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 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 1 of 32
`
`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
`[Additional Attorneys listed below]
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et., al.,
`
` 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, a
`Texas limited liability company, and
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 2 of 32
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 3 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`“Authorization” Terms.............................................................................................1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This group of claim phrases does not need to be construed because
`their plain and ordinary meaning suffices. ...................................................2
`
`Amazon’s proposal erroneously makes the term “unauthorized”
`synonymous with the term “unlicensed” contradicting the specification
`and prosecution history. ...............................................................................4
`
`3.
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply............................................................6
`
`B.
`
`“Selectively” Terms .................................................................................................7
`
`1.
`
`“Selectively permit” (’420 at Claim 166) ....................................................7
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of this term is sufficient. ..............8
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction renders the claim element
`internally inconsistent and confusingly redundant. .........................8
`
`2.
`
`“selectively allowing a copy of the particular sequence of bits to be
`provided to or accessed by or from at least one of the computers in a
`network of computers” (’420 at Claim 25) ..................................................9
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of this term is sufficient. ............10
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the claim
`language. ........................................................................................10
`
`C.
`
`“Permitting”/“Allowing” Terms ............................................................................11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`“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” (’310 at Claim 20) ...........................................................11
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`term. ...............................................................................................11
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the claim
`language. ........................................................................................12
`
`“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” (’310 at Claim 69) .....................................12
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`term. ...............................................................................................13
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the claim
`language. ........................................................................................13
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 4 of 32
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`“the request including at least a content dependent name of a particular data
`item” (’310 at Claim 20) and “the request including at least a content-
`dependent name for the data item” (’310 patent, 69) .............................................13
`
`E.
`
`“Names for Data Items” Terms ..............................................................................14
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`“Content‐dependent name of a particular data item” (’310 at Claim
`20), “content-dependent name for the data item” (’310 at Claim 69),
`and “content-dependent name for a particular sequence of bits” (’420
`patent, claim 25).........................................................................................14
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`PersonalWeb’s construction flows from the claim language. ........15
`
`PersonalWeb’s construction is consistent with the
`specification. ..................................................................................16
`
`“Name for a data file” (’442 patent, claim 10) ..........................................16
`
`“content-dependent digital identifier” (’420 patent, claim 166) and
`“content-dependent digital identifiers for said particular data item”
`(’420 patent, claim 166) .............................................................................17
`
`“digital key for the particular file” / “file key for each particular file”
`(’544 patent, claims 46, 52) .......................................................................17
`
`F.
`
`“Based on a Function” Terms ................................................................................18
`
`1.
`
`“[being] based at least in part on a function of at least some of the data
`comprising the particular data item” (’310 at claim 20) ............................18
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`The Court should apply the plain and ordinary meaning of this
`term. ...............................................................................................19
`
`PersonalWeb’s alternative construction flows from the claim
`language. ........................................................................................19
`
`“[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” (’310 patent, claim 69) and “[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” (’442 patent, claim 10) .......19
`
`“at least in part by applying a particular function to at least some of the
`particular sequence of bits” (’420 patent, claim 25) ..................................20
`
`“based at least in part on a given function of at least some of the bits in
`the particular sequence of bits” (’420 patent, claim 166) ..........................20
`
`“being based on a first function of the contents of the specific part”
`(’544 patent, claim 46) ...............................................................................21
`
`“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” (’544 patent, claim 46) ................................................21
`
`a)
`
`Only “particular digital key for the particular file” and “part
`value” should be construed in this term. ........................................22
`
`b)
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction of the phrase as a whole
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 5 of 32
`
`improperly rewrites the claim. .......................................................22
`
`7.
`
`“the file key for each particular file being based on a second hash
`function of the part values of the one or more parts of that file” (’544
`patent, claim 52).........................................................................................23
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`“Database” (’544 patent, claims 46, 52, 55) ..........................................................23
`
`“part” (’544 patent, claims 46, 52).........................................................................24
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 6 of 32
`
`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
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Exxon Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.,
`64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`Garcia v. United States,
`469 U.S. 70 (1984) ............................................................................................................................ 4
`
`
`Gonzalez v. Infostream Group, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:14–cv–906–JRG–RSP, 2015 WL 5604448 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2015) ........................ 4
`
`
`Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.,
`204 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................................ 6
`
`
`IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................. 15, 20
`
`
`Libel-Flarsheim,
`358 F.3d ........................................................................................................................ 16, 17, 18, 24
`
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device Alliance, Inc.,
`244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................... 3, 12
`
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`O2 Micro Int'l v. Beyond Innovation, Tech.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. 6:12-CV-659 (Dkt. 103), 2016 WL 922880 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016).................................... 7
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`Reiter v. Sonotone Corp.,
`442 U.S. 330 (1979) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`Thorner,
`669 F.3d .................................................................................................................................... 16, 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-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 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 7 of 32
`
`United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,
`103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)............................................................................................... 3, 8, 12
`
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................................... 5
`
`Other Authority
`
`The IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms 251 (6th Ed. 1996) …………...24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 8 of 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`PersonalWeb’s proposed constructions “stay[] true to the claim language and most naturally
`
`align[] with the patent's description of the invention [and, therefore,] will be, in the end, the correct
`
`construction.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). In contrast,
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Twitch's (collectively, “Defendants’”) proposed
`
`constructions: (i) rewrite claims; (ii) improperly read-in additional limitations from the specification
`
`that appear nowhere in the claims and significantly lengthen them; (iii) ignore express claim language;
`
`and (iv) confuse rather than clarify the meaning of the claims. Accordingly, PersonalWeb requests the
`
`Court adopt its proposed constructions and reject Defendants’ constructions.
