Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 6
`Case 5:18-md-02834—BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO
`BE SEALED
`
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO
`
`BE SEALED
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834—BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 1 of 6
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO
`BE SEALED
`
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO
`
`BE SEALED
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 2 of 6
`
`Atkinson-Baker, Inc.Atkinson-Baker, Inc.
`
`www.depo.comwww.depo.com
`
`·1· · · · · · · · UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`·2· · · · · · · NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · ·SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`·4· ·________________________________________________________
`
`·5· ·IN RE PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,)
`· · ·LLC, ET. AL., PATENT LITIGATION,)
`·6· ·________________________________)
`· · ·AMAZON.COM, INC., ET AL.,· · · ·)
`·7· · · · · · · ·Plaintiffs,· · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·8· ·v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )No. 5:18-md-02834
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`·9· ·PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, )
`· · ·ET AL.,· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · · · · · · · ·Defendants.· · · · ·)
`11· ·________________________________)
`· · ·PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC· )
`12· ·and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`13· · · · · · · ·Counterclaimants,· ·)
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`14· ·v.· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · )
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`15· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`· · ·AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB)
`16· ·SERVICES, INC.,· · · · · · · · ·)
`
`17· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)
`
`18· · · · · · · ·Counterdefendants.· )
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`December 21, 2018December 21, 2018
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 3 of 6
`
`Atkinson-Baker, Inc.Atkinson-Baker, Inc.
`
`www.depo.comwww.depo.com
`
`·1· ·Don't get me wrong.
`
`10:56:52
`
`10:56:54
`
`10:56:58
`
`10:56:58
`
`10:57:01
`
`10:57:04
`
`10:57:04
`
`10:57:05
`
`10:57:09
`
`10:57:09
`
`10:57:10
`
`10:57:12
`
`10:57:15
`
`10:57:19
`
`10:57:25
`
`10:57:31
`
`10:57:34
`
`10:57:36
`
`10:57:38
`
`10:57:45
`
`10:57:57
`
`10:58:00
`
`10:58:03
`
`10:58:12
`
`10:58:25
`
`
`30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`December 21, 2018December 21, 2018
`
`41YVer1f
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 4 of 6
`
`Atkinson-Baker, Inc.Atkinson-Baker, Inc.
`
`www.depo.comwww.depo.com
`
`·1· ·talking about.
`
`·2· ·Q.· · · Fair enough.
`
`·3· ·A.· · · That's not trying to be picayune.· That's
`
`·4· ·actually very important.
`
`·5· ·Q.· · · Let's rephrase the question.· With respect to
`
`·6· ·the Amazon online customer agreement that existed as of
`
`·7· ·December 26th, 2016, Amazon had no obligation to
`
`·8· ·indemnify those customers with respect to claims of
`
`·9· ·infringement by third parties; correct?
`
`10· ·A.· · · Correct.
`
`11· ·Q.· · · And it wasn't until June 28, 2017, that Amazon
`
`11:10:56
`
`11:10:57
`
`11:10:58
`
`11:11:05
`
`11:11:05
`
`11:11:09
`
`11:11:14
`
`11:11:20
`
`11:11:28
`
`11:11:30
`
`11:11:31
`
`12· ·first had -- or allegedly had an obligation to indemnify
`
`11:11:41
`
`13· ·its online customers for claims of infringement by third
`
`11:11:49
`
`14· ·parties; correct?
`
`15· · · · · ·MR. HADDEN:· Object to the form.
`
`16· ·A.· · · Yeah.· It wasn't until June 28, 2017, that
`
`17· ·Amazon had included in its online customer agreement an
`
`18· ·indemnification from Amazon to its customers whose use
`
`19· ·of the services were governed by that agreement for
`
`20· ·claims of infringement by third parties caused by the
`
`21· ·use of Amazon's technology.
`
`22· ·BY MR. GERSH:
`
`23· ·Q.· · · Is there any provision that you're aware of in
`
`24· ·any Amazon online customer agreement that makes that
`
`11:11:52
`
`11:11:53
`
`11:11:54
`
`11:12:01
`
`11:12:07
`
`11:12:12
`
`11:12:15
`
`11:12:21
`
`11:12:23
`
`11:12:23
`
`11:12:28
`
`25· ·June 28, 2017 change or the indemnification as you refer
`
`11:12:32
`
`
`30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`December 21, 2018December 21, 2018
`
`49YVer1f
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 5 of 6
`
`Atkinson-Baker, Inc.Atkinson-Baker, Inc.
