Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity of Bright Data’s Data Communication Patent in Landmark Ruling
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Bright Data, Ltd. v. Code 200, UAB |
| Case Number | 23-2144 (Fed. Cir.) |
| Court | Federal Circuit, Appeal from District of Columbia |
| Duration | July 2023 – August 2025 750 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Patent Invalidated |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Defendants’ Data Communication Services |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Israel-based data collection and proxy network company with a substantial patent portfolio in web data infrastructure and network communication systems.
🛡️ Defendant
Lithuanian entities (Code 200, Teso LT, metacluster lt, Oxysales) operating in the data services and proxy network market.
The Patent at Issue
At the center of this dispute is **U.S. Patent No. 11,044,342 B2** (Application No. 16/600,507), claiming a *system providing faster and more efficient data communication*. The patent addresses methods and systems for routing and managing data requests through intermediary network nodes — technology foundational to proxy-based data infrastructure services.
- • US 11,044,342 B2 — System providing faster and more efficient data communication
Developing data communication technology?
Check if your network architecture is free to operate against similar patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Federal Circuit entered a clean affirmance, upholding the lower tribunal’s finding of **unpatentability**. The case was terminated on the basis that the ‘342 patent’s claims were found invalid. No damages were awarded, and injunctive relief was rendered moot. The verdict cause is recorded as **Patentability**, under the broader classification of an **Invalidity/Cancellation Action**.
Key Legal Issues
Affirmances of unpatentability most commonly arise from findings under **35 U.S.C. § 101** (patent-eligible subject matter), **§ 102** (anticipation), or **§ 103** (obviousness). For data communication system patents, § 101 abstract idea challenges and § 103 obviousness arguments based on prior art combinations represent frequently litigated grounds. This outcome reinforces the vulnerability of broadly claimed data communication inventions to such challenges.
Drafting a data communication patent?
Learn from this invalidation. Use AI to draft narrower, more defensible claims.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis & Invalidity Risk
This case highlights critical IP risks in data communication design and prosecution. Choose your next step:
📋 Analyze Invalidity Rationale
Learn about the specific invalidity risks and implications from this litigation.
- Review the court’s reasoning for unpatentability
- Identify common invalidity traps in software patents
- Learn from prosecution errors in data communication patents
🔍 Check My Product’s FTO Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Invalidity Risk
Broadly claimed software/network patents
1 Patent Invalidated
US 11,044,342 B2 in this case
Key Invalidity Grounds
§ 101, § 102, § 103 challenges
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Federal Circuit affirmed unpatentability of US11044342B2 — review adjacent claims in Bright Data’s portfolio for similar exposure.
Search related case law →Invalidity/cancellation actions remain high-percentage defense strategies for data communication system patents.
Explore defense strategies →Prosecution record quality is a litigation variable — weak differentiation from prior art compounds appellate risk.
Improve patent prosecution →750-day appellate duration is standard; budget planning for Federal Circuit appeals should reflect this timeline.
View litigation analytics →For IP Professionals
Data infrastructure patent portfolios warrant periodic validity audits, especially post-assertion.
Request a portfolio audit →Licensing strategies built on potentially invalid patents carry significant counterparty leverage risk.
Analyze licensing risks →Monitor Bright Data v. Code 200 for any downstream impact on related licensing or cross-border enforcement actions.
Track related cases →For R&D Teams
FTO clearance should include validity assessments — an asserted patent is not necessarily a valid patent.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Investing in design-around documentation alongside invalidity analysis provides layered protection.
Explore design-around strategies →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.