Litigation

Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al.

Ongoing

2:24-cv-00637-JRG

Filed
2024-08-05

Patents at issue (1)

9651320PTAB: discretionary denial

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

Cloud Byte LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US patent 9651320 among others. The case is ongoing, with a motion to dismiss defendants' counterclaims having been granted as of January 29, 2026.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Cloud Byte LLC, identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), is the plaintiff in this patent infringement lawsuit. Cloud Byte acquires, manages, and licenses patents primarily in the field of information and communications technology (ICT), holding a portfolio of over 350 global patent assets originally developed by a multinational ICT company. The defendants are Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., both operating companies. Cloud Byte accuses Dell of infringing its patents through a broad range of products and services. These allegedly infringing offerings include various networking products such as ethernet switches, edge networking products, and SmartFabric services. Additionally, the lawsuit targets Dell's Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology and related servers, as well as server systems that incorporate features for high availability, fault tolerance, abnormality detection, airflow cooling, and advanced temperature control.

The litigation asserts seven U.S. patents: 7,739,544; 9,482,632; 9,560,177; 9,629,265; 9,651,320; 9,900,249; and 10,628,273. U.S. Patent No. 7,739,544 generally relates to a disk array rebuild system and method. The specific technical descriptions for the remaining patents are not detailed in the provided search results. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, historically known for its plaintiff-friendly procedures, rapid trial schedules, and a reputation for favorable verdicts for patent owners, often referred to as a "rocket docket." Although the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision aimed to restrict venue options, plaintiffs have developed strategies to maintain cases in the EDTX, such as by targeting foreign affiliates. A Markman (claim construction) hearing was scheduled for October 15, 2025, with jury selection set for April 6, 2026.

This case is notable due to Cloud Byte LLC's nature as an NPE that quickly began asserting a recently acquired large patent portfolio against a major technology company like Dell, having formed in Delaware in February 2024 and filed suit in August 2024. The patents at issue were acquired by Cloud Byte from IP Wave Pte. Ltd., which had obtained them from NEC Asia Pacific Corporation, tracing back to NEC Corporation. Unified Patents, an organization focused on deterring baseless patent litigation, has already initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings against one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,739,544, with the Central Reexamination Unit granting the request and finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims as of February 11, 2025. This challenge could impact the strength of Cloud Byte's assertion in the district court case. The court also granted Cloud Byte's motion to dismiss several of Dell's counterclaims related to failure to mark on January 29, 2026.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

The patent infringement litigation, Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-00637-JRG), commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on August 5, 2024. Cloud Byte LLC asserted several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320, against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.. The case is currently ongoing, with significant pre-trial activity, including a granted motion to dismiss some of Dell's counterclaims and scheduled dates for claim construction and trial.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and current posture:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-08-05: Cloud Byte LLC filed the complaint against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The asserted patents include 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.
  • Prior to 2026-01-29: Dell filed an answer asserting seventeen affirmative defenses and twenty-two counterclaims, some of which related to alleged failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Prior to 2026-01-29: Cloud Byte LLC filed a motion to dismiss Dell's counterclaims.
  • 2026-01-29: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted Cloud Byte LLC's motion to dismiss Dell's third, sixth, ninth, twelfth, fifteenth, eighteenth, and twenty-first counterclaims, which sought declarations of failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
  • 2026-01-05: The deadline for filing dispositive motions was set.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2024-11-25 (approx): A Docket Control Order indicated a Markman Hearing was set.
  • 2025-09-04: A Notice of Hearing indicated a Markman Hearing was set for October 31, 2025, at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
  • Cloud Byte LLC also filed its P.R. 4-2 Disclosure of Proposed Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence.

Discovery Milestones:

  • 2025-08-01: The deadline for amended pleadings was set.
  • 2025-12-22: The deadline for expert discovery was set.

Trial Events:

  • 2026-03-30: A Pretrial Conference was scheduled to take place before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
  • 2026-05-04: Jury selection is scheduled to begin at 09:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Present Posture:

  • The case remains active and is proceeding towards trial, with jury selection scheduled for May 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. have filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging patents asserted by Cloud Byte LLC in this litigation. These include:
    • IPR2025-01285 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177.
    • IPR2025-01286 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632.
    • Additional IPRs, IPR2025-01284, IPR2025-01287, and IPR2025-01288, were also noted as related matters by Cloud Byte LLC.
  • As of the current date, no IPR specifically for U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320 has been identified through public search.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles.

Little press coverage surfaced in the first pass. Let me try more targeted angles.

Found some press/trade coverage and a significant docket development. Let me check for trial/verdict reporting and other outlets.