`
`www.depo.comwww.depo.com
`
`·1· ·sufficient immediacy and reality to empower the Court to
`
`12:07:35
`
`·2· ·issue a declaratory judgment.
`
`·3· ·Q.· · · There's no mention of indemnity in here, is
`
`·4· ·there?
`
`·5· ·A.· · · Not expressly.· One of the ways in which there
`
`·6· ·is a immediate and real controversy between us, one,
`
`·7· ·among many ways, is that Amazon is obligated to defend
`
`·8· ·the customers for your lawsuits against them.
`
`12:07:39
`
`12:07:40
`
`12:07:45
`
`12:07:45
`
`12:07:46
`
`12:07:50
`
`12:07:54
`
`·9· ·Q.· · · Well, you said Amazon is obligated to defendant.
`
`12:07:57
`
`10· ·You base that upon what?
`
`11· ·A.· · · On Section 9.2 of the customer agreement
`
`14· ·Q.· · · Sticking only to the AWS agreement, that's the
`
`12:08:01
`
`12:08:03
`
`12:08:06
`
`12:08:12
`
`12:08:12
`
`15· ·one that was amended, as I understand it, June 28, 2017?
`
`12:08:15
`
`16· ·A.· · · The customer agreement.· The online customer
`
`17· ·agreement.
`
`12:08:18
`
`12:08:21
`
`18· ·Q.· · · Correct.· And nothing in that customer agreement
`
`12:08:21
`
`19· ·mentions at all indemnifying a customer for damages that
`
`12:08:25
`
`20· ·occurred prior to June 28, 2017; correct?
`
`21· · · · · ·MR. HADDEN:· Object to form.
`
`22· ·A.· · · That's not my understanding of -- of the
`
`23· ·agreement.· If you say that it doesn't mention it
`
`24· ·expressly, you are correct.·
`
`12:08:30
`
`12:08:34
`
`12:08:35
`
`12:08:38
`
`12:08:41
`
`12:08:43
`
`
`30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`December 21, 2018December 21, 2018
`
`76YVer1f
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 348-2 Filed 01/18/19 Page 6 of 6
`
`Atkinson-Baker, Inc.Atkinson-Baker, Inc.
`
`www.depo.comwww.depo.com
`
`·1· ·how to defend it, uh-huh.
`
`·2· ·Q.· · · Were there discussions at all about S3?· What
`
`·3· ·portions of S3 Twitch was using?
`
`·4· · · · · ·MR. HADDEN:· Objection.· Same instruction.
`
`·5· ·BY MR. GERSH:
`
`·6· ·Q.· · · Just "yes" or "no"?
`
`·7· · · · · ·MR. HADDEN:· No, it's not.· You're asking about
`
`·8· ·specific content of a privileged communication.· The
`
`·9· ·instruction is, don't answer.
`
`10· · · · · ·MR. GERSH:· I'll withdraw it.
`
`11· ·BY MR. GERSH:
`
`12· ·Q.· · · Did Amazon make any determination before
`
`13· ·agreeing to indemnify any of the defendant customers as
`
`14· ·to what portions of S3 those customers were using?
`
`15· · · · · ·MR. HADDEN:· Object to the form.
`
`16· ·A.· · · Amazon determined that S3 was accused of
`
`17· ·infringement.· And that the reason that the customers
`
`18· ·were defendants was because of their use of S3.
`
`19· · · · ·
`
`01:46:24
`
`01:46:27
`
`01:46:32
`
`01:46:35
`
`01:46:38
`
`01:46:39
`
`01:46:40
`
`01:46:44
`
`01:46:48
`
`01:46:49
`
`01:46:55
`
`01:46:56
`
`01:47:02
`
`01:47:08
`
`01:47:12
`
`01:47:13
`
`01:47:30
`
`01:47:34
`
`01:47:43
`
`01:47:47
`
`01:47:52
`
`22· ·Q.· · · Were any of the customers also using CloudFront?
`
`01:47:52
`
`23· ·A.· · · I don't know.
`
`01:47:56
`
`24· ·Q.· · · Was CloudFront an issue in the Texas litigation?
`
`01:47:56
`
`25· · · · · ·MR. HADDEN:· Object to the form.
`
`01:48:01
`
`
`30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only30(b)(6) Jeffrey H. Dean - Attorneys' Eyes Only
`
`December 21, 2018December 21, 2018
`
`118YVer1f
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
