UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`UAB TESONET,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, Luminati Networks Ltd. (“Luminati”) brings this action under the patent laws of
`
`the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and makes the following allegations
`
`against UAB Tesonet (“Tesonet” or “Defendant”):
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Luminati is an Israeli company having a principal place of business at 3
`
`Hamahshev St., Netanya 42507, ISRAEL.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Tesonet is a Lithuanian corporation
`
`headquartered at Jasinskio Street 16, Vilnius, 03163 Lithuania. Tesonet may be served pursuant
`
`to the provisions of the Hague Service Convention.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
`
`States of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`Data Co Exhibit 1112
`Data Co v. Bright Data
`IPR2022-00135
`
`

`

`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Tesonet because it, directly or through
`
`its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, or distributors, has sufficient minimum contacts with this
`
`forum as a result of business conducted within the State of Texas, and/or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 4(k)(2). On information and belief, Tesonet transacts substantial business in the State of
`
`Texas, directly or through agents, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringement alleged
`
`herein, and (ii) regularly does or solicits business in Texas, engages in other persistent courses of
`
`conduct, maintains continuous and systematic contacts within this Judicial District, purposefully
`
`avails itself of the privilege of doing business in Texas, and/or derives substantial revenue from
`
`services provided in Texas. For example, on information and belief, Tesonet embeds its
`
`software, which is the subject of the infringement alleged herein, in a number of applications
`
`which are placed into the stream of commerce with the knowledge, understanding, and/or
`
`intention that they be downloaded and executed by individuals located in the State of Texas, as
`
`well as this Judicial District, including the Marshall Division.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has general jurisdiction over Tesonet due to its continuous and
`
`systematic contacts with the State of Texas and this jurisdiction. Further, Tesonet is subject to
`
`this Court’s jurisdiction because it has committed patent infringement in the State of Texas and
`
`this jurisdiction.
`
`7.
`
`Following Brunette Machine Works v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706
`
`1972), venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) at least because,
`
`upon information and belief, Tesonet is a foreign entity.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`2
`
`

`

`8.
`
`Derry Shribman and Ofer Vilenski are the sole inventors of a number of patents,
`
`including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,241,044 (Exhibit A, “’044 Patent”) and divisional 9,742,866
`
`(Exhibit B, “’866 Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`9.
`
`The Asserted Patents are directed toward methods for fetching content over the
`
`internet through the use of intermediary tunneling devices. Luminati identifies its patents on its
`
`website at https://luminati.io/patent-marking#system-and-method-for-streaming-content-from-
`
`multiple-servers.
`
`10.
`
`The Asserted Patents were assigned to Hola Networks Ltd. (“Hola”). Hola has
`
`subsequently changed its name to Luminati Ltd., before changing its name to Luminati Networks
`
`Ltd., the Plaintiff in this action.
`
`11.
`
`Luminati, formerly known as Hola, provides a cloud service connecting tens of
`
`millions of devices over the Internet through a proxy-based network. Each participating device
`
`allows the network to utilize a small fraction of that device’s idle time for the network. Luminati
`
`utilizes this network to provide proxy-based services to businesses.
`
`12.
`
`Since 2014, Luminati has offered proxy-based services relying on its “Residential
`
`Proxy Network” that practice one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Luminati permits its
`
`business customers to utilize its residential proxy network to gather data over the Internet using
`
`residential IP addresses from various localities as required by the customers. These residential
`
`IP addresses provide businesses with a number of advantages. For example, online retailers may
`
`use these addresses to gather comparative pricing information from its competitors, businesses
`
`may utilize these addresses to test their web sites from any city in the world, and cyber security
`
`firms may employ these addresses to test web sites for malicious code.
`
`3
`
`

