Bright Data v. Code 200: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Data Communication Patent
Bright Data, Ltd. appealed the cancellation of US11044344B2 — a patent covering systems for faster and more efficient data communication — against Code 200, UAB and three co-defendants. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding on 1 August 2025, ending a 750-day appellate battle and extinguishing Bright Data’s enforcement position on the asserted patent.
Federal Circuit closes the door on Bright Data’s data-proxy patent
Bright Data, Ltd. — a prominent player in the proxy network and web data collection space — filed appeal 23-2147 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 13 July 2023, challenging a prior determination that US11044344B2 (application no. US16/662800) was unpatentable. The patent claims a system providing faster and more efficient data communication, technology central to Bright Data’s commercial proxy infrastructure. Defendants Code 200, UAB, Teso LT, UAB, metacluster lt, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB — a cluster of Lithuanian entities — successfully defended the unpatentability finding at the appellate level.
On 1 August 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a terse but definitive order: ‘AFFIRMED.’ Under Federal Circuit appellate practice, affirmance on a patentability challenge means the court found no reversible error in the underlying invalidity or cancellation determination. The practical consequence for Bright Data is that US11044344B2 cannot be enforced — the patent is extinguished as a competitive asset. For the defendant group, represented by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, the affirmance represents a complete defence victory without any remand.
The 750-day duration from filing to closure is notably extended relative to typical Federal Circuit timelines, suggesting complex briefing, possible oral argument, or procedural developments not visible in the public docket summary. The basis of termination recorded simply as ‘Unpatentable’ is consistent with an inter partes review or post-grant proceeding affirmance rather than a direct infringement action, though the precise originating proceeding is not confirmed in the available record. What remains unknown is whether Bright Data holds continuation applications covering related subject matter that could preserve some portion of its data communication IP estate.
Filing to Unpatentable in 750 days
750 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal, which typically resolves in 12–18 months
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means no reversible error was found below
When the Federal Circuit issues an ‘AFFIRMED’ order on a patentability challenge, it is ruling that the tribunal below correctly determined the patent claims are unpatentable. The appellate court applies deferential review to factual findings (substantial evidence) and de novo review to legal questions. An affirmance without remand means the challenged claims are conclusively unpatentable — no further proceedings are ordered on the merits.
Final appellate dispositionUS11044344B2 is extinguished as an enforcement asset
For Bright Data, the affirmance is definitive: US11044344B2 can no longer be asserted in litigation or licensing negotiations. The patent’s claims covering faster and more efficient data communication systems are held unpatentable, removing a key IP asset from Bright Data’s enforcement portfolio. Any pending infringement suits grounded solely on this patent would need to be withdrawn. Bright Data’s next avenue, if any, is a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which is granted only rarely.
Patent unenforceableComplete victory for the Code 200 defendant group
Code 200, UAB and its co-defendants — Teso LT, Metacluster lt, and Oxysales — secured a full appellate win. Norton Rose Fulbright’s defence team successfully defended the unpatentability finding at every level. The defendants are now free to operate without the overhang of US11044344B2, and the Federal Circuit’s affirmance raises the bar significantly against any future assertion of the same or substantially similar claims by Bright Data.
Full defence winProxy network IP landscape shifts after data-communication patent falls
The cancellation of a Bright Data patent covering data communication system architecture signals heightened scrutiny of proxy-network and web-scraping patents at the Federal Circuit. Competitors and data infrastructure providers operating in this space may find it easier to challenge similar patents, and the ruling may embolden defendants in parallel Bright Data enforcement actions. Companies holding analogous claims should audit their portfolios for validity risk in light of this outcome.
Portfolio risk signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bright Data, Ltd. | Company | Proxy network and web data collection technology company — holder of US11044344B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Code 200, UAB | Individual | Code 200, UAB and three affiliated Lithuanian entities challenging patent validitySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Teso LT, UAB | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | metacluster lt, UAB | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Oxysales, UAB | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas M. Dunham | Attorney | Counsel for Bright Data, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherian LLP | Law Firm | Representing Bright Data, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Leventhal | Attorney | Counsel for Code 200, UABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan S. Franklin | Attorney | Counsel for Code 200, UABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark T. Garrett | Attorney | Counsel for Code 200, UABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie DeBrow | Attorney | Counsel for Code 200, UABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | Law Firm | Representing Code 200, UABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is a merits affirmance of the unpatentability determination below. The court applies substantial evidence review to underlying factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions on patentability. The absence of any remand instruction confirms that the challenged claims of US11044344B2 are finally and conclusively unpatentable. No further proceedings at the Federal Circuit level are anticipated.
