`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 26
`
`Michael A. Sherman (SBN 94783)
`masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`Jeffrey F. Gersh (SBN 87124)
`jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`Sandeep Seth (SBN 195914)
`sseth@stubbsalderton.com
`Wesley W. Monroe (SBN 149211)
`wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com
`Stanley H. Thompson, Jr. (SBN 198825)
`sthompson@stubbsalderton.com
`Viviana Boero Hedrick (SBN 239359)
`vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone:
`(818) 444-4500
`Facsimile:
`(818) 444-4520
`
`Attorneys for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`and Level 3 Communications, LLC
`[Additional Attorneys listed below]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et
`al.,
`
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON.COM,
`INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
`INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
`UNDER THE CLAIM PRECLUSION AND
`KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`
`Date: February 7, 2019
`Time: 2:00PM
`Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`
`
`
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`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
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................3
`
`A. What Amazon’s Motion is Not ..............................................................................3
`
`B. What the Texas Action Did Involve ......................................................................4
`
`C. What is Asserted in the Counterclaim Against Amazon and the Twitch
`Complaint ...............................................................................................................6
`
`III. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`Claim Preclusion Is Inapplicable to all of PersonalWeb’s Claims ....................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Website Operators Are Not Legal Privies of Amazon ....................7
`
`This Case Does Not Involve the Same Transaction or Series of
`Transactions .............................................................................................11
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Technology Here Is Not “Essentially the Same” ...............14
`
`At Most, Claim Preclusion Would Be Limited to
`Infringement Occurring Before April 6, 2012 ...........................15
`
`3.
`
`The Stipulation for Dismissal Belies Amazon’s Current Position .......18
`
`B.
`
`Application of Kessler Requires a Prior Non-Infringement Judgment...........19
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 3 of 26
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
` 525 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................................. 3, 7, 11, 12, 13
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
` No. 5:14-CV-01379-PSG, 2015 WL 4999944 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) ................ 7, 8, 11, 12, 13
`
`Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Wowza Media Sys., LLC,
`
` 72 F. Supp. 3d 989 (N.D. Cal. 2014). ............................................................................................. 19
`
`Asetek Danmark A/S v. CMI USA Inc.,
`
` 852 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`
` 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
`
` 746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 8, 17, 19
`
`Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.,
`
` 126 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................................... 16
`
`Concha v. London,
`
` 62 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................... 18
`
`Curtis v. Citibank, N.A.,
`
` 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000). .......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Dow Chems. Corp. v. NOVA Chems. Corp. (Can.),
`
` 803 F.3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ........................................................................................................ 17
`
`Foster v. Hallco Mfg. Co., Inc.,
`
` 947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991.................................................................................................... 12, 19
`
`Gillig v. Nike, Inc.,
`
` 602 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 15, 16
`
`In re Piper Aircraft Corp.,
`
` 244 F. 3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 16
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 4 of 26
`
`Kessler v. Eldred,
`
` 206 U.S. 285 (1907) ......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Larson v. General Motors Corp.,
`
` 134 F.2d 450 (2d Cir. 1943) ........................................................................................................... 19
`
`Lawlor v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp.,
`
` 349 U.S. 322,75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955).......................................................................... 16
`
`Lyons v. Fire Ins. Exch.,
`
` 161 Cal.App.4th 880 (2008) ........................................................................................................... 18
`
`Manning v. City of Auburn,
`
` 953 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1992) ....................................................................................................... 16
`
`Maples v. SolarWinds, Inc.,
`
` 50 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................................ 18
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`
` 851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. dismissed, 139 S. Ct. 44 (2018) .......................................... 17
`
`Molinaro v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.,
`
` 460 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. Pa. 1978), aff'd sub nom. Molinaro, Appeal of, 620 F.2d 288 (3d Cir.
