IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`,
`
`.
`
` Plaintiff
`
` Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.’s (“Bright Data”) Motion for a Preliminary
`
`ORDER
`
`and Permanent Injunction Against Infringement (the “Motion”) (Dkt. No. 529). Having considered
`
`the Motion, the related briefing, and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion
`
`should be DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`On December 6, 2019, Bright Data filed its complaint against Defendants Teso LT, UAB,
`
`Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively, “Oxylabs”) asserting infringement of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:28) (cid:11)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:179)(cid:1932)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:28) (cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:180)(cid:12)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:11)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:179)(cid:1932)(cid:24)(cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:180)(cid:12)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:15)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`(cid:11)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:179)(cid:1932)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:180)(cid:12) (cid:11)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:15) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:179)(cid:36)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71) (cid:51)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:180)(cid:12) in addition to other causes of action. (Dkt.
`
`No. 1). After discovery and subsequent case narrowing, the parties filed Daubert and dispositive
`
`motions for consideration at the pre-trial conference. (See generally (cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:12)(cid:17)
`
`
`
`As a part of the pre-trial conference, Bright Data asserted two damages models regarding
`
`the cost of Oxylabs’s alleged infringement. (Id. at 136:11–20). First, Bright Data asserted that it
`
`was entitled to recover lost profits from Oxylabs. (Id.). Alternatively, Bright Data asserted that it
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`1 of 10
`
`

`

`was entitled to recover a reasonable royalty for Oxylabs’s infringement. (Id.). In support of such
`
`damages, it was noted that Bright Data’s expert, Dr. Stephen Becker, opined that “a reasonable
`
`royalty for [Oxylabs’s] use of the [Asserted Patents] is a per-(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:87) (cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74) (cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:92)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:87)(cid:92) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:25) (cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:42)(cid:37)
`
`of traffic” on Oxylabs’s accused services. (Dkt. No. 236-1 at ¶ (cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:17) However, after hearing
`
`argument on Oxylabs’s Motion to Strike Expert Opinions of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. (Dkt. No.
`
`236) (the “Motion to Strike”), the Court found that certain portions of the reasonable royalty
`
`analysis were not sufficiently tied to the statutory mandate of 35 U.S.C. § (cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:23) because Dr. Becker
`
`failed to apportion the value added by the Asserted Patents to Oxylabs’s accused services. (Dkt.
`
`(cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:28) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:21)–(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:29)(cid:23)–(cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:28)–167:9). As a result, the Court granted-in-part
`
`Oxylabs’s Motion to Strike and struck (cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:74)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:83)(cid:75)(cid:86) (cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:79) (cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:86) (cid:54)(cid:47)(cid:37)-(cid:23)(cid:36)
`
`and SLB-(cid:23)(cid:37) (cid:73)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:80) (cid:39)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:37)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:78)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:182)(cid:86) (cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:83)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:25) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:17) At no time during the initial pre-trial
`
`conference held on August 31, 2021 or the final pre-trial conference held on October 29, 2021 did
`
`Bright Data ask for (or even raise the possibility of) injunctive relief. (See generally (cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:17) (cid:23)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:15)
`
`505).
`
`
`
`The case proceeded to trial before a jury beginning on November 1, 2021. As a
`
`consequence of the Court’s ruling on Oxylabs’s Motion to Strike, Bright Data elected to proceed
`
`at trial only on its lost profits theory asserting (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:76)(cid:87) (cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:71) (cid:87)(cid:82) (cid:7)(cid:28)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:15)(cid:24)(cid:28)(cid:24)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19) (cid:76)(cid:81) (cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:87) (cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:86)(cid:17)
`
`(Dkt. No. 529-(cid:20)(cid:20) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17) At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that
`
`Oxylabs infringed at least one claim of the Asserted Patents, that none of the Asserted Patents were
`
`invalid, and that Oxylabs’s infringement was willful. (Dkt. No. 516). The jury also awarded Bright
`
`(cid:39)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:68) (cid:7)(cid:26)(cid:15)(cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:15)(cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:25)(cid:17)(cid:19)(cid:19) (cid:76)(cid:81) (cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:86)(cid:87) (cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:86) (cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) for such infringement. (Id.).
`
`
`
`After trial and the return of the verdict, Bright Data then filed the instant Motion requesting:
`
`(1) that the Court enter a preliminary injunction enjoining Oxylabs from offering its accused
`
`
`
`2
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`2 of 10
`
`

