Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al.

The patent litigation involves Cloud Byte LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), and Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc., an operating company specializing in computer technology and services. Cloud Byte LLC was formed in February 2024 in Delaware and acquired a portfolio of nearly 200 patent assets from Singaporean entity IP Wave Pte. Ltd.. Cloud Byte LLC's business model focuses on acquiring, managing, and licensing patents in information and communications technology (ICT).

The underlying infringement litigation, Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG, was filed on August 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. In this district court case, Cloud Byte has accused Dell of infringing seven patents, including US Patent 9,651,320, over a wide array of products. These accused products reportedly include networking products (such as ethernet switches, edge networking products, and SmartFabric services), Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology and related servers, and server systems supporting "high availability or fault tolerance features, abnormality detection, air flow cooling, and/or advanced temperature control". US Patent 9,651,320 is generally related to systems and methods for data storage, particularly in the context of cloud storage and data management, and is one of seven patents Cloud Byte asserted against Dell.

The specific case, IPR2025-01288, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of US Patent 9,651,320. While the IPR was filed to challenge the patent's validity, it was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This indicates that the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's claims on substantive grounds, likely due to a procedural deficiency or a determination that the petition did not meet the institution threshold, rather than a ruling on the merits of patentability. The PTAB serves as a crucial venue for defendants in patent infringement cases to challenge patent validity, often in parallel with district court proceedings, making the institution decision a significant strategic point. The IPR's non-institution on procedural grounds for one of the asserted patents could impact the ongoing district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for its active patent docket and often favorable to patent owners.Cloud Byte LLC is characterized as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), having been formed in Delaware in February 2024 and subsequently acquiring a portfolio of nearly 200 patent assets from IP Wave Pte. Ltd., a Singaporean entity. Its operational focus is on the acquisition, management, and licensing of patents within the information and communications technology (ICT) sector. On the other side are Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc., prominent operating companies in the computer technology and services industry.

The core of this patent dispute lies in an infringement lawsuit, Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG, initiated by Cloud Byte LLC on August 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Rodney Gilstrap. In this district court action, Cloud Byte has accused Dell of infringing seven patents, including US Patent 9,651,320, across a broad spectrum of Dell's products and services. The accused technologies reportedly include networking products like ethernet switches, edge networking products, and SmartFabric services, as well as Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology, associated servers, and server systems incorporating features for high availability, fault tolerance, abnormality detection, airflow cooling, and advanced temperature control. US Patent 9,651,320 itself generally pertains to systems and methods for data storage, particularly within cloud storage and data management contexts.

The specific case, IPR2025-01288, is an Inter Partes Review filed by Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of US Patent 9,651,320. Crucially, this IPR was "Not Instituted" on procedural grounds, meaning the PTAB declined to proceed with a full substantive review of the patent's claims, likely due to a failure to meet procedural requirements rather than an assessment of the merits of patentability. This outcome is significant for the broader patent infringement litigation, as the PTAB serves as a critical parallel venue for defendants to challenge patent validity. The non-institution of the IPR, particularly on procedural grounds, means Dell cannot utilize this specific IPR to invalidate the patent claims, potentially impacting its defense strategy in the ongoing district court case in the Eastern District of Texas, a jurisdiction well-known for its substantial patent litigation docket.

Cloud Byte LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00637) on August 5, 2024. This litigation encompasses U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320, which was also the subject of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01288) filed by Dell at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-08-05): Cloud Byte LLC filed a complaint against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of seven patents: 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 lawsuit alleges that Dell infringes these patents across a range of products, including networking products, Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology, servers, and systems supporting high availability or fault tolerance features.
• Dell's Answer and Counterclaims (Pre-2026-01-29): In response to the complaint, Dell asserted seventeen affirmative defenses and twenty-two counterclaims, including "Marking Counterclaims" seeking a declaration of failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287 for each asserted patent.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss Dell's Counterclaims (Pre-2026-01-29): Cloud Byte LLC filed a motion to dismiss Dell's counterclaims related to failure to mark (counterclaims 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 21) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
• Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (2026-01-29): The Court granted Cloud Byte's motion, dismissing Dell's marking counterclaims. The Court found these counterclaims to be highly duplicative of Dell's affirmative defense and not serving the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Discovery Milestones:

• Motion to Compel (Pre-2025-03-28): Dell moved to compel documents and information regarding assignments or licenses related to the asserted patents from IP Wave Pte. Ltd. (the entity that transferred patents to Cloud Byte LLC) and NEC Corporation. Dell argued that Cloud Byte had the practical ability to obtain these documents due to the relationship between Cloud Byte and IP Wave.
• Order on Motion to Compel (2025-03-28): District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order related to the motion to compel.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Petition Filed (2025-08-12): Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition (IPR2025-01288) challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent 9,651,320.
• IPR Not Instituted - Procedural: The petition was not instituted by the PTAB on procedural grounds.

As of May 21, 2026, the district court case appears to be active, with pretrial conference proceedings having been requested for April 6-7, 2026. There is no indication that the case has reached claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery completion, trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, settlement, or final judgment yet.

IPR2025-01288 is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the PTAB, not a patent infringement case. In this IPR, Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. are the petitioners challenging the patent, and Cloud Byte LLC is the patent owner. Therefore, I will identify the counsel of record representing Cloud Byte LLC, the patent owner in this IPR.

The IPR proceeding IPR2025-01288 challenges U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320, which is owned by Cloud Byte LLC. Cloud Byte LLC has appointed attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP to represent them in IPR proceedings against Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc..

Here is the identified counsel of record for Cloud Byte LLC in IPR2025-01288:

• Name: James M. Glass
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
• Office Location: New York, New York (The firm also has offices in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., San Francisco, among others)
• Note on experience: James Glass is listed as lead counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in multiple IPRs against Dell, including IPR2025-01285 and IPR2025-01286, which involve patents related to Cloud Byte LLC's portfolio of approximately 350+ global patent assets in information and communications technology. His firm, Quinn Emanuel, is a prominent litigation firm known for its intellectual property practice.

While other attorneys from Quinn Emanuel, such as Deepa Acharya, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Jonathan S. Tse, and Brian E. Mack, have been identified as representing Cloud Byte LLC in related district court litigation (e.g., Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al), James M. Glass is specifically named as Lead Counsel for the IPR proceedings in the provided Power of Attorney documents.Cloud Byte LLC, as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01288, is represented by counsel from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

The following attorney is identified as lead counsel:

• Name: James M. Glass
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. The provided documents specify a firm address of "295 5th Ave., 9th Floor", which corresponds to a New York City office.
• Note on experience: James Glass is designated as lead counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in several related Inter Partes Review proceedings, including IPR2025-01285 and IPR2025-01286, all initiated by Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. challenging Cloud Byte's patents. Cloud Byte LLC manages a substantial portfolio of over 350 global patent assets related to information and communications technology, suggesting Glass is involved in complex patent defense strategies for this portfolio.

I'll research the counsel representing Dell in both the PTAB proceeding and the parallel district court case.

Good leads. Let me verify the PTAB petitioner counsel and district court defense team in more detail.

Let me verify whether Gibson Dunn and Farella both appear in the district court case, and check the docket for Dell's appearances.

Defense / Petitioner Counsel of Record — Dell Technologies Inc. & Dell Inc.

Framing note. In the underlying infringement action (Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG, E.D. Tex.), Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. are the defendants. In IPR2025-01288 they are the petitioners. The two rosters are distinct — Dell used a specialist PTAB firm at the Board and a general-litigation firm plus East Texas local counsel in the district court. Both are set out below. (This also corrects the role framing in the metadata: Cloud Byte is plaintiff/patent owner, Dell is defendant/petitioner.)

