SynKloud Technologies, LLC v. BLU Products, Inc. DC

The Western District of Texas has seen a significant increase in patent litigation since the confirmation of District Judge Alan D. Albright. That trend that has accelerated in 2020, the second quarter of which saw the Western District overtake Delaware as the most popular patent venue. With that popularity has come greater scrutiny of Judge Albright’s posture toward certain types of motions—most notably inter-district motions to transfer for convenience, a form of relief that Judge Albright has never granted, according to one litigant. The Federal Circuit has now pushed back against Judge Albright’s approach to such motions, ruling that he improperly weighed the applicable factors in a decision that denied a convenience transfer motion filed by Adobe. However, the Federal Circuit also rejected a similar mandamus petition filed by Dropbox in another case by the same plaintiff, SynKloud Technologies, LLC, holding that the defendant must first seek reconsideration of Judge Albright’s underlying order denying transfer.

SynKloud Technologies, LLC—which touts itself as “a research and Intellectual Property Licensing company located in Milton, Delaware” that is “focused on providing needed Intellectual Property solutions for the cloud computing industry and beyond”—appears to have added more patents to its growing portfolio, including assets developed by General Voice and others received from Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI). Those patents join portfolios received previously from Presto Services, STT WebOS, and Ximeta, many of which SynKloud has already asserted in litigation. Indeed, this past week, Microsoft (1:20-cv-00007) filed suit against SynKloud pleading that the NPE’s actions—filing suit against HP accusing Microsoft products of infringement, as well as initiating “a litigation campaign, including against a number of Microsoft competitors accusing cloud storage technology similar to that accused in the HP action”—“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”.

Earlier this summer, SynKloud Technologies, LLC—which touts itself as “a research and Intellectual Property Licensing company located in Milton, Delaware” that is “focused on providing needed Intellectual Property solutions for the cloud computing industry and beyond”—received a portfolio of patents from Presto Services. Those six patents generally relate to Presto’s core service: printing and delivering electronic mail and other materials “without requiring [recipients] to have a computer or Internet connection” (e.g., “elder loved ones”). The transferred assets join cloud computing portfolios assigned last year to SynKloud separately from STT WebOS and Ximeta—portfolios that, as of this past week, have both spawned district court litigation, most recently against Adobe (6:19-cv-00527) and Dropbox (6:19-cv-00525, 6:19-cv-00526) in the Western District of Texas.

In mid-June, District Judge Richard G. Andrews granted a stipulation to dismiss, without prejudice, a case brought in the District of Delaware by SynKloud Technologies, LLC against BLU Products. The plaintiff has now brought a second case, asserting against HP (1:19-cv-01360) two of three patents that were briefly at issue in the prior case. Those patents broadly pertain to a wireless device that stores data on an external storage server, with infringement allegations against HP focused on the provision of products that use cloud services (calling out Microsoft One Drive), including certain HP 2-in-1 convertible laptops, desktops, and laptops.

SynKloud Technologies, LLC, a Delaware entity formed this past summer, has filed suit over six related patents originally issuing to their sole named inventor Sheng Tai (“Ted”) Tsao. The plaintiff accuses BLU Products (1:19-cv-00553) of infringement through the provision of “all BLU smartphones and tablets that use cloud services like Google Drive”, including the VIVO One and VIVO XI+ smartphones and other devices with the following “designations or trade names”: “Advance Series, C Series, Dash Series, Energy Series, Grand Series, Life Series, Neo Series, Pure Series, R Series, Studio Series, Tank Series, Touchbook Series, and Vivo Series”. The asserted patents generally relate to a wireless device that stores data on an external storage server.