IPR2025-01286

Unified Patents PTAB Data, an entity providing patent risk mitigation services and known for challenging patents asserted by non-practicing entities (NPEs), initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 9,482,632. The opposing party, and likely the patent owner, is Cloud Byte LLC, identified as the patent asserter in a related district court infringement case. Cloud Byte LLC appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), a common target for Unified Patents' challenges. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent 9,482,632, is titled "Method and system for managing storage in a cloud computing environment."

The IPR, IPR2025-01286, was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) but was ultimately not instituted due to procedural reasons. While the specific procedural reason is not detailed in the provided information, PTAB denials can arise from various factors, including discretionary denials under Fintiv in cases with parallel district court litigation, issues with real parties in interest, or other workload management considerations by the USPTO Director. The patent has been asserted in an underlying infringement lawsuit, Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-00637), filed on August 5, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas, where Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. are the alleged infringers. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, especially for NPEs, and is known for its expedited dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly environment, making it a strategically important forum.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting the ongoing trends and challenges in PTAB proceedings. Unified Patents' involvement highlights its strategy of proactively challenging patents, particularly those held by NPEs, to mitigate patent litigation risk for its members. The procedural denial of institution underscores the increased discretion being exercised by the USPTO Director and the PTAB, which has led to a significant drop in IPR institution rates, particularly against NPEs. This denial, whatever its specific basis, fits into a broader pattern of stricter procedural scrutiny at the PTAB since 2025, a trend that has prompted some petitioners to shift towards other challenging mechanisms like ex parte reexaminations.

Cloud Byte LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 9,482,632, on August 5, 2024. This case is numbered 2:24-cv-00637 and is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Cloud Byte LLC, formed in Delaware on February 22, 2024, acquired the asserted patents from Singaporean entity IP Wave Pte. Ltd., which in turn acquired them from NEC Asia Pacific Corporation and ultimately NEC Corporation. The asserted patents broadly cover technologies related to managing storage in a cloud computing environment, as well as networking products, RAID technology, and server systems with high availability or fault tolerance features.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (August 5, 2024):
Cloud Byte LLC filed the complaint asserting 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. Dell responded with seventeen affirmative defenses and twenty-two counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Compel Discovery (March 28, 2025): Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. filed an opposed motion to compel discovery. The court, however, denied this motion.
• Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims (January 29, 2026): Cloud Byte LLC filed a motion to dismiss Dell's counterclaims related to failure to mark under 35 U.S.C. § 287. Dell's marking counterclaims sought a declaration of failure to comply with § 287 for each of the asserted patents, aiming to bar Cloud Byte from pre-suit monetary relief. Judge Gilstrap granted Cloud Byte's motion to dismiss Dell's marking counterclaims, finding that such declaratory judgment actions should not be used for piecemeal adjudication of defenses already asserted.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
A Markman hearing was scheduled for October 28, 2025.

4. Discovery Milestones:
Expert discovery was due by December 22, 2025.

5. Trial Events:
The case was scheduled for a Pretrial Conference on March 2, 2026, with jury selection set for April 6, 2026. Pretrial trial transcripts were filed on April 28, 2026, and Cloud Byte LLC filed an unopposed motion to redact portions of these transcripts due to confidential and sensitive information.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:
Unified Patents filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01286, challenging U.S. Patent 9,482,632. This IPR was not instituted due to procedural reasons. Petitioners Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. stipulated that if the Board instituted review, they would not pursue the specific grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised, or any ground under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of system art corresponding to a reference asserted as part of a ground in the petition, in the related district court litigation. This non-institution aligns with a broader trend in 2025 of increased procedural denials at the PTAB, particularly against patents held by Non-Practicing Entities, partly due to new guidelines expanding discretionary denial factors and the revival of the Fintiv test. The "settled expectations" theory, where older patents are less likely to be reviewed, also contributes to lower institution rates against NPEs.

Another IPR, IPR2025-01288, was filed by Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc. challenging US Patent 9,651,320, which was also not instituted by the PTAB on procedural grounds. This patent is also one of the seven asserted in the district court litigation.

7. Current Posture:
As of the latest available information, the district court case appears to be actively proceeding towards trial, with pretrial and jury selection dates having been set. There is also a related case, Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. (2:26-cv-00150), filed on February 23, 2026, in the Eastern District of Texas, also presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap and involving patent infringement.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01286 Unified Patents PTAB Data counsel", "Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. 2:24-cv-00637 counsel", "attorneys for Unified Patents IPR 2025-01286", "Unified Patents IPR attorneys", "Unified Patents outside counsel patent litigation", "Unified Patents v. Cloud Byte LLC IPR counsel", "Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. 2:24-cv-00637 docket counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-00637). The provided case metadata refers to IPR2025-01286, where Unified Patents PTAB Data is the petitioner (analogous to plaintiff in an IPR). However, the prompt specifically asks for counsel in the patent infringement case, where Cloud Byte LLC is the plaintiff.

