8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`
`Sign up
`
`The Latest Information
`Regarding All Legal
`Proceedings Between
`Oxylabs and Luminati
`(now Bright Data)
`
`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 has always
`maintained the position that Oxylabs has not infringed on any of 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.
`
`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
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`1/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`1 of 13
`
`

`

`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`about tying up its competition in endless legal proceedings, distracting its rivals from their core
`Sign up
`business operations, and discouraging regular companies from using non-Bright Data proxy
`providers. Indeed, Bright Data filed two additional lawsuits against Oxylabs. In those lawsuits,
`Oxylabs asserts that Bright Data’s patents are not infringed, are invalid, and are not eligible for
`patent protection.
`
`Hence, Oxylabs will continue to protect its technology and reputation utilizing all available
`legal remedies, including appellate process to ensure fair market practices that encourage
`legitimate competition for all market stakeholders’ interests.
`
`Julius Cerniauskas
`CEO at Oxylabs
`
`The legal cases
`
`Note: Luminati has since rebranded to Bright Data
`
`Case No. 299
`
`Case No. 395
`
`Resolved by settlement
`Luminati v. Oxylabs
`
`Ongoing
`Luminati v. Oxylabs
`
`Luminati (now Bright Data) sued
`Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’
`residential proxy network service and
`Real-Time Crawler allegedly
`infringed Luminati’s two patents, U.S.
`Patents 9,241,044 and 9,742,866.
`
`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 Luminati patents, U.S.
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`2/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`2 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`Patents 10,469,614, 10,257,319,
`10,484,510.
`
`Sign up
`
`Case No. 396
`
`Case No. 73
`
`Ongoing
`Luminati v. Oxylabs
`
`Resolved by parties’ agreement
`Oxylabs v. Luminati
`
`Luminati (now Bright Data) filed a
`new patent lawsuit against Oxylabs,
`claiming that Oxylabs’ data center IP
`technologies allegedly infringed on
`additional Luminati patents, U.S.
`Patents 10,484,511, 10,637,968.
`
`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.
`
`Case No. 011
`
`Ongoing
`Oxylabs v. Luminati
`
`Oxylabs has filed the lawsuit against
`Bright Data claiming the
`infringement of three patents of
`Oxylabs. Oxylabs alleges that its
`competitor infringes on Oxylabs’
`patents claiming Smart Proxy Rotator
`and web script management
`technologies for the provisioning of
`web scraping and other business
`services.
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`3/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`3 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`
`Sign up
`
`The legal timeline
`
`2018
`
`July 19, 2018 Case No. 299
`Luminati (now Bright Data) filed a complaint against
`Oxylabs
`
`Luminati (now Bright Data) sued Oxylabs, claiming that two Oxylabs’ products - Oxylabs’
`residential proxy network service and Real-Time Crawler - allegedly infringed Bright Data’s
`two patents, U.S. Patents 9,241,044 and 9,742,866
`(Case No. 299)
`
`2019
`
`August 21, 2019 Case No. 299
`Claim Construction Order
`
`The Court issued its claim construction[1] opinion (a so-called Markman[2] opinion), which
`proved to be critical for the later stages of Case No. 299. With this decision, at Oxylabs’
`request, the Court invalidated one of the three independent claims of Bright Data’s
`patents (Claim 108) as indefinite and issued an order construing the claims of Bright
`Data’s patents.
`
`September 9, 2019 Case No. 299
`Oxylabs filed Alice Motion
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`4/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`4 of 13
`
`

