Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
` 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
`SHANNON E. TURNER (CSB No. 310121)
`sturner@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 Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
` Case No. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ANSWER OF TWITCH
`INTERACTIVE, INC. TO FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`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
`
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) hereby answers the first amended complaint (the
`“complaint”) of PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC
`(“PersonalWeb”) as follows:
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`1.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`the allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`2.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`the allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`3.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`the allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`THE PARTIES
`4.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`the allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`5.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`6.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of
`the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`7.
`Twitch admits that Twitch is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`business in San Francisco, California. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`8.
`Twitch admits that PersonalWeb purports to allege an action for patent infringement
`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).
`9.
`The statements set forth in paragraph 9 constitute legal conclusions. To the extent
`a response is required, Twitch admits that it is incorporated in the State of Delaware and has an
`established place of business in this district. Twitch admits for purposes of this case only that venue
`is proper in this district. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9.
`10.
` The statements set forth in paragraph 10 constitute legal conclusions. To the extent
`
` 1
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`a response is required, Twitch admits that it has a principal place of business in this district and
`admits for purposes of this case only that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Twitch. Twitch
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 10.
`
`PERSONALWEB BACKGROUND
`11.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the complaint.
`12.
`Twitch admits that the ability to identify specific data is a useful feature in computer
`systems and networks. Twitch 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.” Twitch therefore denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 12 of the
`complaint.
`13.
`Twitch 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. Twitch lacks
`knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of
`paragraph 13 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`14.
`Twitch 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
`image, a part of a video or audio signal, or any other entity which can be represented by a sequence
`of bits.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 14 of the complaint.
`15.
`Twitch 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.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 15 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`16.
`Twitch admits that the patents-in-suit refer to the assignment of a content-based
`identifier, which the specification refers to as a “True Name.” Twitch further admits that the
`
` 2
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`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.”
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 16 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`17.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the complaint to the extent they
`suggest that the claimed subject matter constituted an improvement over prior art systems and
`methods. Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 17 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`18.
`Twitch admits that the patents-in-suit purport to claim priority to an abandoned
`application filed on April 11, 1995. Twitch 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. Twitch 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 Twitch for the time period prior to the expiration
`of the patents. Twitch denies that any of the patents-in-suit “elevated data-processing systems over
`conventional file naming systems.”
`19.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information about PersonalWeb’s intellectual property
`enforcement efforts and license agreements, and, on that basis, denies the allegations of paragraph
`19 of the complaint.
`
`GENERAL BACKGROUND
`20.
`Twitch admits that webpages may be retrieved over the World Wide Web and may
`be rendered by a web browser to be displayed electronically. Twitch 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”). Twitch further admits that an HTML file may
`include text, formatting instructions, and references to other web content. Twitch denies that a
`“webpage” as displayed by a browser consists of a single document. Twitch admits that
`PersonalWeb purports to define a “webpage base file” as an HTML file. Twitch admits that that
`PersonalWeb purports to define “asset files” as “Web content referenced in an HTML or similar
`file.” Twitch admits that a web browser can retrieve web content specified in an HTML file or in
`
` 3
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`other web content as part of the process of displaying a webpage. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 20 of the complaint.
`21.
`Twitch 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. Twitch admits that the path component of a URI may include a filename.
`Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 21 of the complaint.
`22.
`Twitch admits that a web browser may retrieve an HTML file from a remote web
`server. Twitch 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. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 22 of the complaint.
`23.
`Twitch admits that the term “dynamic webpage” often describes an HTML file that
`is generated by software in response to an HTTP request. Twitch admits that a “static webpage”
`typically describes an HTML file that is delivered by a web server without being generated in
`response to an HTTP request. Twitch admits that web server applications may generate HTML
`files. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 23 of the complaint.
`24.
`Twitch 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. Twitch further admits that using cached
`content can increase the speed at which a browser displays web content. Twitch denies the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 24 of the complaint.
`25.
`Twitch admits that two computers communicating with one another over the Internet
`are not typically directly connected. Twitch admits that web content may be served via web servers
`that in turn retrieve content from upstream or “origin” servers. Twitch further admits that web
`servers may cache content and serve requested web content from a cache under certain
`circumstances. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 25 of the complaint.