`

`13.
`
`Prior to and separate from the technology at issue in this case, Hola provided a
`
`virtual private network (“VPN”) service called HolaVPN. Between November 2015 and June
`
`2018, Hola, had a business relationship with Tesonet related to HolaVPN and Tesonet’s VPN
`
`service called NordVPN.
`
`14.
`
`On May 22, 2017, during a meeting between Hola Chief Executive Officer Ofer
`
`Vilenski and Tesonet co-founder Tomas Okmanas, Mr. Okmanas informed Mr. Vilenski that
`
`Tesonet was thinking about entering into the residential proxy business. Mr. Vilenski informed
`
`Mr. Okmanas that Luminati has patents in this field and sent an email to Mr. Okmanas that same
`
`day confirming that Luminati would send a letter identifying Luminati’s intellectual property in
`
`this field.
`
`15.
`
`On June 1, 2017, outside counsel for Hola sent Mr. Okmanas a letter (Exhibit C)
`
`identifying the ’044 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 8,560,604 as Hola patents covering a proprietary
`
`claim scope in the field of peer-to-peer based routing.
`
`16.
`
`On February 14, 2018, Luminati sent a second letter to Mr. Oksmanas referencing
`
`the June 1, 2017 letter, further informing Tesonet of Hola’s name change to Luminati and the
`
`issuance of the ’866 Patent among other patents in the field of IP VPN services using peer-to-
`
`peer technology (Exhibit D). This letter also notified Tesonet that products and services offered
`
`under Tesonet’s “OxyLabs” brand infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`17.
`
`On June 20, 2018, counsel for Tesonet sent a letter to Luminati’s counsel
`
`acknowledging receipt of the February 14, 2018 letter but denying that Tesonet’s Oxylabs
`
`product practices claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, Tesonet offers large-scale web data extraction
`
`products and services under the OxyLabs brand. https://oxylabs.io/
`
`(Exhibit E). Upon
`
`4
`
`

`

`information and belief, this includes a residential proxy network with ten million residential IP
`
`addresses from more than 180 countries. https://oxylabs.io/. Upon information and belief, these
`
`residential proxies are IP addresses that are assigned from a standard Internet Service Provider
`
`(ISP) to a homeowner or other residential or mobile user. https://oxylabs.io/. Upon information
`
`and belief, this residential proxy network is used to access content over the Internet, wherein that
`
`content may be divided into portions, each of which includes part of the content and its own
`
`content identifier.
`
`https://oxylabs.io/.
`
`5
`
`

`

`https://oxylabs.io/proxies/residential-proxies. (Exhibit F)
`
`6
`
`

`

`https://oxylabs.io/faq. Upon information and belief, these residential proxies include IP addresses
`
`located in Marshall, Texas.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, the OxyLabs residential proxy network is based
`
`upon numerous user devices, each of which is a client device identifiable over the Internet by an
`
`IP address. Upon information and belief, these user devices become part of the network through
`
`the execution of Tesonet code embedded in applications downloaded by that devices user. Upon
`
`information and belief, these devices send their identifier to a server (“First Server”), such as
`
`Oxylab’s dedicated proxy servers, which store these identifiers.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Tesonet has developed or is developing OxyLabs
`
`embedded software for different platforms including Google Android and Windows. Upon
`
`information and belief, while frequently renamed, the above OxyLabs embedded software that
`
`enables the residential proxy network includes embedded code named “genericexitnode,”
`
`“winnerbot,” “CoffeeService,” “instantcoffee,” and “ENService.”
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, the above OxyLabs embedded code has been
`
`integrated in at least the following software applications that may be downloaded by any user
`
`located anywhere having Internet access: AppAspect Technologies’ “EMI Calculator” and
`
`“Automatic Call Recorder”; Birrastorming Ideas, S.L’s “IPTV Manager for VL;” CC Soft’s
`
`“Followers Tool for Instagram;” Glidesoft Technologies’ “Route Finder;” ImaTechInnovations’
`
`“3D Wallpaper Parallax 2018;” and Softmate a/k/a Toolbarstudio Inc.’s “AppGeyser” and
`
`“Toolbarstudio.”
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, an OxyLabs customer may utilize the OxyLabs
`
`residential proxy network by sending a request (“First Request”) from the customer’s device
`
`(“First Device”) to the above First Server, which responds by sending the IP address (“Second
`
`7
`
`