Therefore, I need to find the counsel representing Cloud Byte LLC in the district court case 2:24-cv-00637. I will use the docket sheet and legal news sources.

Let's break down the search strategy:

1. Identify the plaintiff in the infringement case: Cloud Byte LLC.
2. Search for counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in 2:24-cv-00637: Use "Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. 2:24-cv-00637 counsel" and "Cloud Byte LLC attorneys patent litigation".
3. Identify roles (lead, local, of counsel, in-house), firms, and office locations.
4. Find relevant patent litigation experience for each attorney.

The initial search results might focus on the IPR (IPR2025-01286) where Unified Patents is the petitioner. I need to be careful to distinguish between the IPR and the district court infringement case. The prompt specifically asks for the counsel for the plaintiff(s) in this patent infringement case.

My prior search queries were mostly focused on the IPR. I need to shift focus to the infringement case.
The query Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. 2:24-cv-00637 counsel is the most direct.
I will also look for general information on Cloud Byte LLC's go-to counsel for patent litigation if specific counsel for this case is not immediately apparent.In the patent infringement case Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-00637), the plaintiff, Cloud Byte LLC, is represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Maynard Nexsen PC (formerly Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C.).

The counsel of record for Cloud Byte LLC includes:

• Yury Kapgan

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kapgan was noted as arguing on behalf of the Plaintiff during a pretrial conference in the case. Quinn Emanuel is a prominent firm frequently involved in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.

• Ryan Seth Goldstein

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Goldstein filed a notice of appearance in the case on August 6, 2024.

• Jonathan S. Tse

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Listed as counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in related patent litigation.

• Brian E. Mack

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Mack filed a notice of appearance in the case on August 5, 2024. He is also listed as counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in a related case (2:26-cv-00150).

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (likely local counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (verified via external search for Claire Abernathy Henry, typically listed as local counsel in EDTX)
  • Office Location: Marshall, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. Henry filed a notice of appearance in the case on August 13, 2024. She frequently appears as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Melissa C. Neri

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C. (now Maynard Nexsen PC)
  • Office Location: Birmingham, AL
  • Experience Note: Ms. Neri is listed as representing Cloud Byte LLC in the litigation.

While Deepa Acharya of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP is listed as counsel for Cloud Byte LLC in a parallel Eastern District of Texas case (2:26-cv-00150), her direct involvement in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-00637) specifically was not explicitly confirmed by the provided docket entries for this case.

The defendants in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-00637) are Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.. Identifying the full counsel team for the defendants can be challenging without direct access to the most current, comprehensive PACER docket for the case. However, based on available information, we can identify key counsel and firms associated with Dell's patent litigation defense.

In-House Counsel for Dell Technologies:

• Peter Jovanovic - Legal Director, IP.
  • Firm: Dell Technologies (In-house)
  • Location: (Likely Round Rock, Texas, based on general Dell operations, though not explicitly stated for his role).
  • Experience: Responsible for patent portfolio development, patent litigation, open source management, and license drafting and negotiation for Dell Technologies. He has a background as a software engineer and an associate patent attorney.
• Rich Rothberg - General Counsel.
  • Firm: Dell Technologies (In-house)
  • Location: (Likely Round Rock, Texas).
  • Experience: Oversees the global legal department, government affairs, compliance, and ethics for Dell Technologies. He has held various leadership roles within Dell's legal department since 1999 and previously worked at Caterpillar Inc. and IBM Credit Corporation.

Outside Counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.:

While the specific attorneys appearing in Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. are not definitively named in public snippets, Dell frequently engages prominent firms for its patent litigation. Based on past representation and the nature of the Eastern District of Texas, potential outside counsel firms that Dell has utilized include:

• Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C.
  • Experience: This firm has a strong patent litigation practice and has previously represented Dell Inc. in patent infringement claims, including in the Eastern District of Virginia and International Trade Commission cases. They are known for handling complex patent cases across various technologies.
• Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
  • Experience: Munger, Tolles & Olson has defended Dell in patent litigation, securing favorable settlements. They are noted for their technical depth and trial strategy in complex patent cases, with many attorneys holding science or engineering degrees.
• Sheppard Mullin
  • Experience: While a specific link to Dell in this case is not found, Harper Batts, a partner at Sheppard Mullin, leads the firm's Post Grant Proceedings (PTAB) Group and has extensive experience in intellectual property litigation. Firms with strong PTAB practices often work with clients in parallel district court litigation.

Note on Local Counsel: In the Eastern District of Texas, it is common for national firms to associate with local counsel. However, without direct docket access, identifying specific local counsel for Dell in this particular case is not possible from the provided search results.

It's worth noting that Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is listed as Cloud Byte's counsel in this case, not Dell's.