`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC ET AL., PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case Nos.
` 18-md-02834-BLF
`
` 18-cv-00149-BLF,
` 18-cv-00150-BLF, 18-cv-00154-BLF
` 18-cv-00155-BLF, 18-cv-00156-BLF
` 18-cv-00157-BLF, 18-cv-00159-BLF
` 18-cv-00160-BLF, 18-cv-00161-BLF
` 18-cv-00162-BLF, 18-cv-00163-BLF
` 18-cv-00165-BLF, 18-cv-00166-BLF
` 18-cv-00169-BLF, 18-cv-00170-BLF
` 18-cv-00171-BLF, 18-cv-00173-BLF
` 18-cv-00175-BLF, 18-cv-00176-BLF
` 18-cv-00177-BLF, 18-cv-00178-BLF
` 18-cv-00183-BLF, 18-cv-00196-BLF
` 18-cv-00409-BLF, 18-cv-00767-BLF
` 18-cv-03452-BLF, 18-cv-03453-BLF
` 18-cv-03455-BLF, 18-cv-03457-BLF
` 18-cv-03458-BLF, 18-cv-03459-BLF
` 18-cv-03461-BLF, 18-cv-03462-BLF
` 18-cv-03463-BLF, 18-cv-03571-BLF
` 18-cv-03572-BLF, 18-cv-03573-BLF
` 18-cv-03578-BLF, 18-cv-03579-BLF
` 18-cv-03577-BLF, 18-cv-03580-BLF
` 18-cv-03581-BLF, 18-cv-03582-BLF
` 18-cv-03583-BLF, 18-cv-03584-BLF
` 18-cv-03997-BLF, 18-cv-03998-BLF
` 18-cv-04037-BLF, 18-cv-02140-BLF
` 18-cv-04625-BLF, 18-cv-04626-BLF
` 18-cv-04627-BLF, 18-cv-04628-BLF
` 18-cv-04624-BLF, 18-cv-05195-BLF
` 18-cv-05198-BLF, 18-cv-05199-BLF
` 18-cv-05201-BLF, 18-cv-05202-BLF
` 18-cv-05203-BLF, 18-cv-05204-BLF
` 18-cv-05205-BLF, 18-cv-05206-BLF
` 18-cv-05200-BLF, 18-cv-05272-BLF
` 18-cv-05373-BLF, 18-cv-05436-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-cv-00169-BLF Document 51 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
` 18-cv-05966-BLF, 18-cv-05967-BLF
` 18-cv-05968-BLF, 18-cv-05595-BLF,
` 18-cv-05596-BLF, 18-cv-05611-BLF,
` 18-cv-05600-BLF, 18-cv-05619-BLF
` 18-cv-05624-BLF, 18-cv-05625-BLF
` 18-cv-06042-BLF, 18-cv-06043-BLF
` 18-cv-06045-BLF, 18-cv-06614-BLF,
` 18-cv-06615-BLF
`
`
`
`JUDGMENT AS TO THE MDL CASE
`AND ALL MEMBER CASES NOTED
`IN THE JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s order entered on March 13, 2019 in the Multidistrict Litigation,
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF granting in part and denying in part Amazon.com, Inc.’s and
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that all infringement
`
`claims made against Amazon’s Simple Storage Service (“S3”) were barred by claim preclusion
`
`and the Kessler doctrine (Dkt. 381), and the Court’s order entered on February 3, 2020 granting in
`
`part and denying in part Amazon.com, Inc.’s and Amazon Web Services, Inc.’s motion for
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement, and granting Twitch Interactive, Inc.’s motion for
`
`summary judgment of noninfringement (Dkt. 578), IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
`
`judgment as to the MDL case and all member cases noted in this Judgment be entered in favor of
`
`defendant(s) named in this action and against Plaintiff PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level
`
`3 Communications, LLC.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 2020
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`