Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc.
Decision Date | 22 December 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16–cv–00119–HSG |
Citation | 226 F.Supp.3d 1000 |
Parties | SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. DROPBOX INC., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Joel Nathan Bock, Andrew Marc Grodin, Dentons U.S. LLP, Joel N. Bock, SNR Denton U.S. LLP, Short Hills, NJ, Shailendra K. Maheshwari, SNR Denton U.S. LLP, Mark Lee Hogge, Nicholas Hunt Jackson, Dentons U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, Sarah S. Eskandari, Dentons U.S. LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Adam D. Harber, Christopher John Mandernach, David M. Krinsky, Thomas H.L. Selby, Williams and Connolly, LLP, Washington, DC, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Patchen, LLP, Sonali Deeksha Maitra, Durie Tangri LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert M. Goodman, Thomas Kiley Murphy, III, Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis, LLP, Roseland, NJ, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
Pending before the Court is Defendant Dropbox, Inc.'s motion to dismiss. Defendant argues that United States Patent Nos. 6,671,757 ("the '757 Patent"), 7,587,446 ("the '446 Patent") and 6,757,696 ("the '696 Patent") are invalid because their claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. As a result, Defendant contends that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.'s complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the motion.
Plaintiff filed this action on March 27, 2015 in the Northern District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of the '757, '446, and '696 Patents. Dkt. No. 1. On December 30, 2015, Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California was granted. Dkt. Nos. 24, 35. On March 10, 2016, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 81.
The '757 Patent is titled "Data Transfer and Synchronization." '757 Patent. The specification describes a system and method for "efficiently, quickly, and easily synchronizing devices which can couple to the Internet, or any network." See '757 Patent at 3:23–25.1
Independent claim 1 describes:
Id. at 46:57–47:7.
Fourteen claims depend from Claim 1 and add further limitations such as: (1) where the "first system and second system are coupled to the server via a private network," Claim 2; (2) where the apparatus of Claim 1 includes a "management server coupled to the network and in communication with the first sync engine, the second sync engine and the data store," Claim 8; and (3) where the "data on said first system comprises application data having a plurality of application specific formats, and said difference information is provided for each of said formats in a universal format to said data store," Claim 14. See id. at 47:8–54.
Additionally, the '757 Patent contains two other independent claims, Claims 16 and 24, which include similar limitations to Claim 1. Claim 16 describes:
Id. at 48:1–24. Claim 16 has six dependent claims. See id. at 48:25–50.
Claim 24 describes:
Id. at 48:51–64. Claim 24 has five dependent claims. See id. at 48:65–50:9.
The 446 Patent at 3:45–51.2 Independent claim 1 provides:
'466 Patent at 13:46–14:2. There are nine dependent claims that add narrowing limitations such as (1) "including the step, prior to step (a), of receiving information into the personal information space," Claim 2; (2) using an automotive computer as the network coupled apparatus, Claim 4; and (3) including a directory of digital media files to comprise the media date, Claim 6. See id. at 14:3–34.
Additionally, Claim 11 is independent and describes:
Id. at 14:35–57. Claim 11 has three dependent claims. See id. at 14:58–64.
The '696 Patent is titled "Management Server for Synchronization System." '696 Patent. The specification describes an invention that "includes a system and method for transferring data between two devices which require information to be shared between them." Id. at 4:25–27. Independent claim 1 provides:
Id. at 45:11–18. Seven claims depend from Claim 1. See id. at 45:19–48.
Section 101 of the Patent Act describes the scope of patentable subject matter as encompassing "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ching Lee v. Harris
-
Personalized Media Commc'ns, LLC v. Netflix Inc.
...claims are directed to an abstract idea, or even identifying what the underlying abstract idea is"); Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc. , 226 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1007 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (noting that Amdocs assumed that claims assumed without deciding that a patent was directed to an abstr......
-
Sycamore Ip Holdings LLC v. At & T Corp.
...been held to survive section 101 challenges without serious doubts as to their patentability. See Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., 226 F.Supp.3d 1000, 1007–09 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ; MAZ Encryption Techs. LLC v. Blackberry Corp., C.A. No. 13-304, 2016 WL 5661981, at *5–8 (D. Del. Sept. ......
-
Ex parte Breuer
...to as "Step 2B" of the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. [13] Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., 226 F.Supp.3d 1000 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (denying motion to dismiss). Appellant does not provide any substantive analysis of the holding in this distric......