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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. IPR2025-01288 counsel of record", "Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG counsel of record", "Dell Technologies patent litigation counsel", "Fish & Richardson patent litigation attorneys", "Sidley Austin patent litigation attorneys"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) (Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc.) in the patent infringement case. I need to find information about attorneys representing Dell in the underlying district court case (2:24-cv-00637-JRG) and potentially the IPR (IPR2025-01288), though the IPR was not instituted. I will prioritize the district court case for identifying counsel.

I need to provide:

• Name and role
• Firm and office location
• One-line note on relevant experience/notable cases

I will use web search with the provided case numbers and party names, targeting PACER, docket sheets, firm websites, court opinions, Law360, and Reuters Legal.The defendants, Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc., are represented by a team of attorneys primarily from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Sidley Austin LLP, with local counsel also involved in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas case, Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG.

The counsel of record for the defendant(s) includes:

• Josh A. Krevitt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience: Mr. Krevitt is a highly experienced patent litigator with a focus on high-stakes patent disputes across various technologies, including electronics, computer systems, and software. Sidley Austin's patent litigation practice is consistently ranked among the top nationally.

• Paul E. Torchia

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Torchia focuses on intellectual property litigation. He was noted for presenting arguments on behalf of the defendants during a pretrial conference in the Cloud Byte case. Sidley Austin's Dallas office has a strong litigation group, with particular expertise in IP litigation.

• Eugene Y. Mar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA (or Palo Alto, CA)
  • Experience: Mr. Mar is involved in patent litigation, particularly in technology-driven industries. Sidley Austin has extensive experience in patent disputes involving complex areas like microprocessors, computer systems, and software.

• Laura Corbin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Fish & Richardson is a premier intellectual property law firm with a top-ranked patent litigation practice. Ms. Corbin represents Dell in this matter.

• Nathan Robert Curtis

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Curtis's practice emphasizes patent litigation, and he is listed as counsel for Dell. Fish & Richardson has handled more district court patent litigation than any other national IP law firm over the past five years.

• Brian Ashley Rosenthal

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Rosenthal is listed as counsel for Dell. Fish & Richardson attorneys frequently represent clients in IP disputes involving a wide range of technologies, including e-commerce, computer network architecture, and software.

• Raven Quesenberry

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Experience: Ms. Quesenberry is listed as counsel for Dell.

• Deron R. Dacus

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Law Firm, P.C., Tyler, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Dacus is a prominent local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently representing parties in patent infringement cases in that venue. He is listed as representing Dell.

Other Sidley Austin attorneys with relevant experience who may be involved include:

• Alexis Cohen (Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX): Focuses on high-stakes patent disputes, with experience in software and telecommunications.
• Amit Bhatla (Sidley Austin LLP): Focuses on high-stakes patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.

Other Fish & Richardson attorneys with relevant experience who may be involved include:

• Wes Musselman (Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX): Advises clients on strategic patent prosecution, protection, and portfolio management, and has experience in patent infringement actions related to efficient data compression and internet retailing.
• Neil J. McNabnay (Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX): Emphasizes patent litigation for clients in diverse industries, including software, hardware, semiconductors, and telecommunications.
• Christopher Dillon (Fish & Richardson P.C.): A first-chair trial lawyer specializing in complex patent and intellectual property litigation, including software and semiconductors.
• Ricardo Bonilla (Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX): Focuses on commercial and intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patents, and has represented clients in IP disputes involving e-commerce, computer network architecture, and software.
• Michael J. McKeon (Fish & Richardson P.C.): A nationally recognized IP and trial attorney, who has led trial teams defending large electronics companies in the EDTX against significant patent damages demands.