Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 356 Filed 02/01/19 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
` Case No. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
` Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`RESPONSE OF AMAZON.COM, INC.
`AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`LEAVE FILE A SUR-REPLY TO
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`AMAZON’S RESP. TO ADMIN MOT. FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 356 Filed 02/01/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`PersonalWeb’s request for leave to file a sur-reply is unwarranted. All the arguments in
`Amazon’s reply brief respond to the contentions PersonalWeb raised in its opposition. In the motion,
`Amazon “request[ed] that the Court . . . bar PersonalWeb from asserting any claim against Amazon
`or its customers that relates to the use or operation of S3.” (Dkt. 315 (Mot.) at 2 (emphasis added);
`see also Dkt. 315-19 (Proposed Order) (seeking order that PersonalWeb is barred from asserting any
`claim based on “use or operation of Amazon Simple Storage Service (‘S3’)”).) In response,
`PersonalWeb claimed that Amazon “ignore[d] ‘CloudFront’ and the role that separate product plays
`in the infringement.” (See, e.g., Dkt. 334 (Opp.) at 3.) In direct response to this argument, Amazon
`noted that the motion did not address CloudFront because that product is not, and cannot be, at issue
`in this case. (Dkt. 350 (Reply) at 8-10.) PersonalWeb is not entitled to a sur-reply. See Heil Co. v.
`Curotto Can Co., No. 04-1590 MMC, 2004 WL 2600134, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2004)
`(denying defendant’s request for leave to file a sur-reply where “[c]ontrary to defendant’s argument,
`plaintiff’s reply does not raise new legal arguments, but, rather, responds to legal arguments made
`in defendant’s opposition”), aff’d per curiam, 163 F. App’x 908 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`The Court should deny PersonalWeb’s request also because it is untimely: Amazon filed the
`reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on January 24, 2019 (Dkt. 350) and
`PersonalWeb waited a week to seek leave to file a sur-reply.
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2019
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Saina S. Shamilov
`Saina S. Shamilov
`
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC. and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`AMAZON’S RESP. TO ADMIN MOT. FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`