DCT

1:19-cv-00553

Synkloud Tech LLC v. BLU Products Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00553, D. Del., 03/22/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and conducts business in the district through established distribution channels.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and tablets, which utilize cloud services, infringe three patents related to methods for wireless devices to access and manage remote external storage.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the limited local storage capacity of early mobile devices by enabling them to use server-side storage, including methods to offload large downloads directly to the server.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit descend from a common priority application filed in 2003. The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents via a letter from the Plaintiff. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526, one of the patents-in-suit, was the subject of inter partes review proceedings (IPR2019-01655, IPR2020-00316). The resulting IPR certificate, issued February 4, 2022, indicates that all claims of the '526 patent, including asserted claim 1, were cancelled.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-04 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2015-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526 Issued
2015-12-22 U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780 Issued
2018-07-03 U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254 Issued
2019-03-22 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526, "System and Method for Wireless Device Access to External Storage," Issued August 4, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the problem of limited storage capacity on wireless devices like cell phones and PDAs, which hinders users from storing large multimedia files. (’526 Patent, col. 2:29-35).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a server provides external storage space that is exclusively assigned to a wireless device user. The system allows the wireless device not only to manage files on this remote storage but also to offload the task of downloading content from other websites; the device can instruct the storage server to directly download a file from a third-party source into the user's assigned remote space by utilizing download information (e.g., a URL) that the device has cached. (’526 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-21).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture aimed to conserve the limited processing power, battery life, and data bandwidth of early mobile devices by shifting storage and download burdens to a more capable remote server. (’526 Patent, col. 2:35-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶16).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A wireless device with a cache storage and wireless interface.
    • Program code to establish a wireless link to a "storage space of a predefined capacity assigned exclusively to a user" by a storage server.
    • The ability to perform remote access operations, including storing or retrieving data objects.
    • A "storing" operation that includes downloading a file from a remote server into the assigned storage space by "utilizing download information for the file stored in said cache storage."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶16, fn. 1).

U.S. Patent No. 9,219,780, "Method and System for Wireless Device Access to External Storage," Issued December 22, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the common issue of insufficient storage capacity on wireless devices for the growing volume of personal and multimedia data. (’780 Patent, col. 2:40-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where a wireless device accesses a dedicated remote storage space. The core claimed process involves the wireless device using cached "download information," specifically including the file name and IP address of a remote server, to direct its primary storage server to perform a download from that remote server into the user's allocated space. (’780 Patent, Abstract; claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The solution allows a resource-constrained device to initiate and complete a large download to its cloud storage without the data passing through the device itself, preserving its local resources. (’780 Patent, col. 2:50-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶28).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A wireless device with a cache storage and program instructions.
    • Instructions for establishing a link to a storage space "allocated exclusively" to the user by a storage server.
    • Instructions for presenting the storage space to the user.
    • Instructions for storing data, which includes "downloading a file from a remote server across the Internet into the storage space through utilizing download information for the file, including name of the file and internet protocol ('IP') address of the remote server, cached in the cache storage."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶28, fn. 2).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,015,254, "System and Method for Wireless Device Access to External Storage," issued July 3, 2018. (Compl. ¶36).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of limited storage on wireless devices by disclosing a system where a wireless device with a cache accesses an exclusive remote storage space on a first server. The device can direct that first server to download a file from a second server by transmitting cached file information to the first server, which then performs the download. (’254 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:5-32).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that all BLU smartphones and tablets using cloud services like Google Drive, including the VIVO One and VIVO XI+, infringe the patent. (Compl. ¶39).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "all BLU smartphones and tablets that use cloud services like Google Drive," with the "VIVO One and VIVO XI+" models identified as specific examples. (Compl. ¶15, ¶27, ¶39).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products infringe by incorporating functionality to access and use cloud services such as Google Drive. (Compl. ¶15). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant provides "support material" and "instructions" to users regarding the use of these cloud services. (Compl. ¶17, ¶29, ¶41). The complaint identifies numerous BLU product families, including the Advance, C, Dash, and Vivo Series, suggesting the infringement allegations span a broad portion of Defendant's product lines. (Compl. ¶18, ¶30, ¶42). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2, 4, and 6) that were not included in the provided filing. (Compl. ¶16, ¶28, ¶40). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that when users of accused BLU products, such as the VIVO One and VIVO XI+, use cloud services like Google Drive, they are directly infringing at least claim 1 of each of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶16, ¶28, ¶40). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the functionality of a modern smartphone interacting with a cloud storage service maps onto the claimed method of a wireless device accessing a dedicated remote storage space and directing that remote storage to download files from other locations on the internet. (Compl. ¶15, ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused products' use of Google Drive is alleged to meet each limitation of the asserted claims, instead incorporating the unprovided claim charts by reference.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether a user's account on a public cloud platform like Google Drive, which operates on shared infrastructure, meets the claim requirement for a "storage space... allocated exclusively to a user." (’526 Patent, claim 1). The defense could argue this language requires a physically or logically partitioned server under the direct control of the service provider described in the patent, not a third-party public cloud service.
    • Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused products perform the specific multi-step download process recited in the claims. The claims require the wireless device to use cached information to instruct a first server (the storage server) to download a file from a second server. The court may need to determine if the accused products' interaction with Google Drive follows this specific architecture, or if they use a different method, such as the device downloading a file itself and then uploading it to the cloud.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’526 and ’780 Patents:

