The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Bright Data’s appeal of a Federal Circuit decision that upheld Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) findings invalidating four network patents, turning aside the Israeli tech company’s argument that the appeals court applies inconsistent — “asymmetrical” — claim construction standards in validity challenges.
In its Monday order list, the justices denied certiorari without explanation, leaving intact the Federal Circuit’s August 2025 affirmance of the PTAB’s inter partes review decisions. The ruling ends Bright Data’s bid to revive the patents, which cover technologies for increasing network communication speed and proxy routing.
Bright Data’s December 2025 petition contended the Federal Circuit violated longstanding Supreme Court precedent — dating back over a century — that patent owners cannot broaden claim scope during litigation to recapture what they surrendered during prosecution or IPR proceedings. The company argued this “prosecution history disclaimer” rule serves “salutary purposes” (clarity, public notice), but those benefits vanish when applied asymmetrically: patentees bound to narrowed scope for infringement, yet courts allegedly broaden construction when affirming invalidity (e.g., deeming claims obvious based on prior art interpretations contradicting disclaimers).
“Just as a patentee is bound by the scope of a claim resulting from the prosecution process (including IPR proceedings), there is no warrant for a court (or potential infringer) to expand the scope of a patent claim and to identify the expressly disclaimed scope as the predicate for deeming the claim invalid,” the petition stated.
Bright Data highlighted perceived Federal Circuit inconsistency across cases and urged SCOTUS guidance, arguing the issue affects patent owners nationwide in validity vs. infringement contexts.
Challengers (Code200 UAB, Teso LT UAB, and Oxylabs affiliates) waived response, and the government filed none.
The patents stemmed from a 2021 Eastern District of Texas jury verdict awarding SWAPA $7.5 million against Teso LT UAB for infringement. That award was stayed pending PTAB review; the PTAB invalidated the claims as obvious, the Federal Circuit affirmed (finding sufficient evidence and rejecting Bright Data’s claim construction/prior art arguments), and SCOTUS now declines review.
The case is effectively over, with the patents invalidated and no path to revive the infringement claims.
Bright Data is represented by Robert M. Harkins Jr., Thomas M. Dunham, Korula T. Cherian, Ronald R. Wielkopolski, and Elizabeth O’Brien of Cherian LLP, plus Jerrold J. Ganzfried of Ganzfried Law. Challengers were represented at SCOTUS by Jonathan S. Franklin of Norton Rose Fulbright.
The denial reinforces broad deference to PTAB/Federal Circuit on obviousness and claim construction in IPRs, while leaving unresolved the argued asymmetry in disclaimer application — potentially impacting future patent validity challenges involving prosecution history.
