Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 11
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DROPBOX INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00119-HSG
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 81
`
`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.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`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.
`
`A.
`
`’757 Patent
`
`The ’757 Patent is titled “Data Transfer and Synchronization.” ’757 Patent. The
`
`specification describes a system and method for “efficiently, quickly, and easily synchronizing
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`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.
`
`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:
`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
`
`
`1 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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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.
`
`
`Id. at 48:51-64. Claim 24 has five dependent claims. See id. at 48:65-50:9.
`
`B.
`
`’446 Patent
`
`The ’446 Patent incorporates the ’757 Patent in its entirety, and is titled “Acquisition and
`
`Synchronization of Digital Media to a Personal Information Space.” The invention “comprises a
`
`method for acquiring and maintaining a digital music store in personal information space,
`
`comprising: maintaining a personal information space identified with a user including data capable
`
`of being used on a client device, and transferring at least a portion of the data from the personal
`
`information space to an Internet-coupled device in response to a user request.” ’446 Patent at
`
`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
`
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`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.
`
`
`’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:
`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.
`
`Id. at 14:35-57. Claim 11 has three dependent claims. See id. at 14:58-64.
`
`C.
`
`’696 Patent
`
`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:
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`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.
`
`Id. at 45:11-18. Seven claims depend from Claim 1. See id. at 45:19-48.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`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 thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is well settled that laws of nature,
`
`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
`
`patent-eligible because “they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work,” which are
`
`“free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012) (citations omitted). Allowing patent claims for laws of
`
`nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas would “tend to impede innovation more than it
`
`would tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws.” Id. at 1293.
`
`However, the Supreme Court has also recognized the need to “tread carefully in construing this
`
`exclusionary principle, lest it swallow all of patent law.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
`
`The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have articulated a two-part test for determining
`
`whether a claim’s subject matter is patent-eligible. First, a court “determine[s] whether a claim is
`
`‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible abstract idea.” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative
`
`Servs., 132 S. Ct. at 1296-97). If so, the Court then “consider[s] the elements of the claim—both
`
`individually and as an ordered combination—to assess whether the additional elements transform
`
`the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.” Id. at 1347. “This
`
`is the search for an ‘inventive concept’—something sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
`
`‘significantly more’ than the abstract idea itself.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs., 132 S.
`
`Ct. at 1294).
`
`The issue of invalidity under Section 101 presents a question of law. See DDR Holdings,
`
`5
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit has
`
`“repeatedly recognized that in many cases it is possible and proper to determine patent eligibility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” FairWarning IP v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
`
`1089, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`A. The Enfish Standard
`
`Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit elaborated on the application of the Mayo/Alice
`
`standard in two cases involving claimed improvements to computer-related technology. See
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
`
`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
`
`computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at the first step of the Alice
`
`analysis.” 822 F.3d at 1335. “[T]he ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims,
`
`considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to
`
`excluded subject matter.’” Id. at 1335 (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`
`790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Enfish teaches that claims are not directed to an abstract
`
`idea if their “plain focus . . . is on an improvement to computer functionality” or computer
`
`capabilities. Id. at 1336.
`
`Published less than a week after Enfish, TLI emphasizes that claims are drawn to an
`
`abstract idea if they are directed to “the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but
`
`well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to
`
`any problem presented by combining the two.” 823 F.3d at 612. Thus, claims that describe “a
`
`new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” are not abstract, but
`
`claims that describe a system and methods in “purely functional terms” without “any technical
`
`details for the tangible components” are abstract. Id.
`
`
`3 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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Following the decisions in Enfish and TLI, the Federal Circuit has characterized the key
`
`inquiry as requiring a court to “look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific
`
`means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect
`
`that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v.
`
`Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Tranxition, Inc. v.
`
`Lenovo (U.S.) Inc., 2016 WL 6775967, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (“For claims solely
`
`implemented on a computer, we have previously found it ‘relevant to ask whether the claims are
`
`directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea.’”
`
`(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
`
`save a claim directed to an abstract idea that recites generic computer parts.” Synopsys, Inc. v.
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Post-Enfish/TLI, the Federal Circuit has applied the Mayo/Alice framework in a number of
`
`cases involving § 101 challenges to computer or software patents. In McRO, 837 F.3d at 1311-16,
`
`the court found that the challenged patent was not directed to an abstract idea and thus denied the
`
`motion to dismiss at Step One of the Mayo/Alice test. In several other cases, the Federal Circuit
`
`has found patents directed to an abstract idea at Step One, and found no inventive concept
`
`sufficient to establish patentable subject matter at Step Two. See Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1146-52;
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC, 839 F.3d at 1093-97; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
`
`F.3d 1307, 1312-22 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tranxition, 2016 WL 6775967, at *2-4. And in two cases,
`
`the Federal Circuit found (or assumed) that a patent was directed to an abstract idea at Step One,
`
`but found a sufficiently inventive concept to establish patentable subject matter at Step Two. See
`
`Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1299-1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (assuming
`
`without deciding that patent was directed to an abstract idea at Step One); BASCOM Glob.
`
`Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1347-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`This Court agrees with those judges who have observed that even post-Enfish, the
`
`Mayo/Alice test provides limited practical guidance for distinguishing software and computer
`
`patents that are valid under § 101 from those that are not. See Amdocs, 2016 WL 6440387, at *4
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`(“[A] search for a single test or definition [of what an ‘abstract idea’ encompasses] in the decided
`
`cases concerning § 101 from this court, and indeed from the Supreme Court, reveals that at present
`
`there is no such single, succinct, usable definition or test.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 838 F.3d
`
`at 1329 (describing the “semantic gymnastics” entailed in applying the Mayo/Alice test to software
`
`patents) (Mayer, J., concurring); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., 827 F.3d at 1352, 1354 (“I have
`
`come upon no guide to when a claim crosses the boundary between unacceptable abstractness and
`
`acceptable specificity.”) (Newman, J., concurring); Device Enhancement LLC v. Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., 2016 WL 2899246, at * 7 (D. Del. May 17, 2016) (discussing the “still difficult-to-discern
`
`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
`
`be seen—what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided.” Amdocs, 2016 WL
`
`6440387, at *4. While the Court is of the view that a more concrete standard for identifying
`
`abstract ideas would improve predictability and enable more efficient use of judicial and party
`
`resources, it will do its best to apply the current guidance.
