Short Summary
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
Detailed Summary
In this Inter Partes Review petition, Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. challenge all eight claims of Cloud Byte LLC's U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320, which claims ICT equipment that controls cooling‑fan speed using a declination index value derived from component and intake‑air temperatures. The petition asserts that the combination of three prior‑art references—Sato, which discloses the fan‑control architecture; Nakamura, which teaches the declination index calculation; and Jin, which provides the average‑rate methodology—makes each claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. Detailed claim‑by‑claim analysis and claim constructions are provided, and the petition urges the PTAB to institute review and cancel the claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dell Technologies Inc. et al. vs Cloud Byte LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amgen Inc. et al.vsBristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen’s request for Director Review of IPR denial is rebuffed by Bristol‑Myers Squibb, which argues the petitioner offers no credible basis and that European prosecution does not affect settled expectations for the U.S. patent.
Arm LimitedvsICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on Headwater’s patent 11,096,055. Headwater’s response argues the recission of the Vidal Memo was proper, that discretionary denial is statutorily authorized, and that no notice‑and‑comment rulemaking was required.
FreightCar America, Inc.vsNational Steel Car Limited
The PTAB instituted review of IPR2025-01047 regarding the hopper car design patent (8132515). The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 44 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
Coretronic CorporationvsMaxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks a discretionary denial of Coretronic’s IPR petition covering claims 1,3,4,7,9 of its display‑technology patent, arguing that parallel district‑court litigation makes institution inefficient and prejudicial.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.