Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
` Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON
`WEB SERVICES, INC. ON
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`CLAIMS AND DEFENSES UNDER
`THE CLAIM PRECLUSION AND
`KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
` Date:
`February 7, 2019
`Time:
`2:00 p.m.
`Dept:
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT --------------------------- 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES------------------------------------------------- 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`A.
`PersonalWeb asserts the same patents and accuses the same
`Amazon service that were adjudicated in the earlier Texas case ------------ 3
`Amazon S3 operated the same way when the PersonalWeb patents
`expired as it did when final judgment was entered in the Texas
`case ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
`III. ARGUMENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`A.
`Claim preclusion bars PersonalWeb’s claims in this case -------------------- 7
`B.
`PersonalWeb’s arguments to the contrary are meritless --------------------- 10
`C.
`PersonalWeb’s claims are independently barred under the Kessler
`doctrine. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`CONCLUSION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DEFENSES
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s):
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Abbey v. Mercedes Benz of N. Am., Inc.,
`138 F. App’x 304 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG, 2015 WL 4999944 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) ---------------- passim
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Beard v. Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 150,
`908 F.2d 474 (9th Cir. 1990) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ----------------------------------------------------------------- passim
`
`Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe Cty.,
`69 F.3d 321 (9th Cir. 1995) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Concha v. London,
`62 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10
`
`D-Beam v. Roller Derby Skate Corp.,
`316 F. App’x 966 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharm. Ltd.,
`753 F.3d 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 12
`
`Hallco Mfg. Co. v. Foster,
`256 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`In re Hubbell,
`709 F.3d 1140 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
`
`Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. Karr,
`994 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1993) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
`
`Kearns v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`94 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`Kessler v. Eldred,
`206 U.S. 285 (1907) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ passim
`
`Mars Inc. v. Nippon Conlux Kabushiki-Kaisha,
`58 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DEFENSES
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`Molinaro v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`460 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. Pa. 1978), aff’d, 620 F.2d 288 (3rd Cir. 1980) ----------------------- 16
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`580 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 14
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex. Filed Dec. 8, 2011) ------------------------------------------------ 3
`
`Schnitger v. Canoga Elecs. Corp.,
`462 F.2d 628 (9th Cir. 1972) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
`531 U.S. 497 (2001) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10, 11
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11, 12
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc.,
`No. C 07-3602 PJH, 2014 WL 1813292 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2014), aff’d, 791
`F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc.,
`791 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 2, 15
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Thomson, Inc.,
`No. 2:03-1329 WBS PAN, 2010 WL 843560 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) ---------------------- 8
`
`United States v. Tohono O’Odham Nation,
`563 U.S. 307 (2011) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`ViaTech Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 17-570-RGA, 2018 WL 4126522 (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2018) -------------------------------- 14
`
`Young Eng’rs v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`721 F. 2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`Fed.R. Civ. P. 41 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10, 11
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on February 7, 2019, at 2:00 p.m., at the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, in
`the courtroom of the Honorable Beth L. Freeman, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web Services,
`Inc. (collectively “Amazon”) will and hereby do move the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
`dure 56 for an order rendering summary judgment in favor of Amazon and against PersonalWeb
`Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC (collectively “PersonalWeb”), declaring that
`PersonalWeb’s infringement claims against Amazon and its customers are barred by the doctrine of
`claim preclusion and the Supreme Court’s decision in Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907).
`PersonalWeb previously sued Amazon alleging infringement of the same patents at issue
`here based on the same technology at issue here. PersonalWeb voluntarily dismissed those claims
`with prejudice. Now, PersonalWeb seeks to exhume those claims and sue 85 Amazon customers,
`once again asserting the same patents against the same technology. This vexatious campaign vio-
`lates both the law of claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine, which together serve to protect pre-
`vailing patent defendants from having to defend the same technology in serial lawsuits asserting
`essentially the same claims.