`1980) ............................................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`
` 580 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 15, 17
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
` No. 6:11-cv-658 (E.D. Tex.)........................................................................................................... 15
`
`Schnitger v. Canoga Elecs. Corp.,
`
` 462 F.2d, 628 (9th Cir. 1972) ........................................................................................................... 9
`
`Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.,
`
` 746 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`
` 884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................... 13
`
`Speedtrack Inc. v Office Depot, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 5 of 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
` No. C 07-3602 PJH, 2014 WL 1813292 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2014) ................................................ 10
`
`Tech Licensing Corp. v. Thomson, Inc.,
`
` No. 2:03-1329 WBS PAN, 2010 WL 843560 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) ........................................ 9
`
`Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc.,
`
` 474 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`ViaTech Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation,
`
` No. 17-570-RGA, 2018 WL 4126522 (Del. Aug. 29, 2018) .................................................... 11, 13
`
`Young Engineers, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`
` 721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................ 11, 13
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Restatement (Second) of Judgments §24 (Dimensions of “Claim” for Purposes of Merger or Bar–
`General Rule Concerning “Splitting”) (1982) .......................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Restatement (Second) of Judgments §26 (Exceptions to the General Rule Concerning Splitting)
`(1982)........................................................................................................................................ 13, 17
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`Treatises
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`18A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §4443 On the Merits—Admissions, Stipulations, and Consent
`Judgments (2d ed.) .......................................................................................................................... 18
`
`18A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §4460 Commercial Relationships (2d ed.) ............................................ 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 6 of 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Amazon’s summary judgment motion should be denied because it is founded on three faulty
`
`premises: First, that claim preclusion applies indefinitely after a judgment in a prior case, despite that
`
`the controlling Federal Circuit cases on claim preclusion hold that it only applies up to the date of the
`
`complaint in a prior case. Fully crediting Amazon’s entire motion thus results in – at most – a few
`
`months of claim preclusion depending on when complaints against each of the 84 website operator
`
`defendants were filed. Second, that the Texas Action involved essentially the same technology
`
`concerning S3 as the present action, which is not the case. Third, that the Kessler doctrine does not
`
`require that Amazon was adjudged a non-infringer of PersonalWeb’s TrueName patents in that earlier
`
`Texas Action. That too is inaccurate.
`
`Amazon’s conclusion that claim preclusion today defeats all PersonalWeb’s claims ignores the
`
`agreement (the “Stipulation of Dismissal”) that Amazon and PersonalWeb signed on June 6, 2014 in
`
`connection with the resolution of the Texas Action (Monroe Decl. Ex. 1.) Amazon avoids mention of
`
`that contract in its moving papers, yet its language shows that the parties had then agreed that:
`
`all claims in the above-captioned action shall, in accordance with the concurrently
`
`submitted Order of Dismissal, be dismissed with prejudice, that Defendants
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services LLC retain the right to challenge
`
`validity, infringement, and/or enforceability of the patents-in-suit, via defense or
`
`otherwise, in any future suit or proceeding ….
`
`20
`
`Id.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`By choosing this expression of the parties’ agreement, PersonalWeb and Amazon both
`
`recognized as of that point in time, that PersonalWeb’s right to pursue both future identical as well as
`
`any additional TrueName patent infringement claims against Amazon, required that Amazon
`
`expressly reserve all future, substantive defensive rights. Nothing in the Order of Dismissal With
`
`Prejudice or the Final Judgment found or adjudged that the TrueName patents were non-infringing or
`
`invalid. Nothing in that dismissal package divested PersonalWeb of rights to claim patent
`
`infringement and validity against Amazon in the future. Otherwise, the above-quoted language is
`
`meaningless surplusage. Now, though, Amazon just ignores its contract and basic principles of
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 7 of 26
`
`contract law.
