UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`ADOBE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2020-01235
`Patent No. 10,015,254
`___________
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________
`
`ADOBE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`___________
`
`Case IPR2020-01235
`Patent No. 10,015,254
`___________
`
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254 (the “’254 Patent”)
`
`Prosecution history of U.S. Application No. 14/977,509, which led
`to the issuance of the ’254 Patent (“File History”)
`
`Declaration of Jon Weissman, Ph.D. Regarding U.S. Patent
`No. 10,015,254
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,735,623 (“Prust”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US2001/0028363 (“Nomoto”)
`
`PCT Publication WO 02/052785, PCT/CA01/01857 (“Major”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,309,305 (“Kraft”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US2002/0019908 (“Reuter”)
`
`U.S. Patent 6,745,207
`
`RFC 793: “Transmission Control Protocol, DARPA Internet
`Program, Protocol Specification”
`
`RFC 959: “File Transfer Protocol (FTP)”
`
`RFC 1945: “Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0”
`
`RFC 2518: “HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring –
`WEBDAV”
`
`“Disconnected Operation in the Coda File System,” James J. Kistler
`and M. Satyanarayanan, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems,
`Vol. 10, No. 1, February 1992
`
`“TranSquid: Transcoding and Caching Proxy for Heterogeneous E-
`Commerce Environments,” Maheshwari et al., Proceedings of the
`12th International Workshop on Research Issues in Data
`Engineering: Engineering e-Commerce/e-Business Systems (RIDE
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`’02), 2002
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`“Managing Update Conflicts in Bayou, a Weakly Connected
`Replicated Storage System,” Terry et al., SOSP ’95: 15th ACM
`Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Copper Mountain
`Colorado USA, December, 1995
`
`“A Mobility-Aware File System for Partially Connected Operation”
`by Dwyer et al., ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, January
`1997
`
`“Reducing File System Latency using a Predictive Approach” by
`Griffioen et al., USTC ’94: Proceedings of the USENIX Summer
`1994 Technical Conference on USENIX Summer 1994 Technical
`Conference - Volume 1, 1994
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,117,644
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,907,225
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0167316
`(“Bramnick”)
`
`“Wireless Application Protocol Architecture Specification,”
`Wireless Application Protocol Forum, Ltd., (Apr. 30, 1998)
`
`“WebDAV: What It Is, What It Does, Why You Need It,”
`Hernández, et al., SIGUCCS ’03: Proceedings of the 31st annual
`ACM SIGUCCS Fall Conference, 2003
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0067742
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 15th Edition, Miller Freeman, Inc.,
`1999 (excerpts)
`
`Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft
`Press, 1997 (excerpts)
`
`The New Penguin Dictionary of Computing, Dick Pountain, 2001
`(excerpts)
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`Description
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order in SynKloud Technologies LLC v. Adobe,
`Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00527-ADA (W.D. Tex.) dated January 22,
`2020
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order in SynKloud Technologies LLC v.
`Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00525-ADA (W.D. Tex.) dated
`January 22, 2020
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order in SynKloud Technologies LLC v.
`Dropbox, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00526-ADA (W.D. Tex.) dated
`January 22, 2020
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas dated May 8, 2020
`
`Supplemental Order Regarding Court Operations Under the Exigent
`Circumstances Created by the COVID-19 Pandemic, United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas dated June 18, 2020
`
`Defendant Adobe Inc.’s Disclosure of Proposed Constructions,
`dated May 15, 2020
`
`Plaintiff SynKloud Technologies, LLC’s Revised Claim
`Construction Chart, dated June 12, 2020
`
`Summon in a Civil Action with Affidavit of Service in SynKloud
`Technologies LLC v. Adobe, Inc., Case No. 6:19-cv-00527-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed in SynKloud Technologies,
`LLC v. HP, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-01360-UNA (D. Del.)
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement filed in SynKloud Technologies,
`LLC v. BLU Products, Inc., Case No. 1:19-cv-00553-UNA (D. Del.)
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed in Microsoft Corp. v.
`SynKloud Technologies, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00007-UNA (D.
`Del.)
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`Description
`
`Microsoft Corporation’s Opposition to SynKloud’s Motion to
`Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(h)(3), Lack of
`Standing and 12(b)(6)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526 (the “’526 Patent”)
`
`Stipulation
`
`Declaration of Winston Liaw in Support of Petition for Inter Partes
`Review
`
`Order entered in In re Adobe Inc., No. 2020-126 (Fed. Cir. July 28,
`2020)
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 26, 2020, the foregoing Petitioner’s
`
`Updated List of Exhibits and Exhibit 1043 were served by electronic means to
`
`counsel of record:
`
`Dr. Gregory J. Gonsalves
`gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`
`and
`
`Yeasun Yoon
`yoon@capitoliplaw.com
`
` /s/ James L. Day
`James L. Day
`Registration No. 72,681
`
`August 26, 2020
`235 Montgomery Street
`San Francisco, CA
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
