it seems Luminati’s aim might be all about tying up its competition in endless legal proceedings, distracting its rivals from their core business operations, and discouraging regular companies from using non-Luminati proxy providers.

Hence, Oxylabs will continue to protect its technology and reputation utilizing all available legal remedies to ensure fair market practices that encourage legitimate competition for all market stakeholders’ interests.

avatar

Julius Cerniauskas

CEO at Oxylabs

The legal cases

Case No. 299

Resolved by settlement

Luminati v. Oxylabs

Luminati sued Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler allegedly infringed Luminati’s two patents, U.S. Patents 9,241,044 and 9,742,866.

Case No. 395

Ongoing

Luminati v. Oxylabs

Luminati filed a new patent lawsuit against Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler allegedly infringed three additional Luminati patents, U.S. Patents 10,469,614, 10,257,319, 10,484,510.

Case No. 396

Ongoing

Luminati v. Oxylabs

Luminati filed a new patent lawsuit against Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ data center IP technologies allegedly infringed on additional Luminati patents, U.S. Patents 10,484,511, 10,637,968.

Case No. 73

Ongoing

Oxylabs v. Luminati

Oxylabs sued Luminati 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.

The legal timeline

2018

July 19, 2018

Case No. 299

Luminati filed a complaint against Oxylabs

Luminati sued Oxylabs, claiming that two Oxylabs’ products - Oxylabs’ residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler - allegedly infringed Luminati’s two patents, U.S. Patents 9,241,044 and 9,742,866

(Case No. 299)

2019

August 21, 2019

Case No. 299

Claim Construction Order

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 Luminati’s patents (Claim 108) as indefinite and issued an order construing the claims of Luminati’s patents.

September 9, 2019

Case No. 299

Oxylabs filed Alice Motion

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

November 4, 2019

Case No. 299

Oxylabs filed Motion for Summary Judgment

Oxylabs also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that Oxylabs did not infringe Luminati’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.

November 5, 2019

Case No. 299

Luminati withdrew non-patent claims

On December 12, 2018, in Case No. 299, Luminati asserted certain non-patent claims against Oxylabs. Oxylabs wrote to Luminati 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 Luminati to liability for Oxylabs’ attorney’s fees. On November 4, 2019, rather than pursue these additional non-patent claims asserted in Case No. 299, Luminati voluntarily withdrew them without prejudice.

December 6, 2019

Case No. 395

Case No. 396

Luminati filed two new complaints against Oxylabs

Luminati 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, Luminati also once again asserted the same additional non-patent claims, which Luminati voluntarily withdrew in Case No. 299 back in November 2019.

2020

January 3, 2020

Case No. 299

Case resolved by settlement

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.

February 4, 2020

Case No. 299

Case dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement

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 Luminati agreed to resolve the case while fully understanding that it can never again assert infringement against Oxylabs’ accused products on the same patents.

March 5, 2020

Case No. 73

Oxylabs filed a complaint against Luminati, and its investor EMK Capital LLP

After witnessing what we believed to be continuous efforts of Luminati to mislead the market regarding Oxylabs’ products, Oxylabs sued Luminati 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).

March 17, 2020

Case No. 395

Oxylabs filed Alice Motion

Oxylabs filed a Motion to Dismiss (Alice Motion) in Case No. 395, seeking to hold Luminati’s three patents invalid for impermissibly claiming an abstract idea.

April 1, 2020

Case No. 395

Oxylabs filed Motion to Stay

Oxylabs filed a Motion to Stay the case, pending a decision on Oxylabs’ Motion to Dismiss in Case No 395.

May 19, 2020

Case No. 396

Oxylabs filed Alice Motion

Oxylabs filed Motion to Dismiss (Alice Motion) in Case No. 396, seeking to hold Luminati’s one patent invalid for impermissibly claiming an abstract idea.

May 26, 2020

Case No. 395

Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Luminati, and claims against EMK Capital LLP and Hola

Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Luminati, and claims against Luminati’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 seeks to redress the injuries it has suffered and hold Luminati, EMK Capital, and Hola accountable for their actions.

Legal terminology

1. Claim Construction Order is the process of giving meaning to a patent’s claims by defining selected claim terms.

2. Markman Hearing is a pretrial hearing in a U.S. District Court during which a judge examines evidence from all parties on the appropriate meanings of relevant keywords used in a patent claim. “Markman” comes from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), which held that it is up to the Court (as opposed to a jury) to interpret a patent’s claims. A Markman hearing is also known as a “claim construction hearing.”

3. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion to Dismiss are motions that a party to a lawsuit may file, asking the Court to dismiss the case before it proceeds to discovery and a trial. They are motions taking issue with a party’s claim as a matter of law.

4. Alice Motion refers to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), which held that a trial court must determine whether a patent is invalid for claiming unpatentable subject matter. The trial court must first determine whether the challenged claims “are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” i.e., an abstract idea. If the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Court then must determine whether the claims recite “additional elements” that “transform the nature” of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.

5. Pretrial conference is a Court hearing with the Judge and the parties to a case conducted prior to trial.

city image
Oxylabs’ Council Profile:

Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza

Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza is a Dallas, Texas based law firm that handles business and intellectual-property litigation. Since its founding in 2013, CCRG has represented leading corporations — including Berkshire Hathaway companies (McLane and MBM), Ericsson, Samsung, OpenTable, Denbury, Cloudflare, and VTech — in business and intellectual-property disputes. The firm regularly litigates patent-infringement lawsuits on its clients’ behalves across the United States, including in the Eastern District of Texas, District of Delaware, and Northern District of California.