Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 22 cases

22 cases on record naming Synchronoss Technologies, Inc.: 13 as claimant, 9 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

22 cases on record

Cases on record
22
As claimant
13
As respondent
9
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06F12/00 · G06F13/00 · G06F15/16 · G06F15/173 · G06F13/12 · G06F7/06 · H04M3/00 · H04M1/72403
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2021-1395 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 15 Dec 2020 153 d Closed
2021-1396 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 15 Dec 2020 153 d Closed
2021-1301 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 24 Nov 2020 174 d Closed
2019-2196 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 30 Jul 2019 563 d Closed
2019-2199 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 30 Jul 2019 563 d Closed
2019-1823 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 30 Apr 2019 416 d Closed
2019-1765 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 12 Apr 2019 434 d Closed
2019-1767 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 12 Apr 2019 434 d Closed
5:18-cv-06199 Orcinus Holdings, LLC v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 10 Oct 2018 176 d Judgment on the Merits
2018-1342 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 27 Dec 2017 208 d Closed
2018-1343 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 27 Dec 2017 208 d Closed
2018-1291 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 11 Dec 2017 224 d Closed
2018-1292 Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 11 Dec 2017 224 d Closed
3:16-cv-02026 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 20 Apr 2016 405 d Closed
4:16-cv-02026 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 20 Apr 2016 405 d Likely Settlement
4:16-cv-00119 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 8 Jan 2016 1258 d Judgment on the Merits
4:16-cv-00120 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 8 Jan 2016 1177 d Voluntary dismissal
3:15-cv-02845 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Hyperlync Technologies, Inc. Plaintiff D.N.J. 22 Apr 2015 867 d Likely Settlement
3:15-cv-02192 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. Plaintiff D.N.J. 27 Mar 2015 278 d Case Transferred
3:15-cv-00534 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Egnyte, Inc. Plaintiff D.N.J. 26 Jan 2015 338 d Case Transferred
3:14-cv-06220 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. F-Secure Corporation Plaintiff D.N.J. 7 Oct 2014 175 d Voluntary dismissal
3:14-cv-06017 Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. v. Funambol, Inc. Plaintiff D.N.J. 26 Sep 2014 570 d Case Transferred
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Synchronoss Technologies is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.