`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00395-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Plaintiff Bright Data Ltd.’s (“Bright Data”) Motion to Lift the Stay
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Order (Dkt. 543) (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 576). In the Motion, Bright Data requests that the Court
`
`lift the stay of all deadlines which was entered pending the parties’ January 6, 2022 mediation.
`
`(See Dkt. No. 543). Bright Data notes that the January 6, 2022 mediation was unsuccessful and
`
`seeks to proceed with briefing related to post-verdict motions. (Dkt. No. 576 at 1–2).
`
`Defendants Teso LT, UAB, Metacluster LT, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB (collectively,
`
`“Oxylabs”) oppose the Motion and argue that developments following the January 6, 2022
`
`mediation counsel against lifting the stay at this time. Specifically, Oxylabs notes that the Court
`
`partially lifted the stay as to Bright Data’s Motion for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction
`
`Against Infringement (the “Motion for Injunctive Relief”) on January 7, 2022, held a hearing on
`
`the same on February 4, 2022, and issued its order denying the Motion for Injunctive Relief on
`
`February 10, 2022. (See Dkt. Nos. 579, 567, 574, 575). Oxylabs argues that the Court should “send
`
`the parties to mediate again before Judge Folsom in view of this development.” (Dkt. No. 579).
`
`Code200, UAB, et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2007
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`In light of its February 10, 2022 ruling on Bright Data’s Motion for Injunctive Relief in
`
`Case No. 2:19-cv-00395, the Court is of the opinion that the parties might benefit from further
`
`efforts to resolve their disputes via mediation. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS theparties to
`
`mediate in this case promptly and at a mutually agreeable date, but no later than forty-five (45)
`
`days from the date of this Order. The mediation shall be conducted by the Hon. David Folsom,
`
`6002-B Summerfield Drive, Texarkana, Texas 75503, dfolsom@jw.com. To ensure that mediation
`
`is as productive as possible, the Court hereby ORDERS that each party shall personally attend
`
`such mediation with lead counsel, local counsel, and a representative who has full and unilateral
`
`authority to act on and compromiseonall pending disputes. No party or representative shall leave
`
`the mediation session, once it begins, without the approval of the mediator. The district’s
`
`applicable local rules regarding ADR/mediation shall otherwise govern and apply in all respects.
`
`In light of the above, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is DENIED
`
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE.Further, the parties ace ORDEREDto file a joint notice within seven
`
`(7) days of their mediation informing the Court of the results of such mediation and (if mediation
`
`was not completely successful) advising the Court of any remaining outstanding disputes and
`
`proposing a suggested joint schedule for briefing.
`
`So ORDEREDand SIGNEDthis 16th day of March, 2022.
`
` RODNEY GIL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00861, EX. 2007
`2 of 2
`
`