Press & media coverage

Coverage is very thin. Searching the case caption, both party names, the ’320 patent number, and the parallel PTAB filings turned up no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Ars Technica, The Verge, or JD Supra article about Cloud Byte v. Dell. The only genuinely journalistic item located is a short litigation-reporting piece from RPX Insight, dated 2024-08-09, headlined “New Delaware Plaintiff Hits Dell with a Broad Array of Recently Received Patents.” RPX Insight reported that RPX had previously tracked the transfer of “nearly 200 patent assets” from Singaporean entity IP Wave Pte. Ltd. to Cloud BYTE LLC, an entity formed in Delaware on February 22, 2024, and that Cloud Byte had begun litigating that portfolio by accusing Dell in 2:24-cv-00637 of infringing seven patents across networking products (ethernet switches, edge networking, SmartFabric), RAID technology and related servers, and server systems supporting high availability/fault tolerance, abnormality detection, airflow cooling and temperature control. That framing — a newly formed NPE asserting a bulk-acquired portfolio against a major OEM — is essentially the only “why it matters” analysis in the press record. (Note a small discrepancy with this case file’s background: RPX describes roughly 200 transferred assets, not “over 350 global patent assets.”) RPX’s litigation profile page is a database entry rather than an article, but it corroborates the filing date, Judge Gilstrap assignment, seven patents-in-suit and a count of 64 accused products.

The second piece of coverage is from the defensive-patent-aggregator side rather than the news media: Unified Patents published an insight post on 2025-02-11 stating that the Central Reexamination Unit had, less than two months after Unified’s ex parte request, granted review and found “substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims” of U.S. Patent No. 7,739,544 — describing Cloud Byte as “an NPE,” characterizing the ’544 patent as relating to “a disk array rebuild system and method,” and noting that it “has been asserted against Dell.” Unified also identified its counsel (Steven Shipe of Barnes & Thornburg, plus in-house counsel T.J. Murphy and Jordan Rossen) and linked its reexamination portal (request no. 90/019,777). This is advocacy-adjacent trade commentary, not independent reporting, and it goes beyond the court record in editorializing that the patent is vulnerable; the office action itself (cited as EX1040 in Dell’s IPR papers) is the primary source.

Beyond those two items, everything I could locate is docket- and database-derived rather than press: Justia’s copy of the sealed 2026-01-29 memorandum order and opinion granting Cloud Byte’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion against Dell’s marking counterclaims (Dkt. 138; order at Dkt. 273), which quotes the parties’ briefs but has attracted no press write-up I could find; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry classifying Cloud Byte as a non-practicing entity; and PTAB tracking sites (Docket Alarm, GreyB/IPVerse, ai-lab.exparte) covering Dell’s five IPR petitions. Notably, none of the search results included any damages figure sought by Cloud Byte, any settlement reporting, or any executive statement from either side — so there are no reported numbers or market-impact claims to summarize, and accounts do not so much differ as simply not exist beyond RPX and Unified.

Two flags where newer search results contradict the earlier sections of this case file. First, the prior “Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings” section states that “no IPR specifically for U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320 has been identified.” That is incorrect: Dell filed IPR2025-01288 on 2025-07-14 challenging claims 1–8 of the ’320 patent on obviousness over Sato in view of Nakamura (and Jin as to claim 3), as reflected in the petition record; docket trackers list all five Dell petitions (IPR2025-01284 through -01288) as terminated on 2025-11-20 with “Director Discretionary Decision: Deny,” i.e., institution was denied and Dell later requested refunds (Jan. 2026) — see Docket Alarm and GreyB/IPVerse. Second, the earlier sections leave the trial date at jury selection on 2026-04-06 (a date drawn from Cloud Byte’s POPR, which also confirms the Markman hearing was set for 2025-10-31 before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne). A govinfo docket entry shows a Gilstrap memorandum opinion and order dated 2026-10-09 resolving a large batch of motions (Nos. 191, 194, 195, 204, 328, 329, 391–396, 424), which is consistent with post-trial motion practice but does not itself disclose a verdict. I could not find any source — press or otherwise — reporting a trial outcome, so the current outcome of the April 2026 trial should be treated as unverified in this file rather than assumed.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Here's an identification of the counsel of record representing Cloud Byte LLC in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is counsel for Cloud Byte LLC.

  • Jonathan S. Tse

    • Role: Likely lead counsel, given his appearance at pretrial conferences and arguments.
    • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
    • Experience Note: Appears to be actively involved in argument and pretrial matters in this patent infringement case.

  • Brian E. Mack

    • Role: Counsel, appeared for arguments at pretrial conferences.
    • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
    • Experience Note: Actively involved in arguments during pretrial conferences in this patent litigation.

