Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
CLOUD BYTE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELL INC. and DELL TECHNOLOGIES
INC.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00637-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above-captioned case on September 23, 2026.
At the conference, the Court ruled on several pending pretrial motions and motions in limine
(“MILs”) filed by Plaintiff Cloud Byte LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Cloud Byte”) and Defendants Dell
Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” or “Dell”) (collectively, the “Parties”)
(Dkt. Nos. 424, 195, 392, 395, 391, 393, 396, 394, 204, 191, 194, 329, and 328). This Order
memorializes the Court’s rulings on the pretrial motions and MILs as announced from the bench
and read into the record, including additional instructions that were given to the Parties. While this
Order summarizes the Court’s rulings as announced into the record during the hearing, this Order
in no way limits or constrains such rulings from the bench. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED
as follows:
1. 	Dell’s Motion to Strike Hajime Zembutsu from Plaintiff Cloud Byte’s Witness List
(Dkt. No. 424)
The Motion was WITHDRAWN.
Case 2:24-cv-00637-JRG Document 440 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2. 	Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Stephen L. Becker
(Dkt. No. 195)
The Motion was DENIED.
3. 	Defendants Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.’s Daubert Motion to Exclude the
Opinions of Dr. Tim A. Williams (Dkt. No. 392)
The Motion was DENIED.
4. 	Dell’s Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Michael P. Akemann (Dkt. No. 395)
The Motion was DENIED.
5. 	Plaintiff Cloud Byte’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude Improper Opinions of
Dr. Stephen Becker (Dkt. No. 391)
The Motion was DENIED.
6. 	Cloud Byte’s Motion to Exclude Certain Supplemental Opinions of Dell’s Technical
Expert Dr. Stephen B. Wicker (Dkt. No. 393)
The Motion was DENIED.
7. 	Cloud Byte’s Motion to Exclude Certain Supplemental Opinions of Dell’s Technical
Expert Dr. Tajana Rosing (Dkt. No. 396)
The Motion was DENIED.
8. 	Dell’s Motion to Exclude Certain Supplemental Opinions of Murali Annavarm, Ph.D
(Dkt. No. 394)
The Motion was DENIED.
9. 	Dell’s Corrected Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement by Dell
with Respect to Dell’s Sales of the Accused Products and Dell’s Customers’ Use of
Those Products (Dkt. No. 204)1
The Motion was GRANTED IN PART. Summary judgment in favor of Dell was granted
holding no direct infringement of the ’544 Patent as to servers that have less than three drives.
The Motion was otherwise denied.
1 The previous version of this Motion filed at Dkt. No. 189 is DENIED AS MOOT.
Case 2:24-cv-00637-JRG Document 440 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
10. Dell’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Liability with Respect to U.S. Patent No.
10,628,273 (Dkt. No. 191)
The Motion was GRANTED IN PART. The Court found one of the infringement theories
disclosed in Dr. Williams’ report matches the invalidity arguments raised by Defendants and
analyzed by Dr. Wicker in his report. The Court found that the ’273 Patent was therefore
invalidated by Plaintiff’s position regarding infringement because all the elements are within
the prior art, as analyzed by Dr. Wicker’s report. Accordingly, the Court granted summary
judgment establishing invalidity of the ’273 Patent and thus no liability as to Dell. The Court
bases its decision on the maxim: that which infringes, if earlier, invalidates.
11. Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants’ Damages-Related
Defenses (Dkt. No. 194)
The Motion was DENIED.
12. Parties’ Opposed Motions in Limine (Dkt. Nos. 329, 328)
a. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1: to preclude argument, evidence, or testimony related to
any scheme or conspiracy between Pretium, Quinn Emanuel, NEC, and/or Cloud Byte
This MIL was GRANTED.
b. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 2: to preclude argument, evidence, or testimony regarding
any pre-suit actions or analysis by Cloud Byte or its predecessors-in-interest
This MIL was GRANTED AS AGREED. Dell agreed not to argue to the jury that NEC
did not raise the patents with Dell as relevant to non-infringement.
c. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 3: to preclude argument, evidence, or testimony related to
the accused instrumentalities practicing Dell or third-party patents or that Dell has
patents in the same field
This MIL was DENIED.
d. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 4: to preclude argument, evidence, or testimony regarding
conversations with individuals not identified in Dell’s initial disclosures or untimely
evidence
Case 2:24-cv-00637-JRG Document 440 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
This MIL was GRANTED as to production code for iDRAC. The MIL was otherwise
withdrawn.
e. 	Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 5: to preclude argument, evidence, or 	testimony
suggesting that Dell does not use the accused functionalities in its own network in the
United States
This MIL was DENIED.
f. 	Defendants’ Motion in Limine 1: no testimony, evidence, or argument about Cloud
Byte’s unconsummated license agreements, or negotiations or discussions with any
target 	licensees 	regarding 	unconsummated 	license 	agreements—including 	no
suggestions relating to the volume or identities of prospective licensees
This MIL was GRANTED AS AGREED.
g. 	Defendants’ Motion in Limine 2: no testimony, evidence, or argument about alleged
infringement based on Dell’s internal use or testing
This MIL was DENIED.
h. 	Defendants’ Motion in Limine 3: no testimony, evidence, or argument offered by Cloud
Byte that Dell’s employees or corporate representative lack knowledge that is outside
of personal knowledge or rule 30(b)(6) topics
This MIL was WITHDRAWN.
i. 	Defendants’ Motion in Limine 4: no testimony, evidence, or argument regarding
irrelevant and prejudicial figures that risk skewing the damages horizon, e.g., Dell’s
revenue for the accused products and dell’s revenue for its infrastructure solutions
group
This MIL was GRANTED AS AGREED. The Parties agree Cloud Byte will not reference
Dell’s overall revenues, the revenues of the infrastructure solutions group within Dell, and the
accused revenues of the accused products. The Parties further agree there will be no discussion of
any numbers in the hundred of millions or billions with the exception of the Broadcom revenue
amount, which may be discussed in the manner in which Cloud Byte’s expert uses it. 	In Dell
agrees to not contest the gross profit margin that Cloud Byte’s damages expert will present at trial.
j. 	Defendants’ Motion in Limine 5: no testimony, evidence, or argument about the
purported transfer price in the IP Wave-Cloud Byte agreement, or the NEC-IP Wave
agreement
Case 2:24-cv-00637-JRG Document 440 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
This MIL was WITHDRAWN.
13. Parties’ Exhibit Disputes
Defendants’ disputed exhibits in category 8 were PRE-ADMITTED on the condition that
these exhibits will be limited to being used with the identified fact witness.
Defendants’ disputed exhibits in category 22 were PRE-ADMITTED.
Plaintiff’s disputed exhibits in category 14 were PRE-ADMITTED.
The Parties are ORDERED to jointly produce a list of all pre-admitted exhibits and promptly
send the same to the Court via the Courtroom Deputy. Such list shall accurately reflect the results
of the Court’s rulings during this portion of the pre-trial process.
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of October, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00637-JRG Document 440 Filed 10/09/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>