`

`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`Oxylabs filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings[3] (a so-called Alice Motion[4])
`Sign up
`seeking a ruling that Bright Data’s patents were invalid for impermissibly claiming an
`abstract idea.
`
`November 4, 2019 Case No. 299
`Oxylabs filed Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Oxylabs also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment that Oxylabs did not infringe Bright
`Data’s patents. Both motions (i.e., Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for
`Summary Judgment) were pending, and if the Court had granted either of them, the
`lawsuit would have concluded on the merits in Oxylabs’ favor.
`
`November 5, 2019 Case No. 299
`Luminati (now Bright Data) withdrew non-patent claims
`
`On December 12, 2018, in Case No. 299, Bright Data asserted certain non-patent claims
`against Oxylabs. Oxylabs wrote to Bright Data on September 10, 2019, and advised that
`these additional claims asserted in Case No. 299 were frivolous and that the continued
`pursuit of the claims would subject Bright Data to liability for Oxylabs’ attorney’s fees. On
`November 4, 2019, rather than pursue these additional non-patent claims asserted in Case
`No. 299, Bright Data voluntarily withdrew them without prejudice.
`
`December 6, 2019 Case No. 395 Case No. 396
`Luminati (now Bright Data) filed two new complaints
`against Oxylabs
`
`Bright Data filed two new patent lawsuits against Oxylabs, claiming that Oxylabs’
`technologies allegedly infringed on five additional patents, U.S. Patents 10,469,614,
`10,257,319, 10,484,510 (Case No. 395) and 10,484,511 10,637,968 (Case No. 396). In Case No.
`395, Bright Data also once again asserted the same additional non-patent claims, which
`Bright Data voluntarily withdrew in Case No. 299 back in November 2019.
`
`2020
`
`January 3, 2020 Case No. 299
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`5/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`5 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`Case resolved by settlement
`
`Sign up
`During the Pretrial Conference[5] (one month before jury trial), the parties resolved Case
`No. 299 by settlement. Therefore, all pending motions were not resolved on their merits.
`
`February 4, 2020 Case No. 299
`Case dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the
`parties’ settlement agreement
`
`As the settlement was reached by both parties, Case No. 299 was dismissed with
`prejudice in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. An important point to
`note is that Bright Data agreed to resolve the case while fully understanding that it can
`never again assert infringement against Oxylabs’ accused products on the same
`patents.
`
`March 5, 2020 Case No. 73
`Oxylabs filed a complaint against Luminati (now Bright
`Data), and its investor EMK Capital LLP
`
`Aer witnessing what we believed to be continuous efforts of Bright Data to mislead the
`market regarding Oxylabs’ products, Oxylabs sued 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 (Case No. 73).
`
`May 26, 2020 Case No. 395
`Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Luminati (now
`Bright Data), and claims against EMK Capital LLP and Hola
`
`Oxylabs filed antitrust counterclaims against Bright Data, and claims against Bright Data’s
`investor EMK Capital LLP and Hola (Hola VPN Ltd. and Hola Networks Ltd.) in Case No. 395.
`The claims asserted by Oxylabs include: violation and conspiracy to violate the antitrust
`laws of the United States, monopolization and attempted monopolization of the
`residential proxy marketplace, and the filing of sham patent-infringement lawsuits
`against competitors, including Oxylabs. To promote fair marketplace practices, Oxylabs
`sought to redress the injuries it has suffered and hold Bright Data, EMK Capital, and Hola
`accountable for their actions.
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`6/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`6 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`
`December 7, 2020 Case No. 395
`Claim Construction Order
`
`Sign up
`
`The Court issued its Claim Construction Opinion and Order, which will be critical for the
`later stages of Case No.395. This decision invalidated one of the patent claims asserted
`by Luminati (now Bright Data).
`
`2021
`
`April 19, 2021 Case No. 73
`Resolved by parties’ stipulation
`
`All parties involved in Case No. 73 agreed on a stipulation which ended the case.
`Therefore, all pending motions were not resolved on their merits.
`
`April 19, 2021 Case No. 395
`Parties dismissed their non-patent claims by stipulation
`
`Luminati (now Bright Data) and Oxylabs dismissed their non-patent claims through
`stipulation. Oxylabs’ antitrust claims against EMK were dismissed aer the Court found that
`EMK could not conspire under the antitrust laws with its related entity, Bright Data.
`
`July 1, 2021 Case No. 396
`Claims dismissed with prejudice
`
`The parties filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice Patent
`Infringement Claims Against Metacluster LT, UAB (the “Stipulation”). In the Stipulation, Bright
`Data represented what acts it accused of infringement and Metacluster represented that
`it had not performed any such acts. Subject to the Stipulation, Bright Data moved to
`dismiss its claims of infringement against Metacluster with prejudice, and defendants
`agreed to the dismissal. Based on the parties’ Stipulation, the Court entered an Order on
`July 2, 2021, dismissing Bright Data’s claims against Metacluster with prejudice.
`
`November 5, 2021 Case No. 395
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`7/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`7 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`Certain claims infringed and not invalid
`
`Sign up
`The jury issued a verdict finding certain claims infringed and not invalid. While we are
`disappointed in the decision, we thank the jury for their service. We note that the jury’s
`decision relates solely to a claim for monetary damages. Oxylabs is legally entitled to
`continue providing the accused services. The Court has not issued any orders related to
`continued use of Oxylabs’ residential proxy service. We intend to continue to pursue our
`positions both with the District Court and, if necessary, at the Court of Appeals. Oxylabs
`continues to offer its services in an uninterrupted manner.
`
`2022
`
`January 7, 2022 Case No. 011
`Oxylabs files patent infringement lawsuit against Bright
`Data
`
`Oxylabs has filed the lawsuit against Bright Data claiming the infringement of three
`patents of Oxylabs. Oxylabs alleges that its competitor infringes on Oxylabs’ patents
`claiming Smart Proxy Rotator and web script management technologies for the
`provisioning of web scraping and other business services.
`
`February 10, 2022 Case No. 395
`Bright Data's injunction request denied
`
`On February 10, 2022, the District Court entered an Order denying Bright Data’s request for
`an injunction. The Order is available here.
`
`March 21, 2022 Case No. 395
`Inter Partes Review against BD’s patent No. 319 instituted
`
`On March 21, 2022, Inter Partes Review in IPR2021-01492 challenging all claims of Bright
`Data’s patent No. 10,257,319 asserted against Oxylabs was instituted.
`
`March 21, 2022 Case No. 395
`Inter Partes Review against BD’s patent No. 510 instituted
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`8/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`8 of 13
`
`

