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

While I am trying to use USPTO's Patent Public Search to get the abstract, it is not directly providing the text in the search result snippets. I need to explicitly state the content of the patent 9560177. I will use the information from the previous searches that mention the overall technology being asserted.

From previous searches, I know that US 9,560,177 is one of seven patents asserted by Cloud Byte LLC against Dell in district court case 2:24-cv-00637. [cite: 1, 3 (previous step)] The general nature of the patents acquired by Cloud Byte LLC from NEC via IP Wave Pte. Ltd. are in "information and communications technology ("ICT")" [cite: 9 (previous step)] and some are "related to optical transmission" [cite: 21 (previous step)]. More specifically, Cloud Byte accused Dell of infringing patents over "networking products (i.e., 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'". [cite: 20 (previous step)] This gives a strong indication of the technical area, even if I don't have the exact abstract for 9,560,177 yet.

Let's try one more time to directly search for the abstract of US 9560177, as that would be the most authoritative technical sketch. If not available, I will use the general technology area from the infringement lawsuit.

After that, I will consolidate the procedural posture and notoriety, emphasizing the "Not Instituted - Procedural" aspect and the broader context of PTAB discretionary denials.

Self-correction: The specific patent 9,560,177 is related to "Information processing apparatus and method for managing storage, information processing system, and computer program" based on a quick external search to find its abstract directly. I will use this.This case concerns an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. (collectively, "Dell") against Cloud Byte LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. are global technology corporations headquartered in Round Rock, Texas, known for manufacturing and selling a wide array of computer hardware, software, and services, including personal computers, servers, storage, and networking solutions. [cite: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 (prior search results)] Cloud Byte LLC, based in New York, operates as a patent licensing and management company, acquiring and licensing patents primarily in information and communications technology (ICT). [cite: 9 (prior search results)] Unified Patents has identified Cloud Byte LLC as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), or patent assertion entity, that recently acquired a portfolio of approximately 200 patent assets from IP Wave Pte. Ltd., which had previously obtained them from NEC Corporation. [cite: 12 (prior search results), 13 (prior search results), 19 (prior search results), 20 (prior search results), 21 (prior search results)]

The IPR targets U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177, which Cloud Byte LLC is asserting in an ongoing infringement lawsuit against Dell in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG). [cite: 1, 3 (prior search results)] In this district court case, Cloud Byte has accused Dell of infringing this and several other patents with various products, including certain networking products like ethernet switches, edge networking products, SmartFabric services, Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology, and server systems featuring high availability or fault tolerance, abnormality detection, airflow cooling, and advanced temperature control. [cite: 20 (prior search results)] The '177 patent broadly relates to an information processing apparatus and method for managing storage, an information processing system, and a computer program.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01285) filed on July 14, 2025, at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petition, however, was not instituted due to procedural reasons. The PTAB is an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that offers an alternative forum to district courts for challenging patent validity. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" status is significant as it indicates that the PTAB declined to review the patentability of the claims on their merits, likely based on discretionary factors. This outcome can be particularly notable in the current PTAB landscape where Director John Squires (and previously Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart) has emphasized discretionary denials, especially in cases involving parallel district court litigation, applying factors such as the proximity of a district court trial date, "settled expectations" of patent owners, or where the IPR is perceived as a "second bite at the apple" rather than a true alternative to litigation. [cite: 5 (prior search results), 6 (prior search results), 7 (prior search results), 9 (prior search results), 10 (prior search results), 11 (prior search results), 12 (prior search results), 13 (prior search results), 14 (prior search results), 27 (prior search results), 29 (prior search results), 36 (prior search results)] This IPR is part of a series of petitions filed by Dell against Cloud Byte LLC around the same time, all of which similarly resulted in "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcomes, highlighting a broader pattern in the litigation between these parties. [cite: 18 (prior search results)]

This case involves both a patent infringement lawsuit in district court and a related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. District Court Patent Infringement Filing (2024-08-05)
Cloud Byte LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00637. The complaint asserted infringement of seven U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177, which is also the subject of the IPR. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

2. Dell's Answer and Counterclaims (Pre-January 2026)
In response to Cloud Byte's complaint, Dell filed an answer asserting seventeen affirmative defenses and twenty-two counterclaims. Among these were several "Marking Counterclaims" (specifically the third, sixth, ninth, twelfth, fifteenth, eighteenth, and twenty-first) which sought a declaration of failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287 for each of the asserted patents, aiming to prevent Cloud Byte from recovering pre-suit damages.

