`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB No. 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`PHILLIP J. HAACK (CSB No. 262060)
`phaack@fenwick.com
`RAVI R. RANGANATH (CSB No. 272981)
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`CHIEH TUNG (CSB No. 318963)
`ctung@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC.
`and AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`ANSWER OF AMAZON.COM, INC.
`AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`TO FIRST AMENDED COUNTER-
`CLAIMS OF PERSONALWEB TECH-
`NOLOGIES, LLC AND LEVEL 3 COM-
`MUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon.com”) and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS” and together
`
`with Amazon.com, “Amazon”) hereby answer the first amended counterclaims of PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`1.
`
`the allegations of paragraph 1 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`2.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 2 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`3.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 3 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`4.
`
`the allegations of paragraph 4 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`5.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 5 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`6.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 6 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`7.
`
`Amazon admits that Amazon.com is a Delaware corporation with offices and em-
`
`ployees throughout several of the United States, including in the Northern District of California.
`8.
`
`Amazon admits that AWS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.com.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Amazon admits that PersonalWeb purports to allege an action for patent infringe-
`
`9.
`
`ment arising out of the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and that this Court
`
`has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`10.
`
`The statements set forth in paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions. To the extent
`
`a response is required, Amazon admits that it has an established place of business in this district.
`
`Amazon admits for purposes of this case only that venue is proper in this district. Amazon denies
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10.
`
`AMAZON'S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB'S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`11.
`
` The statements set forth in paragraph 11 constitute legal conclusions. To the extent
`
`a response is required, Amazon admits that it filed this declaratory judgment action to defend its
`
`customers and technology against PersonalWeb’s infringement claims. Amazon admits for pur-
`
`poses of this case only that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Amazon.com. Amazon denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 11.
`12.
`
`The statements set forth in Paragraph 12 constitute legal conclusions. To the extent
`
`a response is required, Amazon admits that it filed this declaratory judgment action to defend its
`
`customers and technology against PersonalWeb’s infringement claims. Amazon admits for pur-
`
`poses of this case only that the Court has personal jurisdiction over AWS. Amazon denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 12.
`
`PERSONALWEB BACKGROUND
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the counterclaims.
`
`Amazon admits that the ability to identify specific data is a useful feature in com-
`
`13.
`14.
`
`puter systems and networks. Amazon further admits that in some systems, data can be identified
`
`using file names and information about the file’s location on a hard drive or network. It is not clear
`
`what PersonalWeb means by an “early operating system,” “standardized naming conventions,” or
`
`“storage identifiers.” Amazon therefore denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14 of the
`
`counterclaims.
`15.
`
`Amazon denies that prior to the filing of the patents-in-suit “[n]o solution existed to
`
`ensure that identical file names referred to the same data, and conversely, that different file names
`
`referred to different data.” Indeed, solutions to this problem existed in the prior art. Amazon lacks
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 15 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`16.
`
`Amazon admits that the specification of the patents-in-suit describes “substantially
`
`unique identifiers” and states that “data items” may be “the contents of a file, a portion of a file, a
`
`page in memory, an object in an object-oriented program, a digital message, a digital scanned im-
`
`age, a part of a video or audio signal, or any other entity which can be represented by a sequence
`
`of bits.” Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 16 of the counterclaims.
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Amazon admits that the patents-in-suit refer to a “data item” as a “sequence of bits”
`
`and purport to describe a function that, when applied to a data block, is “virtually guaranteed to
`
`produce a different value” and “computationally difficult” to reproduce with a different data block.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 17 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`18.
`
`Amazon admits that the patents-in-suit refer to the assignment of a content-based
`
`identifier, which the specification refers to as a “True Name.” Amazon further admits that the
`
`specification of the patents-in-suit provides that the “probability of collision”—the likelihood of
`
`different data items being assigned the same True Name—would be “approximately 1 in 229.” Am-
`
`azon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 18 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`19.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the counterclaims to the extent
`
`they suggest that the claimed subject matter constituted an improvement over prior art systems and
`
`methods. Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 19 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`20.
`
`Amazon admits that the patents-in-suit purport to claim priority to an abandoned
`
`application filed on April 11, 1995. Amazon further admits that U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791, the
`
`first of the patents-in-suit, provides on its face that it was issued on November 2, 1999. Amazon
`
`further admits that all of the patents-in-suit at issue in this case have expired, and that PersonalWeb
`
`purports to assert claims for infringement against Amazon, its technology, and its customers for the
`
`time period prior to the expiration of the patents. Amazon denies that any of the patents-in-suit
`
`“elevated data-processing systems over conventional file naming systems.”
`21.
`
`Amazon denies that PersonalWeb has successfully enforced its intellectual property
`
`rights against Amazon—to the contrary, PersonalWeb tried and failed to assert its patents against
`
`Amazon in a prior case in the Eastern District of Texas. Amazon prevailed in that case and Per-
`
`sonalWeb was forced to dismiss its claims against Amazon with prejudice. Amazon lacks
`
`knowledge or information about PersonalWeb’s other intellectual property enforcement efforts and
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`license agreements, and therefore denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 21 of the counter-
`
`claims.
`22.
`
`Amazon admits that PersonalWeb has filed actions against more than 80 Amazon
`
`customers, alleging infringement of the same patents PersonalWeb tried and failed to assert against
`
`Amazon based on the customers’ use of Amazon’s S3 technology. Amazon admits PersonalWeb’s
`
`amended customer complaints reference website architecture, but denies that PersonalWeb has as-
`
`serted any coherent theory of infringement based on that technology. Amazon denies that HTTP
`
`responses provided by S3 or otherwise either “authorize” or deny “authorization” to use or render
`
`S3 objects or cached content. Amazon denies that PersonalWeb’s claims and allegations against
`
`Amazon’s customers have any merit whatsoever, or that PersonalWeb’s allegations are directed to
`
`or in any way specific to the customer websites identified in the complaints. PersonalWeb’s claims
`
`are largely directed to Amazon’s S3 technology, not any technology of the customers it named as
`
`defendants in these cases. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 22.
`23.
`
`Amazon admits that PersonalWeb purports to allege patent infringement by Amazon
`
`and Amazon’s customers. While the legal conclusions in this paragraph require no response, Am-
`
`azon specifically denies that PersonalWeb has any viable claim for relief against either Amazon or
`
`Amazon’s customers, under any theory.
`24.
`
`Amazon admits that PersonalWeb purports to allege patent infringement by Amazon
`
`and Amazon’s customers. While the legal conclusions in this paragraph require no response, Am-
`
`azon specifically denies that PersonalWeb has any viable claim for relief against either Amazon or
`
`Amazon’s customers, under any theory.
`
`GENERAL BACKGROUND
`Amazon admits that webpages may be retrieved over the World Wide Web and may
`
`25.
`
`be rendered by a web browser to be displayed electronically. Amazon further admits that the term
`
`“webpage” may colloquially refer to what is viewable in the browser or to a computer file written
`
`in the Hypertext Markup Language (“HTML”). Amazon further admits that an HTML file may
`
`include text, formatting instructions, and references to other web contents. Amazon denies that a
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`“webpage” as displayed by a browser consists of a single document. Amazon admits that Person-
`
`alWeb purports to define a “webpage base file” as an HTML file. Amazon admits that that Per-
`
`sonalWeb purports to define “webpage assets” or “asset files” as “Web contents referenced in an
`
`HTML or similar file.” Amazon admits that a web browser can retrieve web content specified in
`
`an HTML file or in other web content as part of the process of displaying a webpage. Amazon
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25 of the counterclaims.
`26.
`
`Amazon admits that web hyperlinks generally include Uniform Resource Identifiers
`
`(“URIs”) which may include an address of a server or host and a path to the location of a file or
`
`other web resource. Amazon admits that the path component of a URI may include a filename.
`
`Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the counterclaims.
`27.
`
`Amazon admits that a web browser may retrieve an HTML file from a remote web
`
`server. Amazon further admits that a web browser may make a GET request to a server using the
`
`Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”) and that a server may respond to an HTTP request with a
`
`response which may include web content or other information. Amazon denies the remaining alle-
`
`gations of paragraph 27 of the counterclaims.
`28.
`
`Amazon admits that the term “dynamic webpage” typically describes an HTML file
`
`that is generated by software in response to an HTTP request. Amazon admits that a “static
`
`webpage” typically describes an HTML file that is delivered by a web server without being gener-
`
`ated in response to an HTTP request. Amazon admits that web server applications may generate
`
`HTML files. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 28 of the counterclaims.
`29.
`
`Amazon admits that many web browsers are capable of storing web content in a
`
`cache and, when a cache is available and enabled, that a web browser can use cached content rather
`
`than downloading the same file repeatedly over the Internet. Amazon further admits that using
`
`cached content can increase the speed at which a browser displays web content. Amazon denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 29 of the counterclaims.
`30.
`
`Amazon admits that two computers communicating with one another over the Inter-
`
`net are not typically directly connected. Amazon admits that web content may be served via web
`
`servers that in turn retrieve content from upstream or “origin” servers. Amazon further admits that
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`web servers may cache content and serve requested web content from a cache under certain cir-
`
`cumstances. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 30 of the counterclaims.
`31.
`
`Amazon admits that HTTP responses can include a header and a body. Amazon
`
`further admits that HTTP response headers can contain a header called “cache-control” that can
`
`override the default caching behavior, including by specifying directives that can limit whether and
`
`how long an HTTP response may be cached. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of para-
`
`graph 31 of the counterclaims.
`32.
`
`Amazon admits that webpage content can change. Amazon denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 32 of the counterclaims.
`33.
`
`It is unclear to which entities the phrase “website owners” is intended to identify.
`
`Amazon thus lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the alle-
`
`gations of paragraph 33 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`COUNTERDEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
`Amazon admits that, as alleged in the amended complaint, AWS “provided on-de-
`
`34.
`
`mand cloud computing services [to its customers] on a subscription basis.” (Dkt. No. 36 at ¶ 5.)
`35.
`
`Amazon admits that Trevor Rowe testified that “S3 handles approximately 12 tril-
`
`lion requests per month,” (Dkt. No. 42-4 at ¶ 5) and that Dr. Prashant Shenoy testified that “S3
`
`services millions of requests per second” (Dkt. No. 42-1 at ¶ 35). Amazon admits that it had nu-
`
`merous customers that used Amazon S3 to host and serve web content prior to the expiration date
`
`of all of the Patents-in-Suit. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 35 of the coun-
`
`terclaims.
`36.
`
`Amazon denies that S3 web host servers provided a system that either “authorized”
`
`or denied “authorization” to use or render S3 objects or cached content. Amazon denies the re-
`
`maining allegations of paragraph 36 of the counterclaims.
`37.
`
`Amazon admits that S3 supports the use of conditional GET requests including If-
`
`None-Match header fields and entity tags as described in the HTTP specification. Amazon denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 of the counterclaims.
`38.
`
`Amazon denies that S3 web host servers used these ETags to “instruct” caches to
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`verify if they were “authorized” to reuse previously cached content and to “instruct” them to obtain
`
`newly “authorized” content. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 38 of the coun-
`
`terclaims.
`39.
`
`Amazon admits that using conditional GET requests with If-None-Match header
`
`fields is one method of reducing the total bandwidth needed to serve web pages when some of the
`
`content has been previously cached. Amazon denies that HTTP responses provided by S3 or oth-
`
`erwise either “authorize” or deny “authorization” to use or render S3 objects or cached content.
`
`Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 39 of the counterclaims.
`40.
`
`Amazon admits that it permits customers to store data on S3, and that customers’
`
`use of S3 is governed by an agreement. Amazon admits that customers upload data to S3 as objects.
`
`Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 40 of the counterclaims.
`41.
`
`Amazon admits that, for some objects uploaded to S3, the objects’ ETag value is
`
`calculated based on a hash function of the object contents. Amazon admits that the ETag value is
`
`updated when a new version of an object is uploaded to S3. Amazon denies that HTTP responses
`
`provided by S3 or otherwise either “authorize” or deny “authorization” to use or render S3 objects
`
`or cached content. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41 of the counterclaims.
`42.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 42 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`43.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 43 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`44.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 44 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`45.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`
`the allegations of paragraph 45 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`46.
`
`Amazon admits that S3 supports the use of conditional GET requests including If-
`
`None-Match header fields and entity tags as described in the HTTP specification. Amazon denies
`
`that HTTP responses provided by S3 or otherwise either “authorize” or deny “authorization” to use
`
`or render S3 objects or cached content. Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 46
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`of the counterclaims.
`47.
`
`Amazon admits that customers can set a Cache-Control HTTP header for content
`
`served from S3. Amazon denies that HTTP responses provided by S3 or otherwise either “au-
`
`thorize” or deny “authorization” to use or render S3 objects or cached content. Amazon denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 47 of the counterclaims.
`48.
`
`Amazon admits that some web browsers can send a conditional HTTP GET re-
`
`quest for a URL with an If-None-Match header when they have a cached version of the resource
`
`found at the URL and an ETag. Amazon admits that S3 will respond to a conditional HTTP GET
`
`request for a URL with an If-None-Match header with an HTTP 304 response if the ETag value
`
`sent with the request matches the ETag value for the resource. Amazon admits that if the ETag
`
`value sent with the request does not match the ETag value for the resource, S3 will respond with
`
`an HTTP 200 response that includes the requested object and an ETag field and value for the re-
`
`quested object. Amazon denies that HTTP responses provided by S3 or otherwise either “author-
`
`ize” or deny “authorization” to use or render S3 objects or cached content. Amazon lacks
`
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 48 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,928,442
`
`49.
`
`Amazon incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in par-
`
`agraphs 1-48 of the counterclaims.
`50.
`
`Amazon admits that U.S. Patent No. 6,928,442 (the “’442 patent”) lists August 9,
`
`2005 as its issue date and “Enforcement and Policing of Licensed Content Using Content-Based
`
`Identifiers” as its title. Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or
`
`falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 50 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies
`
`them.
`
`51.
`52.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 51 of the counterclaims.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 10 of the ’442 patent requires “[a] method, in a system in
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`8
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`which a plurality of files are distributed across a plurality of computers.” Amazon denies the re-
`
`maining allegations of paragraph 52 of the counterclaims.
`53.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 10 of the ’442 patent requires “obtaining a name for a
`
`data file, the name being based at least in part on a given function of the data, wherein the data used
`
`by the function comprises the contents of the particular file.” Amazon denies the remaining alle-
`
`gations of paragraph 53 of the counterclaims.
`54.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 10 of the ’442 patent requires “determining, using at least
`
`the name, whether a copy of the data file is present on at least one of said computers.” Amazon
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 54 of the counterclaims.
`55.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 10 of the ’442 patent requires “determining whether a
`
`copy of the data file that is present on a at least one of said computers is an unauthorized copy or
`
`an unlicensed copy of the data file.” Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 55 of
`
`the counterclaims.
`56.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 56 of the counterclaims.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`
`57.
`
`Amazon incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in par-
`
`agraphs 1-48 of the counterclaims.
`58.
`
`Amazon admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 (the “’310 patent”) lists September
`
`21, 2010 as its issue date and “Controlling Access to Data in a Data Processing System” as its title.
`
`Amazon lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 58 of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`59.
`60.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 59 of the counterclaims.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 20 of the ’310 patent requires “[a] computer-implemented
`
`method operable in a system which includes a plurality of computers.” Amazon denies the remain-
`
`ing allegations of paragraph 60 of the counterclaims.
`61.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 20 of the ’310 patent requires “controlling distribution of
`
`content from a first computer to at least one other computer, in response to a request obtained by a
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`9
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`first device in the system from a second device in the system, the first device comprising hardware
`
`including at least one processor, the request including at least a content-dependent name of a par-
`
`ticular data item, the content-dependent name being based at least in part on a function of at least
`
`some of the data comprising the particular data item, wherein the function comprises a message
`
`digest function or a hash function, and wherein two identical data items will have the same content-
`
`dependent name.” Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 61 of the counterclaims.
