Synchronoss Technologies v. Dropbox Inc

Filing 110

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 81 MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2016)

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 11

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Case No. 16-cv-00119-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS

v.
9
10

DROPBOX INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 81

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

I.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendant Dropbox, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Defendant

13
14

argues that United States Patent Nos. 6,671,757 (“the ’757 Patent”), 7,587,446 (“the ’446 Patent”)

15

and 6,757,696 (“the ’696 Patent”) are invalid because their claims are directed to patent-ineligible

16

subject matter. As a result, Defendant contends that the Court should dismiss Plaintiff

17

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.’s complaint for failure to state a claim. For the reasons explained

18

below, the Court DENIES the motion.

19

II.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this action on March 27, 2015 in the Northern District of New Jersey,

20
21

alleging infringement of the ’757, ’446, and ’696 Patents. Dkt. No. 1. On December 30, 2015,

22

Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California was granted. Dkt.

23

Nos. 24, 35. On March 10, 2016, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 81.

24

A.

’757 Patent

25

The ’757 Patent is titled “Data Transfer and Synchronization.” ’757 Patent. The

26

specification describes a system and method for “efficiently, quickly, and easily synchronizing

27
28

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 11

1

devices which can couple to the Internet, or any network.” See ’757 Patent at 3:23-25.1
Independent claim 1 describes:
1. A system for synchronizing data between a first system and a
second system, comprising:
a first sync engine on the first system interfacing with data on the
first system to provide difference information in a difference
transaction;
a data store coupled to the network and in communication with the
first and second systems; and
a second sync engine on the second system coupled to receive the
difference information in the difference transaction from the data
store via the network, and interfacing with data on the second
system to update said data on the second system with said difference
information;
wherein each said sync engine comprises a data interface, a copy of
a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction generator.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Id. at 46:57-47:7.
Fourteen claims depend from Claim 1 and add further limitations such as: (1) where the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

“first system and second system are coupled to the server via a private network,” Claim 2; (2)

13

where the apparatus of Claim 1 includes a “management server coupled to the network and in

14

communication with the first sync engine, the second sync engine and the data store,” Claim 8;

15

and (3) where the “data on said first system comprises application data having a plurality of

16

application specific formats, and said difference information is provided for each of said formats

17

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,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

which include similar limitations to Claim 1. Claim 16 describes:
A system, comprising:
a first device including at least a first data file and first differencing
code, the first device having an input and an output coupled to a
network to receive first device data change transactions from, and
provide change transactions generated by the first differencing code
based on said at least one data file to, said network;
a data store coupled to the network having at least one data structure
coupled to store change transactions; and
a second device including at least a second data file and second
differencing code, the second device having an input and an output
coupled to the network to receive said first device data change
transactions from, and provide second change transactions generated

26
1

27
28

On September 4, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an
Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate regarding the ‘757 Patent following inter partes review.
See Dkt. No. 1-1 at 42-43. The USPTO confirmed the patentability of claims 1, 3, 11, 24, 25 and
27. Id. at 43. The USPTO did not reexamine claims 2, 4-10, 12-23, 26, 28 and 29. Id.
2

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 11

by the second differencing code based on said at least second data
file to, said data store;
wherein said first differencing code includes a first sync engine
having a first data interface, a first copy of a previous state of said
data, and a first difference transaction generator, and said second
differencing code includes a second sync engine having a second
data interface, a second copy of a previous state of said data, and a
second difference transaction generator.

1
2
3
4
5

Id. at 48:1-24. Claim 16 has six dependent claims. See id. at 48:25-50.
Claim 24 describes:
An Internet synchronization system, comprising:
a storage server having an Internet connection;
a first device coupled to the Internet and including a first device
sync engine interfacing with data on the first device, the first device
in communication with at least the storage server; and
a second device coupled to the Internet and including a second
device sync engine interfacing with data on the second device, the
second device in communication with at least the storage server;
wherein each said device sync engine comprises a data interface, a
copy of a previous state of said data, and a difference transaction
generator.

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Id. at 48:51-64. Claim 24 has five dependent claims. See id. at 48:65-50:9.

14

B.