---

A. PTAB — Petitioner's counsel in IPR2025-01288

Farella Braun + Martel LLP — One Bush Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, CA 94104

Sourcing. Dell Technologies Inc.'s power of attorney in the companion Cloud Byte IPRs (executed July 2, 2025) appoints "James L. Day, Reg. No. 72,681; Daniel Callaway, Reg. No. 74,267; and Winston Liaw, Reg. No. 78,766" (see POA filed in IPR2025-01285, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558210](/patent/1558210)/download-documents). The IPR2025-01288 record independently confirms this roster: the certificate of service on the Patent Owner's August 4, 2025 papers is directed to petitioner's counsel at jday@fbm.com, dcallaway@fbm.com, wliaw@fbm.com, calendar@fbm.com — see IPR2025-01288, Paper 6 (Notice/Power of Attorney, P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2025), https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01288/Dell_Technologies_Inc._v._Cloud_Byte_LLC/08-04-2025-Patent_Owner/Notice__Power_of_Attorney-6-Notice_Power_of_Attorney/. Farella also supplied the petitioners' declarant in the companion proceeding: Ex. 1068 in IPR2025-01285 states the declarant "is an attorney with the law firm of Farella Braun + Martel LLP, counsel for Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc." IPVerse likewise lists "Petitioner Counsel: Day, James et al." for IPR2025-01288 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01288).

Caveat / open item. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is Dell's PTAB counsel of record in other IPR matters (e.g., a Dell power of attorney listing Brian M. Buroker as lead and Paul Torchia and Nathan R. Curtis as back-ups, with service address Dell-IPRService@gibsondunn.com, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1547045](/patent/1547045)/download-documents). I did not find a Gibson Dunn power of attorney or appearance in IPR2025-01288 itself; on the filings I could retrieve, the petitioner's counsel of record at the Board is Farella Braun + Martel alone. Treat any Gibson Dunn PTAB involvement in this IPR as unconfirmed. No in-house Dell attorney appears of record on the 01288 papers I reviewed (Dell's VP of IP & IP Litigation, Anthony Peterman, executed an earlier Dell IPR power of attorney, but that is a 2020-era document in a different matter and should not be attributed to this proceeding).

---

B. District Court — Dell's counsel in 2:24-cv-00637-JRG

From the signature block of the P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Notice Regarding Claim Construction Chart, Dkt. 133 (filed Oct. 3, 2025), captioned "Attorneys For Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc." (reproduced as Ex. 1036/1039 in the parallel IPRs):

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166-0193

The Dacus Firm, PC — 821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430, Tyler, TX 75701

Additional Farella attorneys on the E.D. Tex. service list (flag for verification). The Sept. 4, 2025 CM/ECF notice in 2:24-cv-00637-JRG (exhibit to IPR2025-01288 and reproduced at https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01288/Dell_Technologies_Inc._v._Cloud_Byte_LLC/09-22-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-Ex_2005/) lists among counsel receiving notice Eugene Y. Mar (emar@fbm.com) and Raven Quesenberry (rquesenberry@fbm.com) of Farella Braun + Martel, alongside the Gibson Dunn and Dacus Firm attorneys. That is consistent with Farella appearing pro hac vice in the district court as well, but I could not retrieve a Farella notice of appearance or pro hac vice motion in the docket to confirm their formal status — they do not appear in the Dkt. 133 signature block. Treat Farella's district-court role as "on the service list / likely co-counsel, unconfirmed."

---

C. Cross-checks and discrepancies to note

1. Metadata vs. record on the IPR filing date. The metadata gives a filing date of 2025-08-12. The petition in IPR2025-01288 was filed July 14, 2025 (PTAB case page: filed July 14, 2025; IPVerse; Ex. 2005 docket records), with the Board's notice according a filing date and setting the POPR deadline in early August 2025. The 8/12/2025 date appears to correspond to a later docketing/notice event, not the petition filing.
2. "Not Instituted – Procedural" — the record shows a discretionary denial. The PTAB docket reflects a Board "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on Nov. 20, 2025, with termination the same day and a petitioner refund request on Jan. 13, 2026 (refund approved Jan. 15, 2026). See the IPR2025-01288 docket at https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01288/Dell_Technologies_Inc._v._Cloud_Byte_LLC/ and IPVerse/GreyB ("Status: Discretionary Denial," institution decision date Nov. 20, 2025). The denial was thus a **discretionary (parallel-litigation) denial