In Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Hyperlync Technologies,
Inc., 3-15-cv-02845 (NJD March 7, 2016, Order) (Cooper, J.),
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied,
without prejudice, Hyperlync's motion to dismiss on 35 USC
§ 101 grounds.
The three patents at issue respectively related to (i)
synchronization of data between different systems with each system
having a separate synchronization engine, (ii) acquisition and
synchronization of digital media to a personal information space,
and (iii) interfaces to allow a wireless telephone to establish a
back-up service account, schedule a backup, and restore backup
information. Hyperlync argued that the patents at issue were
abstract ideas that were not transformed into inventive concepts
while Synchronoss argued that the patents provided various
technical advantages regarding speed, bandwidth consumption,
connectivity, and data formats.
To read more, visit our PTAB
Litigation Blog
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
