`
`
`
`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
`
`