throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant
`
`C.A. No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) hereby alleges for its complaint against SynKloud
`
`Technologies, LLC (“SynKloud”) on personal knowledge as to its own activities and on
`
`information and belief as to the activities of others as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement arising
`
`under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Microsoft seeks relief because Defendant SynKloud has made clear
`
`through its actions that it intends to assert at least one claim of United States Patent Nos. 9,098,526
`
`(“the ’526 Patent”), 10,015,254 (“the ’254 Patent”), 8,606,880 (“the ’6880 Patent”), 8,856,195
`
`(“the ’195 Patent”), 8,868,690 (“the ’690 Patent”), 9,219,780 (“the ’780 Patent”), 9,239,686 (“the
`
`’686 Patent”), 7,870,225 (“the ’225 Patent”), 7,792,923 (“the ’923 Patent”), 7,849,153 (“the ’153
`
`Patent”) and 7,457,880 (“the ’7880 Patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”) against
`
`Microsoft’s products and services.
`
`2.
`
`Microsoft has not infringed, and is not infringing, any claims of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit. Microsoft thus seeks a declaratory judgment that, through its actions or through the
`
`normal, advertised and expected use of its products, services or technology, it has not infringed,
`
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement by others of any claim of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`3.
`
`This relief is appropriate because Defendant SynKloud has alleged in this
`
`district that HP Inc. (“HP”), one of Microsoft’s original equipment manufacturers (“OEMs”),
`
`infringes the ’225, ’526 and ’254 Patents in part because of HP’s inclusion of Microsoft’s
`
`OneDrive cloud storage software (“OneDrive”) in the accused HP products. SynKloud’s
`
`Amended Complaint against HP further identifies that: (1) the ’225 Patent is related to the ’923
`
`Patent; (2) the ’526 Patent is related to the ’690 and ’6880 Patents; and (3) the ’254 Patent is related
`
`to the ’686 and ’6880 Patents. SynKloud Techs., LLC v. HP Inc., 1:19-cv-1360-RGA, D.I. 15 at
`
`3, 8 and 12 (D. Del. Nov. 12, 2019). Further, SynKloud has launched a litigation campaign based
`
`on the Patents-in-Suit, including filing suit against a number of Microsoft competitors in the cloud
`
`storage industry alleging that they also infringe certain Patents-in-Suit on their counterpart cloud
`
`storage technology. In its other lawsuits, SynKloud has asserted one or more of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit selectively while making the same or substantially similar allegations regarding the allegedly
`
`infringing conduct.
`
`4.
`
`These activities by SynKloud, including SynKloud’s claims and references
`
`to Microsoft software, have placed a cloud over Microsoft and its products and have created a
`
`substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy between Microsoft and
`
`SynKloud over whether Microsoft’s software and services infringe any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Microsoft is a Washington state corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SynKloud is a limited liability
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at
`
`124 Broadkill Road, Suite 415, Milton, DE 19968.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action arises under the United States patent laws and includes a request
`
`for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338,
`
`and 2201, and 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`9.
`
`SynKloud is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.
`
`SynKloud is a Delaware limited liability company with its primary place of business located within
`
`this district, and it has sufficient business or contacts within the State of Delaware to justify
`
`jurisdiction under the United States Constitution and the Delaware Long Arm Statute.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
`
`11. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates by reference each of Paragraphs 1-10
`
`above.
`
`12.
