Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00119-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2192 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : MEMORANDUM OPINION

:

v. :

:

DROPBOX, INC., :

:

Defendant. :

 :

THE DEFENDANT moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § (“Section”) 1404(a) to

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California (“Northern District of California”). This Court will address the motion upon

review of all of the papers filed in relation thereto, and without oral argument. (See dkt.

24 (defendant’s motion and supporting papers); dkt. 27 (plaintiff’s opposition); dkt. 31

(defendant’s reply); dkt. 32 (plaintiff’s sur-reply).) See L.Civ.R. 78.1(b). For the

following reasons, this Court will (1) grant the motion, and (2) transfer this action to the

Northern District of California.

THIS COURT writes primarily for the benefit of the parties, and presumes their

familiarity with (1) the factual context and procedural history of this action, and (2) the

well-settled factors concerning the propriety of a transfer pursuant to Section 1404(a). 

See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879–80 (3d Cir. 1995); see also In re

Amendt, 169 Fed.Appx. 93, 96 (3d Cir. 2006) (summarizing Jumara factors).

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 35 Filed 12/30/15 Page 1 of 6
THE PLAINTIFF: (1) is in the business of enabling clients “to back-up, restore,

share, and synchronize data in multiple devices in multiple locations of wide area network

systems”, and “to connect, synchronize, and activate connected devices and services”;

(2) owns (a) United States Patent No. (“No.”) 6,671,757, entitled “Data Transfer and

Synchronization System”, (b) No. 6,757,696, entitled “Management Server for

Synchronization System”, and (c) No. 7,587,446, entitled “Acquisition And

Synchronization Of Digital Media To A Personal Information Space” (collectively,

“Patents In Issue”); and (3) asserts that the defendant is infringing the Patents In Issue “by

making, using, offering for sale, or selling its synchronization and backup products”. 

(Dkt. 1 at 3; dkt. 27 at 8–9.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); 35 U.S.C. § 271. The plaintiff is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. (Dkt. 1 at 2.) 

The defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San

Francisco, California. (Id.)

THE PLAINTIFF’S New Jersey principal place of business does not outweigh

the factors that make a California venue more appropriate. See Hoffer v. InfoSpace.com,

Inc., 102 F.Supp.2d 556, 573 (D.N.J. 2000) (stating plaintiff’s venue choice “is simply a

preference; it is not a right”); Nat’l Prop. Inv’rs VIII v. Shell Oil Co., 917 F.Supp. 324,

327 (D.N.J. 1995) (stating plaintiff’s venue choice is not “decisive”).

THE DEFENDANT’S principal place of business is in — and the bulk of the

defendant’s engineering, development, product design, marketing, and sales activities

originate from — San Francisco, California. Thus, the center of gravity of the alleged

2

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 35 Filed 12/30/15 Page 2 of 6
infringing activity and the alleged conduct underlying this action is in the area served by

the Northern District of California, i.e., San Francisco. (See dkt. 24-1 at 5 (stating

defendant “is headquartered in San Francisco, where all of its employees knowledgeable

about the issues relevant to this case reside and work, and where all of its documents and

source code relevant to this matter are certain to be located”); dkt. 24-4 at 3 (stating in

sworn declaration that “likely Dropbox witnesses in this action having technical,

marketing, and financial knowledge of the accused services are all located at Dropbox’s

San Francisco headquarters”, and “engineering, product and design teams responsible for

the accused services are based in San Francisco”).) Furthermore, the defendant is deemed

to “reside” in the Northern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (stating civil

action for patent infringement may be brought in judicial district where defendant

“resides”). A California venue would be far more convenient for the defendant and its

potential witnesses.

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA would also appear to be a

more-convenient venue for the plaintiff’s witnesses. Of the six inventors listed on the

Patents In Issue (“Patent Inventors”), four are domiciled in the area served by the

Northern District of California, and a fifth Patent Inventor is domiciled in another part of

California. (See dkt. 24-1 at 5 & 8–9; dkt. 27 at 11; dkt. 27-4 at 3; dkt. 31 at 8–9.)1

 The defendant clearly asserts the aforementioned domiciles of the Patent Inventors. 1

(See dkt. 31 at 8–9.) The plaintiff appears to argue in an obfuscatory manner that perhaps three

of the Patent Inventors live in California. (See generally dkt. 27; dkt. 27-4.) This Court credits

the defendant’s assertion here.

3

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 35 Filed 12/30/15 Page 3 of 6
ONLY TWO Patent Inventors appear to be currently employed by the plaintiff. 