`

`services until the Court entered its Final Judgement, and (2) that the Court enter a permanent
`
`injunction enjoining Oxylabs from “offering in the United States the Residential Proxies,
`
`Residential ‘exit nodes,’ or Residential ‘Minions’ adjudged to have infringed the Asserted Patents”
`
`in this case. (Dkt. No. 529-19 at 1). Following the trial, the Court ordered Bright Data and
`
`Oxylabs—as well as other defendants in co-pending suits brought by Bright Data—to mediate
`
`their disputes(cid:17) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:12)(cid:17) On December 12, 2021, the Court stayed all deadlines in the
`
`case—including briefing on the instant Motion—to allow the parties to focus their efforts on the
`
`(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:86)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:71) (cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85) (cid:45)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92) (cid:25)(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:17) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:12)(cid:17)
`
`
`
`The parties were unable to resolve their disputes at the January 6th mediation, and the Court
`
`lifted the stay as to the instant Motion for injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 567 at 2). Briefing on the
`
`(cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:72) (cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:45)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92) (cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:38)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87) scheduled a hearing regarding the same
`
`(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85) (cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:69)(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:92) (cid:23)(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:17) (cid:11)Id.). At the hearing, the Court heard oral argument from both Bright Data
`
`and Oxylabs addressing the Motion. (See generally (cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17)
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`The Patent Act provides that in cases of patent infringement a Court “may grant injunctions
`
`in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent,
`
`(cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:75) (cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:86) (cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87) (cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:86) (cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:17)(cid:180) (cid:22)(cid:24) (cid:56)(cid:17)(cid:54)(cid:17)(cid:38)(cid:17) (cid:134) (cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:17) (cid:55)(cid:82) (cid:82)(cid:69)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:81) (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:77)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:89)(cid:72) (cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:72)(cid:73)(cid:15) the
`
`patentee must show: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at
`
`law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering
`
`the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
`
`(cid:11)(cid:23)(cid:12) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:68)(cid:87)
`
`(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:70) (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:87) (cid:90)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:71) (cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:87) (cid:69)(cid:72) (cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:71) (cid:69)(cid:92) (cid:68) (cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)
`
`(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:77)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:17)(cid:180) eBay v.
`
`MercExchange, L.L.C.(cid:15) (cid:24)(cid:23)(cid:26) (cid:56)(cid:17)(cid:54)(cid:17) (cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:27)(cid:15) (cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:20) (cid:11)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:17) The patentee must prove that it meets all four
`
`
`
`3
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`3 of 10
`
`