`26.
`Twitch admits that HTTP responses can include a header and a body. Twitch further
`admits that HTTP response headers can contain a header called “cache-control” that can override
`
` 4
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`the default caching behavior of a browser or other web cache, including by specifying directives
`that can limit whether and how long an HTTP response may be cached. Twitch denies the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the complaint.
`27.
`Twitch admits that webpage content can change. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 27 of the complaint.
`28.
`It is unclear to which entities the phrase “website owners” is intended to identify.
`Twitch thus lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
`allegations of paragraph 28 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND
`29.
`Twitch admits it operated the twitch.tv website and provided website content to its
`users before the latest expiration date of the patents-in-suit. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 29 of the complaint.
`30.
`Twitch denies that its web host servers utilized a system that either “authorized” or
`denied “authorization” to use or render objects or cached content. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 30 of the complaint.
`31.
`Twitch admits that its web servers support the use of conditional GET requests
`including If-None-Match header fields and entity tags as described in the HTTP specification for
`content for which Twitch’s web servers served an ETag header field. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 31 of the complaint.
`32.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 32 of the complaint.
`33.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 33 of the complaint.
`34.
`Twitch admits that using conditional GET requests with If-None-Match header
`fields was one method of reducing the total bandwidth needed to serve web pages when some of
`the content was previously cached and expired but was still valid at the time of the request. Twitch
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 34 of the complaint.
`35.
`Twitch admits that at least some of the webpages served from the twitch.tv domain
`before the expiration date of the patents-in-suit were comprised of an HTML file and at least one
`additional file referenced in the HTML file by a uniform resource identifier (“URI”). Twitch admits
`
` 5
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`that a URI typically included a host name and a path to a resource. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 35 of the complaint.
`36.
`Twitch admits that at least some of the webpages served from the twitch.tv domain
`before the expiration date of the patents-in-suit were generated in part via a web application
`framework. Twitch denies that it created fingerprints as that term is apparently defined by
`PersonalWeb. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 36 of the complaint.
`37.
`Twitch admits that at least some of the webpages served from the twitch.tv domain
`before the expiration date of the patents-in-suit were comprised of an HTML file and at least one
`additional file referenced in the HTML file by a uniform resource identifier (“URI”). Twitch admits
`that before the expiration date of the patents-in-suit, it was possible for certain non-HTML files to
`include the URI of another non-HTML file that would also be used to render a webpage. Twitch
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 37 of the complaint.
`38.
`Twitch admits that it is possible for a dynamically-generated HTML file served from
`the twitch.tv domain before the expiration date of the patents-in-suit to be unchanged from one
`request to another. Twitch admits that if a subsequent version of a dynamically-generated HTML
`file included one or more different URLs in the text of the HTML content than the prior version,
`then the two versions of the HTML would be different. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of
`paragraph 38 of the complaint.
`39.
`Twitch denies that it created fingerprints as that term is apparently defined by
`PersonalWeb. Twitch admits that at least one file referenced by HTML files served by the twitch.tv
`domain prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit included portions of their filenames that were,
`in part, related to the content of the files. Twitch admits that, if a HTTP response had an ETag that
`was based on its content, that a change in the content would lead to a changed ETag if and when
`the ETag was recalculated. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 39 of the
`complaint.
`40.
`Twitch admits that files are comprised of a sequence of bits. Twitch admits that, for
`at least one file referenced by HTML served by the twitch.tv domain prior to the expiration of the
`patents-in-suit, that file was served with an ETag header field with a value that was the output of a
`
` 6
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`hash function applied to the sequence of the bits of the file. Twitch denies the remaining allegations
`of paragraph 40 of the complaint.
`41.
`Twitch admits that it stored data on Amazon Web Services’ Simple Storage Service
`or “S3” prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit, and that such use was governed by an
`agreement. Twitch admits that it uploaded data to S3 as objects. Twitch admits that the objects it
`stored on Amazon S3 comprised a sequence of bits. Twitch admits that the documentation for
`Amazon S3 stated during the relevant time that S3 would generate ETag values for the objects
`Twitch uploaded to S3. Twitch admits the documentation for Amazon S3 stated during the relevant
`time that the ETag value for some objects uploaded to S3 would be based on an MD5 hash of the
`object. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41 of the complaint.