`
`As demonstrated by the Texas Action infringement contentions, that case was limited to the
`
`multipart upload feature of S3 (“MPU”). (de la Iglesia Decl. (“DLI Decl.”) ¶14; McClory Decl. ¶¶6-
`
`8.) MPU involves
`
`. (McClory Decl. ¶¶4-5; Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 (Amazon
`
`
`
`
`
`30(b)(6) Markle Depo. (“Markle Depo.”) at 33:18-34:4.) During the
`
`
`
`
`
`(McClory Decl. ¶5; Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 164:2-24.) That MPU feature is not at issue here; rather,
`
`S3’s downloading feature is
`
`
`
`
`
` (DLI Decl. ¶14; McClory Decl. ¶9; Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at
`
`89:2-10, 187:4-9.) Another Amazon product is also at issue, called CloudFront–which despite
`
`PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions having clearly identified that product as instrumental to the
`
`accused infringement (Monroe Decl. Ex. 2A, ’310 Claim Chart), Amazon nowhere mentions it. The
`
`transactional facts in this action are thus not essentially the same as the ones in the Texas Action, and
`
`Amazon is unable to meet its burden to prove otherwise.
`
`Despite Amazon purporting to file its motion in both its DJ action and seeking orders of
`
`dismissal of each of the website operator cases, its motion overlooks that there are four categories of
`
`website operator activity involved in the infringement of at least one PersonalWeb patent-in-suit, and
`
`only one category, what PersonalWeb has referred to as “category 3,” alleges the use of S3 at all. (DLI
`
`Decl. ¶13.) The infringement alleged for Infringement Categories 1, 2, and 4 does not involve S3 at
`
`all. (Id.) Amazon does not dispute that infringement in these categories is separate from what was
`
`alleged in the Texas Action. The complaints against all but ten website operator defendants allege
`
`infringement in at least one of these categories and thus are not subject to claim preclusion (or the
`
`Kessler doctrine) for that reason alone. Further, there are twenty-three website operators that
`
`PersonalWeb only alleges engage in Infringement Categories 1, 2, and/or 4. (Monroe Decl.; Ex. 3.)
`
`The infringement alleged for Category 3 also does not include the same transaction or series
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`REDACTED - Sought To Be Sealed
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 8 of 26
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`of transactions as previously alleged. While Amazon paints a picture of S3 as some monolithic device,
`
`reality is different—S3 involves many separate features and functionalities. In fact, S3 includes an
`
`entire suite of features
`
`
`
`McClory Decl. ¶3). The Texas Action involved just
`
` (Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 167:23-4; see also,
`
`
`
`. (DLI Decl. ¶14;
`
`McClory Decl. ¶¶7-11; Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 122:18-123:9, 129:18-130:11, 134:24-135:4, 136:20-
`
`139:19, 170:3-9, 171:10-172:19, 187:14-19.) In contrast, the activity in Infringement Category 3
`
`involves the serving (downloading) of webpage files to public web browsers. (DLI Decl. ¶¶8-9;
`
`McClory Decl. ¶10.) The present case involves a separate and transactionally distinct subset of the
`
`numerous S3 features, precluding claim preclusion by the Texas Action.
`
`Just as claim preclusion cannot bar PersonalWeb’s claims in this action, Amazon cannot abuse
`
`the protections offered under the Kessler doctrine to deprive PersonalWeb of its day in court. The
`
`Kessler doctrine does not apply because there was no adjudication of noninfringement in the Texas
`
`Action—the issue was not reached before dismissal. Amazon ignores the requirement of a prior
`
`adjudication specific to noninfringement for application of the Kessler doctrine.
`
`17
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`A. What Amazon’s Motion is Not
`
`Claim preclusion can only apply if the second action alleges infringement by the same specific
`
`device as in the first action, to show that the second action involves the same set of transactions.
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d 1319, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2008). There are material
`
`differences between the Texas Action and the present case, and Amazon ignores “CloudFront” and
`
`the role that separate product plays in the infringement, as well as all non-Category 3 infringement
`
`alleged in the operative complaints including PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions against Twitch.
