DCT
2:19-cv-00396
Bright Data Ltd v. Code200 UAB
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Luminati Networks Ltd. (Israel)
- Defendant: Code200, UAB; Oxysales, UAB; Metacluster LT, UAB (Lithuania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mann | Tindel | Thompson
- Case Identification: 2:19-cv-00396, E.D. Tex., 06/09/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendants are foreign entities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ data center proxy and web crawling services infringe patents related to methods for fetching online content more efficiently.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to proxy networks, which route internet traffic through intermediary servers to mask a user's IP address, access geo-restricted content, or perform large-scale data extraction.
- Key Procedural History: This amended complaint follows a "First Action" filed by Plaintiff on July 18, 2018, against Defendants' predecessor-in-interest, Tesonet, involving different patents. The patents-in-suit in the current action were issued in late 2019 and 2020, after the original lawsuit was filed, and share a common specification.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-10-08 | Priority Date for ’511 and ’968 Patents |
| 2018-07-18 | Plaintiff files "First Action" against Defendants' predecessor |
| 2019-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511 Issues |
| 2020-04-28 | U.S. Patent No. 10,637,968 Issues |
| 2020-06-09 | Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,484,511 - “System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication”
- Issued: November 19, 2019
- Shorthand: ’511 Patent
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes growing Internet traffic congestion and bandwidth costs driven by on-demand video and global websites, noting that existing proxy and peer-to-peer file-sharing solutions are either too costly, inefficient, or unable to handle the dynamic content prevalent on the modern web (’511 Patent, col. 1:29-55; col. 2:33-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a distributed network of clients, agents, and peers managed by an "acceleration server" to speed up data delivery (’511 Patent, Abstract). When a user requests content, the system intercepts the request and, instead of going directly to the origin web server, it queries an intermediary "agent" device that identifies other "peer" devices in the network that have already cached all or parts of the requested content. The user's client device then downloads these parts ("chunks") in parallel from multiple nearby peers, accelerating the transfer and reducing the load on the origin server (’511 Patent, col. 3:14-36; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This peer-assisted content delivery architecture was designed to reduce latency for end-users and lower infrastructure costs for content providers by decentralizing data distribution (’511 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶36).
- Essential elements of Claim 1, a method performed by a "first server," include:
- Receiving a content identifier (e.g., a URL) from a client device.
- Selecting an IP address from a group of IP addresses stored on the server.
- Sending the content identifier to the target web server using the selected IP address.
- Receiving the requested content from the web server.
- Sending the received content to the client device.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶38).
U.S. Patent No. 10,637,968 - “System Providing Faster and More Efficient Data Communication”
- Issued: April 28, 2020
- Shorthand: ’968 Patent
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’968 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’511 Patent and thus addresses the same problems of internet congestion and inefficient data delivery (Compl. ¶14; ’968 Patent, col. 1:29-55).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is the same peer-assisted content delivery network described in the ’511 Patent, involving an acceleration server, clients, agents, and peers (’968 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:14-36).
- Technical Importance: The technical importance is identical to that of the ’511 Patent: reducing latency and infrastructure costs through decentralized data distribution (’968 Patent, col. 2:49-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- Independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶49).
- Essential elements of Claim 1, a method performed by a "requesting client device," include:
- Identifying an HTTP or HTTPS request for content.
- Selecting an IP address from a list.
- Sending the content identifier and the selected IP address to a "second server."
- Receiving the requested content from the second server, which used the selected IP address to fetch it.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶51).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Oxylabs Data Center Proxy Service" and "Real-Time Crawler" (collectively, the "Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶5).