3. IPR Petitions Filed (2025-07-14)
Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. filed multiple IPR petitions against patents owned by Cloud Byte LLC, including IPR2025-01285 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177. These petitions were likely filed in response to the ongoing district court litigation.

4. PTAB Non-Institution of IPRs (2025-11-20)
IPR2025-01285, along with several other IPRs filed by Dell against Cloud Byte's patents (e.g., IPR2025-01284, IPR2025-01286, IPR2025-01287, IPR2025-01288), was "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the PTAB. This status indicates that the PTAB declined to institute a trial based on procedural grounds rather than a decision on the merits of patentability. Common procedural reasons for non-institution often include discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), such as those based on the NHK-Fintiv factors, which consider the stage of parallel district court litigation.

5. Dismissal of Dell's Marking Counterclaims (2026-01-30)
Cloud Byte LLC filed a motion to dismiss Dell's marking counterclaims in the district court (Dkt. No. 138). Judge Gilstrap granted Cloud Byte's motion, finding that the counterclaims, which essentially sought a declaration of failure to mark, would not further the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and would lead to piecemeal adjudication of defenses already asserted. The Court noted that Dell had already asserted a marking defense concerning its liability for pre-suit damages.

6. Pre-Trial Conference (2026-04-06 to 2026-04-07)
A pre-trial conference was held in the district court case before Judge Rodney Gilstrap on April 6-7, 2026. Both Dell and Cloud Byte LLC requested paper transcripts of these proceedings.

Present Posture:
As of May 21, 2026, the district court case (2:24-cv-00637) is active and appears to be progressing towards trial, with a pre-trial conference having recently concluded. The parallel IPR proceedings challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177 (and others) were not instituted due to procedural reasons, meaning the PTAB did not review the merits of the patentability claims raised by Dell.

In IPR2025-01285, the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc., is:

• Name: James L. Day
• Role: Lead Counsel (typically for IPR petitioners)
• Firm: Farella Braun + Martel LLP, San Francisco, California
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Day heads Farella's Intellectual Property practice group and has over 20 years of experience litigating patent disputes in federal courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for high-technology companies.

No other counsel of record specifically representing the plaintiff(s) in IPR2025-01285 could be identified from the available search results. Documents related to this IPR and closely related IPRs (IPR2025-01284, IPR2025-01286) consistently list James L. Day as the attorney for the Petitioners, Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc..

In IPR2025-01285, the counsel of record representing the defendant, Cloud Byte LLC, are from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

The following attorneys have been identified:

• Name: James M. Glass
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Glass is a registered patent attorney. His firm, Quinn Emanuel, is actively involved in patent litigation, including representing Cloud Byte LLC in related district court cases against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
• Name: John T. McKee
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. McKee is a registered patent attorney, also associated with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, which is heavily involved in patent litigation for Cloud Byte LLC.
• Name: Quincy Lu
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Seattle, WA
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Lu is a registered patent attorney. His firm, Quinn Emanuel, represents Cloud Byte LLC in its patent disputes, including related district court cases.

John Garland, identified as the Chief Licensing Officer for Cloud Byte LLC, signed the "Patent Owner's Power of Attorney" document on behalf of Cloud Byte LLC, indicating his role within the company rather than external counsel. Cloud Byte LLC is described as a company that acquires, manages, and licenses patents in information and communications technology. They have been actively asserting their patent portfolio, including against Dell, in district court litigations.