`Amazon bases its motion on this notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and au-
`thorities, the supporting declarations of Saina S. Shamilov, Dr. Prashant Shenoy, and Seth Markle,
`and all pleadings and documents on file in this action, and such other materials or argument as the
`Court may consider.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`PersonalWeb sued Amazon and its customer Dropbox years ago in the Eastern District of
`Texas, alleging infringement of the same patents by the same technology: Amazon’s Simple Storage
`Service or “S3.” PersonalWeb lost—it recovered nothing and dismissed its claims with prejudice.
`
`
`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
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DEFENSES
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Since then, PersonalWeb’s patents have expired and PersonalWeb has retained new counsel. Rec-
`ognizing that any claim involving S3 filed against Amazon proper would be barred by res judicata,
`PersonalWeb decided instead to bite from the other side of the same apple by suing 85 of Amazon’s
`customers.
`But those claims, too, are barred by settled law. Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars “the
`relitigation of a claim, or cause of action, or any possible defense to the cause of action which is
`ended by a judgment of the court.” Nystrom v. Trex Co., 580 F.3d 1281, 1284-85 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`And the related Kessler doctrine “‘bars a patent infringement action against a customer of a seller
`who has previously prevailed against the patentee because of invalidity or noninfringement of the
`patent.’” SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc., 791 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting
`MGA, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 827 F.2d 729, 734 (Fed. Cir. 1987)). Either way, “a party who
`obtains a final adjudication in its favor [enjoys] the right to have that which it lawfully produces
`freely bought and sold without restraint or interference.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omit-
`ted).
`
`PersonalWeb’s attempt to relitigate old claims, now as part of a vastly expanded MDL pro-
`ceeding, has already created the very harassment that res judicata and the Kessler doctrine are sup-
`posed to prevent. “Claim preclusion exists to ‘encourage[] reliance on judicial decisions, bar[] vex-
`atious litigation, and free[] the courts to resolve other disputes.” Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131 (1979)). In a
`word, these bedrocks of basic judicial fairness preclude “do-over[s]”—exactly what PersonalWeb
`attempts here. See id. And as the Supreme Court noted more than a century ago, the Kessler rule is
`a critical supplement to claim preclusion because even meritless suits against a prevailing party’s
`customers can inflict real damage on the prevailing party: “No one wishes to buy anything if with it
`he must buy a law suit.” Kessler, 206 U.S. at 289. Amazon therefore requests that the Court grant
`Amazon summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claims and defenses under the rules of
`claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine, and bar PersonalWeb from asserting any claim against
`Amazon or its customers that relates to the use or operation of S3—the very same technology that
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`PersonalWeb attacked, using the very same patents, in a prior lawsuit that ended in a final judgment
`on the merits.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`II.
`
`A.
`
`PersonalWeb asserts the same patents and accuses the same Amazon
`service that were adjudicated in the earlier Texas case.
`
`Seven years ago, PersonalWeb sued Amazon and its customer Dropbox in the Eastern Dis-
`trict of Texas, alleging infringement of eight related patents by Amazon’s S3 service. PersonalWeb
`Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex. Filed Dec. 8, 2011). PersonalWeb
`later amended its complaint to add Level 3 as a party. (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 1 (Amended TX
`Compl.).) After the court in Texas issued a claim construction order, PersonalWeb dismissed its
`claims with prejudice. (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 6 (Dismissal Stip).) The court entered final judgment
`against PersonalWeb in June 2014. (Id.; Shamilov Decl., Ex. 7 (Final Judgment).)