`

`equitable factors, and it must do so on the merits of its particular case. Nichia Corp. v. Everlight
`
`Americas, Inc.(cid:15) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:24) (cid:41)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:19) (cid:11)(cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:17) (cid:38)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:17)
`
`III.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`“[T]he issues of irreparable harm and adequacy of remedies at law are inextricably
`
`intertwined” and, as such, are often discussed together.1 ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon
`
`Comms. Inc.(cid:15) (cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:23) (cid:41)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:26) (cid:11)(cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:17) (cid:38)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:12)(cid:17) Here, the briefing and the arguments at the
`
`hearing before the Court often addressed these factors in unison. (See (cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:25)(cid:28) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:23) (cid:81)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:30) see
`
`also (cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:22)–(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:15) (cid:22)(cid:19)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:23)–(cid:21)(cid:23)). Accordingly, the Court discusses these two factors
`
`together.
`
`1. Irreparable Injury and Inadequacy of Remedies at Law
`
`
`
`The parties do not dispute that they compete in the same Internet Protocol proxy network
`
`(IPPN) marketplace. (Dkt. No. 529-(cid:27) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:23)(cid:30) Dkt. No. 529-(cid:28) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:23)(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:25)–12; compare Dkt. No. 529 at 5,
`
`with Dkt. No. 569 at 12). Bright Data argues that its injuries are irreparable because any loss of
`
`market share, brand recognition, and goodwill are too difficult to calculate given Oxylabs’s status
`
`(cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:68) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:21)(cid:28) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:23)(cid:15) (cid:25)–7) (citing Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics
`
`Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 13 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TEK Glob., S.R.L. v. Sealant Sys. Int’l, 920 F.3d 777,
`
`793 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (noting that “head-to-head competition and lost market share tend to evidence
`
`irreparable harm”)). Further, Bright Data asserts that the competition between the parties also
`
`indicates that monetary damages are inadequate. (Id. at 11) (citing Retractable Techs. Inc. v.
`
`Occupational & Med. Innovations, LTD(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19) (cid:56)(cid:17)(cid:54)(cid:17) (cid:39)(cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:47)(cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:76)(cid:86) (cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:22) (cid:11)(cid:40)(cid:17)(cid:39)(cid:17) (cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:17) (cid:36)(cid:88)(cid:74)(cid:17) (cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:15)
`
`2010)). In light of Oxylabs’s statements that it continues offering its accused services, Bright Data
`
`
`1 Such entwinement is intuitive—the ability to adequately measure a certain injury in terms of monetary damages
`undermines a conclusion that such harm is irreparable. See also Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. v. CIBA Vision
`Corp(cid:17)(cid:15) (cid:26)(cid:20)(cid:21) (cid:41)(cid:17) (cid:54)(cid:88)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:26) (cid:11)(cid:48)(cid:17) (cid:39)(cid:17) (cid:41)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:12) (cid:11)(cid:179)(cid:44)(cid:81) (cid:80)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:92) (cid:70)(cid:68)(cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:76)(cid:81) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:86) (cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:15) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:76)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:88)(cid:72)(cid:86) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:72) (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:77)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:92)
`and the adequacy of monetary damages necessarily overlap.”) (citation omitted).
`(cid:23)
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`4 of 10
`
`