(See dkt. 27-4 at 3; dkt. 31 at 12 n.4; see also dkt. 27 at 11 (stating “[t]wo of the . . .

named inventors on the Patents . . . are current Synchronoss employees”).) The plaintiff

has failed to submit sworn statements from any of the Patent Inventors — particularly the

California domiciliaries who are not currently employed by the plaintiff, and thus who are

nonparty witnesses — unequivocally stating that they would willingly appear for

proceedings in New Jersey. The testimony of the Patent Inventors may certainly be 2

necessary in this action, and judicial efficiency would be best served if the proceedings

were conducted in the venue where most of them live, i.e., California.

IN ADDITION to the Patent Inventors who are no longer employed by the

plaintiff, the attorneys who prosecuted the Patents In Issue before the United States Patent

and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) are based in California. (See dkt. 24-1 at 7–8; dkt. 27

at 11.) Thus, it would again appear to be more convenient and efficient for the potential

nonparty witnesses if the proceedings were to be conducted in a California venue.

THE PLAINTIFF is also financially capable of — and thus will not be prejudiced

by — engaging in litigation in the Northern District of California. (See dkt. 27 at 9

(plaintiff asserting that (1) it owns “over one hundred patents and patent applications filed

and issued worldwide”, (2) it “has a comprehensive technology platform”, (3) “[i]ts

technology is widely used by the largest service providers, including AT&T Inc., Verizon

 The declaration provided by a Patent Inventor who is currently employed by the 2

plaintiff contains no assertion concerning his preferred venue. (See generally dkt. 27-4.)

4

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 35 Filed 12/30/15 Page 4 of 6
Wireless, Vodafone, and their three billion-plus mobile subscribers located around the

world”, and (4) it “serves cable operators and equipment manufacturers, such as

Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung”).) 

Furthermore, the plaintiff has an office in the area served by the Northern District of

California, i.e., San Jose, California, and thus personal jurisdiction may be obtained over

the plaintiff in the Northern District of California. (See dkt. 27 at 11.) See

http://www.synchronoss.com/company/offices. Indeed, at least one Patent Inventor

works from the San Jose office. (See dkt. 27-4 at 3.)

THE PLAINTIFF’S arguments concerning certain separate motions to transfer

venue that are pending in two related actions before this Court will soon be moot. (See

dkt. 27 at 12 & 28–29.) This Court intends to grant the motion to transfer that is pending

in the first related action, i.e., Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc., No. 15-

534. This Court also intends to terminate the motion to transfer that is pending in the

second related action without prejudice due to the “pending completion of earnest

settlement negotiations to resolve all claims and counterclaims” therein. See Synchronoss

Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc., No. 14-6017, dkt. 28 at 2. This Court notes that

there is a third action pending before this Court, but it concerns (1) only two of the three

Patents In Issue, and (2) No. 7,643,824, entitled “Wireless Telephone Data Backup

System”, which is not in issue in this action. See Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v.

Hyperlync Technologies, Inc., No. 15-2845, dkt. 1.

5

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 35 Filed 12/30/15 Page 5 of 6
A REVIEW of the docket of the Northern District of California and the docket of

the District of New Jersey also reveals that this action will not be resolved more

efficiently by remaining in the District of New Jersey. See IT Network Solutions v.

Kaseya U.S. Sales, No. 14-3455, 2015 WL 733710, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2015) (stating

“both the Northern District of California and the District of New Jersey are busy districts

and evidence relating to their relative rates of congestion are mixed”, and “thus, this

factor is . . . neutral”); see also http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports.

FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, this Court will issue an appropriate order

(1) granting the motion, and (2) transferring this action to the Northern District of

California.3

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: December 30, 2015

 The plaintiff also argues that (1) there is another action (“Separate Action”) assigned to 3

another Judge in this District, (2) the Separate Action should be deemed to be pending because it

is merely administratively stayed due to related USPTO proceedings, and (3) the claims here

should proceed in the same district court as the Separate Action for the sake of efficiency. (See

dkt. 27 at 12 (referring to Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Asurion Mobile Applications, Inc.,

No. 11-5811).) The argument is without merit because (1) the Separate Action concerns only

two of the three Patents In Issue, and (2) the plaintiff waived the argument by failing to list the

Separate Action on the civil cover sheet or in the complaint here. (See dkt. 1-4 at 1 (certifying

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.2 “that the matter in controversy is not the subject of any other

action pending in any court, or any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding”); dkt. 1-5 at

1 (not listing No. 11-5811 in Section VIII of civil cover sheet, entitled “Related Case(s) If

Any”).)

6

Case 4:16-cv-00119-HSG Document 35 Filed 12/30/15 Page 6 of 6