  • The Term: "storage space ... allocated exclusively to a user"

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement claim depends heavily on whether a standard user account on a third-party cloud service like Google Drive can be considered "allocated exclusively." Practitioners may focus on this term because it represents a potential mismatch between the patent's description of a bespoke, partitioned system and the accused public cloud environment.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses assigning a user "for access to a specific storage volume," which could be argued to cover the logical separation of a user's account space, even on shared hardware. (’526 Patent, col. 2:44-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes a server partitioning "its storage system" into "multiple GB" volumes for a "maximum number of the wireless devices," which suggests a single, managed system directly allocating its own resources, rather than a user independently signing up for a public service. (’526 Patent, col. 4:1-6).

  • The Term: "utilizing download information for the file ... cached in the cache storage" to cause a download.

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical mechanism of the invention. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused products actually perform this specific two-step, offloaded download or use a more conventional download-then-upload process.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the device obtaining download information from a webpage, which then "becomes available in the cached web-pages," a process that could be argued to read on any temporary caching of a URL before a save-to-cloud action. (’526 Patent, col. 5:12-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 of the patents explicitly depicts three distinct communication paths: (a) between the device and a remote website, (b) between the device and the storage server, and (c) between the storage server and the remote website. (’526 Patent, Fig. 3). This figure strongly suggests a specific architecture where the device acts as a controller, directing the storage server to fetch data from another source, a process that may not be technically equivalent to how all cloud services operate.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint lays the groundwork for an induced infringement claim by alleging that Defendant provides "support material for the BLU VIVO One and VIVO XI+ with instructions about their use of cloud services like Google Drive that practice at least claim 1" of the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶17, ¶29, ¶41).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. For all three patents, it alleges that "prior to the filing of this Complaint, BLU received a letter from SynKloud stating that the ... Patent was being practiced in cloud service-enabled products that were being used, offered for sale and sold by BLU." (Compl. ¶20, ¶32, ¶44).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • Patent Viability: A threshold issue for U.S. Patent No. 9,098,526 is its enforceability. Post-filing inter partes review proceedings resulted in a certificate cancelling all claims of the '526 patent, including the one asserted in this case. The continued viability of the remaining two patents may also face validity challenges based on similar grounds.
  • Definitional Scope: A central question on the merits will be one of claim construction: can the term "storage space allocated exclusively to a user," which originates in the context of a server partitioning its own storage, be construed to read on a user’s account within a public, multi-tenant cloud service like Google Drive?
  • Functional Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products’ use of cloud services performs the specific, multi-step offloaded download function required by the claims. The case may turn on evidence showing a technical match or mismatch between the claimed process—where the phone instructs the storage server to fetch a file from a third source using cached data—and the actual operation of the accused BLU devices.