Cloud Byte LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cloud Byte LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Delaware) and Aruba Networks, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00150, E.D. Tex., 05/14/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants maintain a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically an office in Frisco, Texas, and have previously not contested venue in the district for other litigation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's server, data storage, and networking products infringe seven patents related to server architecture, data storage, and network management technologies.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue relate to fundamental aspects of modern data center operations, including thermal management, data redundancy, system availability, and network traffic control, which are critical for the performance and reliability of enterprise computing infrastructure.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents by monitoring a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Dell Inc., a significant competitor, through their common membership in organizations such as RPX Corp.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-03-10	'544 Patent Priority Date
2006-02-10	'693 Patent Priority Date
2009-09-14	'249 Patent Priority Date
2010-06-15	'544 Patent Issue Date
2011-02-17	'177 Patent Priority Date
2012-03-02	'320 Patent Priority Date
2012-09-05	'632 Patent Priority Date
2015-01-30	'273 Patent Priority Date
2016-11-01	'632 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-31	'177 Patent Issue Date
2017-05-16	'320 Patent Issue Date
2018-01-16	'693 Patent Issue Date
2018-02-20	'249 Patent Issue Date
2020-04-21	'273 Patent Issue Date
2024-08-05	Cloud Byte LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. filed
2026-02-23	Original Complaint Filing Date
2026-05-14	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,651,320 - "ICT Equipment" (issued May 16, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In ICT equipment, a sharp drop in intake air temperature can create a large temperature differential between the inside of an airtight component (like a hard disk drive) and its casing, leading to condensation and rust that can damage or cause malfunctions in electronic components Compl. ¶31 '320 Patent, col. 1:31-2:15
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a control system that addresses this problem by monitoring not just absolute temperatures, but the rate of temperature change. A microprocessor calculates a "declination index value" indicating the degree of temperature declination of an electronic component. This index, along with the intake air temperature, is then used to control the cooling fan speed, thereby preventing the internal-to-casing temperature difference from becoming dangerously large and mitigating the risk of condensation Compl. ¶32 '320 Patent, claim 1 '320 Patent, col. 8:47-55
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a more sophisticated thermal management solution for computing equipment operating in environments with variable temperatures, improving system reliability by proactively managing the effects of sharp temperature drops Compl. ¶33

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶36
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include Compl. ¶37:
  • ICT equipment with an electronic component, a cooling fan, a first temperature sensor (for the component), and a second temperature sensor (for intake air).
  • A microprocessor including a "declination index value calculation unit" that calculates an index value indicating the degree of temperature declination of the electronic component.
  • A control unit that controls the cooling fan's rotation speed based on both the calculated "declination index value" and the temperature of the intake air.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶38

U.S. Patent No. 7,739,544 - "Disk Array System and Rebuild Method Thereof" (issued June 15, 2010)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In conventional RAID systems, when a disk fails and is replaced, the process of rebuilding the data onto the new disk requires reading data from all other disks in the parity group. This process significantly degrades the access performance of the entire disk array system during the rebuild period Compl. ¶¶50-51 '544 Patent, col. 1:35-46
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a system that includes a separate backup storage device. When a disk fails, the data is rebuilt onto the replacement disk using the data from the backup storage device. This rebuild process is performed through a dedicated rebuild module that operates in parallel with the primary RAID module, allowing for "normal read/write access to the disk drives that have not failed" to continue simultaneously with minimal performance impact Compl. ¶52 '544 Patent, col. 5:10-22
• Technical Importance: This method improves the availability and performance of redundant disk arrays by isolating the performance-intensive rebuild process from normal I/O operations, a critical consideration for high-availability enterprise storage systems Compl. ¶53

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶56
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include Compl. ¶57:
  • A disk array system with a plurality of disk drives.
  • A RAID module for normal read/write access.
  • A backup storage device and a backup module for backing up data from the disk array.
  • A replacement disk drive for a failed drive.
  • A rebuild module for rebuilding data on the replacement drive from the backup storage.
  • A "means for rebuilding data...while simultaneously providing normal read/write access to the disk drives that have not failed through the RAID module."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶58