`Almost four years later, PersonalWeb commenced this new litigation campaign. Starting in
`January 2018, PersonalWeb filed what would mushroom into 85 lawsuits against Amazon’s cus-
`tomers and eventually would re-allege infringement even by Amazon itself. PersonalWeb’s claims
`are not new; they are the very same claims under the very same patents against the very same tech-
`nology. In Texas, PersonalWeb asserted eight patents: Nos. 5,978,791 (the “’791 patent”),
`6,415,280 (the “’280 patent”), 6,928,442 (the “’442 patent”), 7,802,310 (the “’310 patent”),
`7,945,539, (the “’539 patent”), 7,945,544 (the “’544 patent”), 7,949,662 (the “’662 patent”), and
`8,001,096 (the “’096 patent”). (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 1.) Four of those were asserted here: the ’791
`patent, the ’442 patent, the ’310 patent, and the ’544 patent. (Case No. 18-cv-767, Dkt. No. 36 (“DJ
`Compl.”) ¶¶ 20-21; id., Dkt. No. 62 (“Answer & Counterclaim”), Answer ¶¶ 20-21.) Although Per-
`sonalWeb eventually dropped the ’791 patent from its current customer campaign, PersonalWeb
`continues to deny Amazon’s pending declaratory judgment claim of non-infringement of that same
`patent. (DJ Compl. ¶¶ 49-56; Answer & Counterclaim, Answer ¶¶ 49-56.)
`All of these claims—both old and new—are or were directed to S3. In Texas, PersonalWeb
`alleged that S3 infringed because of its use of something called ETags. (See Shamilov Decl., Ex. 9
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`at 34 (S3 infringes based on using “a digital identifier . . . (an ‘ETag’)”); see also id. at 44 (“S3 uses
`MD5 digest to calculate the etag for each object that is uploaded . . . .”); id. at 46 (S3 uses ETags
`“[w]hen doing GET, HEAD, PUT/COPY operation [sic] with conditional parameters”).) ETags are,
`in essence, computer-generated fingerprints that tell client computers if a file requested from a re-
`mote server has changed or whether the client already has the current version, which, if so, would
`eliminate the need to download the file again, thereby saving bandwidth and other computing re-
`sources. Here, too, PersonalWeb accuses Amazon S3’s generation and use of ETags. (See, e.g.,
`Case No. 18-md-2834, Dkt. No. 175 (Second Amended Airbnb Complaint) ¶ 41 (accusing “the S3
`server” of infringing by “serv[ing] the S3 asset file with its associated ETag value to HTTP GET
`requests for the S3 asset file”); Case No. 18-cv-767, Dkt. No. 71 ¶¶ 35-48 (accusing ETags and
`conditional GET requests).)
`The only difference between PersonalWeb’s old and new claims is that PersonalWeb has
`added one other patent (from the same family) to this case, U.S. Patent No. 8,099,420 (the “’420
`patent”). But that patent undeniably adds nothing as a factual matter, and thus makes no difference
`as a matter of law. That patent is a mere continuation of the twice-asserted ’442 patent, claims
`priority to the same parent application as all of the other twice-asserted patents, shares the same
`specification with all of the other twice-asserted patents, and is limited by a terminal disclaimer
`because (according to both the Patent Office and PersonalWeb) the patent has essentially the same
`scope as the previously-asserted ’280 patent. (Shamilov Decl., Exs. 2-5 (Asserted Patents), Ex. 13
`(Terminal Disclaimer), Shenoy Decl. ¶¶ 17-43.) Especially notable, this additional patent issued
`before PersonalWeb amended its Texas complaint (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 5), which means Personal-
`Web could have asserted this patent against Amazon and Dropbox in the prior case. Had it done so,
`the patent would have suffered the same fate precisely because it has the same scope as all of the
`other patents that were the subject of the Texas final judgment.
`
`B.
`
`Amazon S3 operated the same way when the PersonalWeb patents ex-
`pired as it did when final judgment was entered in the Texas case.
`
`S3 operated the same way from the date of the Texas final judgment through the date when
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`the last of the PersonalWeb patents expired. (See Markle Decl. ¶¶ 6, 9-10.) S3 launched in March
`2006, years before the Texas suit. (Id. ¶ 3.) Then as now, S3 provides web-based storage; it offers
`scalable, reliable, fast, and inexpensive data storage infrastructure similar to what Amazon uses to
`run its own website, www.amazon.com. (Case No. 18-cv-767, Dkt. No. 42-4 (“Rowe Decl.”) ¶ 5.)
