Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al, No. 2:24-cv-00637 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2026)

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 No. 424) The Motion was WITHDRAWN.

22. 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.

310. 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

4This 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

5This 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.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of October, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE