Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v. Cloud Byte LLC

IPR2025-01288

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01288
Filing Date
14 July 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00386

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al.vsSerendia, LLC

Ilooda and Serendia filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda's participation in an IPR over a dermatology device patent, citing a settlement that resolves the dispute.

patentIPR2025-00475

Coretronic CorporationvsMaxell, Ltd.

Coretronic and Optoma have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Maxell’s 9,322,530 patent covering a projection‑type light source device. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103.

patentIPR2024-01463

Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al.vsSK nexilis Co., Ltd.

The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.

patentIPR2025-01054

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.

patentIPR2024-01304

UiPath, Inc.vsRule 14 LLC

UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call