`Customers—typically businesses with an online presence—access S3 via the web. (Markle Decl.
`¶ 3.) To do so, they use an Application Programming Interface, or API, that Amazon built according
`to the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) industry standard. (Id. ¶ 4.)
`HTTP defines a set of rules that servers follow for communicating with each other over the
`World Wide Web. (Shenoy Decl. ¶¶ 44-45; Rowe Decl. ¶ 7.) HTTP communications consist of
`messages sent back and forth between a client, like a web browser, and a web server. (Shenoy Decl.
`¶¶ 44-46.) Request messages include a “method” that conveys the desired action for the server to
`perform and a “resource” on which the action is performed. (Id.) For example, when a user visits
`the Amazon website, his or her web browser (client) will send an HTTP request message that in-
`cludes something called a “GET” request and the resource “www.amazon.com/.” (Id. ¶ 46.) The
`server processes the request and returns a response. (Id.) The response includes a status code that
`reflects the outcome of the request and, if requested, the content of the requested resource. (Id.
`¶¶ 44-45.) A successful response to the request for the www.amazon.com home page would include
`the status code “200 OK” and the content of the HTML that comprises the home page of www.am-
`azon.com. (Rowe Decl. ¶ 12)
`Clients access S3 using these conventional HTTP requests and receive conventional HTTP
`responses. (Markle Decl. ¶ 4.) The same HTTP request that a browser sends to a web server to
`retrieve a web page, a “GET” request, is used to retrieve information from S3. (Id.; see also Rowe
`Decl. ¶ 12.)
`Information in S3 is stored as “objects.” (Markle Decl. ¶ 8; see also Rowe Decl. ¶ 6.) S3
`organizes these objects into customer-created containers called “buckets.” (Id.) In simple terms, an
`object is akin to a computer file and a bucket is akin to a directory in which the file is stored. Clients
`access S3 objects over the web by specifying the corresponding buckets and object names. (Markle
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Decl. ¶ 8; see also Rowe Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12.) For example, a client requesting an object named
`“puppy.jpg” in the “johnsmith” bucket would make an HTTP GET request to the URL "http://john-
`smith.s3.amazonaws.com/puppy.jpg.” (Markle Decl. ¶ 8; see also Rowe Decl. ¶ 6.)
`Following the HTTP standard, S3 has always used an HTTP header called an “ETag.” (Rowe
`Decl. ¶ 10.) S3 generates ETags for the objects it stores and provides them to the clients along with
`the requested objects. (Markle Decl. ¶ 9; see also Rowe Decl. ¶ 10.) For most objects, S3 generates
`the ETag value by computing a hash of the object’s content with a hash algorithm called MD5.
`(Rowe Decl. ¶ 10; see also Markle Decl. ¶ 9.) If the object’s contents change, the ETag too will
`change. (Markle Decl. ¶ 9; Rowe Decl. ¶ 10.) The use of ETags in S3 is not optional; S3 generates
`them automatically for each object and sends them automatically in HTTP responses. (Markle Decl.
`¶ 9.)
`
`Clients use ETag headers to determine whether they have the most recent version of a re-
`source such as a file or an S3 object. (Rowe Decl. ¶ 10.) As with any web server, when a client
`receives an object from S3, it can store the object in temporary memory or a “cache.” To determine
`whether the cached object is current, the client can send to S3 a GET request with an “If-None-
`Match” header and the object’s ETag value to S3. (Id.) If the received ETag matches the ETag for
`the object currently stored in S3, S3 responds with a status code, “304 Not Modified,” signaling that
`the client has the same version of the object as S3 and may use the cached object. (Markle Decl.
`¶ 10; see also Rowe PI Decl. ¶ 12.) If the ETags do not match, S3 will send the most recent version
`of the object to the client. (Shenoy Decl. ¶ 54.) In other words, S3 transmits the object itself only
`when necessary, saving time and network bandwidth.