`
`An actual controversy exists within the jurisdiction of this Court under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`13.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’526 Patent, entitled
`
`“System and Method for Wireless Device Access to External Storage.” The ’526 Patent has been
`
`asserted by SynKloud against HP. A copy of the ’526 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`14.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’254 Patent, entitled
`
`“System and Method for Wireless Device Access to External Storage.” The ’254 Patent is in the
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`same family as the ’526 Patent and has been asserted by SynKloud against HP. A copy of the ’254
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`15.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’6880 Patent, entitled
`
`“Use of Wireless Devices’ External Storage.” The ’6880 Patent is in the same family as the ’526
`
`and ’254 Patents and was identified by SynKloud in its Amended Complaint against HP. A copy
`
`of the ’6880 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`16.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’195 Patent, entitled
`
`“Method and System for Wireless Device Access to External Storage.” The ’195 Patent is in the
`
`same family as the ’526, ’254 and ’6880 Patents. A copy of the ’195 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`17.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’690 Patent, entitled
`
`“System and Method for Support Wireless Device Access to External Storage.” The ’690 Patent
`
`is in the same family as the ’526, ’254, ’6880 and ’195 Patents and was identified by SynKloud in
`
`its Amended Complaint against HP. A copy of the ’690 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`18.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’780 Patent, entitled
`
`“Method and System for Wireless Device Access to External Storage.” The ’780 Patent is in the
`
`same family as the ’526, ’254, ’6880, ’195 and ’690 Patents. A copy of the ’780 Patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`19.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’686 Patent, entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Wireless Devices Access to External Storage.” The ’686 Patent is in
`
`the same family as the ’526, ’254, ’6880, ’195, ’690 and ’780 Patents and was identified by
`
`SynKloud in its Amended Complaint against HP. A copy of the ’686 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit G.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`20.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’225 Patent, entitled “Disk
`
`System Adapted to be Directly Attached to network.” A copy of the ’225 Patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit H.
`
`21.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’923 Patent, entitled “Disk
`
`System Adapted to be Directly Attached to Network.” The ’923 Patent is in the same family as
`
`the ’225 Patent and was identified by SynKloud in its Amended Complaint against HP. A copy
`
`of the ’923 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
`
`22.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’153 Patent, entitled
`
`“Method and System for Wireless Device Access to External Storage.” The ’153 Patent is in the
`
`same family as the ’225 and ’923 Patents. A copy of the ’153 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`J.
`
`23.
`
`SynKloud purports to be the current owner of the ’7880 Patent, entitled
`
`“System Using a Single Host to Receive and Redirect All File Access Commands for Shared Data
`
`Storage Device From Other Hosts on a Network.” A copy of the ’7880 Patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit K.
`
`24.
`
`Since at least 2007, Microsoft has developed, marketed, used and offered
`
`for sale its OneDrive software. OneDrive allows users to safely and securely store data on a cloud
`
`storage service while also allowing users to access that stored data from multiple devices.
`
`25.
`
`On July 22, 2019, SynKloud filed an action against HP in the District of
`
`Delaware alleging infringement of the ’526 and ’254 Patents. See SynKloud Techs., LLC v. HP
`
`Inc., No. 1:19-cv-01360-RGA (D. Del.). On November 12, 2019, SynKloud amended its
`
`Complaint to also include allegations regarding the ’225 Patent as well as a fourth patent unrelated
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`to the technology at issue here. SynKloud’s Amended Complaint further identified the ’923,
`
`’6880, ’690 and ’686 Patents as being related to the ’225, ’526 and ’254 Patents.
`
`26.
`
`In its Amended Complaint against HP, SynKloud included claim charts
`
`purporting to support its infringement theories. These claim charts accuse Microsoft’s products,
`
`services and technology, including Microsoft OneDrive of infringing the ’225, ’526 and ’254
`
`Patents. Copies of these claim charts are attached as Exhibits L, M, and N.
`
`27.
`
`SynKloud has further initiated a litigation campaign, including against a
`
`number of Microsoft competitors accusing cloud storage technology similar to that accused in the
`
`HP action as infringing patents with substantially similar claims as those patents asserted against
`
`HP. SynKloud has asserted one or more of the Patents-in-Suit in each case of its litigation
`
`campaign. See SynKloud Techs., LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00525-ADA (W.D. Tex.,
`
`Waco Division) (asserting ’7880 Patent); SynKloud Techs., LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`
`00526-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Division) (asserting ’254, ’6880, ’195, ’690, ’780 and ’686
`
`Patents); SynKloud Techs., LLC v. Adobe Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00527-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco
`
`Division) (asserting ’254, ’6880, ’195, ’690, ’780 and ’686 Patents); and SynKloud Techs., LLC v.
`
`BLU Products, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00553-RGA (D. Del.) (asserting ’254, ’526 and ’780 Patents).
`
`28.