’446 Patent

15

The ’446 Patent incorporates the ’757 Patent in its entirety, and is titled “Acquisition and

16

Synchronization of Digital Media to a Personal Information Space.” The invention “comprises a

17

method for acquiring and maintaining a digital music store in personal information space,

18

comprising: maintaining a personal information space identified with a user including data capable

19

of being used on a client device, and transferring at least a portion of the data from the personal

20

information space to an Internet-coupled device in response to a user request.” ’446 Patent at

21

3:45-51.2 Independent claim 1 provides:
1. A method of transferring media data to a network coupled
apparatus, comprising:
(a) maintaining a personal information space identified with a user
including media data comprising a directory of digital media files,
the personal information space being coupled to a server and a
network;
(b) generating a first version of the media data in the personal

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

On September 26, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued an
Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate regarding the ‘446 Patent following inter partes review.
See Dkt. No. 1-3 at 19-20. The USPTO confirmed the patentability of claims 1, 2 and 6. Id. at 20.
Claims 15 to 20 were added and determined to be patentable. Id. The USPTO did not reexamine
claims 3-5 and 7-14. Id.
3

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 4 of 11

information space;
(c) generating a digital media file, in response to an input from the
user, comprising a second version of the media data in a same
format as the first version in the personal information space, the
second version including an update not included in the first version;
(d) obtaining difference information comprising differences
between the first version of the media data and the second version of
the media data; and
(e) transferring a digital media file over the network containing the
difference information from the personal information space to the
network coupled apparatus in response to a sync request made from
a web browser at the network-coupled apparatus by the user.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

’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;

10
and (3) including a directory of digital media files to comprise the media date, Claim 6. See id. at
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

14:3-34.
12
Additionally, Claim 11 is independent and describes:
11. A system for transferring digital media between a plurality of
network coupled devices, comprising:
a personal information store identified with a user containing digital
media comprising a directory of digital media files readable by an
application program; and a processing device, a server and a
network coupled with the personal information store, the processing
device including:
an application data store holding a version of the digital media in the
personal information store, and a device engine to: a) generate a
digital media file, in response to an input from the user, comprising
a second version of the media data in a same format as the first
version in the personal information store, the second version
including an update not included in the first version; (b) obtain
difference information comprising differences between the first
version of the media data and the second version of the media data;
and (c) transfer a digital media file over the network containing the
difference information from the personal information space to the
network coupled apparatus in response to a sync request made from
a web browser at the network-coupled apparatus by the user.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Id. at 14:35-57. Claim 11 has three dependent claims. See id. at 14:58-64.
C.

’696 Patent

25

The ’696 Patent is titled “Management Server for Synchronization System.” ’696 Patent.

26

The specification describes an invention that “includes a system and method for transferring data

27

between two devices which require information to be shared between them.” Id. at 4:25-27.

28

Independent claim 1 provides:
4

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 5 of 11

A controller for a synchronization system, comprising:
an authentication module identifying a user coupled to the
synchronization system; and
a synchronization manager communicating with at least one
interactive agent to control data migration between a first network
coupled device and a second network device.

1
2
3
4

Id. at 45:11-18. Seven claims depend from Claim 1. See id. at 45:19-48.

5

III.

6

LEGAL STANDARD
Section 101 of the Patent Act describes the scope of patentable subject matter as

7

encompassing “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or

8

any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is well settled that laws of nature,

9

natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are excluded from the universe of patentable subject matter.
See Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). These categories are not

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

patent-eligible because “they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work,” which are

12

“free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus

13

Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) (citations omitted). Allowing patent claims for laws of

14

nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas would “tend to impede innovation more than it

15

would tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws.” Id. at 1293.

16

However, the Supreme Court has also recognized the need to “tread carefully in construing this

17

exclusionary principle, lest it swallow all of patent law.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354.

18

The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have articulated a two-part test for determining

19

whether a claim’s subject matter is patent-eligible. First, a court “determine[s] whether a claim is

20

‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells

21

Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative

22

Servs., 132 S. Ct. at 1296-97). If so, the Court then “consider[s] the elements of the claim—both

23

individually and as an ordered combination—to assess whether the additional elements transform

24

the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.” Id. at 1347. “This

25

is the search for an ‘inventive concept’—something sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to

26

‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea itself.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs., 132 S.

27

Ct. at 1294).

28

The issue of invalidity under Section 101 presents a question of law. See DDR Holdings,
5

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 6 of 11

1

LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit has

2

“repeatedly recognized that in many cases it is possible and proper to determine patent eligibility

3

under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” FairWarning IP v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d

4

1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

5

IV.

6

ANALYSIS
A.

The Enfish Standard

7

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit elaborated on the application of the Mayo/Alice

8

standard in two cases involving claimed improvements to computer-related technology. See

9

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent

10

Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 3
Enfish held that it is “relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement in

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice

13

analysis.” 822 F.3d at 1335. “[T]he ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,

14

considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to

15

excluded subject matter.’” Id. at 1335 (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,

16

790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Enfish teaches that claims are not directed to an abstract

17

idea if their “plain focus . . . is on an improvement to computer functionality” or computer

18

capabilities. Id. at 1336.

