`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`BRIGHT DATA LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`TESO LT, UAB, METACLUSTER LT,
`UAB, OXYSALES, UAB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`IPR2022-01109, EX. 2004
`1 of 2
`
`
`
`Oxylabsresponds that lifting the stay before the mediation would be unhelpful as—atthe
`
`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, 202 1—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 GILSTRAP
`
`UNITED STATES
`
`DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Code200, UAB,et al. v. Bright Data Ltd.
`IPR2022-01109, EX. 2004
`2 of 2
`
`