DCT
2:19-cv-00395
Bright Data Ltd v. Teso LT UAB
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luminati Networks Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Teso LT, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB (Lithuania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP; RuyakCherian LLP
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00395, E.D. Tex., 12/06/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendants are foreign entities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ residential proxy and web data extraction services infringe three U.S. patents related to peer-to-peer networking and efficient data communication.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns large-scale residential proxy networks, where internet-connected user devices are selectively employed as intermediaries to route traffic for business customers, enabling anonymous web scraping and data collection.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges this action follows a "First Action" filed by Plaintiff against a predecessor entity (Tesonet) on July 19, 2018, involving related patents. Plaintiff also alleges it provided notice of its patent portfolio to Defendants through meetings and correspondence beginning in May 2017.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-10-08 | Priority Date for ’319 and ’510 Patents |
| 2013-08-28 | Priority Date for ’614 Patent |
| 2017-05-22 | Meeting between parties discussing Plaintiff's patents |
| 2017-06-01 | Plaintiff sends letter to Defendants identifying patent family |
| 2018-02-14 | Plaintiff sends second letter notifying of infringement |
| 2018-06-20 | Defendants' counsel sends letter denying infringement |
| 2018-07-19 | Plaintiff files "First Action" against Defendants' predecessor |
| 2019-04-09 | U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 issues |
| 2019-11-05 | U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614 issues |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 issues |
| 2019-12-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,469,614 - System and Method for Improving Internet Communication by Using Intermediate Nodes
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint asserts that the technology addresses the management of a network of consumer devices (e.g., laptops, phones) that can be used as proxies, where the availability and suitability of each device depends on its current resource status (Compl. ¶¶25, 29).
- The Patented Solution: The asserted claims describe a method where a client device communicates with a server and is associated with at least two states (e.g., active and dormant) based on its utilization of a resource, such as battery life or bandwidth (Compl. ¶51). The device periodically determines if its resource utilization satisfies a certain criterion; if it does, the device enters a "first state" where it is responsive to receiving and performing tasks, such as fetching content from a distinct web server (Compl. ¶51).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a dynamic, distributed proxy network that leverages user devices only when they have sufficient resources, potentially improving network stability and minimizing impact on the device owner (Compl. ¶¶25, 29).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶51).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- Initiating communication with a first server and sending a first identifier.
- Periodically or continuously determining whether the resource utilization satisfies a criterion.
- Shifting to a first state if the criterion is satisfied, or a second state if it is not.
- While in the first state, receiving a request from the first server.
- Performing a task in response, wherein the task is for fetching content from a web server distinct from the first server.
- The complaint explicitly asserts dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 29 (Compl. ¶54).
U.S. Patent No. 10,257,319 - System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes increased Internet traffic and bandwidth consumption leading to slower speeds for users and higher costs for content distributors and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) (’319 Patent, col. 1:26-53). Existing solutions like proxies or traditional peer-to-peer file sharing are noted as being inadequate for handling the volume and dynamic nature of modern web content (’319 Patent, col. 2:5-7, col. 3:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication network comprising clients, peers, agents, and an acceleration server to distribute the load of data delivery (’319 Patent, col. 4:40-44). When a client requests content, it contacts an acceleration server to find a suitable "agent," which in turn provides a list of "peers" that already have cached the requested content; the client then downloads the content in parallel from these peers, speeding up the transfer and reducing load on the origin server (’319 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This peer-assisted architecture aims to create a more efficient content delivery network by decentralizing data sources, moving content closer to the requesting user, and reducing reliance on centralized servers (’319 Patent, col. 1:54-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶65).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A method performed by a first client device.
- Receiving a first content identifier from a second server.
- Sending an HTTP request with that identifier to a first server (a web server).
- Receiving the first content from the first server in response.
- Sending the received first content to the second server.
- The complaint explicitly asserts dependent claims 17, 24, 25, and 27 (Compl. ¶67).
U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510 - System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,484,510, “System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication,” issued November 19, 2019.
- Technology Synopsis: As a divisional of the same family as the ’319 Patent, this patent relates to a peer-to-peer network architecture for accelerating data communication (Compl. ¶75). The asserted claims cover a method where a client device establishes a connection with an intermediary "second server," uses it to fetch content from a target "web server," and then delivers the fetched content back to the second server over the established connection (Compl. ¶78).
- Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶78).
- Accused Features: The accused functionality involves the Defendants' proxy devices ("first client device") establishing TCP connections with "supernodes" ("second server") to fetch and relay content from target web servers (Compl. ¶79).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Oxylabs Residential Proxy Service and Real-Time Crawler (the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentalities are described as services that provide customers with access to a large network of residential proxy devices, such as consumer laptops and smartphones, distributed globally (Compl. ¶¶10, 25). These devices run Defendants' embedded software, allegedly via a software development kit ("SDK") integrated into third-party applications (Compl. ¶25). This software allows the devices to act as proxies, receiving requests from Defendants' servers (described as "supernodes") and fetching content from target web servers on behalf of Oxylabs' customers (Compl. ¶25). The complaint alleges this system provides anonymity for customers engaging in activities like large-scale web data extraction and comparative pricing (Compl. ¶¶17, 24). The complaint includes a diagram from Defendants' website illustrating a user request being routed through a "Super Node" to a "Target" via multiple residential IP addresses (Compl. p. 11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
10,469,614 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for use with a resource associated with a criterion in a client device that communicates with a first server… | The client devices are proxy devices in the Oxylabs network, and the first server is a supernode of the Accused Instrumentalities. | ¶52 | Patent document not provided |
| initiating, by the client device, communication with the first server… comprises sending… the first identifier… | Upon connecting to the Internet, a proxy device initiates communication with a supernode by sending its identifier (e.g., IP address). | ¶52 | Patent document not provided |
| periodically or continuously determining whether the resource utilization satisfies the criterion… | A determination is made whether the proxy device satisfies a criterion for resource utilization, such as battery life, bandwidth usage, or idleness. | ¶29, ¶52 | Patent document not provided |
| responsive to the determining that the utilization of the resource satisfies the criterion, shifting to the first state… | When the criterion is satisfied (e.g., sufficient battery), the device shifts to a "first state" (an active state). The "INFORMATION FOR END USERS" disclosure states resources are used "when the device is idle and is on Wi-Fi connection" (Compl. p. 16). | ¶29, ¶52 | Patent document not provided |
| responsive to being in the first state, receiving, by the client device, a request from the first server; and performing a task… | While in the active state, the proxy device receives a request from the supernode and performs a task in response. | ¶53 | Patent document not provided |
| wherein the method is further configured for fetching… a first content… from a web server that is distinct from the first server… | The task is to fetch content (e.g., a website) from a target web server, which is distinct from the supernode. | ¶53 | Patent document not provided |
10,257,319 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for use with a first client device, for use with a first server that comprises a web server… and for use with a second server… | The first client device is an Oxylabs proxy device, the first server is a target HTTP web server, and the second server is an Oxylabs supernode. | ¶66 | col. 4:40-54 |
| receiving, from the second server, the first content identifier; | The proxy device receives a content identifier, such as a URL, from the supernode. | ¶66 | col. 10:46-54 |
| sending, to the first server over the Internet, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) request that comprises the first content identifier; | The proxy device sends an HTTP request containing the URL to the target web server. | ¶66 | col. 12:28-34 |
| receiving, the first content from the first server over the Internet in response to the sending of the first content identifier; and | The proxy device receives the requested content (e.g., webpage data) from the target web server. | ¶66 | col. 13:58 - 14:14 |
| sending, the first content by the first client device to the second server, in response to the receiving of the first content identifier. | The proxy device sends the fetched content to the supernode. | ¶66 | col. 4:45-50 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions (’614 Patent): A central question may be whether the accused system’s alleged monitoring of device resources like "battery life, bandwidth usage or a threshold value associated with idleness" (Compl. ¶29) falls within the scope of the claim term "resource utilization satisfies the criterion." The construction of "first state" and "second state" will also be critical in determining if they read on the alleged "active" and "dormant" states of the accused proxy devices (Compl. ¶25).
- Technical Questions (’319 Patent): The infringement theory depends on mapping the accused "supernode" to the claimed "second server" (Compl. ¶66). The defense may argue that the functionality of the accused "supernode" differs from that of the "second server" as contemplated by the patent's specification, which describes a system of "acceleration servers" and "agents" with specific roles in coordinating "peers" (’319 Patent, Abstract). The factual evidence regarding the precise technical operations of the supernode will be a key point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "resource associated with a criterion" (’614 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the claimed method of shifting a device between states. Its definition will determine what types of device-monitoring activities can give rise to infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's allegations of monitoring battery life and idleness are factual predicates that must map onto this claim language (Compl. ¶29).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide the patent document for the ’614 Patent, so analysis is limited to the claim language itself and allegations in the complaint. The dependent claims may provide context. For example, Claim 17 recites using a "set threshold value," suggesting the criterion can be a quantitative measure (Compl. ¶54).
The Term: "second server" (’319 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The identity and function of the "second server" are central to the claimed method, as it is both the source of the content identifier and the destination for the fetched content. The case may turn on whether the accused "supernode" (Compl. ¶66) is properly characterized as the claimed "second server."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not heavily qualify the "second server," merely positioning it as an intermediary. This may support an argument that any server performing the recited functions of providing an identifier and receiving the fetched content meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific architecture where an "acceleration server" provides lists of "agents," and "agents" provide lists of "peers" (’319 Patent, col. 4:40-62). An argument could be made that the "second server" should be construed in light of these specific embodiments, potentially limiting its scope to a server performing the functions of the described "agent" or "acceleration server," which may differ from the accused "supernode."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It asserts that Defendants provide their SDK to application partners and their residential proxy service to customers with the knowledge and intent that the implementation of the service by end-users in the U.S. will infringe the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶57, 70, 83). The SDK is alleged to be a material component especially made for use in an infringing manner and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶57).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint cites a series of communications and meetings starting in May 2017 that allegedly put Defendants on notice of Plaintiff's patent portfolio (Compl. ¶¶19-21). It further alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the asserted patents at least as of the filing of the complaint and continued their infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶60, 73, 86).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction and scope: can the term "resource utilization satisfies the criterion" in the ’614 Patent be construed to cover the accused system's alleged use of device idleness and Wi-Fi connection status as triggers for proxy activity?
- A second central question will be one of actor mapping and technical equivalence: does the accused "supernode" in the Oxylabs architecture perform the specific functions of the "second server" as recited in the claims of the ’319 and ’510 Patents, particularly when read in light of the specification's disclosure of "agents" and "acceleration servers"?
- A key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: what was the extent of Defendants' knowledge of the specific asserted patents and their alleged infringement, particularly in light of the pre-suit correspondence regarding related patents in the same families?