`
`Service of webpage assets is an integral component of Category 3 infringement. Many of the
`
`website operator defendants in Category 3 use CloudFront
`
`
`
` (McClory Decl. ¶12; Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 32:17-33:16.)
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 9 of 26
`
`Unlike S3, Amazon’s CloudFront is
`
`33:8-16, 155:20-156:12.) CloudFront and S3 have their own
`
`155-56.) One can be a “customer” of
`
`
`
`. (Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Id. at 33,
`
`. (Id.)
`
`Infringement Categories 1 and 2 do not involve S3. Category 1 infringement does not involve
`
`S3 and is not encompassed by Amazon’s motion. In this category, Twitch’s web server system
`
`generates MD5 ETags for its webpage base files and serves the files and their ETags to browsers
`
`rendering Twitch’s webpages. (DLI Decl. ¶¶6-8; Monroe Decl. Ex. 6.) These ETags are not generated
`
`by S3, but rather via Twitch’s own webpage server system, a fact that is absent from Amazon’s moving
`
`papers. (Id.) Category 2 also does not involve S3. This category involves Twitch’s generation of MD5
`
`ETags for its webpage asset files by Twitch’s own web server system, and not by S3. (Id.) These
`
`categories are nowhere dealt with in Amazon’s Motion.
`
`Category 4 alleges infringement that involves fingerprints generated outside of S3. Twitch
`
`uses its website server to generate content fingerprints for the content of its webpage asset files and
`
`inserts these into the asset file’s filename. (DLI Decl. ¶10; Monroe Decl. Ex. 6.) As these fingerprints
`
`are generated, inserted into the asset file’s name, and served via the operators own webpage server,
`
`using non-S3 products, it is outside the scope of the Motion. (Id.)
`
`The ‘544 patent infringement allegations do not involve S3. PersonalWeb’s ‘544 infringement
`
`allegations involve the combination of the generation and use of Category 1 website base file ETags
`
`and Category 4 website asset file filenames with fingerprints. (DLI Decl. ¶¶7, 10, 11, 13; Monroe
`
`Decl. Ex. 7D.) Again, S3 is not used to generate either of these. (Id.) The ‘544 infringement is
`
`likewise outside of the scope of the Motion.
`
`B. What the Texas Action Did Involve
`
`Amazon references S3’s relevance to the Texas Action as if the same transactions were and
`
`are at issue then and now. Yes, there is an overlap of the infringed patents between this case and the
`
`Texas Action, as it relates to category 3, only. And, yes both involved PersonalWeb and Amazon. But
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 10 of 26
`
`the comparisons stop there. Amazon attaches only seven of the 112 pages of the Texas infringement
`
`contentions (compare Ex. 9 of Shamilov Decl. to Ex. 2A of Monroe Decl.) Big picture, the snippets
`
`selectively attached by Amazon are presented out of context, and in context, the handful of references
`
`(six short references, total, in 112 pages) to conditional GET requests with “If-None-Match” headers
`
`show that they are only cited because they are in the same chart in Amazon’s API as “If-Match”
`
`headers which are used by way of analogy to help explain the use of the “x-amz-copy-source-if-match”
`
`header, which implements a custom S3 function actually used in, and exclusive to, MPU and is not
`
`used at all in downloading. (McClory Decl. ¶9; Hadley Decl. ¶¶4-5.) Indeed, the prior Texas Action
`
`did not involve the service of files at all, much less webpage files; a review of the entire docket in the
`
`Texas Action reveals that terms such as “cache,” “cache control,” “cache busting,” “browser” and
`
`“CloudFront” nowhere appear in any of the pleadings filed in that case (Seth Decl.) Yet that is
`
`precisely what is in issue, in this MDL, now, with the service to anonymous browsers of webpage
`
`content, involving cache control.
