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 (now Bright Data) sued Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ technology infringed Bright Data’s patents. Oxylabs maintained the position that it does not, nor did it at any point, infringe Bright Data’s patents.
In fact, Bright Data’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 Bright Data’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 Bright Data’s patents.
That said, little did we know at the time, for Bright Data, it wasn’t necessarily all about winning the case. As further actions against us have shown, it seems Bright Data’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-Bright Data 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.
The legal cases
Note: Luminati has since rebranded to Bright Data
Case No. 395
Luminati v. Oxylabs
Luminati (now Bright Data) filed a new patent lawsuit against Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler allegedly infringed three additional Bright Data patents, U.S. Patents 10,469,614, 10,257,319, 10,484,510.
Case No. 396
Luminati v. Oxylabs
Luminati (now Bright Data) filed a new patent lawsuit against Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’ data center IP technologies allegedly infringed on additional Bright Data patents, U.S. Patents 10,484,511, 10,637,968.
Case No. 73
Oxylabs v. Luminati
Oxylabs sued Luminati (now 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.
The legal timeline
2018
July 19, 2018
Luminati (now Bright Data) filed a complaint against Oxylabs
2019
August 21, 2019
Claim Construction Order
September 9, 2019
Oxylabs filed Alice Motion
November 4, 2019
Oxylabs filed Motion for Summary Judgment
November 5, 2019
Luminati (now Bright Data) withdrew non-patent claims
December 6, 2019
Luminati (now Bright Data) filed two new complaints against Oxylabs
2020
January 3, 2020
Case resolved by settlement
February 4, 2020
Case dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement
March 5, 2020
Oxylabs filed a complaint against Luminati (now Bright Data), and its investor EMK Capital LLP
May 26, 2020
Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Luminati (now Bright Data), and claims against EMK Capital LLP and Hola
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.
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.
Your personal Sales Manager will contact you soon!
You will receive an email with more details within one working day. Your personal Sales Manager will be happy to schedule a call with you and help you set up the proxies for your specific use case.
