`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.’s (“Bright Data”) Opposed Motion to Lift the
`
`Stay Order (Dkt. 543) (the “Motion”) filed on December 28, 2021. (Dkt. No. 550). Defendants
`
`Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (together, “Oxylabs”) filed their
`
`response in opposition to the Motion on January 3, 2022. (Dkt. No. 564).
`
`
`
`In the Motion, Bright Data requests that the Court lift its previous Stay Order (Dkt. No.
`
`543) to allow progress as to the briefing and resolution of its post-trial motions. Bright Data notes
`
`that it previously filed a motion for permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 529) and a motion for summary
`
`judgment of no inequitable conduct (Dkt. No. 530) on November 22nd and 23rd of 2021,
`
`respectively. Bright Data asserts that Oxylabs received a two-week extension to respond to such
`
`motions before the deadlines in this case were stayed on December 15, 2021 pending the results
`
`of the parties’ January 6, 2022 mediation. (Dkt. No. 550 at 2). Accordingly, Bright Data argues
`
`that the Court should lift the stay because Oxylabs has had ample time to prepare its responses to
`
`the post-trial motions.
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2004
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`Oxylabs responds that lifting the stay before the mediation would be unhelpful as—at the
`
`time of Oxylabs’ response—mediation was only three days away. Oxylabsnotesthat “[e]ither the
`
`case will settle at mediation, or the stay will be lifted following mediation and the case will
`
`proceed.” (Dkt. No. 564 at 2). Mediation has now been undertaken with no indication that a
`
`settlement has been reached.
`
`Having considered these facts and the Motion, the Court finds that the Motion should be
`
`GRANTED-IN-PART. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the stay with respect to Bright
`
`Data’s Motion for a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction Against Infringement(the “Motion for
`
`Injunctive Relief’) (Dkt. No. 529) is LIFTED.Further, given that Oxylabs has had over three
`
`weeks from November 22, 2021 to December 15, 2021—the date this case was stayed—to prepare
`
`its response to the Motion for Injunctive Relief (see Dkt. Nos. 529, 536, 543), the Court ORDERS
`
`that Oxylabs’ response to (Dkt. No. 529) is due by 3:00 pm central time on Friday, January 14,
`
`2022. No reply or sur-reply shall be filed without further Order of the Court. The Court also
`
`ORDERS that the Motion for Injunctive Relief (Dkt. No. 529) is hereby set for an in-person
`
`hearing before the Court on Friday, February 4, 2022 at 9:00 am central time in Marshall, Texas.
`
`So ORDEREDand SIGNEDthis 7th day of January, 2022.
`
` RODNEY GIL
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`P
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2004
`2 of 2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