U.S. Patent No. 10,628,273 - "Node System, Server Apparatus, Scaling Control Method, and Program" (issued Apr. 21, 2020)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses downtime in redundant server systems that occurs during a switchover from an active to a standby server Compl. ¶71 The invention proposes preemptively scaling up or scaling down the resources (e.g., virtual CPUs) of the standby system before the switchover occurs, which reduces processing delays and improves service continuity Compl. ¶72
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶76
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' HPE Server Products that support high availability (HA) or fault tolerance (FT) features Compl. ¶3

U.S. Patent No. 9,482,632 - "Abnormality Detection Device" (issued Nov. 1, 2016)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of inaccurately detecting thermal abnormalities (like a clogged filter) in ICT equipment, especially when the equipment's operational status (e.g., CPU load) is not constant Compl. ¶91 The invention provides a device that estimates an upper limit for internal temperatures based on both the current operational status and the intake air temperature, and determines an abnormality exists if the measured temperature exceeds this dynamically estimated limit Compl. ¶92
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶96
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' HPE Server Products that feature abnormality detection and advanced temperature control Compl. ¶3

U.S. Patent No. 9,560,177 - "Network System and Network Flow Tracing Method" (issued Jan. 31, 2017)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of tracing a network data flow from end-to-end when it passes through a device (like a NAT) that translates the packet header Compl. ¶111 The invention proposes a method where a switch encapsulates a packet by duplicating its header, allowing the flow to be traced even after translation because the original header information is preserved within the encapsulated packet Compl. ¶112
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶116
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' HPE Networking Products, including HPE Networking Instant On, Comware, and Aruba networking switches Compl. ¶3

U.S. Patent No. 9,900,249 - "Communication System, Forwarding Node, Path Management Server, Communication Method, and Program" (issued Feb. 20, 2018)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that conventional IP routing offers limited path control and that other methods like source routing add significant overhead to data packets Compl. ¶¶130-131 The invention proposes a packet forwarding method using a simplified forwarding table where path information (composed of link or interface identifiers) is included in the packet header, enabling path control without large routing tables or significant data overhead Compl. ¶132
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 Compl. ¶136
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' HPE Networking Products, including various HPE and Aruba networking switches Compl. ¶3

U.S. Patent No. 9,871,693 - "System and Method for Monitoring the Status of Multiple Servers on a Network" (issued Jan. 16, 2018)

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the unreliability and inefficiency of prior art server monitoring tools (e.g., ping), which can generate false positives or miss actual failures Compl. ¶151 The invention describes a "heartbeat monitor service" that determines which services to check based on registry settings and operates at the Session Layer (Layer 5) of the OSI model, providing a more accurate and resource-friendly assessment of a server's functional status Compl. ¶152
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 21 Compl. ¶156
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendants' HPE Server Products supporting active server service status monitoring Compl. ¶3

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies three categories of accused products: "HPE Networking Products," "HPE RAID Products," and "HPE Server Products" Compl. ¶3 Exemplary products include HPE ProLiant and Synergy servers, HPE Smart Array Controllers, and various HPE and Aruba networking switches Compl. ¶25

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Products are alleged to be server and networking devices that incorporate a range of advanced enterprise features Compl. ¶3 These functionalities, as described in the complaint, include thermal management systems with advanced temperature control Compl. ¶3, Redundant Array of Independent Disks (RAID) technology for data storage and redundancy Compl. ¶3, high availability (HA) and fault tolerance (FT) features for system resilience Compl. ¶3, and advanced network routing and encapsulation capabilities in switches Compl. ¶16 The complaint positions these products as competing with those of other major players in the server and networking markets, such as Dell Compl. ¶27

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 8-14) that were not filed with the complaint Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶56 Compl. ¶76 Compl. ¶96 Compl. ¶116 Compl. ¶136 Compl. ¶156 Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• '320 Patent Infringement Allegations
  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' HPE Server Products infringe Claim 1 of the '320 Patent Compl. ¶36 The theory of infringement is that these products contain the claimed ICT equipment, including cooling fans, temperature sensors for both components and intake air, and a microprocessor. This microprocessor is alleged to execute the functions of calculating an "index value indicating a degree of declination" of a component's temperature and subsequently controlling the fan speed based on both this index value and the measured intake air temperature, thereby practicing the patented thermal management method Compl. ¶37