19

Published less than a week after Enfish, TLI emphasizes that claims are drawn to an

20

abstract idea if they are directed to “the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but

21

well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to

22

any problem presented by combining the two.” 823 F.3d at 612. Thus, claims that describe “a

23

new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” are not abstract, but

24

claims that describe a system and methods in “purely functional terms” without “any technical

25

details for the tangible components” are abstract. Id.

26
3

27
28

Because Enfish was decided after the oral argument on Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court
ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing the import of that decision for the
pending motion. Dkt. No. 105. Each party timely submitted its supplemental brief. See Dkt. Nos.
107-108.
6

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 7 of 11

1

Following the decisions in Enfish and TLI, the Federal Circuit has characterized the key

2

inquiry as requiring a court to “look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific

3

means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect

4

that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v.

5

Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Tranxition, Inc. v.

6

Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., 2016 WL 6775967, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (“For claims solely

7

implemented on a computer, we have previously found it ‘relevant to ask whether the claims are

8

directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.’”

9

(quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335)). In performing this analysis, the court “must focus on the
language of the asserted claims themselves,” and “complex details from the specification cannot

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

save a claim directed to an abstract idea that recites generic computer parts.” Synopsys, Inc. v.

12

Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

13

Post-Enfish/TLI, the Federal Circuit has applied the Mayo/Alice framework in a number of

14

cases involving § 101 challenges to computer or software patents. In McRO, 837 F.3d at 1311-16,

15

the court found that the challenged patent was not directed to an abstract idea and thus denied the

16

motion to dismiss at Step One of the Mayo/Alice test. In several other cases, the Federal Circuit

17

has found patents directed to an abstract idea at Step One, and found no inventive concept

18

sufficient to establish patentable subject matter at Step Two. See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1146-52;

19

FairWarning IP, LLC, 839 F.3d at 1093-97; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838

20

F.3d 1307, 1312-22 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tranxition, 2016 WL 6775967, at *2-4. And in two cases,

21

the Federal Circuit found (or assumed) that a patent was directed to an abstract idea at Step One,

22

but found a sufficiently inventive concept to establish patentable subject matter at Step Two. See

23

Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (assuming

24

without deciding that patent was directed to an abstract idea at Step One); BASCOM Glob.

25

Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1347-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

26

This Court agrees with those judges who have observed that even post-Enfish, the

27

Mayo/Alice test provides limited practical guidance for distinguishing software and computer

28

patents that are valid under § 101 from those that are not. See Amdocs, 2016 WL 6440387, at *4
7

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 8 of 11

1

(“[A] search for a single test or definition [of what an ‘abstract idea’ encompasses] in the decided

2

cases concerning § 101 from this court, and indeed from the Supreme Court, reveals that at present

3

there is no such single, succinct, usable definition or test.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 838 F.3d

4

at 1329 (describing the “semantic gymnastics” entailed in applying the Mayo/Alice test to software

5

patents) (Mayer, J., concurring); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., 827 F.3d at 1352, 1354 (“I have

6

come upon no guide to when a claim crosses the boundary between unacceptable abstractness and

7

acceptable specificity.”) (Newman, J., concurring); Device Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com,

8

Inc., 2016 WL 2899246, at * 7 (D. Del. May 17, 2016) (discussing the “still difficult-to-discern

9

requirements of the Alice analysis,” and the resulting “difficult exercise” under § 101). Instead,
the Court is directed “to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

be seen—what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided.” Amdocs, 2016 WL

12

6440387, at *4. While the Court is of the view that a more concrete standard for identifying

13

abstract ideas would improve predictability and enable more efficient use of judicial and party

14

resources, it will do its best to apply the current guidance.

15
16

B.

The Challenged Claims are Directed to an Improvement in Computer
Capabilities
The Court finds that Enfish compels the conclusion that the challenged claims, viewed in

17
light of their respective specifications, are not directed to an abstract idea, and thus cover
18
patentable subject matter. The claims, like those in Enfish and McRO, are directed on their face to
19
an improvement to computer functionality: a more-efficient mechanism for synchronizing data
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

between systems connected to a network by updating only changed data (or “difference
information”), rather than recopying all information. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339 (structure
recited in claims was “a specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory”); McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (claims were “limited to rules
with specific characteristics,” and focused on “a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type”). By contrast, the BASCOM court
identified patent-ineligible claims as those which “claim an abstract idea implemented on generic

27
computer components, without providing a specific technical solution beyond simply using
28
8

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 9 of 11

1

generic computer concepts in a conventional way.” 827 F.3d at 1352. Here, the Court finds that

2

the challenged claims, viewed as an ordered combination, impose specific limitations sufficient

3

under Enfish and McRO to survive at the motion to dismiss stage.