`
`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
`
`light of their respective specifications, are not directed to an abstract idea, and thus cover
`
`patentable subject matter. The claims, like those in Enfish and McRO, are directed on their face to
`
`an improvement to computer functionality: a more-efficient mechanism for synchronizing data
`
`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
`
`computer components, without providing a specific technical solution beyond simply using
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`generic computer concepts in a conventional way.” 827 F.3d at 1352. Here, the Court finds that
`
`the challenged claims, viewed as an ordered combination, impose specific limitations sufficient
`
`under Enfish and McRO to survive at the motion to dismiss stage.
`
`The specifications bolster this conclusion. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337 (“Moreover, our
`
`conclusion that the claims are directed to an improvement of an existing technology is bolstered
`
`by the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over
`
`conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory
`
`requirements.”). As the specifications explain, the claims are directed to improving the manner in
`
`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
`
`synchronization across different data formats, and enabling synchronization without requiring
`
`devices to be physically connected. For example, the specifications explain that:
`
`• “Until now, synchronization between both documents and personal information managers
`
`has occurred through direct connection between the devices, and generally directly
`
`between applications such as a personal information manager in one device and a personal
`
`information manager in another device or using an intermediary sync-mapping program.”
`
`’757 Patent at 1:48-54; ’696 Patent at 1:47-53.
`
`• “In a technical sense, synchronization in this manner is generally accomplished by the
`
`copying of full records between systems.” ’757 Patent at 2:1-22; ’696 Patent at 2:20-22.
`
`• “Such synchronization schemes are generally relatively inefficient since they require full
`
`band-width of the document or binary file to be transferred via the synchronization link. In
`
`addition, at some level the synchronization programs require interaction by the user to map
`
`certain fields between different programs.” ’757 Patent at 2:45-50; ’696 Patent at 2:45-50.
`
`• “The same objectives . . . lend themselves to furthering applications requiring data between
`
`other types of devices, on differing platforms. These objectives include speed, low
`
`bandwidth, accuracy, and platform independence.” ’757 Patent at 3:4-10; ’696 Patent at
`
`3:3-9.
`
`• “[I]t will be readily understood that the transmission of data compromising only the
`
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`differences in data between two systems via routines which extract the data and reassemble
`
`data on the various systems, represents a significant advancement in the efficient
`
`transmission of data. The present invention allows for optimization in terms of a reduction
`
`in the bandwidth utilized to transmit data between two systems, since only changes to data
`
`are transferred. This consequently increases the speed at which such transactions can take
`
`place since the data which needs to be transmitted is substantially smaller than it would be
`
`were entire files transferred between the systems.” ’757 Patent at 8:22-38; ’696 Patent at
`
`7:41-57.
`
`• “Conventionally, synchronization of documents and personal information between
`
`different devices typically occurs through direct connection between the devices.” ’446
`
`Patent at 2:41-43.
`
`• “In one aspect, the system . . . comprises a series of device engines which can be utilized
`
`on or in conjunction with any personal information manager application or device, on
`
`servers, or both, which can connect via a communications network, such as the Internet, to
`
`transfer information in the form of differenced data between respective applications and
`
`respective devices. In essence, the system . . . creates a personal information space or
`
`personal information store . . . which is unique to an individual user or identifier.” ’446
`
`Patent at 2:52-3:2.
`
`• “Users would benefit from a mechanism allowing them to select individual files, or all or a
`
`portion of a directory of files, and move them to different devices in the personal
`
`information space effectively and efficiently. An effective means allowing users to move
`
`digital media files around the personal information space would be a great advantage in the
`
`continued development of personal information spaces and the Internet.” ’446 Patent at
`
`3:34-41.
`
`• “Once inserted into the private information space, the data can be synchronized to any
`
`number of different devices . . . .” ’446 Patent at 6:24-29.
`
`The express focus in the claims on improvements to the process of data synchronization on
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 110 Filed 12/22/16 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`devices connected to computer networks distinguishes them from post-Enfish software and
`
`computer-related claims found by the Federal Circuit to be directed to abstract ideas. Cf. TLI, 823
`
`F.3d at 612 (claims were “not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality”);
`
`Tranxition, 2016 WL 6775967, at *3 (claim was not directed to an improvement in computer
`
`functionality: “There is nothing in the claim to suggest that, once settings have been transitioned,
`
`the target computer will be any more efficient”); FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095 (claims were “not
`
`directed to an improvement in the way computers operate”: “[w]hile the claimed system and
`
`method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed increase
`
`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
`
`constructions, claims did not involve the use of a computer in any way, and thus “cannot be
`
`characterized as an improvement in computer technology”); Intellectual Ventures I, 838 F.3d at
`
`1315 (steps of asserted claims did not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and patent
`
`contained no “specific or limiting recitation of improved computer technology”).
`
`Whether the challenged claims satisfy the various requirements for patentability (for
`
`example, nonobviousness) is a question for another day. But the Court reads Enfish and the
`
`Federal Circuit cases applying it to require denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
`
`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:
`
`______________________________________
`HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`12/22/2016
`
`SYNCHRONOSS Exhibit 2007
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. - IPR2016-00850
`
`