`
`The MPU feature of S3
`
`. (McClory Decl. ¶4; Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 76:17-77:13, 164:2-24.)
`
`. (Id.)
`
` (Id.) In MPU, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Decl. ¶9; DLI Decl. ¶15, Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 76:17-77:13, 164:2-24.)
`
` (McClory
`
` (Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 75:24-77:8, 79:14-18, 104:7-105:6.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, as confirmed by Amazon’s 30(b)(6) witness. (Id. at 187:4-9; see also McClory
`
`Decl. ¶5.) Further highlighting that the MPU does not involve
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 11 of 26
`
` (Monroe Decl. Ex.
`
`4 at 97:20-23; 98:13-99:1; 99:8-20; 101:5-13.)
`
`The Stipulation of Dismissal in the Texas Action, coupled with the absence of any adjudication
`
`of invalidity or noninfringement, point unmistakably to PersonalWeb having made a non-merits based
`
`economic decision in that case, to dismiss. And that is exactly what occurred. Dropbox was dropped
`
`when PersonalWeb discovered that Dropbox did not use MPU, and ultimately the entire case against
`
`MPU was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of revenue generated by MPU. (Hadley Decl. ¶¶7-8;
`
`Bermeister Decl. (“Berm. Decl.”) ¶¶5-6.) If adjudications of invalidity or noninfringement had been
`
`made, there would have been no need for Amazon’s reservation of rights.
`
`C. What is Asserted in the Counterclaim Against Amazon and the Twitch Complaint
`
`The only Infringement Category involving the generation of MD5 ETags by S3 is Category 3,
`
`by which Amazon and Twitch use S3 or CloudFront for cache-control of public webpage content that
`
`is downloaded by browsers and intermediate caches.
`
`Category 3 infringement in the present actions, results in S3 or CloudFront (CloudFront if the
`
`website operator separately pays CloudFront to serve its S3 webpage asset files) sending ETags to
`
`browsers in the headers of HTTP 200 messages along with a webpage asset file’s content. (DLI Decl.
`
`¶¶6-9; Monroe Decl. Ex. 2A and Ex. 7A) A browser later sends these ETags back to S3 or CloudFront
`
`in conditional HTTP GET requests to inquire whether the browser is reauthorized to use the previously
`
`cached asset file content when again rendering the webpage or must use new content. (Id.) If the ETag
`
`sent by the browser to S3 or CloudFront does not match the current ETag value for the asset file, S3
`
`or CloudFront sends (on behalf of the website operator) an HTTP 304 message, which indicates that
`
`the browser is reauthorized to use the previously cached asset file content. If the ETag does match, S3
`
`or CloudFront will send the new asset file content to the browser, along with the new assets file’s
`
`ETag value. (Id.)
`
`In contrast,
`
` (Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at
`
`89:2-10, 187:4-9; McClory Decl. ¶9.) Object ETags are used in MPU to transfer an object previously
`
`stored on S3 to another portion of S3 when there is an ETag match. (McClory Decl. ¶5.) ETags are
`
`also used in a “CompleteMultipartUpload” command to allow uploaded parts to be assembled back
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 12 of 26
`
`into a huge file for storage on S3. (Id.) Neither of these uses involve conditional GET requests. (Id.)
`
`Further distinguishing the use cases in the Texas Action and now,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 129:18-130:11; 134:24-135:4; 136:20-139:19; 170:3-
`
`9; 171:10-172:19; 187:14-19; McClory Decl. ¶8) A further distinction is that the Texas Action did not
`
`involve CloudFront,
`
`. (Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at 140:20-
`
`25; 150:21-23; 153:21-23; 155:20-156:14; 156:13-19.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Claim Preclusion Is Inapplicable to all of PersonalWeb’s Claims
`
`“Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, ‘a judgment on the merits in a prior suit bars a second
`
`suit involving the same parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.’” Acumed, 525 F.