`

`Identifier”) corresponding to one of a group of client devices in the proxy network, any one of
`
`which may serve as a proxy device (“Second Device”) back to the First Device.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, having received the Second Identifier, the First
`
`Device may then send a request (“Second Request”) to the Second Device for specific Internet
`
`data (“First Content”) identified by an identifier (“Content Identifier”) from a target server
`
`(“Second Server”) identified by its own identifier (“Third Identifier”), which is forwarded by the
`
`Second Device to the Second Server. Upon information and belief, the target Second Server
`
`responds to the forwarded Second Request by sending the First Content to the Second Device,
`
`which is then forwarded back to the Oxylabs customer at the First Device. Upon information
`
`and belief, to the extent that the requested content is divided into portions or slices, the First
`
`Device can construct the content from the plurality of Content Slices.
`
`24.
`
`The use of the residential proxy network permits anonymity to Oxylabs
`
`customers, such as for engaging in activities like as web crawling, without disclosing its identify
`
`to the targeted web sites.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of the ’044 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`Luminati repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-24 of
`
`this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`The ’044 Patent entitled “System and Method for Improving Internet
`
`Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office on June 19, 2016 from Application No. 14/468,836 filed on August 26,
`
`2014, claiming priority to provisional applications 61/870,815 filed on August 28, 2013. A true
`
`and accurate copy of the ’044 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`8
`
`

`

`27.
`
`Each and every claim of the ’044 Patent is valid and enforceable, and each enjoys
`
`a statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`28.
`
`Luminati exclusively owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’044 Patent
`
`and possesses the exclusive right of recovery, including the exclusive right to recover for past
`
`infringement.
`
`29.
`
`Claim 81 of the ’044 Patent recites:
`
`Claim 81. A method for fetching over the Internet a first content, identified by a
`first content identifier, by a first device, identified in the Internet by a first
`identifier, from a second server identified in the Internet by a third
`identifier via a second device identified in the Internet by a second
`identifier, using a first server, the method comprising the steps of:
`(a) sending the first identifier to the first server;
`(b) sending a first request to the first server;
`(c) receiving the second identifier from the first server;
`(d) sending a second request to the second device using the second
`identifier, the second request includes the first content identifier and the
`third identifier; and
`(e) receiving the first content from the second device.
`
`30.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-19, upon information and belief, Tesonet’s
`
`OxyLabs proxy residential network comprises numerous devices each of which is identifiable by
`
`its own IP address (“identifier”), which are stored on Tesonet’s servers. Consequently, Tesonet’s
`
`OxyLabs proxy residential network would comprise at least a First Device and Second Device
`
`with their corresponding First Identifier and Second Identifier and a First Server.
`
`31.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-23, upon information and belief, this
`
`network would permit a user to access Internet content (“First Content”), identifiable by a
`
`content identifier such as a URL (“First Content Identifier”) from a target server (“Second
`
`Server”), identifiable by its own corresponding IP address (“Third Identifier”).
`
`32.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-23, upon information and belief, the user
`
`devices of the OxyLabs proxy residential network, any one of which could be a “First Device”
`
`9
`
`

`

`sends its corresponding IP address (“First Identifier”) to the OxyLabs server or “First Server,”
`
`which stores these identifiers.
`
`33.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-23, upon information and belief, an
`
`OxyLabs customer can utilize their device, which would be the First Device, to send a request
`
`(“First Request”) to the First Server, causing the First Server to respond by sending the Second
`
`Identifier back to the First Device. Upon information and belief, the OxyLabs customer can then
`
`send a second request (“Second Request”), comprising a First Content Identifier and a Third
`
`Identifier to the Second Device, which forwards the First Content Identifier to the Second Server.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Second Server responds by sending the requested First Content
`
`to the Second Device, which is forwarded back to the First Device.
`
`34.
`
`Tesonet has had actual notice of the ’044 Patent since at least June 1, 2017, and
`
`has known, including by way of communications on and since June 1, 2017 and this lawsuit, that
`
`implementation of its OxyLabs residential proxy service would infringe at least claim 81 of the
`
`’044 Patent.
`
`35.
`
`Tesonet has been and is now directly infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, one or more claims, including at least claim 81 of the ’044 Patent, by
`
`implementing its residential proxy service in the United States without authority and/or license
`
`from Luminati and is liable to Luminati under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`36.
`
`Tesonet has been and is now indirectly infringing, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including at least claim 81 of the ’044 Patent, by
`
`providing this residential proxy service to its customers knowing that the use of such service
`
`infringes these claims in the United States without authority and/or license from Luminati and is
`
`liable to Luminati under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`10
`
`

