Metacluster LT, UAB v. Bright Data Ltd., 2:22-cv-00011

Plaintiff Metacluster LT, UAB (MC) sued Bright Data Ltd. (BD) for infringement of U.S. Pat. Nos. 10,601,948; 9,503,498; and 9,516,091.
BD moved to dismiss (or for a more definite statement) for failure to state a claim and later moved for Rule 11 sanctions; MC filed an amended complaint and infringement contentions.
BD contended MC failed to identify where the accused product meets the "proxy provider" limitation of the '948 patent and failed to allege that BD's product "executes… the removed embedded script" in the '498 and '091 patents; BD also argued MC made contrary statements during PTAB inter partes review (IPR).
MC responded that its amended complaint and infringement contentions give adequate notice and that BD’s arguments depend on disputed claim construction issues not resolvable on a motion to dismiss.
The magistrate judge found the pleadings and infringement contentions provide sufficient notice, that BD’s complaints largely raise claim construction disputes not apparent on the face of the record, and therefore recommended denial of BD’s dismissal and Rule 11 motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MC identified the "proxy provider" limitation in the accused product (’948 patent)	MC alleges BD's accused product performs each claim limitation and provided infringement contentions identifying how	BD says pleadings do not identify "proxy provider" and that MC disclaimed a theory in PTAB IPR that precludes using BD's internal servers	Denied dismissal; court held MC's pleadings and contentions give sufficient notice and BD's argument depends on claim construction not apparent on the face of the record
Whether MC alleged the accused product "executes… the removed embedded script" (’498 and ’091 patents)	MC says BD's network appliance performs the claimed function and infringement contentions describe that performance	BD says MC only alleges execution of still-embedded script, not a removed script, so pleadings are insufficient	Denied dismissal; court found the dispute hinges on claim construction and factual merits, so pleadings survive
Whether MC’s positions warrant Rule 11 sanctions	MC insists its claims and contentions are reasonable and tied to infringement theories	BD contends MC knew its theories were inconsistent with IPR representations and thus frivolous	Denied; court found BD’s sanction arguments depend on contested claim construction and were not appropriate at the pleading stage

Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen, Miss., 681 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and accepting well-pleaded facts)
Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010) (courts may consider documents attached to the complaint or central to claims)
Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (prosecution history is part of the intrinsic record and may be considered)
Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (treating prosecution history and related records as appropriate for certain pleadings-stage considerations)
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, [citation="772 F. App'x 890"] (Fed. Cir. 2019) (prosecution history is subject to judicial notice in review of pleadings-stage rulings)
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule on objections to magistrate judge reports)