`42.
`Twitch admits that prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit, the ETag value set
`for some HTTP responses sent from the twitch.tv website was generated by applying a hash
`function to the body of the HTTP response. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`42 of the complaint.
`43.
`Twitch admits that that web clients such as caches and web browsers typically
`request web content with HTTP GET requests, and that Twitch’s webservers before the expiration
`of the patents-in-suit typically sent HTTP 200 responses in response to a successful request. Twitch
`admits that after retrieving and loading an HTML file, web browsers will typically make further
`HTTP GET requests to some URIs referenced in the HTML, such as those which will be used in
`rendering the content of the HTML file. Twitch admits that web browsers and caches typically
`cache successful HTTP responses. Twitch lacks information regarding the internal structure of the
`unnamed “origin servers, intermediate cache servers, and browser caches” referenced in paragraph
`43 of the complaint and on that basis denies those allegations. Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 43 of the complaint.
`44.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 44 of the complaint.
`45.
`Twitch admits that it served HTTP responses that included cache-control headers
`for at least some web content before the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Twitch denies the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 45 of the complaint.
`
` 7
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`46.
`Twitch admits that many web browsers can be configured to cache and re-use web
`content. Twitch admits that the HTTP specification defines cache-control headers that can limit
`what content is designated as cacheable. Twitch admits that web browsers will typically request
`web content that is not cached. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 46 of the
`complaint.
`47.
`Twitch admits that many web browsers can be configured to cache web content.
`Twitch admits that some web browsers can send a GET request for a URI with If-None-Match
`headers and an ETag value for cached content after content is stale, where the original response
`included an ETag value. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 47 of the complaint.
`48.
`Twitch admits that web caches may respond to HTTP requests for content that has
`been cached. Twitch admits that some conditional GET requests described in the HTTP
`specification can use ETag values. Twitch lacks information regarding the internal structure of the
`unnamed intermediate cache servers and origin servers referenced in paragraph 48 of the complaint
`and on that basis denies those allegations. Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`48 of the complaint.
`49.
`Twitch admits that the HTTP specification describes that a web server should send
`an HTTP 304 response when the current ETag for a resource matches an ETag listed in an If-None-
`Match header field in an HTTP GET request. Twitch admits that some web caches will request
`content that is not cached from another web server which may have the content. Twitch lacks
`information regarding the internal structure of the unnamed intermediate cache servers and origin
`servers referenced in paragraph 49 of the complaint and on that basis denies those allegations.
`Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 49 of the complaint.
`50.
` Twitch admits that the HTTP specification describes that a web server may send an
`HTTP 200 response in response to any GET request if all preconditions in the request are met.
`Twitch admits that web browsers, if configured and able to do so, will typically cache the latest
`version of a web resource which they have received. Twitch lacks information regarding the
`internal structure of the unnamed intermediate cache servers and web browsers referenced in
`paragraph 50 of the complaint and on that basis denies those allegations. Twitch denies the
`
` 8
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 50 of the complaint.
`51.
`Twitch admits that Exhibit 1 purports to identify files served on behalf of Twitch.
`Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 51 of the complaint.
`52.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 52.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,928,442
`53.
`Twitch incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in
`paragraphs 1-52 of the complaint.
`54.
`Twitch 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. Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or
`falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 54 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies
`them.
`
`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 NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`55.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 55 of the complaint.
`56.
`Twitch admits that claim 10 of the ’442 patent requires “[a] method, in a system in
`which a plurality of files are distributed across a plurality of computers.” Twitch denies the
`remaining allegations of paragraph 56 of the complaint.
`57.
`Twitch 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.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations
`of paragraph 57 of the complaint.
`58.
`Twitch 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.” Twitch
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 58 of the complaint.
`59.
`Twitch 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.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 59 of the
`complaint.
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`60.