`
`These actions, in combination with its public statements, have made clear
`
`that SynKloud intends to enforce its patent portfolio broadly and generically against the entire
`
`cloud storage industry, and against Microsoft products specifically. SynKloud claims that it is “a
`
`research and Intellectual Property Licensing company . . . focused on providing needed Intellectual
`
`Property Solutions for the cloud computing industry and beyond.”1 SynKloud further alleges that
`
`it “offer[s] a beneficial and transparent portfolio license to the [cloud computing] industry under
`
`
`1 See https://www.synkloud.com.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`its entire patent portfolio . . . .” It “offers portfolio licenses to customers, users and industry
`
`participants under the entire SynKloud portfolio . . . .”2 Each of the Patents-in-Suit is part of this
`
`“SynKloud portfolio.”3 SynKloud also claims that its portfolio is directed to products in every
`
`space of cloud storage technology:
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor any of its products, services or technology infringe
`
`or have infringed, directly or indirectly, any claim of the Patents-in-Suit. However, SynKloud’s
`
`claims, allegations and statements directed to the cloud storage industry generally and OneDrive
`
`specifically have placed a cloud of uncertainty over Microsoft and its products. This uncertainty
`
`has created a substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy between
`
`
`2 See https://www.synkloud.com/licensing.
`3 See https://www.synkloud.com/portfolio.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`Microsoft and SynKloud regarding the Patents-in-Suit. Regardless of its public assertions to date,
`
`SynKloud’s actions demonstrate that it intends to assert the ’6880, ’195, ’690, ’780, ’686, ’923,
`
`’153 and ’7880 Patents against Microsoft, Microsoft products, and/or Microsoft OEMs, as it
`
`already has asserted patents selectively from the same families, which contain claims that are
`
`substantially similar. Each of the Patents-in-Suit that has not yet been asserted in court against a
`
`Microsoft product or customer has claims that are substantially similar to the ’526, ’254 and ’225
`
`Patents asserted against HP. Compare, e.g., Exhibit A (the ’526 Patent), Claim 1 (“establish a
`
`wireless link for the wireless device access to a storage space of a predefined capacity assigned
`
`exclusively to a user of the wireless device by a storage server”) and Exhibit F (the ’780 Patent),
`
`claim 1 (“program instructions for establishing a wireless link for remotely access to the storage
`
`space, the storage space allocated exclusively by a storage server to a user of the wireless device”);
`
`compare Exhibit H (the ’255 patent), claim 1 (“the virtual host bus adapter controlling the NAD
`
`in a way indistinguishable from the way as a physical host bus adapter device controls device so
`
`that the host recognizes the NAD as if it is a local device connected directly to the system bus of
`
`the host) and Exhibit J (the ’153 patent), claim 1 (“the virtual host bus adapter controlling the
`
`device in a way indistinguishable from the way it is controlled as a physical host bus adapter device
`
`controlling the same type of device so that the host recognizes the device as if it is a local device
`
`connected directly to the system bus of the host”); see also Exhibits A, B, D-G (claiming priority
`
`to Appl. No. 10/726,897 which issued as the ’6880 Patent).
`
`30.
`
`Accordingly, SynKloud’s statements and actions show that there is a
`
`substantial controversy between Microsoft and SynKloud of sufficient immediacy and reality
`
`conferring jurisdiction upon this Court pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`2201 and 2202.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,098,526
`
`31. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-30 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`32.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’526 Patent. For example, Microsoft OneDrive does not
`
`contain a “storage space of a predefined capacity assigned exclusively to a user of the wireless
`
`device by a storage server,” which is required by all the claims of the ’526 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’526 Patent.
`
`34. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’526
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT II
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,015,254
`
`35. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-34 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`36.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’254 Patent. For example, Microsoft OneDrive does not
`
`“carry out a requested operation for accessing [a] remote storage space in response to a user,
`
`through the remote storage space displayed on [a] wireless device, performing [an] operation,”
`
`which is required by all the claims of the ’254 Patent.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`37.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’254 Patent.
`
`38. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’254
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`COUNT III
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,606,880
`
`39. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-38 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`40.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’6880 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`“allocate[e] via a server a storage space of a predefined capacity for [a] wireless device,” which is
`
`required by all the claims of the ’6880 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’6880 Patent.