US11044344B2 — System for faster and more efficient data communication
US11044344B2 (application no. US16/662800) claims a system providing faster and more efficient data communication — technology directly relevant to proxy network infrastructure, wherein requests are routed through intermediary nodes to improve speed, anonymity, and reliability. The patent is central to Bright Data’s commercial product suite, which includes residential and datacenter proxy services used widely in web data collection, ad verification, and market intelligence. The application’s filing history places it squarely in the competitive wave of network-proxy system patents filed in the late 2010s.
From a competitive standpoint, US11044344B2 represented a potentially significant enforcement lever for Bright Data against rival proxy and data-infrastructure providers. Its cancellation — confirmed by the Federal Circuit — removes that lever entirely. For the broader sector, this outcome signals that broadly drafted data-communication system claims face serious prior art and patentability challenges at the USPTO’s post-grant proceedings. Companies building or licensing proxy, CDN, or data-routing infrastructure should treat the underlying claim architecture of this patent as a reference point for prior art clearance.
Should your R&D team run an FTO search against US11044344B2?
US11044344B2 is now unpatentable and cannot be enforced. However, any product team building systems for faster or more efficient data communication — including proxy routing, traffic management, CDN acceleration, or web-scraping infrastructure — should still assess Bright Data’s broader patent family. Related continuation or divisional applications may carry overlapping claim language and remain enforceable. The FTO question has shifted from this specific patent to the family surrounding it.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full US16/662800 patent family, identify live related applications, and flag claim language that may present infringement risk for your specific product architecture. For data infrastructure and proxy technology teams, running a family-level FTO search now — before the next Bright Data assertion — is the lower-cost, lower-risk approach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11044344B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals in data communication and proxy technology
Federal Circuit appeals involving data communication system patents and proxy network infrastructure — comparable patentability challenges and post-grant review affirmances.
What this case signals for the proxy network and data infrastructure IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability has material consequences for how data communication patents are asserted and defended across the industry.
Affirmed unpatentability raises the bar for proxy-network patent enforcement
With US11044344B2 cancelled and the cancellation affirmed by the Federal Circuit, patent owners in the proxy network and data communication space face heightened invalidity risk when asserting broadly drafted system claims. Defendants can now cite this outcome as persuasive precedent in IPR petitions and district court invalidity defences.
Multi-defendant coordination proved effective against a well-resourced patentee
The four Lithuanian co-defendants — represented collectively by Norton Rose Fulbright — successfully coordinated a unified defence across both the originating proceeding and the Federal Circuit appeal. This outcome suggests that consolidated defendant strategies, even across multiple smaller entities, can efficiently defeat patent assertions from larger technology companies.
Bright v Code — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US11044344B2 on 1 August 2025. Bright Data’s appeal of the cancellation determination was rejected, meaning the patent’s claims covering faster and more efficient data communication systems are conclusively unpatentable and unenforceable.
US11044344B2 (application no. US16/662800) is a US patent held by Bright Data, Ltd. covering a system providing faster and more efficient data communication. The patent is associated with proxy network and data-routing infrastructure technology used in residential and datacenter proxy services, web data collection, and related applications.
The defendants were Code 200, UAB (lead defendant), Teso LT, UAB, metacluster lt, UAB, and Oxysales, UAB — four Lithuanian entities represented by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP. All four successfully defended the unpatentability finding, achieving a complete appellate victory.
A termination basis of ‘Unpatentable’ in a Federal Circuit appeal context indicates the court affirmed a prior determination — likely from an inter partes review or post-grant proceeding — that the challenged patent claims do not meet statutory patentability requirements. The claims are cancelled and cannot be enforced going forward.
US11044344B2 itself is unenforceable following the Federal Circuit’s affirmance. However, Bright Data may hold continuation, divisional, or related applications in the same patent family that were not subject to this proceeding. Any such applications with live, allowed claims could still be asserted. A patent family search is advisable for companies operating in the data communication or proxy network space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.