  • Ryan Seth Goldstein

    • Role: Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Experience Note: Noted as appearing for Cloud Byte LLC in this case and a related patent infringement suit.

  • Yury Kapgan

    • Role: Lead Attorney, as designated in an August 5, 2024 filing.
    • Firm & Office: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
    • Experience Note: Designated as lead attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement matter.

Miller Fair Henry LLP

  • Claire Abernathy Henry

    • Role: Counsel, appeared for arguments at pretrial conferences.
    • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry LLP (indicated by email domain).
    • Experience Note: Appears to be actively involved in arguments during pretrial conferences in this patent case.

  • Charles Everingham, IV

    • Role: Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry LLP (indicated by email domain).
    • Experience Note: Noted as counsel of record for Cloud Byte LLC.

  • Andrea Leigh Fair

    • Role: Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry LLP (indicated by email domain).
    • Experience Note: Filed initial documents including the complaint and jury demand for Cloud Byte LLC.

Other Counsel Identified:

  • Melissa C. Neri

    • Role: Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Firm not explicitly identified in search results.
    • Experience Note: Noted as counsel of record for Cloud Byte LLC.

  • Evan Kennedy Larson

    • Role: Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Firm not explicitly identified in search results.
    • Experience Note: Noted as counsel of record for Cloud Byte LLC.

  • Ian Nathaniel Koster

    • Role: Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Firm not explicitly identified in search results.
    • Experience Note: Noted as counsel of record for Cloud Byte LLC.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel of Record for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al.

The defendants, Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., are represented by a team of attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Farella Braun + Martel LLP, and The Dacus Firm, P.C.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

  • Josh A. Krevitt
    • Role: Partner, Lead Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, and Palo Alto, CA.
    • Experience: Widely recognized as a leading IP trial lawyer, Co-Chair of Gibson Dunn's Intellectual Property Practice, and has successfully represented major technology companies like Dell in high-stakes patent and trade secret matters.
  • Paul E. Torchia
    • Role: Partner, Lead Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY.
    • Experience: Has served as lead counsel for prominent technology companies including Dell in numerous intellectual property cases, with significant experience trying and winning patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Nathan Robert Curtis
    • Role: Of Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX.
    • Experience: Practices in the firm's Intellectual Property Practice Group, litigating complex IP cases in various technical fields and venues, including the Eastern District of Texas. He was part of the Gibson Dunn team that secured an appellate affirmance of an "exceptional" case finding and a $4 million attorney fees award for Dell EMC in a patent litigation.
  • Laura Corbin
    • Role: Of Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY.
    • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and trial practice, with experience in all phases of patent and commercial cases across various industries.
  • Brian Ashley Rosenthal
    • Role: Partner.
    • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY.
    • Experience: A trial lawyer with a particular emphasis on patent litigation, he has served as lead counsel for Dell in past patent cases and has a strong record in jury trials, arbitrations, and Federal Circuit appeals.
  • Yeepay Audrey Yang
    • Role: Associate.
    • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Dallas, TX.
    • Experience: Member of the firm's Intellectual Property and Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Groups, and previously served as a law clerk to Judge Alan D. Lourie of the Federal Circuit.

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

  • Eugene Y. Mar
    • Role: Partner.
    • Firm & Office: Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA.
    • Experience: Specializes in litigating cases for technology companies, primarily patent infringement, trade secret, copyright, and licensing disputes, with deep experience in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Raven Quesenberry
    • Role: Associate.
    • Firm & Office: Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA.
    • Experience: Represents clients in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement, trade secrets, and data scraping matters.
  • Su Li
    • Role: Associate.
    • Firm & Office: Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco, CA.
    • Experience: Identified as an attorney with Farella Braun + Martel LLP and counsel for Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. in related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, and is familiar with the district court litigation. While actively involved in the broader dispute and related PTAB actions, her explicit appearance of record in the district court case (2:24-cv-00637-JRG) as named counsel on the public docket was not definitively confirmed beyond being mentioned as counsel in related filings.

The Dacus Firm, P.C.

  • Deron R. Dacus
    • Role: Member/Trial Attorney, likely Local Counsel.
    • Firm & Office: The Dacus Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX.
    • Experience: A trial lawyer focused on business, commercial, and patent litigation, with extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas, having represented clients in over 1,000 patent cases in the region.

In-House Counsel
Dell Technologies Inc.'s in-house legal team includes Rich Rothberg, General Counsel, and Peter Jovanovic, Legal Director, IP. While they oversee and provide support for patent litigation and intellectual property matters for Dell, they are not listed as having formally appeared as "counsel of record" in the public docket entries for this specific district court case (2:24-cv-00637-JRG).