`

`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`On March 21, 2022, Inter Partes Review in IPR2021-01493 challenging all claims of Bright
`Sign up
`Data’s patent No. 10,484,510 asserted against Oxylabs was instituted.
`
`March 23, 2022 Case No. 395
`BD’s patent No. 510 claims asserted against Oxylabs
`preliminary rejected by the USPTO
`
`On March 23, 2022, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`proceedings rejecting all claims of Bright Data’s patent No. 10,484,510 asserted against
`Oxylabs (the Ex Parte Reexamination is currently stayed pending an instituted Inter Partes
`Review proceeding also challenging all patent claims asserted against Oxylabs).
`
`March 25, 2022 Case No. 395
`BD’s patent No. 319 claims asserted against Oxylabs
`preliminary rejected by the USPTO
`
`On March 25, 2022, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`proceedings rejecting all claims of Bright Data’s patent No. 10,257,319 asserted against
`Oxylabs (the Ex Parte Reexamination is currently stayed pending an instituted Inter Partes
`Review proceeding also challenging all patent claims asserted against Oxylabs).
`
`March 31, 2022 Case No. 396
`BD’s patent No. 968 claims asserted against Oxylabs
`preliminary rejected by the USPTO
`
`On March 31, 2022, the USPTO issued a Non-Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`proceedings rejecting all claims of Bright Data’s patent No. 10,637,968 asserted against
`Oxylabs.
`
`May 11, 2022 Case No. 395
`Inter Partes Review against BD’s patent No. 510 instituted
`
`On May 11, 2022, Inter Partes Review in IPR2022-00138 challenging all claims of Bright
`Data’s patent No. 10,484,510 asserted against Oxylabs was instituted.
`
`June 1, 2022 Case No. 395
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`9/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`9 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`Inter Partes Review against BD’s patent No. 319 instituted
`
`Sign up
`On June 1, 2022, Inter Partes Review in IPR2022-00135 challenging all claims of Bright Data’s
`patent No. 10,257,319 asserted against Oxylabs was instituted.
`
`June 21, 2022 Case No. 396
`BD’s patent No. 511 claims asserted against Oxylabs
`rejected by the Final Office Action of the USPTO
`
`On June 21, 2022 the USPTO issued a Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`proceedings rejecting all claims of Bright Data’s patent No. 10,484,511 asserted against
`Oxylabs.
`
`June 27, 2022 Case No. 395
`BD’s patent No. 614 claims asserted against Oxylabs
`rejected by the Final Office Action of the USPTO
`
`On June 27, 2022, the USPTO issued a Final Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`proceedings rejecting all patent claims of Bright Data’s patent No. 10,469,614 asserted
`against Oxylabs.
`
`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.”
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`10/13
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`10 of 13
`
`

`

`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`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
`Sign up
`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
`
`11/13
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`11 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`
`hello@oxylabs.io
`
`support@oxylabs.io
`
`career@oxylabs.io
`
`Sign up
`
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`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.
`
`United States
`
`United
`Kingdom
`
`Canada
`
`Germany
`
`India
`
`All locations
`
`About us
`
`Our values
`
`Affiliate program
`
`Service partners
`
`Press area
`
`Residential Proxies
`sourcing
`
`Careers
`
`Our products
`
`OxyCon
`
`Datacenter
`Proxies
`
`Shared
`Datacenter
`Proxies
`
`Dedicated
`Datacenter
`Proxies
`
`Residential
`Proxies
`
`Next-Gen
`Residential
`Proxies
`
`Static
`Residential
`Proxies
`
`SOCKS5 Proxies
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`12/13
`
`GET IN TOUCH
`
`General:
`
`Support:
`
`Career:
`
`Certified data centers
`and upstream providers
`
`COMPANY
`
`PROXIES
`
`TOP LOCATIONS
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`12 of 13
`
`

`

`8/4/22, 4:29 PM
`
`Legal Timeline Between Oxylabs and Luminati (now Bright Data)
`
`Mobile Proxies
`
`Rotating ISP Proxies
`
`Sign up
`
`English
`
`FAQ
`
`Documentation
`
`Blog
`
`SERP Scraper
`API
`
`E-Commerce
`Scraper API
`
`Web Scraper API
`
`Next-Gen
`Residential
`Proxies story
`
`Adaptive
`Parser
`
`Oxylabs' Patents
`
`https://oxylabs.io/legal-timeline
`
`13/13
`
`Connect
`
`with us
`
`RESOURCES
`
`SCRAPER APIS
`
`INNOVATION HUB
`
`Privacy Policy
`
`Trust & Safety
`
`oxylabs.io© 2022 All Rights Reserved
`
`Major Data UAB v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-00915, EX. 2050
`13 of 13
`
`