Functionality and Market Context
The Accused Instrumentalities are described as a data center proxy network that provides customers access to a pool of over two million IP addresses, including 721,000 in the United States, for "large-scale web data extraction" (Compl. ¶19). A screenshot from the defendants' marketing materials touts "2M+ data center proxies with city-level targeting" (Compl. p. 6). The service allows customers to route their internet requests through these proxy IPs, which can be rotated on each request to avoid detection or IP blocking by target websites (Compl. ¶15). The complaint alleges that the "Real-Time Crawler" service utilizes the data center proxy network to perform its functions (Compl. ¶19).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’511 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for fetching... for use with a first server that stores a group of IP addresses | The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a server that stores a group of over 2 million proxy IP addresses. | ¶19, ¶21, ¶37 | col. 19:16-20 |
| receiving, from the first client device, the first content identifier | The accused server receives a URL for content from a customer's client device. | ¶20, ¶22, ¶37 | col. 20:2-3 |
| selecting, in response to the receiving... an IP address from the group | The accused server selects a proxy IP address from its stored group upon receiving the request. | ¶21, ¶22, ¶37 | col. 20:4-7 |
| sending, in response to the selecting, the first content identifier to the web server using the selected IP address | The accused server sends the URL to the target web server using the selected proxy IP address. | ¶22, ¶37 | col. 20:8-11 |
| receiving, in response to the sending, the first content from the web server | The accused server receives the requested content from the target web server. | ¶22, ¶37 | col. 20:12-13 |
| sending the received first content to the first client device | The accused server sends the received content back to the customer's client device. | ¶22, ¶37 | col. 20:14-15 |
’968 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method for use with a requesting client device that comprises an Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) or Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) client | The Accused Instrumentalities are used with a customer's client device, which comprises an HTTP/HTTPS client (e.g., a web browser like Chrome). | ¶27, ¶28, ¶50 | col. 19:12-15 |
| identifying, by the requesting client device, an HTTP or HTTPS request for the first content | The client device identifies a user's request for content, which is intercepted for processing through the proxy service. | ¶28, ¶30, ¶50 | col. 25:9-11 |
| selecting, by the requesting client device, an IP address from the list | The client device selects a proxy IP address from a list provided by the service, for example based on geographic location. A screenshot shows instructions for integrating the proxies with a browser (Compl. p. 14). | ¶28, ¶29, ¶50 | col. 25:12-13 |
| sending, by the requesting client device, to the second server... the first content identifier and the selected IP address | The client device sends the content identifier (URL) and the selected proxy IP to the Defendants' server (the "second server"). | ¶28, ¶50 | col. 25:14-19 |
| receiving, by the requesting client device... from the second server using the selected IP address, the first content | The client device receives the requested content from the Defendants' server. | ¶28, ¶50 | col. 25:20-23 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "selecting an IP address," as described in the patent’s context of a peer-assisted content distribution network, can be construed to cover the IP rotation functionality of the accused proxy service. The patent specification describes a complex system of finding "agents" and "peers" with cached content, which may suggest a narrower scope than what is alleged (’511 Patent, Fig. 9-10).
- Technical Questions: For the ’968 Patent, a key factual question will be where the "selecting" step actually occurs. Does the customer's "requesting client device" perform the selection of a proxy IP as the claim requires, or is the selection directed and performed by Defendants' remote server, which would raise questions about direct infringement by any single party?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "selecting... an IP address" (’511 Patent, Claim 1; ’968 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism of both asserted claims. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover generic proxy IP rotation, as alleged by the Plaintiff, or is limited to the specific content-aware, peer-based selection process detailed in the patent specification.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of independent claim 1 in both patents does not specify how the selection must be made. Dependent claim 14 of the ’511 Patent adds a limitation that selection occurs "for use with a criterion," which may imply the independent claim does not require any particular criterion (’511 Patent, col. 20:50-53).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the selection process in the context of an "acceleration server" that finds "agents" and "peers" that have already cached the requested content, often based on network proximity (’511 Patent, col. 13:57-61, Fig. 10). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to a more complex technical process than simple IP rotation.
The Term: "first server" (’511 Patent) / "second server" (’968 Patent)
Context and Importance: The claims of the two patents are distinguished by the entity performing the method: the ’511 Patent claims a method performed by a "first server" (the proxy server), while the ’968 Patent claims a method performed by the "requesting client device" that communicates with a "second server" (the proxy server). The definition and role of these servers are crucial to determining infringement and avoiding contradictions between the two infringement theories.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define these servers functionally (e.g., a "first server that stores a group of IP addresses"), suggesting any server that performs these functions could qualify (’511 Patent, col. 19:18-19).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description consistently refers to the server as an "acceleration server" that manages the peer-to-peer network, not just a simple proxy (’511 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:32). This could support an argument that the claimed "server" must be part of such a peer-assisted architecture.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants induce infringement of the ’968 Patent by instructing customers on how to configure third-party applications like Chrome to use the proxy service, thereby causing the customers' client devices to perform the claimed method steps (Compl. ¶27, ¶53).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents "since at least the filing of this Complaint" and their continued infringement thereafter (Compl. ¶39, ¶44, ¶52, ¶57).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical scope: can the patented methods, which are described in the specification as a peer-to-peer content acceleration system, be construed to cover the functionality of a commercial data center proxy service that performs IP rotation? The dispute will likely focus on whether the claimed step of "selecting an IP address" requires the content-aware, peer-finding logic detailed in the patent's embodiments.
- A second key question will address the locus of infringement, particularly for the client-side ’968 Patent. The case may turn on evidence showing whether the "selecting" of a proxy IP address is a function performed "by the requesting client device" itself, as required by the claim, or if it is a function controlled and executed by Defendants’ remote servers.
- The complaint’s parallel assertion of a server-side method (’511 Patent) and a client-side method (’968 Patent) against the same system raises potential divided infringement questions. The court will need to determine if the actions of Defendants and their customers can be attributed to a single party for the purpose of finding direct infringement under either patent.