`
`42. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’6880
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,856,195
`
`43. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-42 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`44.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’195 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`“allocat[e] via a server a storage space of a predefined capacity for [a] wireless device,” which is
`
`required by all the claims of the ’195 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’195 Patent.
`
`46. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’195
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT V
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,868,690
`
`47. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-46 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`48.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’690 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`“allocate, via [a] storage device, a storage space of a predefined capacity to a wireless device,”
`
`which is required by all the claims of the ’690 Patent.
`
`49.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’690 Patent.
`
`50. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’690
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT VI
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,219,780
`
`51. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-50 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’780 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`have “storage space allocated exclusively by a storage server to a user of [a] wireless device,”
`
`which is required by all the claims of the ’780 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’780 Patent.
`
`54. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’780
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT VII
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,239,686
`
`55. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-54 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`56.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’686 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`include “program instructions for allocating exclusively a first . . . storage space to a user of a first
`
`wireless device,” which is required by all the claims of the ’686 Patent.
`
`57.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’686 Patent.
`
`58. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’686
`
`Patent.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`COUNT VIII
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,870,225
`
`59. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-58 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`60.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’225 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`contain a “virtual host bus adapter controlling [a network-attached device] in a way
`
`indistinguishable from the way as a physical host bus adapter device[s] so that the host recognizes
`
`the [network-attached device] as if it is a local device connected directly to the system bus of the
`
`host,” which is required by all the claims of the ’225 Patent.
`
`61.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’225 Patent.
`
`62. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’225
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT IX
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,792,923
`
`63. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-62 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`64.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’923 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`contains a controller “wherein access to the disk is operatively controlled by the disk controller
`
`[and] no disk access command is required to be routed through a server,” which is required by all
`
`the claims of the ’923 Patent.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`65.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’923 Patent.
`
`66. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’923
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT X
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,849,153
`
`67. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-66 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`68.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’153 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive storage
`
`devices are not “controll[ed] in a way indistinguishable from the way” user device “physical host
`
`bus adapter device[s] control[] the same type of device so that” user devices recognize storage
`
`devices “as if [they are] a local device connected directly to the system bus” of the user device,
`
`which is required by all the claims of the ’153 Patent.
`
`69.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’153 Patent.
`
`70. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’153
`
`Patent.
`
`COUNT XI
`NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,457,880
`
`71. Microsoft re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1-70 as
`
`if set forth herein in their entirety.
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`72.
`
`Neither Microsoft nor its products, services or technology have infringed,
`
`directly or indirectly, any claim of the ’7880 Patent. For example, Microsoft’s OneDrive does not
`
`have “a plurality of hosts coupled at a device level to [a] data storage device.”
`
`73.
`
`A substantial, definite, concrete and immediate justiciable controversy
`
`exists between Microsoft and SynKloud with respect to whether Microsoft infringes any claim of
`
`the ’7880 Patent.
`
`74. Microsoft seeks a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of the ’7880
`
`Patent.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Microsoft prays for an Order and entry of Judgment against SynKloud as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’526
`
`Patent;
`
`B.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’254
`
`Patent;
`
`C.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’6880
`
`Patent;
`
`D.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’195
`
`Patent;
`
`E.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’690
`
`Patent;
`
`F.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’780
`
`Patent;
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`G.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’686
`
`Patent;
`
`H.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’225
`
`Patent;
`
`I.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’923
`
`Patent;
`
`J.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’153
`
`Patent;
`
`K.
`
`Declaring that Microsoft does not infringe, directly or indirectly, the ’7880
`
`Patent;
`
`L.
`
`Declaring the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding
`
`Microsoft its reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action;
`
`Awarding Microsoft its costs and expenses in this action; and
`
`Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems proper and just.
`
`M.
`
`N.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Microsoft, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury
`
`of any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00007-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/20 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Richard A. Cederoth
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, IL 60603
`(312) 853-7000
`
`Ching-Lee Fukuda
`Ketan V. Patel
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`787 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 839-5300
`
`
`
`Dated: January 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Travis S. Hunter (#5350)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`hunter@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`RLF1 22674304v.2
`
`17
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket