`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 309 Filed 11/09/18 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
` Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`STATEMENT OF AMAZON.COM,
`INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
`INC. REGARDING REPRESENTA-
`TIVE CASES
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`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.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counter-Defendants
`
`AMAZON’S STATEMENT RE REPRESENTATIVE
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`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 309 Filed 11/09/18 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`In response to the Court’s request to select a representative case, the parties agreed to des-
`
`ignate PersonalWeb’s case against Twitch Interactive, Inc. (Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF). Per-
`
`sonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level3 Communications LLC (“PersonalWeb”), however, re-
`
`quest that an additional case, against Kongregate, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-04625-BLF, also proceed.
`
`But there is no need for another representative case. In its case against Twitch, PersonalWeb asserts
`
`all of its infringement categories. And as it admitted at the last case management conference, if the
`
`Twitch case culminates in “a verdict against PersonalWeb that no infringement was found,” “none
`
`of the customer cases could go forward because there would be findings in each of the buckets.”
`
`(Nov. 2, 2018 CMC Hrg. Tr. at 6:17-22.) The Kongregate case, which involves only a subset of
`
`the buckets, adds nothing to the already selected representative case against Twitch.
`
`During the parties’ discussions, PersonalWeb’s sole reason for requesting that the Kongre-
`
`gate case proceed as well was its “concern” that because Twitch became a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of Amazon.com, Inc. in 2014, its case will not adequately represent the interests of other defend-
`
`ants. But this concern is not valid. First, no defendant has raised such a concern or requested that
`
`its case be designated as representative. Kongregate itself opposes PersonalWeb’s request. Sec-
`
`ond, PersonalWeb’s concern would not even be addressed by the Kongregate case. As Kongregate
`
`told PersonalWeb in July, it used Amazon S3 during the relevant time period and is therefore no
`
`different than any other indemnified Amazon customer sued by PersonalWeb. And to be clear,
`
`every current defendant (or its predecessor) was an Amazon S3 customer before the patents expired.
`
`Third, although Twitch became an Amazon subsidiary in 2014, it retained full control of its website
`
`and its design. Accordingly, the technology to be litigated in the Twitch case is Twitch’s own, and
`
`not one controlled by Amazon (outside of the implicated S3 functionality). Indeed, PersonalWeb
`
`alleges that Twitch’s purported infringement began in 2012, years before Amazon’s acquisition.
`
`Finally, Twitch, like Amazon and any other defendant, has a significant interest in defeating all of
`
`PersonalWeb’s claims under any theory and vindicating its business and technology.
`
`Accordingly, the Court should reject PersonalWeb’s proposal to have an unnecessary and
`
`duplicative case against Kongregate proceed along with the Twitch case and Amazon’s declaratory
`
`judgment action.
`
`AMAZON’S STATEMENT RE REPRESENTATIVE
`CASES
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 309 Filed 11/09/18 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`Dated: November 9, 2018
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ Saina S. Shamilov
`Saina S. Shamilov
`
`Counsel for
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`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
`
`AMAZON’S STATEMENT RE REPRESENTATIVE
`CASES
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`