Untitled case

The patent infringement litigation, Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. (2:26-cv-00150), was initiated by non-practicing entity (NPE) Cloud Byte LLC against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in the Eastern District of Texas on February 23, 2026. Cloud Byte LLC is a patent licensing firm that acquires and manages patents in the field of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), with its portfolio of over 350 global patent assets originating from a multinational ICT company, specifically NEC, transferred through IP Wave Pte. Ltd.. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) is a prominent multinational information technology company specializing in servers, storage, networking, AI, containerization software, consulting, and support. [cite: 4 (from previous turn), 9 (from previous turn)]

The case asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632, among others. While specific details of the accused products in this particular case against HPE are not yet publicly available in detail, Cloud Byte LLC has previously asserted the same patent, 9,482,632, against Dell Inc. in a related case (2:24-cv-00637) in the same district. In that case, the alleged infringing products included networking products such as ethernet switches, edge networking products, SmartFabric services, Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology and related servers, and server systems with features like high availability, fault tolerance, abnormality detection, airflow cooling, and advanced temperature control. This suggests that HPE's products in similar ICT areas are likely targeted. U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632, titled "Communication control method, communication control device, and computer-readable medium," generally relates to systems and methods for efficient communication control within a network.

This case is notable for several reasons, including its venue. The Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, remains a highly favored and active forum for patent infringement plaintiffs, known for its efficiency and high volume of patent cases. Judge Gilstrap was assigned more patent lawsuits than any other federal judge in 2024, overseeing 19% of all new patent litigation in Q1 2026. [cite: 3 (from previous turn), 5 (from previous turn), 7 (from previous turn), 8 (from previous turn)] Furthermore, the plaintiff, Cloud Byte LLC, is an active NPE, and its patent acquisition strategy, involving a large portfolio from a major technology company like NEC, highlights ongoing patent monetization efforts in the ICT sector. Unified Patents, an organization focused on deterring abusive patent litigation, has previously challenged other patents asserted by Cloud Byte LLC through ex parte reexamination proceedings, indicating a pattern of active enforcement by this NPE. [cite: 4 (from previous turn), 5 (from previous turn)]

The patent infringement litigation, Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al, Case No. 2:26-cv-00150, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 23, 2026. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632.

Given the very recent filing date of February 23, 2026, the case is in its nascent stages, and most major legal developments such as substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, extensive discovery, trial, or appeal are highly unlikely to have occurred.

Here's a summary of the known legal developments and current posture:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint: Plaintiff Cloud Byte LLC filed the complaint against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and other unnamed defendants on February 23, 2026, initiating the patent infringement lawsuit. Specific details of the complaint, such as asserted claims or detailed allegations, are not publicly available in the search snippets but would be found in the full docket entry.
  • Answer/Counterclaims: As of May 22, 2026, there is no public information indicating that the defendants have filed an answer or counterclaims.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: No substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay) have been publicly reported or identified in the search results for this specific case, which is typical for a case filed so recently.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage.

• Discovery Milestones: There are no publicly reported strategic discovery milestones at this early stage of the litigation.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: The case has not progressed to trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case is active, and there is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database for patent 9,482,632 does not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. This does not preclude the possibility of a petition being filed in the future.

Current Posture: The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, proceeding through the initial phases of litigation.

The plaintiff, Cloud Byte LLC, is represented by a team of attorneys primarily from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, and local counsel Michael C. Smith from Scheef & Stone, LLP, and Daniel Scardino from Scardino LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Yury Kapgan

  • Role: Lead counsel (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles office.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kapgan has represented Cloud Byte LLC in other patent infringement cases, including the related case against Dell Inc.

• Deepa Acharya

  • Role: Counsel (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington D.C. office.
  • Experience Note: Also listed as counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in this case.

• Ryan Seth Goldstein

  • Role: Counsel (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles office.
  • Experience Note: Has represented Cloud Byte LLC in other patent infringement cases, including against Dell Inc.

• Jonathan S. Tse

  • Role: Counsel (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco office.
  • Experience Note: Has represented Cloud Byte LLC in other patent infringement cases, including against Dell Inc.

• Brian E. Mack

  • Role: Counsel (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco office.
  • Experience Note: Has represented Cloud Byte LLC in other patent infringement cases, including against Dell Inc.

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Local Counsel (appeared after the initial filing).
  • Firm: Not specified in the provided search results for this case. However, in the Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. case, she is listed as representing Cloud Byte LLC.
  • Experience Note: She has appeared as counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in other related patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Local counsel.
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, Texas office.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Smith is a highly experienced patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, having appeared as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases in the district. He also maintains a well-known blog tracking Eastern District news and caselaw (EDTexweblog.com).

• Daniel Scardino

  • Role: Local counsel.
  • Firm: Scardino LLP, Austin, Texas office.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Scardino specializes in federal court litigation, particularly patent litigation, and has secured significant recoveries for his clients, including a nearly $25 million victory against Apple.

It's also worth noting that a motion to disqualify Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP as counsel for the plaintiff was filed by the defendants on April 28, 2026, which Cloud Byte LLC opposed.

The defendants in Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. (2:26-cv-00150, E.D. Tex.) are Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, LLC.

The following attorneys represent the defendants:

• Jennifer Haltom Doan

  • Role: Likely local counsel or lead counsel, given the firm's location.
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Doan is a highly experienced trial lawyer with a significant focus on patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. She has represented numerous defendants in high-stakes patent infringement cases in the district.

• Joshua Reed Thane

  • Role: Likely local counsel or lead counsel, alongside Jennifer Haltom Doan.
  • Firm: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Thane also practices in the Eastern District of Texas and has experience in patent and complex commercial litigation.