4

The specifications bolster this conclusion. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337 (“Moreover, our

5

conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered

6

by the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over

7

conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory

8

requirements.”). As the specifications explain, the claims are directed to improving the manner in

9

which computers synchronize data between devices connected to a network, by making that
process faster, reducing the amount of bandwidth and storage space used, enabling

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

synchronization across different data formats, and enabling synchronization without requiring

12

devices to be physically connected. For example, the specifications explain that:

13

•

“Until now, synchronization between both documents and personal information managers

14

has occurred through direct connection between the devices, and generally directly

15

between applications such as a personal information manager in one device and a personal

16

information manager in another device or using an intermediary sync-mapping program.”

17

’757 Patent at 1:48-54; ’696 Patent at 1:47-53.

18

•

copying of full records between systems.” ’757 Patent at 2:1-22; ’696 Patent at 2:20-22.

19
20

“In a technical sense, synchronization in this manner is generally accomplished by the

•

“Such synchronization schemes are generally relatively inefficient since they require full

21

band-width of the document or binary file to be transferred via the synchronization link. In

22

addition, at some level the synchronization programs require interaction by the user to map

23

certain fields between different programs.” ’757 Patent at 2:45-50; ’696 Patent at 2:45-50.

24

•

“The same objectives . . . lend themselves to furthering applications requiring data between

25

other types of devices, on differing platforms. These objectives include speed, low

26

bandwidth, accuracy, and platform independence.” ’757 Patent at 3:4-10; ’696 Patent at

27

3:3-9.

28

•

“[I]t will be readily understood that the transmission of data compromising only the
9

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 10 of 11

1

differences in data between two systems via routines which extract the data and reassemble

2

data on the various systems, represents a significant advancement in the efficient

3

transmission of data. The present invention allows for optimization in terms of a reduction

4

in the bandwidth utilized to transmit data between two systems, since only changes to data

5

are transferred. This consequently increases the speed at which such transactions can take

6

place since the data which needs to be transmitted is substantially smaller than it would be

7

were entire files transferred between the systems.” ’757 Patent at 8:22-38; ’696 Patent at

8

7:41-57.

9

•

“Conventionally, synchronization of documents and personal information between
different devices typically occurs through direct connection between the devices.” ’446

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Patent at 2:41-43.

12

•

“In one aspect, the system . . . comprises a series of device engines which can be utilized

13

on or in conjunction with any personal information manager application or device, on

14

servers, or both, which can connect via a communications network, such as the Internet, to

15

transfer information in the form of differenced data between respective applications and

16

respective devices. In essence, the system . . . creates a personal information space or

17

personal information store . . . which is unique to an individual user or identifier.” ’446

18

Patent at 2:52-3:2.

19

•

“Users would benefit from a mechanism allowing them to select individual files, or all or a

20
portion of a directory of files, and move them to different devices in the personal
21
information space effectively and efficiently. An effective means allowing users to move
22
digital media files around the personal information space would be a great advantage in the
23

continued development of personal information spaces and the Internet.” ’446 Patent at

24
3:34-41.
25
26

•

“Once inserted into the private information space, the data can be synchronized to any

27

number of different devices . . . .” ’446 Patent at 6:24-29.

28

The express focus in the claims on improvements to the process of data synchronization on
10

Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 11 of 11

1

devices connected to computer networks distinguishes them from post-Enfish software and

2

computer-related claims found by the Federal Circuit to be directed to abstract ideas. Cf. TLI, 823

3

F.3d at 612 (claims were “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality”);

4

Tranxition, 2016 WL 6775967, at *3 (claim was not directed to an improvement in computer

5

functionality: “There is nothing in the claim to suggest that, once settings have been transitioned,

6

the target computer will be any more efficient”); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (claims were “not

7

directed to an improvement in the way computers operate”: “[w]hile the claimed system and

8

method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase

9

comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method
itself”); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1150 (on their face and under district court’s unchallenged

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

constructions, claims did not involve the use of a computer in any way, and thus “cannot be

12

characterized as an improvement in computer technology”); Intellectual Ventures I, 838 F.3d at

13

1315 (steps of asserted claims did not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and patent

14

contained no “specific or limiting recitation of improved computer technology”).

15

Whether the challenged claims satisfy the various requirements for patentability (for

16

example, nonobviousness) is a question for another day. But the Court reads Enfish and the

17

Federal Circuit cases applying it to require denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

V.

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Court SETS a case management

conference for January 3, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. to set a schedule for the remainder of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/22/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
11