Bright Data v. Major Data UAB: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability
Bright Data, Ltd.’s US10257319B2 — covering systems for faster and more efficient data communication — was found unpatentable, with the Federal Circuit affirming that ruling on appeal. The case ran 679 days from filing to final disposition, ending Bright Data’s appellate options at this level.
Federal Circuit closes the door on Bright Data’s data-routing patent
Bright Data, Ltd. appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-2414) seeking to overturn a finding that US10257319B2 — a patent directed at systems providing faster and more efficient data communication — was unpatentable. The appeal was filed on 22 September 2023 with the challenger being Major Data UAB, a company that had initiated or supported the underlying invalidity or cancellation action. The patent in question, filed under application number US15/957945, sits at the heart of data-routing and proxy-network technology.
The Federal Circuit issued its ruling on 1 August 2025, affirming the unpatentability determination below. The court’s order — ‘ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — means the lower tribunal’s finding of unpatentability was upheld in its entirety. For Bright Data, this forecloses any further argument on the merits at the Federal Circuit level; for Major Data UAB, the affirmance confirms the patent poses no enforceable claim against its operations.
A 679-day appellate timeline is consistent with contested patentability appeals at the Federal Circuit, where briefing schedules and oral argument scheduling routinely extend proceedings beyond two years. What drove the outcome — whether claim construction, prior art scope, or written description deficiencies — is not detailed in the public record. The affirmance leaves the claims cancelled or invalidated, and the public record does not disclose any licensing resolution or settlement alongside the ruling.
Filing to Unpatentable in 679 days
679 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — longer than median PTAB appeal duration
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Affirmance: the lower ruling stands without reversible error
When the Federal Circuit affirms, it holds that the tribunal below committed no reversible error in reaching its conclusion. The court does not retry the case — it reviews whether legal standards were correctly applied and whether factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. An affirmance of unpatentability is final at this appellate level; the patent claims remain cancelled or invalid as determined below.
No reversible error foundBright Data’s patent claims are confirmed unpatentable
For Bright Data, the Federal Circuit’s affirmance exhausts the primary appellate route for this patent. US10257319B2 can no longer be enforced as originally granted. Any licensing programme or litigation strategy built around these specific claims must be restructured. Bright Data may seek en banc rehearing or certiorari to the Supreme Court, but both paths face high procedural bars and are statistically unlikely to succeed.
Patent claims cancelledMajor Data UAB secures definitive freedom from this patent
Major Data UAB’s challenge succeeded at every level reviewed, culminating in Federal Circuit affirmance. The unpatentability finding eliminates the threat of infringement liability under US10257319B2 not only for Major Data but, once claims are cancelled, for the broader market. Competitors operating similar data communication architectures gain derivative benefit from the outcome.
Freedom from infringement riskNarrowed patent landscape for data communication systems
The affirmance signals that the specific claim architecture of US10257319B2 did not survive patentability scrutiny — a meaningful signal for competitors in proxy networks, data-routing, and distributed communication infrastructure. Companies operating in this space may find the competitive patent barrier reduced, though Bright Data likely holds additional patents in its portfolio. Future prosecution strategies in this technical area should account for the prior art and patentability standards applied in this proceeding.
Reduced enforcement risk sector-wideFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bright Data, Ltd. | Company | Data communication technology company — holder of US10257319B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MAJOR DATA UAB | Individual | Major Data UAB — challenger in underlying invalidity/cancellation action against US10257319B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert M. Harkins | Attorney | Counsel for Bright Data, Ltd.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 | Wensheng Ma | Attorney | Counsel for MAJOR DATA UABSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Maschoff Brennan PLLC | Law Firm | Representing MAJOR DATA 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 applied the substantial evidence standard to factual findings (e.g., prior art scope) and reviewed legal conclusions de novo. The absence of any qualification or remand instruction in the order suggests the Federal Circuit found the patentability analysis below to be fully sustainable — leaving Bright Data no avenue for further challenge at this appellate level.
US10257319B2 — System for faster and more efficient data communication
US10257319B2, filed under application number US15/957945, protects a system directed at providing faster and more efficient data communication. The patent sits within the technical domain of network architecture, proxy infrastructure, and data-routing optimisation — an area of significant commercial activity driven by demand for low-latency, high-throughput data transfer. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability confirms the claims did not meet the statutory patentability threshold as assessed by the lower tribunal.
For the data communication and proxy network sector, US10257319B2 represented a potential enforcement tool over infrastructure that accelerates or routes data more efficiently. Bright Data operates in the residential and commercial proxy market, where patent coverage of underlying system architectures carries substantial licensing leverage. The cancellation of these claims reduces a layer of competitive patent risk, though Bright Data’s broader portfolio may include patents with overlapping technical scope that remain enforceable and warrant independent FTO review.
Should you run an FTO against US10257319B2?
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability means the claims of US10257319B2 are no longer enforceable — but teams building data communication systems, proxy network infrastructure, or data-routing platforms should not treat this ruling as a blanket clearance. Bright Data holds a wider patent portfolio, and continuation or sibling applications covering similar technical subject matter may still be active. Any product team deploying faster or more efficient data transmission architectures should verify the full family status before concluding risk is eliminated.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the entire US15/957945 patent family, identify active continuations, and surface related Bright Data filings in the data communication space — in a fraction of the time required by manual prosecution history review. Set up automated monitoring alerts to flag any new Bright Data applications entering prosecution in this technical cluster before they issue.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10257319B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patentability appeals in data communication
Federal Circuit patentability affirmances in data communication and network infrastructure patent disputes, covering comparable proxy and data-routing claim sets.
What this case signals for the data communication IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability in Bright Data v. Major Data UAB has concrete implications for proxy network and data-routing patent strategy.
Cancelled claims create freedom-to-operate across the sector
When the Federal Circuit affirms an unpatentability finding, the affected claims are eliminated for all market participants — not just the named challenger. Companies building data communication systems or proxy network infrastructure that previously designed around US10257319B2 should revisit their FTO analyses to confirm the scope of cleared risk.
Bright Data’s enforcement options are materially narrowed at this level
With US10257319B2 affirmed unpatentable, Bright Data must rely on remaining portfolio patents to sustain any enforcement programme in the data communication space. Competitors and licensees should audit which Bright Data patents remain live and enforceable, and whether any continuation or divisional applications cover similar subject matter.
Bright v MAJOR — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding that US10257319B2 — Bright Data’s patent covering a system for faster and more efficient data communication — was unpatentable. The order, issued 1 August 2025, confirms the lower tribunal’s determination in full, with no remand.
No. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability means the claims of US10257319B2 are confirmed cancelled or invalid. The patent cannot be enforced as granted. However, related continuation or divisional applications in the same family may still be pending or issued, and those would require separate FTO analysis.
The public record identifies the verdict cause as an invalidity/cancellation action on patentability grounds, with ‘unpatentable’ listed as the basis of termination. The specific prior art references or statutory grounds (e.g., § 102, § 103, or § 112) are not detailed in the available case record.
Bright Data could seek en banc rehearing before the full Federal Circuit or petition the Supreme Court for certiorari — but both options carry very high procedural bars and low grant rates. At this stage, the practical effect is that US10257319B2’s claims are extinguished for enforcement purposes. Bright Data retains any other patents in its portfolio.
Yes. When claims are found unpatentable and that finding is affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the affected claims are invalidated as to all parties — not only the named challenger, Major Data UAB. Any company that was previously at risk of infringement liability under US10257319B2 for data communication system products benefits from the clearing effect of this ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.