Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 360 Filed 02/06/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL., PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
`DENYING IN PART PERSONALWEB'S
`ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR
`RELIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Currently before the Court is PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3
`
`Communications LLC (collectively, “PersonalWeb”) administrative motion for relief related to
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) reply in support of
`
`Amazon’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 354 (“Mot.”). PersonalWeb requests that the
`
`Court strike Section H of Amazon’s reply, or in the alternative PersonalWeb requests leave to file
`
`a sur-reply. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES PersonalWeb’s request to strike and
`
`GRANTS PersonalWeb’s request to file a sur-reply.
`
`I.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`A. Request to Strike
`
`PersonalWeb argues that Amazon’s reply improperly raised for the first time the issue of
`
`whether PersonalWeb has standing to assert patent infringement regarding CloudFront. Mot. at 1.
`
`See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The district court need not consider
`
`arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.”).
`
`In the motion for summary judgment, 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.” ECF No. 315 at 2. PersonalWeb’s opposition argued that claim preclusion did
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 360 Filed 02/06/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`not apply because, inter alia, Amazon “ignore[d] ‘CloudFront’ and the role that separate product
`
`plays in the infringement.” ECF No. 334 at 3. In direct response to PersonalWeb’s argument,
`
`Amazon’s reply brief argued that CloudFront is a content delivery network and that “PersonalWeb
`
`affirmatively allege[d] that it does not assert any claims against any content delivery networks.”
`
`ECF No. 350 at 8-9. Moreover, Amazon argued that PersonalWeb did not have standing to assert
`
`claims related to CloudFront under the agreement between Kinetech, Inc. and Digital Island, Inc.,
`
`(“Kinetech-Digital Island Agreement”) which governed PersonalWeb’s right to assert the patents-
`
`in-suit. ECF No. 350 at 9-10.
`
`The Court finds that Amazon’s arguments regarding CloudFront were properly limited to
`
`responding to PersonalWeb’s arguments in its opposition. Accordingly, the Court denies
`
`PersonalWeb’s request to strike Section H of Amazon’s reply.
`
`B. Request to File a Sur-Reply
`
`In the alternative, PersonalWeb requests leave to file a sur-reply. PersonalWeb argues that
`
`it will be prejudiced if it is not given the opportunity to respond to Amazon’s arguments regarding
`
`standing. Mot. at 1.
`
`Civil Local Rule 7-3 governs filing of supplementary material and controls the analysis of
`
`PersonalWeb’s request to file a sur-reply. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, “[o]nce a reply is filed, no
`
`additional memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior court approval.” Civ. L. R. 7-
`
`3(d). When a party “raises a new argument or presents new evidence in a reply brief, a court may
`
`consider these matters only if the adverse party is given an opportunity to respond.” Banga v.
`
`First USA, NA, 29 F. Supp. 3d 1270, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
`
`Here, Amazon’s reply brief was limited to responding to PersonalWeb’s arguments.
`
`However, in doing so, Amazon presented evidence regarding the relevance of the Kinetech-Digital
`
`Island Agreement. In its proposed sur-reply, PersonalWeb argues that Amazon misinterprets the
`
`Kinetech-Digital Island Agreement. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to allow
`
`PersonalWeb to file a sur-reply. PersonalWeb’s motion for relief to file a sur-reply is GRANTED.
`
`The Court will consider PersonalWeb’s sur-reply brief filed at ECF No. 354-1.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 360 Filed 02/06/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, PersonalWeb’s request to strike Section H of Amazon’s reply is
`
`DENIED and PersonalWeb’s request for leave to file a sur-reply is GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 6, 2019
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`