Untitled case

Cloud Byte LLC, an entity whose specific business model (e.g., operating company, Non-Practicing Entity/Patent Assertion Entity) is not explicitly detailed in publicly available information, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.. Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. are well-known operating companies in the technology sector, primarily involved in the sale of computers and related products and services. The litigation, case number 2:24-cv-00637, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is a well-known forum for patent litigation.

Cloud Byte LLC has asserted seven patents against Dell: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,739,544; 9,482,632; 9,560,177; 9,629,265; 9,651,320; 9,900,249; and 10,628,273. The focus of this overview is on patent 9,629,265, which broadly relates to apparatuses, methods, and systems for data mining user information, falling under technical fields such as smartphones/tablets and data mining. While the specific accused products or services from Dell have not been explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, the nature of the asserted patents suggests the infringement claims likely involve data processing, user interaction, and data management functionalities within Dell's offerings.

The procedural posture indicates active litigation, with a Memorandum and Order issued by Judge Gilstrap on January 29, 2026, granting Cloud Byte's motion to dismiss certain of Dell's counterclaims related to marking, and an earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order on March 28, 2025, denying Dell's motion to compel discovery regarding patent assignments. Dell's counterclaims included an alleged failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287 for each of the asserted patents. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent cases, often chosen by plaintiffs due to its expeditious dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly reputation. No specific notability beyond being a patent infringement suit in this active forum, or any linkage to IPRs for patent 9629265, was immediately evident in the search results. Cloud Byte LLC acquired the asserted patents from IP Wave Pte. Ltd., which in turn acquired them from NEC Asia Pacific Corporation, and originally from NEC Corporation, indicating a chain of title that can sometimes be a characteristic of patent assertion entities.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and current status of the patent infringement litigation case Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:24-CV-00637-JRG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas:

Case Overview:

• Plaintiff: Cloud Byte LLC
• Defendants: Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
• Court: Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Case Number: 2:24-CV-00637-JRG
• Patents Asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,739,544; 9,482,632; 9,560,177; 9,629,265; 9,651,320; 9,900,249; and 10,628,273. The patent at issue for this analysis, 9,629,265, is among those asserted.

Key Legal Developments:

• 2024-08-05 – Complaint Filed: Plaintiff Cloud Byte LLC filed its complaint against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., asserting infringement of seven U.S. patents, including 9,629,265.
• Answer & Counterclaims: In response to the complaint, Dell asserted seventeen affirmative defenses and twenty-two counterclaims.
• 2025-03-28 – Motion to Compel Discovery Denied: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied Defendants' Opposed Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 59). Dell had sought documents and information related to assignments or licenses from Cloud Byte's predecessors-in-interest and its counsel. The Court found that settlement and licensing negotiations related to the patents-in-suit were not discoverable.
• 2025-09-04 – Markman Hearing Scheduled: A Markman (claim construction) hearing was set for October 31, 2025, at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• 2026-01-29 – Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Granted: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted Cloud Byte's Motion to Dismiss Dell's Counterclaims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21 (Dkt. No. 138). These counterclaims related to an alleged failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
• 2026-04-06 – Pre-Trial Conference Held, Trial Scheduled: A pre-trial conference was held before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Court provided instructions to the parties, noting that the case was currently set for jury selection and trial to begin on May 18, 2026, but it might be reached during the August-September trial term. The Court outlined trial parameters, including 11 hours of trial time per side. Arguments regarding motions to exclude opinions of Dell's technical expert, Dr. Himanshu Pokharna, were also presented.
• 2026-04-29 – Unopposed Motion for Extension of Expert Report Deadlines: Cloud Byte LLC filed an unopposed motion for a two-day extension to serve supplemental expert reports concerning apportionment and damages, as well as an update to Dr. Akemann’s report. Dell was to serve any necessary responses by May 20, 2026.

Outcome/Present Posture:

As of May 21, 2026, the case is active and appears to be progressing toward trial. Jury selection was set for May 18, 2026, with the possibility of trial in the August-September term. There has been no verdict, settlement, dismissal, or final judgment reported.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

A search for IPR/PGR proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 9,629,265 in the Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) did not immediately reveal any active or concluded IPR/PGR challenges directly impacting this litigation.

Cloud Byte LLC is represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with local counsel from The Dacus Firm, PC, and by Andrea Fair.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP:

• Jonathan S. Tse - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm Office: San Francisco.
  • Jonathan Tse has been actively involved in arguments during pretrial conferences in this case.
• Brian E. Mack - Lead Counsel.
  • Firm Office: San Francisco.
  • Brian Mack also participated in arguments during pretrial conferences.
• Yury Kapgan - Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Los Angeles.
  • Yury Kapgan made arguments during pretrial conferences.
• Ryan Seth Goldstein - Counsel.
  • Firm Office: Los Angeles.
• Claire Abernathy Henry - Counsel.
  • Claire Henry was involved in arguments during pretrial conferences.
• Ian Nathaniel Koster - Counsel.
• Evan Kennedy Larson - Counsel.

The Dacus Firm, PC:

• Deron R. Dacus - Local Counsel.

Individual Counsel:

• Andrea Leigh Fair - Counsel.
  • Andrea Fair is noted in the initial complaint filing and jury demand.

It's worth noting that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is explicitly referred to as "Cloud Byte's counsel" in court documents related to discovery motions.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["2:24-cv-00637 docket", "2:24-cv-00637 Dell Inc. counsel", "2:24-cv-00637 Cloud Byte LLC counsel", "Fish & Richardson Dell patent litigation", "Dell in-house patent counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) (Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.) in the case 2:24-cv-00637.
I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney.
I will use web search, specifically looking for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Here's my plan:

1. Search the public docket for case 2:24-cv-00637 to identify appearing attorneys for Dell.
2. For each identified attorney, search their firm website or other legal profiles for their role, office location, and patent litigation experience.
3. If specific roles (lead, local, in-house) are not immediately clear from the docket, I will infer them if possible (e.g., local counsel often from local firms, in-house from company legal departments).In the patent infringement case Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-00637, Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. are represented by counsel from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Here are the identified counsel of record for the defendant(s):

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Michael J. McKeon

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred based on extensive lead trial counsel experience)
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, DC
  • Experience Note: Nationally recognized intellectual property and trial attorney with over 25 years of experience, including significant patent disputes in U.S. district courts (including EDTX) and the International Trade Commission (ITC). He has served as a patent examiner and a judicial clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• John R. Lane

  • Role: Counsel (potentially local counsel or co-lead, given office location)
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., Houston, Texas
  • Experience Note: Managing principal of the Houston office with over 23 years of experience in patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in various technology areas.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

• Paul E. Torchia

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Has appeared in the case on behalf of Dell and presented arguments for the defendants during pretrial conferences.

• Nathan Robert Curtis

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Appeared for Dell and presented arguments for the defendants during pretrial conferences.

• Josh A. Krevitt

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Filed motions on behalf of Dell, including a motion to compel discovery.