`
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 60 of the complaint.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`61.
`Twitch incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in
`paragraphs 1-52 of the complaint.
`62.
`Twitch 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.
`Twitch lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 62 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`63.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 63 of the complaint.
`64.
`Twitch admits that claim 20 of the ’310 patent requires “[a] computer-implemented
`method operable in a system which includes a plurality of computers.” Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 64 of the complaint.
`65.
`Twitch 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
`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
`particular 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.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 65 of the
`complaint.
`66.
`Twitch 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
`unauthorized or unlicensed, not permitting the content to be provided to or accessed by the at least
`one other computer.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 66 of the complaint.
`
`10
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`67.
`Twitch admits that claim 69 of the ’310 patent requires “[a] system operable in a
`network of computers, the system comprising hardware including at least a processor, and software,
`in combination with said hardware.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 67 of
`the complaint.
`68.
`Twitch admits that claim 69 of the ’310 patent requires “(a) to receive at a first
`computer, from a second computer, a request regarding a data item, said request including at least
`a content-dependent name for the data item, the content-dependent name being based at least in
`part on a function of the data in the data item, wherein the data used by the function to determine
`the content-dependent name comprises at least some of the contents of the data item, wherein the
`function that was used is a message digest function or a hash function, and wherein two identical
`data items will have the same content-dependent name.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations
`of paragraph 68 of the complaint.
`69.
`Twitch admits that claim 69 of the ’310 patent requires “(b) in response to said
`request: (i) to cause the content-dependent name of the data item to be compared to a plurality of
`values; and (ii) to determine if access to the data item is authorized or unauthorized based on
`whether or not the content-dependent name corresponds to at least one of said plurality of values,
`and (iii) based on whether or not it is determined that access to the data item is authorized or
`unauthorized, to allow the data item to be provided to or accessed by the second computer if it is
`not determined that access to the data item is unauthorized.” Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 69 of the complaint.
`70.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 70 of the complaint.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,945,544
`71.
`Twitch incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations contained in
`paragraphs 1-52 of the complaint.
`72.
`Twitch admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544 lists May 17, 2011 as its issue date
`and “Similarity-Based Access Control of Data in a Data Processing System” as its title. Twitch
`lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations
`
`11
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`of paragraph 72 of the complaint, and, on that basis, denies them.
`73.
`Twitch denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the complaint.
`74.
`Twitch admits that claim 46 of the ’544 patent requires “[a] computer-implemented
`method.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 74 of the complaint.
`75.
`Twitch admits that claim 46 of the ’544 patent requires “(A) for each particular file
`of a plurality of files: (a2) determining a particular digital key for the particular file, wherein the
`particular file comprises a first one or more parts.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of
`paragraph 75 of the complaint.
`76.
`Twitch admits that claim 46 of the ’544 patent requires “each part of said first one
`or more parts having a corresponding part value, the part value of each specific part of said first
`one or more parts being based on a first function of the contents of the specific part, wherein two
`identical parts will have the same part value as determined by the first function, and wherein the
`particular digital key for the particular file is determined using a second function of the one or more
`of part values of said first one or more parts.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`76 of the complaint.
`77.
`Twitch admits that claim 46 of the ’544 patent requires “(a2) adding the particular
`digital key of the particular file to a database, the database including a mapping from digital keys
`of files to information about the corresponding files.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of
`paragraph 77 of the complaint.
`78.
`Twitch admits that claim 46 of the ’544 patent requires “(B) determining a search
`key based on search criteria, wherein the search criteria comprise a second one or more parts, each
`of said second one or more parts of said search criteria having a corresponding part value, the part
`value of each specific part of said second one or more parts being based on the first function of the
`contents of the specific part, and wherein the search key is determined using the second function
`of the one or more of part values of said second one or more parts.” Twitch denies the remaining
`allegations of paragraph 78 of the complaint.
`79.
`Twitch admits that claim 46 of the ’544 patent requires “(C) attempting to match the
`search key with a digital key in the database.” Twitch denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`12
`TWITCH’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`CASE NO. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`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 318 Filed 12/11/18 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`79