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.

I'll research counsel of record on both sides of the caption — the IPR petitioner (Unified Patents) and the plaintiff/patent owner (Cloud Byte LLC) in the parallel district court case.

Key discovery: PTAB records name a different petitioner than the metadata suggests. Let me dig deeper on the plaintiff-side counsel and verify.

Now let me verify the patent title discrepancy and check the petitioner-side PTAB counsel plus the newer HPE case.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff / Patent Owner Side

Threshold flag: the "plaintiff" in the caption does not match the PTAB record

Before naming attorneys, one contradiction must be surfaced, because it changes who "plaintiff's counsel" even means here:

• The case metadata for IPR2025-01286 lists Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents PTAB Data. "Unified Patents" is in fact a well-known patent-risk-mitigation entity and the operator of a public PTAB tracking database — the name in the field appears to be a data-source artifact, not a party.
• Every PTAB record for IPR2025-01286 identifies the Petitioner as Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc., and the Patent Owner as Cloud Byte LLC. (See IPVerse case page, "Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Cloud Byte LLC – IPR2025-01286," filed July 14, 2025, https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-01286; Docket Alarm docket sheet for IPR2025-01286, Exhibit 1001.) The earlier-generated case overview repeatedly attributes the petition to Unified Patents and to a Dell "stipulation" — that is internally inconsistent, and the PTAB filings support Dell-as-petitioner.
• No Unified Patents attorney appears anywhere in the IPR2025-01286 record. The petition was filed by Dell's PTAB counsel at Farella Braun + Martel LLP (see petitioner-side note below).
• Secondary flag on the patent: the prior sections describe the '632 patent as "Method and system for managing storage in a cloud computing environment." Exhibit 1001 in IPR2025-01286 shows US 9,482,632 B2, titled "ABNORMALITY DETECTION DEVICE," inventor Jun Yokoyama, assignee NEC Corporation, issued Nov. 1, 2016, directed to estimating an upper temperature limit for ICT equipment using operational status and intake-air temperature (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-01286/Dell_Technologies_Inc/07-14-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1001-EX1001___US9482632/). The storage-management title appears to be a mismatch, though the patent is indeed part of the same NEC-derived Cloud Byte portfolio asserted against Dell.

Accordingly, this section treats the plaintiff / patent owner as Cloud Byte LLC and identifies (a) its district court counsel of record and (b) its PTAB counsel of record, plus the petitioner-side team for completeness.

---

A. District court: Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., No. 2:24-cv-00637-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

1. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — lead trial counsel (national)

Counsel confirmed by formal appearances on the docket (Dockets.Justia docket sheet, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00637/[232046](/patent/232046)):

Additional Quinn Emanuel personnel on Cloud Byte's CM/ECF service/notice list in 2:24-cv-00637 (from the court's electronic-notice transmission, reproduced at PTAB Ex. 2005 in IPR2025-01288): Jonathan S. Tse, Melissa C. Neri, Ian Nathaniel Koster, and Evan Kennedy Larson (all Quinn Emanuel; Koster appears on Law360's firm page as counsel on Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., https://www.law360.com/firms/quinn-emanuel/attorneys/ian-n-koster). Because the ECF notice list includes attorneys who have not necessarily entered a formal appearance, I flag these as appearing on the service list, formal appearance not verified.

2. Miller Fair Henry PLLC — local/E.D. Tex. counsel (styled "Of Counsel" on Cloud Byte's filings)

Cloud Byte's signature block on the Oct. 3, 2025 P.R. 4-5(d) joint claim construction chart (reproduced as Ex. 1039 in IPR2025-01284) reads: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (Kapgan, Goldstein, Mack) — Of Counsel: Claire Abernathy Henry and Andrea Fair, Miller Fair Henry PLLC — Attorneys for Plaintiff Cloud Byte LLC. That is the clearest current statement of the plaintiff's counsel lineup.

3. Related privilege/disqualification sub-proceeding (counsel-relevant)

Dell subpoenaed Quinn Emanuel for NEC/IP Wave/Cloud Byte assignment and license documents in In re Subpoena to Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, No. 2:25-mc-00003-JRG (E.D. Tex.). The court denied Dell's motion to enforce on April 28, 2025, noting Quinn had "previously represented non-party NEC, but not in this case." (Memorandum Opinion and Order, https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2025mc00003/[236911](/patent/236911)/21/0.pdf.) This matters because it is the only public record of a potential conflict/positional issue touching Cloud Byte's counsel team; no motion to disqualify Quinn was granted.

---

B. PTAB: Patent Owner Cloud Byte LLC in IPR2025-01286 (and the companion IPRs)

Cloud Byte's § 42.8(b)(3) mandatory notices / power of attorney across the Dell-filed IPRs (IPR2025-01285, -01286, -01287, -01288) name the same three-person Quinn Emanuel team (PTAB Power of Attorney, Aug. 4, 2025, Customer No. 505708):

The powers of attorney were executed for Cloud Byte by John Garland, Chief Licensing Officer (Aug. 4, 2025) — i.e., Cloud Byte is a licensing entity whose PTAB papers are signed by its CLO, while litigation papers are signed by the Quinn Emanuel team.

Petitioner-side PTAB counsel (for contrast; these are Dell's lawyers, not plaintiff's): Farella Braun + Martel LLP — James (Jim) Day, with D. Callaway, W. Liaw and calendar@fbm.com on the correspondence/service lines, plus Eugene Y. Mar of the same firm on the E.D. Tex. docket for Dell. (PTAB certificates of service in IPR2025-01285/-01288; CM/ECF notice list for 2:24-cv-00637.) This is the team that would face Cloud Byte's Quinn Emanuel PTAB team — and it is the reason no Unified Patents attorney name surfaces in this docket.

---

C. Procedural status tie-in and caveats

• IPR2025-01286 was filed July 14, 2025; an institutional decision/denial is reported at Nov. 20, 2025 as a discretionary denial (outcome: denied), which is consistent with the "Not Instituted – Procedural" status in the case metadata. Source is a secondary aggregator (https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/ptab/IPR2025-01286/dell-technologies-inc-v-cloud-byte-llc), and the same page lists "John A. Squires" in the judges field — I treat that as a probable data artifact (Squires is the Acting Director/Director, not a merits panel member) and cannot confirm the merits panel from the records retrieved.
• The prior section's Markman date (Oct. 28, 2025) is slightly off: the E.D. Tex. Notice of Hearing set the Markman hearing for Oct. 31, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (entered Sept. 4, 2025; reproduced in PTAB Ex. 2005).
• Not verified / not found: (1) the specific individual attorney who argued the Markman hearing; (2) formal appearances by Tse, Neri, Koster, Larson, or Everingham; (3) any in-house counsel for Cloud Byte beyond John Garland (CLO) — Cloud Byte appears to be a small NPE without a public in-house legal roster; (4) any withdrawal or substitution of counsel in 2:24-cv-00637 (none surfaced; the Quinn Emanuel/Miller Fair Henry team carried through the Oct. 2025 claim construction filings and into the later Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., No. 2:26-cv-00150-JRG, where the same Quinn Emanuel/Miller Fair Henry signature block appears on a May 14, 2026 filing).
• The PACER docket for 2:24-cv-00637 was last retrieved March 28, 2025 on the free docket aggregator

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.