`62.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 20 of the ’310 patent requires “based at least in part on
`
`said content-dependent name of said particular data item, the first device (A) permitting the content
`
`to be provided to or accessed by the at least one other computer if it is not determined that the
`
`content is unauthorized or unlicensed, otherwise, (B) if it is determined that the content is unau-
`
`thorized or unlicensed, not permitting the content to be provided to or accessed by the at least one
`
`other computer.” Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 62 of the counterclaims.
`63.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 63 of the counterclaims.
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,099,420
`
`64.
`
`Amazon incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in par-
`
`agraphs 1-48 of the counterclaims.
`65.
`
`Amazon admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,099,420 lists January 17, 2012 as its issue
`
`date and “Accessing Data in a Data Processing System” as its title. Amazon lacks knowledge or
`
`information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 65
`
`of the counterclaims, and, on that basis, denies them.
`66.
`67.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the counterclaims.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 166 of the ’420 patent requires “[a] system comprising
`
`hardware, including at least a processor, and software, in combination with said hardware.” Ama-
`
`zon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 67 of the counterclaims.
`68.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 166 of the ’420 patent requires “(A) for a particular data
`
`item in a set of data items, said particular data item comprising a corresponding particular sequence
`
`of bits.” Amazon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 68 of the counterclaims.
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`10
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`69.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 166 of the ’420 patent requires “(a1) determine one or
`
`more content-dependent digital identifiers for said particular data item, each said content-dependent
`
`digital identifier being based at least in part on a given function of at least some of the bits in the
`
`particular sequence of bits of the particular data item, wherein two identical data items will have
`
`the same digital identifiers as determined using said given function.” Amazon denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 69 of the counterclaims.
`70.
`
`Amazon admits that claim 166 of the ’420 patent requires “(a2) selectively permit[s]
`
`the particular data item to be made available for access and to be provided to or accessed by or
`
`from at least some of the computers in a network of computers, wherein the data item is not to be
`
`made available for access or provided without authorization, as resolved based, at least in part, on
`
`whether or not at least one of said one or more content-dependent digital identifiers for said partic-
`
`ular data item corresponds to an entry in one or more databases, each of said one or more databases
`
`comprising a plurality of identifiers, each of said identifiers in each said database corresponding to
`
`at least one data item of a plurality of data items, and each of said identifiers in each said database
`
`being based, at least in part, on at least some of the data in a corresponding data item.”
`71.
`72.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 71 of the counterclaims.
`
`Amazon denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the counterclaims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Amazon denies that PersonalWeb is entitled to the requested relief or to any relief whatso-
`
`ever. Amazon denies all averments in the counterclaims that have not been specifically admitted
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 72 above.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`Amazon asserts the following defenses. In doing so, Amazon does not assume any burden
`
`of proof on any issue that is PersonalWeb’s burden as a matter of law. Amazon reserves the right
`
`to amend or supplement these defenses as additional facts become known.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`The counterclaims fail to allege facts sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be
`
`granted.
`
`AMAZON’S ANSWER TO PERSONALWEB’S
`AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`
`
`11
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 265 Filed 10/18/18 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`SECOND DEFENSE: INVALIDITY
`One or more of the asserted claims of the ’442 patent, the ’310 patent, or the ’420 patent,
`
`(collectively, the “asserted patents”) is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the conditions for
`
`patentability specified in Title 35, U.S.C., or the rules, regulations, and law related thereto, includ-
`
`ing, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. § 101 and one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE: NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Neither Amazon nor its technology has infringed any valid or enforceable claim of the as-
`
`serted patents and Amazon is not liable for any infringement.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE: CLAIM PRECLUSION
`The doctrine of claim preclusion bars PersonalWeb from asserting claims against Amazon
`
`and its technology for infringement of the asserted patents.
`
`The doctrine of claim preclusion bars a party from bringing a claim when a court of com-
`
`petent jurisdiction has rendered final judgment on the merits of the claim in a previous action on
`
`the same claims. Any claims or defenses that were raised or could have been raised in that action
`
`are extinguished. See Hallco Mfg. Co. v. Foster, 256 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also In
`
`re Int’l Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir. 1994). These extinguished claims include all
`
`rights of the