`ETags and the related conditional GET requests were added to the HTTP specification in
`version 1.1, and have remained unchanged since that specification was finalized in 1997. (Shenoy
`Decl. ¶¶ 44, 51, 53.) S3’s generation of ETags, their use, and related functionality have all remained
`the same since PersonalWeb filed its 2011 lawsuit against Amazon in Texas. (Markle Decl. ¶ 9)
`In both the Texas case and here, PersonalWeb accused the generic use of ETags as described
`in the HTTP protocol. (See, e.g., Shamilov Decl., Ex. 9 (Case No. 6:11-cv-00658, Final Texas
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Infringement Contentions, ’310 Claim Chart) at 16, Ex. 12 (Case No. 18-cv-00767, Plaintiffs’ L.R.
`3-1, 3-2 Disclosures, Ex. A, ’310 claim chart) at 2; see also Case No. 18-cv-00767, Dkt. 42-1,
`(“Shenoy PI Decl.”) ¶¶ 50, 54.) PersonalWeb accused, too, the use of ETags in an S3 operation
`called “multipart upload.” (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 9 at 13; see also Shenoy PI Decl. ¶¶ 51-52.) The
`multipart upload feature allows an S3 customer to upload a large object (like a feature film) as a
`series of parts, where each part is a contiguous portion of the object’s data. (Markle Decl. ¶ 6;
`Shenoy PI Decl. ¶ 39.) Once the user uploads all parts, the user can instruct S3 to assemble them
`into the complete object for storage. (Id.) When this feature is used, S3 generates ETags for each
`uploaded part as well as for the completed object. (Markle Decl. ¶ 9; Shenoy PI Decl. ¶ 39.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`PersonalWeb accused the same Amazon service of infringing the same patents in the earlier
`Texas case. That case ended in a final judgment on the merits. A party to a final judgment, like
`PersonalWeb, is foreclosed from relitigating the same claims against the same parties and their priv-
`ies—e.g., a party’s customers. PersonalWeb’s new claims are barred as a matter of law.
`
`Claim preclusion bars PersonalWeb’s claims in this case.
`A.
`Whether a suit is precluded by an earlier litigation is a question of law. Hallco Mfg. Co. v.
`Foster, 256 F.3d 1290, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In a patent infringement case, courts apply the claim
`preclusion rules of the regional circuit. See Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc., 746 F.3d 1045, 1052
`(Fed. Cir. 2014). In the Ninth Circuit, “claim preclusion bars an action where a prior suit: (1) reached
`a final judgment on the merits; (2) involved the same parties (or their privies) and (3) involved the
`same claim or cause of action.” Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01379-PSG, 2015
`WL 4999944, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) (citing Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d
`985, 987 (9th Cir. 2015); Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 985, 997 (N.D. Cal.
`2007)). Each of those conditions is satisfied here.
`First, the Texas case was dismissed with prejudice. (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 6 (Order of Dis-
`missal with Prejudice).) A dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits and triggers
`claim preclusion. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. Karr, 994 F.2d 1426, 1429 (9th Cir. 1993)
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`(“The dismissal of the action with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits . . . .”); Beard
`v. Sheet Metal Workers Union, Local 150, 908 F.2d 474, 477 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Federal law
`dictates that a dismissal with prejudice bars a later suit under res judicata.”).
`Second, the actions involve the same parties and their privies. This is undeniably true about
`the Texas action and Amazon’s declaratory judgment action in this Court, which involve the identi-
`cal parties: PersonalWeb, Level 3, and Amazon. (See, e.g., Shamilov Decl., Ex. 1 (Amended TX
`Complaint); Case No. 18-cv-767, Dkt. No. 36 (“DJ Compl.”).) PersonalWeb’s other actions in this
`district involve Amazon’s customers, who were not involved in the Texas case, but who are Ama-
`zon’s privies. Under Ninth Circuit law, for purposes of claim preclusion, customers of the accused
`technology are in privity with the supplier of that accused technology because the customers and
`their supplier’s interests are necessarily aligned. See Adaptix, 2015 WL 4999944, at *6 (finding
`customers in privity with manufacturer based on “the alignment of interests between parties”); see
`also Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Thomson, Inc., No. 2:03-1329 WBS PAN, 2010 WL 843560, at *6
`(E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (“As one of Gennum’s customers, Thomson is in privity with Gennum
`for [issue] preclusion purposes.”); Schnitger v. Canoga Elecs. Corp., 462 F.2d 628, 628 (9th Cir.