`
`3d at 1323 (citations omitted.). Courts apply the law of the regional circuit in which the district court
`
`sits. Id. (citations omitted.). “The Ninth Circuit applies claim preclusion where: ‘(1) the same parties,
`
`or their privies, were involved in the prior litigation, (2) the prior litigation involved the same claim
`
`or cause of action as the later suit, and (3) the prior litigation was terminated by a final judgment on
`
`the merits.’” Id. (citations omitted.).
`
`1. The Website Operators Are Not Legal Privies of Amazon
`
`An assumption that pervades Amazon’s brief is that its and its customers’ interests are and
`
`have been “necessarily aligned” (Mot. at 8:11) and that a privity relationship therefore follows, despite
`
`that the website operators were in no sense a “party” to the Texas Action, nor even in the realm of
`
`contemplation. Amazon cites no law that a customer/supplier relationship alone automatically creates
`
`privity, and neither Federal Circuit nor Ninth Circuit law support such a conclusion. None of the cases
`
`that Amazon cites support its broad-sweeping “automatic privity” proposition. Indeed, the Kessler
`
`doctrine exists precisely because of the inherent lack of privity in a customer/supplier relationship in
`
`the context of claim preclusion. Amazon’s favorite decision, Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
`
`5:14-CV-01379-PSG, 2015 WL 4999944, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015) summarized Kessler v.
`
`Eldred, 206 U.S. 285, 287 (1907), which involved a manufacturer trying to protect its retail reseller
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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
`
`
`4826-6585-2805, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 334 Filed 01/09/19 Page 13 of 26
`
`customers, noting “that claim and issue preclusion did not apply [in Kessler] because there was no
`
`mutuality of parties and new acts of potential infringement may have occurred after the final judgment
`
`in the first case.” Adaptix at *2 (emphasis added). If privity were as expansive a concept as Amazon
`
`proffers there would not have been a need for Kessler, which “fills the gap between … preclusion
`
`doctrines ….” Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc., 746 F.3d 1045, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Amazon’s
`
`“necessary alignment” assertion just begs the question as to when and under what circumstances a
`
`privity relationship triggers claim preclusion principles – in contrast to the gap-filler, Kessler doctrine.
`
`The Federal Circuit has commented on privity in the context of claim preclusion under Eighth
`
`Circuit law in Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, Inc., 474 F.3d 1298, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2007):
`
`…a manufacturer or seller of a product who is sued for patent infringement typically is
`
`not in privity with a party, otherwise unrelated, who does no more than purchase and
`
`use the product. … In other words, ordinarily such parties are not so closely related and
`
`their litigation interests are not so nearly identical that a patentee’s suit against one
`
`would bar a second action against the other under the doctrine of claim preclusion.
`
`A leading federal practice treatise, in synthesizing privity relationships, concludes that “parties
`
`on opposite sides of a contract ordinarily do not have authority to bind each other by litigation with
`
`third parties.” 18A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. §4460 Commercial Relationships (2d ed.). This is
`
`consistent with how Amazon and its customers routinely conduct their business, as the form of AWS
`
`Customer Agreement in place during the relevant infringement period provided:
`
`13.3
`
`Independent Contractors; Non-Exclusive Rights. We and you are
`
`independent contractors, and neither party, nor any of their respective affiliates, is an
`
`agent of the other for any purpose or has the authority to bind the other.
`
`(Monroe Decl. Ex. 8) The Ninth Circuit does not support Amazon’s broad-sweeping proposition that
`
`automatic privity exists between customer and supplier: In Adaptix, the Magistrate Judge did not make
`
`such a broad-sweeping statement that automatic privity exists; there, the customer at issue in the later
`
`action had been known to the patentee during the patentee’s prior action against the supplier, and the
`
`patentee knew the customer was infringing the same technology at issue in the prior action. Adaptix,
`
`at *6. Here, PersonalWeb had no knowledge that Amazon’s S3 customers were using infringing cache
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`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