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.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record in this case.

I found strong docket-level data. Let me verify roles and attorney details.

Let me confirm additional defense team members and any in-house counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

Bottom line: Dell is represented by a three-firm team — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (lead trial counsel), Farella Braun + Martel LLP (IP-side/PTAB counsel, also appearing in the district court), and The Dacus Firm, PC (local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas).

Primary sources: the CM/ECF notice of electronic filing for the 10/31/2025 Markman hearing (served 9/4/2025, reproduced as PTAB Exhibit 2005 in IPR2025-01288) and the Joint Claim Construction Chart filed 10/3/2025 in 2:24-cv-00637 (reproduced as Exhibit 1039 in IPR2025-01284), whose signature blocks expressly read "Attorneys For Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc."

---

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — lead trial counsel

The 10/3/2025 Joint Claim Construction Chart identifies Paul E. Torchia as "(lead attorney)" for the defendants.

The Dacus Firm, PC — local counsel

Farella Braun + Martel LLP — defense counsel (court and PTAB)

Note the discrepancy: Farella attorneys (Mar, Quesenberry) appear on the district-court ECF service list, but Farella is not in the defendants' signature block on the 10/3/2025 Joint Claim Construction Chart, which lists only Gibson Dunn and The Dacus Firm. The most consistent reading is that Farella's appearance in the EDTX case is tied to the IPR/PTO side, while Gibson Dunn is the district-court trial team — but both are on the docket.

---

Parallel PTAB proceedings (context on defense representation)

Dell filed a wave of IPRs against Cloud Byte on 7/14/2025 — IPR2025-01284, -01285, -01287 (U.S. Pat. 9,629,265), and -01288 — with Farella Braun + Martel (Day, Callaway, Liaw, Li) as Petitioner's counsel and Quinn Emanuel (James M. Glass et al.) for Patent Owner. This matters because the same defense-side firms are coordinating the district court and PTAB strategy.

---

In-house counsel

I did not find any Dell in-house attorney identified by name in the filings surfaced. Dell's filings name only outside counsel; if in-house counsel has entered an appearance or is listed on a later corporate disclosure statement, it was not captured in the sources retrieved. Treat in-house participation as unconfirmed.

---

⚠️ Contradiction to flag against the prior section

The previously generated "Plaintiff representatives" section lists Deron R. Dacus of The Dacus Firm as local counsel for Cloud Byte (plaintiff) and Andrea Fair as separate counsel. That is incorrect per the docket:

• Dkt. 10 is styled "Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc. (Dacus, Deron)."
• The Joint Claim Construction Chart signature block places Deron R. Dacus directly under "Attorneys For Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc."
• Andrea Fair practices at Miller Fair Henry PLLC (plaintiff's Texas counsel, alongside Claire Abernathy Henry) — not at The Dacus Firm.

So Dacus belongs on the defense side, and the plaintiff's local team is Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Henry/Fair/Everingham). The prior section should be corrected.

Sourcing caveats

• The attorney list is drawn from the CM/ECF service list and the parties' signature blocks, which reflect who has appeared and been served — it is strong evidence of counsel of record but is not itself a "Notice of Attorney Appearance" docket entry for each name.
• Some filings in this case have been under seal or not fully retrievable via free sources; a PACER pull of the docket sheet (Docket Nos. 1–~270) would confirm the precise appearance dates and any additional attorneys (e.g., a Dell corporate disclosure listing in-house counsel). I was unable to complete a second-round verification of the Dallas-based Gibson Dunn associates' individual experience due to search limits.