`1972) (earlier judgment is res judicata as to defendant from prior action “and those who obtain the
`infringing product from him”). The interests of Amazon’s S3 customers are indisputably aligned
`with those of Amazon; they are identically interested in using the accused technology without the
`threat of molestation by PersonalWeb. As a sister court explained in Adaptix, suits against customers
`of earlier-vindicated technology are barred because the patentee “was fully aware that customers
`like [those it sued] existed, were in possession of allegedly infringing [technology] and were oper-
`ating [that technology] . . . , [and] yet failed to bring claims against them” at the time of the earlier
`suit. Adaptix, 2015 WL 4999944, at *6. That is certainly true here. During the Texas case, Person-
`alWeb was “fully aware” that Amazon’s customers used S3 and even sued one of them—Dropbox.
`Yet, PersonalWeb failed to bring any other customer cases. Just like the patentee in Adaptix was
`barred from suing a vendor’s customers, so, too, is PersonalWeb barred from accusing Amazon
`customers of patent infringement based on their use of the same vindicated technology.
`
`AMAZON’S MSJ ON CLAIM
`PRECLUSION/KESSLER DOCTRINES
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 315 Filed 11/28/18 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`Amazon is in privity with its customers for the additional and independent reason that Am-
`azon is indemnifying its customers in this case: Amazon has expressly assumed the defense of the
`60 customers who have sought Amazon’s aid, and has not turned away any customer who has asked
`for it. (Shamilov Decl., Ex. 8 (Rog Resp).) Amazon, therefore, has stepped into the shoes of its
`customers and shares their interests. See SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Office Depot, Inc., No. C 07-3602 PJH,
`2014 WL 1813292, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) (finding privity where manufacturer was con-
`tractually obligated to indemnify customers against claims for infringement), aff’d, 791 F.3d 1317
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`Finally, the cases involve the same causes of action. Because a determination of whether
`two actions for patent infringement are the same involves questions of substantive patent law, Fed-
`eral Circuit law applies. See Brain Life, LLC, 764 F.3d at 1052. “To determine whether the same
`cause of action is present for purposes of claim preclusion in the patent infringement context, the
`Federal Circuit considers two factors: (1) whether ‘the same patents are involved in both suits’ and
`(2) whether the accused ‘products or processes’ in the suits are the same or ‘essentially the same.’”
`Adaptix, 2015 WL 4999944, at *6 (quoting Senju Pharm. Co., 746 F.3d at 1349). Here, all of the
`patents PersonalWeb asserted (save one with identical scope) were asserted in Texas: the ’791 pa-
`tent, the ’442 patent, the ’310 patent, and the ’544 patent. (See Shamilov Decl., Ex. 1 (Amended
`TX Complaint) at 5-6, 8-12, 14-15; DJ Compl. ¶ 20.) And PersonalWeb accuses the same product:
`Amazon S3. (Compare Shamilov Decl., Ex. 1 (Amended TX Complaint) ¶ 14 (accusing “use[] [of]
`Amazon’s . . . S3 storage system to store files”); ¶ 20 (accusing “Amazon Simple Storage Service
`(S3)”); with, e.g., Case No. 18-md-2834, Dkt. No. 175 (Second Amended Airbnb Complaint) ¶ 41
`(accusing “the S3 server” of infringing by “serv[ing] the S3 asset file with the its associated ETag
`value to HTTP GET requests for the S3 asset file”).) When “no new accused device [is] in issue,”
`asking whether the products are “essentially the same” is unnecessary. D-Beam v. Roller Derby
`Skate Corp., 316 F. App’x 966, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Abbe