`

`asserts than an injunction is the only adequate remedy to address its harm and that enforcing a
`
`monetary judgment against a foreign Lithuanian defendant would be “difficult, if not impossible.”
`
`(Id. at 1, 5–6, 12; Dkt. No. 529-(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17)
`
`
`
`Oxylabs responds that Bright Data’s overly simple rationale would open the door to a
`
`permanent injunction in every case involving competitors and return the Court to the “general rule
`
`that courts [should] issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional
`
`circumstances” previously rejected by the Supreme Court in eBay. (Dkt. No. 569 at 1). Oxylabs
`
`argues that Bright Data has not met its burden to show irreparable injury or inadequacy of monetary
`
`relief because Bright Data only points to harms that are commonly quantified in terms of monetary
`
`damages—such as loss of market share, loss of sales, and lost profits. (Id. at 11–12) (citing
`
`Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:26) (cid:58)(cid:47) (cid:21)(cid:25)(cid:25)(cid:28)(cid:22)(cid:22)(cid:27)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:17)(cid:49)(cid:17)(cid:45)(cid:17) (cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:83)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:25)(cid:15)
`
`2007) (“Both loss of market share and price erosion are economic harms that are compensable by
`
`money damages.”), aff’d(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:19) (cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:17) (cid:36)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:182)(cid:91) (cid:28)(cid:28)(cid:25) (cid:11)(cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:17) (cid:38)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:12) (cid:11)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:70)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:12)(cid:12)(cid:17) Next, Oxylabs argues
`
`that Bright Data’s own conduct—such as its purported willingness to license the Asserted Patents
`
`across the industry2—establishes that licensing fees and other forms of monetary relief are
`
`adequate compensation for any infringement of the Asserted Patents. (Id. at 9–10) (citing Nichia
`
`Corp.(cid:15) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:24) (cid:41)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:71) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:30) Johnson & Johnson, 712 F. Supp. at 1(cid:21)(cid:27)(cid:28)–90). Finally, Oxylabs argues
`
`that Bright Data has not proven any inability to successfully pursue and enforce a monetary
`
`judgment against it in Lithuania—other than its unsupported assertion that because Oxylabs is
`
`based in Lithuania monetary damages are difficult or impossible to collect. (Id. at 10–11).
`
`
`2 See, e,g,, Dkt. No. 569-(cid:23) at 2 (“[Bright Data] is willing to discuss licensing of the above patents on reasonable
`terms.”), 3–(cid:23) (cid:11)(cid:179)(cid:55)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:62)(cid:83)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:64) (cid:79)(cid:72)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:73)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:71) (cid:92)(cid:82)(cid:88) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:86)(cid:82)(cid:80)(cid:72) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:62)(cid:37)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:87) (cid:39)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:182)(cid:86)(cid:64) (cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:86) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:71) (cid:68) (cid:79)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:72) (cid:82)(cid:81)
`reasonable terms. . . . “[Bright Data] is willing to discuss licensing of the above patents (regarding past and future
`products) on reasonable terms.”).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`5 of 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Having considered the parties’ arguments and weighing the various factors before it, the
`
`Court finds that Bright Data has not met its burden to show irreparable harm or inadequacy of
`
`monetary relief, particularly in light of its own representations. The Court agrees that Oxylabs’s
`
`role as a competitor in the IPPN marketplace can counsel, under the proper circumstances, in favor
`
`of finding irreparable harm. Presidio, 702 F.3d at 1363. This Court notes that it has previously
`
`acknowledged the value of the statutory right to exclude, particularly in the context of a competitor
`
`suit. Golden Hour Data Sys., Inc. v. emsCharts, Inc.(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:58)(cid:47) (cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:19)–11 (E.D. Tex.
`
`(cid:48)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17) (cid:43)(cid:82)(cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:15) (cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:72)(cid:15) (cid:86)(cid:72)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:79) (cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:84)(cid:88)(cid:72) (cid:73)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:86), present in this case, weigh against Bright
`
`Data’s reliance on Oxylabs’s status as a competitor and distinguish this case from Golden Hour.
`
`
`
`First, the Court finds that Bright Data’s direct representations to third parties and its expert
`
`damages report counsel against a finding of irreparable injury and inadequacy of future monetary
`
`relief. Although Bright Data now claims that its harm is irreparable, its damages expert, Dr.
`
`Stephen Becker, previously purported within his report to calculate the amount of monetary relief
`
`adequate to compensate it for Oxylabs’s infringement. Specifically, Dr. Becker’s report notes that
`
`the parties would agree to a running royalty in the context of a hypothetical negotiation. (Dkt. No.
`
`236-1 at ¶ 170). Through the Becker report, Bright Data previously asserted that “a reasonably
`
`royalty for [Oxylabs’s] use of the [Asserted Patents] is a per-(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:87) (cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74) (cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:92)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:87)(cid:92) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:25) (cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:42)(cid:37)
`
`of traffic.” (Id. at (cid:136) (cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:25)). Further, the Becker report notes that both the “lost profit and reasonable
`
`royalty damages opinions quantify the financial harm to [Bright Data] that Defendants’
`
`infringement has caused” and estimates an approximate reasonable royalty damage calculation
`
`“were the infringement to continue unabated for the life of the patents.” (Id. at ¶ 197). In light of
`
`Bright Data’s assertions through its retained expert that a running royalty and monetary relief could
`
`fairly and fully compensate it for future infringement, the Court finds that Bright Data has not met
`
`
`
`6
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`6 of 10
`
`