`

`37.
`
`As a result of Tesonet’s infringement of the ’044 Patent, Luminati has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer damages. Thus, Luminati is entitled to recover from Tesonet the
`
`damages Luminati sustained as a result of Tesonet’s wrongful and infringing acts in an amount
`
`no less than its lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs fixed by
`
`this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`38.
`
`Luminati has suffered damage because of the infringing activities of Tesonet, its
`
`officers, agents, servants, employees, associates, partners, and other persons who are in active
`
`concert or participation therewith, and Luminati will continue to suffer irreparable harm for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law unless Tesonet’s infringing activities are preliminarily
`
`and permanently enjoined by this Court.
`
`39.
`
`Tesonet’s infringement of the ’044 Patent was, is, and continues to be deliberate
`
`and willful because Tesonet was and is on notice of the ’044 Patent at least as early as June 1,
`
`2017, yet it continued and continues to infringe the ’044 Patent.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of the ’866 Patent)
`
`40.
`
`Luminati repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-39 of
`
`this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`41.
`
`The ’866 Patent entitled “System and Method for Improving Internet
`
`Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes” was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent
`
`and Trademark Office on August 22, 2017 from Application No. 14/930,894 filed on August 22,
`
`2017, a divisional of Application No. 14/468,836 that issued as the ’044 Patent, both of which
`
`claim priority to provisional applications 61/870,815 filed on August 28, 2013. A true and
`
`accurate copy of the ’866 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`11
`
`

`

`42.
`
`Each and every claim of the ’866 Patent is valid and enforceable, and each enjoys
`
`a statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`43.
`
`Luminati exclusively owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’866 Patent
`
`and possesses the exclusive right of recovery, including the exclusive right to recover for past
`
`infringement.
`
`44.
`
`Claim 15 of the ’866 Patent recites:
`
`Claim 15. A method for fetching a content over the Internet from a first server
`identified in the Internet by a second identifier via a group of multiple
`devices, each identified in the Internet by an associated group device
`identifier, the method comprising the step of partitioning the content into a
`plurality of content slices, each content slice containing at least part of the
`content, and identified using a content slice identifier, and for each of the
`content slices, comprising the steps of:
`(a) selecting a device from the group;
`(b) sending over the Internet a first request to the selected device using the
`group device identifier of the selected device, the first request including
`the content slice identifier and the second identifier;
`(c) in response to receiving the sent first request by the selected device,
`receiving over the Internet the content slice from the selected device; and
`wherein the method further comprising the step of constructing the content
`from the received plurality of content slices, and
`wherein each of the devices in the group is a client device.
`
`45.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-19, upon information and belief, Tesonet’s
`
`OxyLabs proxy residential network comprises numerous devices, each of which is a client device
`
`identifiable by its own identifier. Tesonet’s OxyLabs proxy residential network permits
`
`Tesonet’s customers to request content from the customer’s device (“First Device”) identifiable
`
`by its own IP address (“First Identifier”) via a proxy device (“Second Device”), selected from a
`
`group of client devices (“Group”) each of which has its own IP address (“Group Device
`
`Identifier”), from a target server (“First Server”) identifiable by its own IP address (“Second
`
`Identifier”). As further described above, this content may be divided into portions (“Content
`
`Slices”) identifiable by their own identifiers (“Content Slice Identifier”).
`
`12
`
`