• '544 Patent Infringement Allegations
  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' HPE RAID Products infringe Claim 1 of the '544 Patent Compl. ¶56 The infringement theory asserts that these products are disk array systems comprising all elements of the claim. This includes a RAID module for normal access, a backup storage device and module, and a "rebuild module" that performs the key function of rebuilding data onto a replacement disk drive from the backup storage device. Crucially, the complaint alleges these products perform this rebuild "while simultaneously providing normal read/write access to the disk drives that have not failed," mirroring the language of the final means-plus-function limitation of Claim 1 Compl. ¶57

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions ('320 Patent): A central question for the court may be whether the term "declination index value" can be construed to read on the specific algorithms used by HPE's thermal management systems. The dispute may focus on whether the accused functionality calculates a value indicating a rate of temperature change, as required by the patent, or if it uses a different, non-equivalent logic.
  • Functional Equivalence ('544 Patent): Claim 1 of the '544 patent contains a means-plus-function limitation ("means for rebuilding...while simultaneously providing..."). The infringement analysis will require the court to first identify the corresponding structure in the patent's specification that performs this function and then determine whether the accused HPE RAID Products' architecture performs the identical function in a way that is structurally the same or equivalent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "declination index value" ('320 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the '320 patent's asserted claim. The entire infringement case for this patent will depend on whether the accused products' thermal control logic calculates a value that falls within the court's construction of this term.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the term functionally as "an index value indicating a degree of declination of the component temperature" Compl. ¶37 Plaintiff may argue this language is broad and not limited to a specific mathematical formula, covering any value that reflects a rate of temperature decrease.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract offers specific examples, such as "a declination quantity of the component temperature per unit time or a difference between the highest value...and the current component temperature" '320 Patent, abstract Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed embodiments, potentially narrowing the claim's scope.

• Term: "means for rebuilding data ... while simultaneously providing normal read/write access" ('544 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function claim element under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is critical because its scope is tied to the specific structures disclosed in the patent, not just the function performed. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will be a two-step process of identifying the corresponding structure and then assessing equivalence with the accused product.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Corresponding Structure): The specification describes the structure as a "rebuild module 17 provided in parallel with the RAID module 13 and the disk access bus/switch 18," which allows the rebuild to proceed "so as not to influence a normal access" '544 Patent, col. 5:14-22 Plaintiff could argue this covers any architecture where the data path for the rebuild is logically parallel to and separate from the primary I/O path.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Limiting to Embodiment): The patent includes a specific block diagram (Fig. 1) showing this parallel arrangement. Defendant may argue that the scope of the "means" is limited to this specific disclosed architecture and that any differences in the accused products' hardware or software architecture for managing rebuilds are not structurally equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing "advertisements, user manuals, training manuals, instructional videos, and online instruction materials" that actively encourage and instruct customers and end users to use the Accused Products in ways that practice the claimed inventions Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶59 Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the Accused Products are especially made to infringe and are not staple articles of commerce Compl. ¶40 Compl. ¶60
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the complaint itself Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶66 Pre-suit knowledge is alleged on the grounds that Defendants were aware of and monitored a prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Dell, a major competitor, through their membership in organizations like RPX Corp. Compl. ¶27

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Definitional Scope and Technical Equivalence: A core issue will be one of claim construction. The case may turn on whether the specific algorithms and architectures in HPE's products fall within the scope of key patent terms, such as the "declination index value" in the '320 patent's thermal management system and the means-plus-function "means for rebuilding" in the '544 patent's RAID system. This will involve a detailed comparison of the patent's teachings against the technical operation of the accused products.
• Pre-Suit Knowledge and Willfulness: A key factual question for the court will be whether Plaintiff can successfully establish that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. The theory that Defendants monitored litigation against a competitor (Dell) via a shared membership in an organization like RPX is an aggressive one, and its viability will be critical for Plaintiff's claims for pre-suit and willful infringement.
• Multi-Patent Complexity: With seven patents covering diverse technologies from thermal management to network monitoring, a central challenge will be managing the complexity of the case. The court will need to adjudicate infringement and validity across a wide range of distinct technical features, raising the possibility that the case could be narrowed or bifurcated to focus on the most salient disputes.