`

`its burden to establish that remedies at law—i.e., monetary damages—are inadequate to
`
`compensate it for Oxylabs’s infringement or that its harm is irreparable.3
`
`
`
`Next, the Court finds that Bright Data’s prior conduct related to licensing weighs against a
`
`grant of injunctive relief. While the Court notes that “[a] plaintiff’s past willingness to license its
`
`patent is not sufficient per se to establish lack of irreparable harm if a new infringer were licensed,”
`
`a patentee’s past conduct regarding licensing can weigh against a finding of irreparable harm.
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.(cid:15) (cid:24)(cid:24)(cid:20) (cid:41)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:27) (cid:11)(cid:41)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:17) (cid:38)(cid:76)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:27)); see Nichia Corp.(cid:15) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:24) (cid:41)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:71)
`
`(cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:22)(cid:17) (cid:41)(cid:88)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:15) (cid:179)(cid:68)(cid:71)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:86)(cid:72) (cid:72)(cid:84)(cid:88)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:72) (cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81)(cid:86)(cid:180) may counsel against a grant of permanent
`
`injunctive relief. See Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc., 699 F.3d 1305, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012). Here, the Court finds that Bright Data’s past licensing practices weigh against granting a
`
`permanent injunction on both grounds.
`
`
`
`Bright Data has initiated discussions about licensing its technology to an extensive swathe
`
`of other entities engaged in the IPPN industry. (See generally Dkt. No. 569-(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17) (cid:54)(cid:88)(cid:70)(cid:75) (cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:83)(cid:87)(cid:86)
`
`include “discussing licensing” of its patents and “other pending patent applications” with
`
`Oxylabs’s predecessor entities. (Id. at 2). Beyond mere discussions, Bright Data’s own notice letter
`
`states that Bright Data previously “offered a license on reasonable terms” to Oxylabs. (Id. at 3; see
`
`also PTX-0009). Bright Data further disseminated letters to other entities in the IPPN field—such
`
`as MicroLeaves, StormProxies, GeoSurf, Privatix.io, FoxyProxy, Penguin Proxy, and IP
`
`Ninja—seeking to “discuss[] licensing of [its] patents (regarding past and future products) on
`
`
`3 The Court further finds that—had certain portions of Dr. Becker’s reasonable royalty opinion survived the scrutiny
`of Daubert practice—Bright Data would have likely sought a running royalty for Oxylabs’s infringement at trial. Even
`after paragraphs (cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:20)(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:25)(cid:21)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:90)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:79) (cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:72)(cid:91)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:69)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:86) (cid:54)(cid:47)(cid:37)-(cid:23)(cid:36) (cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:71) (cid:54)(cid:47)(cid:37)-(cid:23)(cid:37) were struck, Bright Data attempted to
`maintain its reasonable royalty model and asserted that it was “entitled to make a case for [a] reasonable royalty” at
`trial based on the remaining opinions in Dr. Becker’s report—which included the ultimate opinion that a per-unit
`(cid:85)(cid:88)(cid:81)(cid:81)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74) (cid:85)(cid:82)(cid:92)(cid:68)(cid:79)(cid:87)(cid:92) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:7)(cid:21)(cid:17)(cid:23)(cid:25) (cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:85) (cid:42)(cid:37) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:87)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:73)(cid:73)(cid:76)(cid:70) (cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:86) (cid:90)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:85)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:71)(cid:17) (cid:11)Compare Dkt. No. 505 at 30:23–31:17, with Dkt. No. 236-1
`(cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:136) (cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:17) Noting that Bright Data was responsible for formulating its reasonable royalty model, the Court finds it
`improper to now allow a plaintiff to pivot to post-verdict injunctive relief and away from the earlier strategic choice
`to pursue monetary damages in the form of lost profits and/or a running royalty.
`7
`
`
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`7 of 10
`
`

`

`reasonable terms.” (Dkt. No. 569-(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:24)(cid:15) (cid:26)–15) (emphasis added). Bright Data’s voluntary efforts
`
`to engage licensees indicates that it believes its injury can be fairly remedied through monetary
`
`relief in the form of a reasonable royalty or other monetary payments under a license. Accordingly,
`
`Bright Data’s own paper trail weighs against its later representations that it “did not want to license
`
`its technology” and against a finding of irreparable harm and inadequacy of monetary relief. (See
`
`(cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:25)(cid:29)(cid:24)–6).
`
`
`
`Under the particular facts of this case, granting an injunction would run directly counter to
`
`Bright Data’s pre-trial position on licensing. In fact, Bright Data relied on its notice letters
`
`discussed above (and its offers of a license) to help secure a finding of willful infringement from
`
`the jury. (See (cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:68)(cid:79) (cid:55)(cid:85)(cid:17) (cid:11)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:20)(cid:18)(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:12) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:24)(cid:29)(cid:20)–(cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:27)–(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:26)(cid:15) (cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:27)(cid:29)(cid:21)(cid:19)–(cid:21)(cid:20)(cid:28)(cid:29)(cid:27); Trial Tr. (11/3/21)
`
`at 109:11–(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:29)(cid:20)(cid:23)(cid:12)(cid:17) While Bright Data used such letters at trial seeking a willful infringement
`
`finding (and the possibility of enhanced damages), Bright Data now argues post-trial that it “did
`
`not want to license its patents” to Oxylabs and always intended to maintain exclusivity in the
`
`market. ((cid:39)(cid:78)(cid:87)(cid:17) (cid:49)(cid:82)(cid:17) (cid:24)(cid:26)(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:27)(cid:29)(cid:21)–10). Bright Data used its willingness to license as a sword at trial,
`
`but now seeks to use as a shield its post-trial claims of unwillingness to license—as part of its
`
`efforts to now obtain injunctive relief. The Court is persuaded that it should hold Bright Data to
`
`its original position on licensing and finds those positions inconsistent with a late-breaking grasp
`
`for injunctive relief. (Dkt. No. 569-(cid:23) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:22)(cid:30) PTX-0009).
`
`
`
`Finally, the Court notes that the facts and circumstances of this case materially differ from
`
`those in Golden Hour, where this Court granted injunctive relief. Notably, the defendant in Golden
`
`Hour was involved in a co-pending bankruptcy proceeding and expressly stated that an on-going
`
`royalty rate would “ris(cid:78) (cid:83)(cid:88)(cid:87)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74) (cid:76)(cid:87) (cid:82)(cid:88)(cid:87) (cid:82)(cid:73) (cid:69)(cid:88)(cid:86)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:72)(cid:86)(cid:86)(cid:17)(cid:180) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:58)(cid:47) (cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:20)(cid:17) (cid:36)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:15) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)
`
`Court in Golden Hour had “serious doubts about [the defendant’s] ability to fulfill” a monetary
`
`
`
`(cid:27)
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`8 of 10
`
`