`

`46.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-23, upon information and belief, this
`
`network would permit the First Device to select a Second Device from the Group and send a
`
`request (“First Request”) over the internet to the Second Device using the selected second device
`
`IP address (“Second Device Identifier”). This First Request includes the Content Slice Identifier
`
`and Second Identifier.
`
`47.
`
`As described above in paragraphs 18-23, upon information and belief, the above
`
`Second Device responds to the First Request by sending a second request (“Second Request”) to
`
`the First Server with the Content Slice Identifier. The First Server responds by sending the
`
`requested Content Slice to the Second Device, which forwards the Content Slice back to the
`
`receiving First Device. The First Device then constructs the content from the plurality of
`
`Content Slices.
`
`48.
`
`Tesonet has had actual notice of the ’866 Patent since at least February 14, 2018,
`
`and has known, including by way of communications on and since February 14, 2018 and this
`
`lawsuit, that implementation of its OxyLabs residential proxy service would infringe at least
`
`claim 15 of the ’866 Patent.
`
`49.
`
`Tesonet has been and is now directly infringing, literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, one or more claims, including at least claim 15 of the ’866 Patent, by
`
`implementing its residential proxy service in the United States without authority and/or license
`
`from Luminati and is liable to Luminati under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`50.
`
`Tesonet has been and is now indirectly infringing, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including at least claim 15 of the ’866 Patent, by
`
`providing this residential proxy service to its customers knowing that the use of such service
`
`13
`
`

`

`infringes these claims in the United States without authority and/or license from Luminati and is
`
`liable to Luminati under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`51.
`
`As a result of Tesonet’s infringement of the ’866 Patent, Luminati has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer damages. Thus, Luminati is entitled to recover from Tesonet the
`
`damages Luminati sustained as a result of Tesonet’s wrongful and infringing acts in an amount
`
`no less than its lost profits and/or a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs fixed by
`
`this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`52.
`
`Luminati has suffered damage because of the infringing activities of Tesonet, its
`
`officers, agents, servants, employees, associates, partners, and other persons who are in active
`
`concert or participation therewith, and Luminati will continue to suffer irreparable harm for
`
`which there is no adequate remedy at law unless Tesonet’s infringing activities are preliminarily
`
`and permanently enjoined by this Court.
`
`53.
`
`Tesonet’s infringement of the ’866 Patent was, is, and continues to be deliberate
`
`and willful because Tesonet was and is on notice of the ’866 Patent at least as early as February
`
`14, 2018, yet it continued and continues to infringe the ’866 Patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff May Patents respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`A. A judgment that each of the Asserted Patents is valid and enforceable.
`
`B. A judgment in favor of Luminati that the Defendant has and is infringing the Asserted
`
`Patents;
`
`C. A judgment declaring Defendant’s infringement to be willful.
`
`14
`
`

`

`D. A judgment declaring that this case is exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`285;
`
`E. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, directors, agents, servants,
`
`employees, associates, partners, and other persons who are in active concert or
`
`participation with Tesonet, from infringing the Asserted Patents and/or such other
`
`equitable relief the Court determines is warranted in this case;
`
`F. A judgment and order requiring the Defendant to pay to Luminati its damages,
`
`enhanced damages, costs, expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
`
`attorneys’ fees, if applicable, for the Defendants’ infringement of the Asserted Patents
`
`as provided under 35 U.S.C. §284 and/or §285, and an accounting of ongoing post-
`
`judgment infringement; and
`
`G. Any and all other relief, at law or in equity that this Court deems just or proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Luminati hereby demands
`
`a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: July 19, 2018
`
`By: /s/ Korula T. Cherian__
`
`S. Calvin Capshaw
`State Bar No. 03783900
`Elizabeth L. DeRieux
`State Bar No. 05770585
`Capshaw DeRieux, LLP
`114 E. Commerce Ave.
`Gladewater, TX 75647
`Telephone: 903-845-5770
`ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com
`ederieux@capshawlaw.com
`
`15
`
`

`

`Korula T. Cherian
`RuyakCherian LLP
`1936 University Ave, Ste. 350
`Berkeley, CA 94702
`Email: sunnyc@ruyakcherian.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`16
`
`