`

`obligation compensating the plaintiff for infringement. This Court specifically noted that “an
`
`infringer’s inability to pay a judgment … may demonstrate the inadequacy of damage[s].” Id.
`
`(quoting Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 735 F.3d 1352, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). Here, the
`
`Court has no such doubts regarding Oxylabs’s ability to satisfy a monetary judgment in Bright
`
`Data’s favor. In fact, Bright Data acknowledged that “[it’s] not putting Oxylabs out of business
`
`here” given that Oxylabs provides other non-infringing revenue-generating services like static IP
`
`and data center proxies. (See Trial Tr. (11/5/21) at 103:10–11). Further, Bright Data’s own conduct
`
`regarding licensing separates its conduct from that of the Golden Hour plaintiff’s, which “never
`
`licensed [its patent] to anyone.” (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:20)(cid:23) (cid:58)(cid:47) (cid:27)(cid:26)(cid:19)(cid:27)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:28)(cid:15) (cid:68)(cid:87) (cid:13)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:17) (cid:58)(cid:72)(cid:76)(cid:74)(cid:75)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:72)(cid:84)(cid:88)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:69)(cid:79)(cid:72) (cid:73)(cid:68)(cid:70)(cid:87)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:86) (cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72)
`
`whole, the Court finds that Bright Data has not met its burden to show irreparable injury or
`
`inadequacy of monetary damages to justify the grant of a preliminary or permanent injunction.
`
`2. Other Factors
`
`
`
`As noted above, the patentee bears the burden to prove that it meets all four equitable
`
`factors. Nichia Corp.(cid:15) (cid:27)(cid:24)(cid:24) (cid:41)(cid:17)(cid:22)(cid:71) at (cid:20)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:19). Having found that Bright Data has not met its burden as
`
`to the first two factors, the Court finds no utility in weighing the remaining two eBay factors.
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Bright Data has not met its burden to
`
`show that it has suffered an irreparable injury or to establish “how money damages could not
`
`adequately compensate [it] for ‘lost market share’” and other economic damages. Praxair, Inc. v.
`
`ATMI, Inc.(cid:15) (cid:23)(cid:26)(cid:28) (cid:41)(cid:17) (cid:54)(cid:88)(cid:83)(cid:83)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:71) (cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:19)(cid:15) (cid:23)(cid:23)(cid:23) (cid:11)(cid:39)(cid:17) (cid:39)(cid:72)(cid:79)(cid:17) (cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:26)(cid:12)(cid:17) (cid:36)(cid:70)(cid:70)(cid:82)(cid:85)(cid:71)(cid:76)(cid:81)(cid:74)(cid:79)(cid:92)(cid:15) (cid:87)(cid:75)(cid:72) (cid:48)(cid:82)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:82)(cid:81) (cid:76)(cid:86) DENIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`9 of 10
`
`

`

`So ORDEREDand SIGNEDthis 10th day of February, 2022.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`10
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2006
`10 of 10
`
`