`
`10
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`In this brief, bold underline indicates that a term or phrase has an agreed construction, and
`
`italicized bold underline indicates that a term or phrase has a disputed construction that is part of this
`
`Markman proceeding.
`
`A.
`
`“Authorization” Terms
`
`’310 (Decl. of Stanley H. Thompson, Jr., Ex. 1) at Claim 20: “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”
`
`’442 (Ex. 2) at Claim 10: “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”
`
`’442 at Claim 11: “allowing the file to be provided from one of the computers having
`
`an authorized or licensed copy of the file”
`
`“Unauthorized or unlicensed” (’310 at Claim 20)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposed Construction
`
`Amazon’s Proposed Construction
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-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 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 9 of 32
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternative construction: Not permitted or Not
`legally permitted
`
`not compliant with a valid license
`
`“authorized” / “unauthorized” / “authorization” (’310 patent, claims 20, 69; ’442
`patent, claims 10, 11; ’420 patent, claims 25, 66)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposed Construction
`“un-/authorized:” plain and ordinary meaning
`“authorization:” plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternative constructions:
`
`“authorized”: permitted
`“unauthorized”: not permitted
`“authorization”: permission
`
`Amazon’s Proposed Construction
`compliant / not compliant with a valid license /
`a valid license
`
`“unauthorized copy or an unlicensed copy” (’442 patent, claim 10)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternative construction: a copy that is not
`permitted or not legally permitted
`
`Amazon’s Proposed Construction
`a copy that is not compliant with a valid license
`
`“licensed” / “unlicensed” (’310 patent, claim 20; ’442 patent, claim 10)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposed Construction
`“un-/licensed:” plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternative Construction: “un-/licensed:” not
`legally / legally permitted
`
`Amazon’s Proposed Construction
`valid / invalid right to content
`
`1.
`
`This group of claim phrases does not need to be construed because
`their plain and ordinary meaning suffices.
`
`The plain and ordinary meaning of “authorize” connotes that something is given permission to
`
`perform an action. Consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning, the specification includes several
`
`examples of certain exemplary embodiments of the inventive system permitting, or not permitting,
`
`certain actions to take place on the basis of a given criteria. For example, the specification discusses
`
`that a “region” (directory) can be set as read-only, meaning another computer would not have
`
`permission to change the contents of the region. ’310 at 10:23-35, Fig. 5. The specification also
`
`discusses that a file can be locked so that another computer does not have permission to modify it. ’310
`
`at 9:23-26, Fig. 3. The flowchart in Fig. 26(a) also discloses in block S422 “PROHIBIT OPEN” that
`
`a computer may not be permitted to open a file in a non-read only mode if it is in a read-only
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 10 of 32
`
`directory. ’310 at 20:19-22, Fig. 26(a). The plain and ordinary meaning of “authorize” is applicable
`
`without regard to a concept of licensing. This intrinsic evidence is confirmed by the dictionary
`
`definition of “authorize” which is “to give permission for.” Ex. 10, The American Heritage Dictionary
`
`of the English Language (5th ed. 2019) (https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=authorize).
`
`A “license,” on the other hand, means something narrower. It is a specific kind of authorization.
`
`The specification discusses licenses in the sense of having legal permission to have a copy of a file.
`
`For example, the specification states that a license table 136 maintains a record of the True Names of
`
`“key files in the product (that is, files which are required in order to use the product, and which do not
`
`occur in other products)[.] Typically, for a software product, this would include the main executable
`
`image and perhaps other major files such as clip-art, scripts, or online help.” ’310 at 31:17-22. This
`
`demonstrates the specification contemplates having a license is having legal permission to possess
`
`things like program executables and images such as clip-art, items that may be the subject, for
`
`example, of a copyright license, or a license granted by the Terms of Service of a website. The
`
`specification also discusses mechanisms for enforcing licenses. For example, the specification
`
`discusses active and passive enforcement of licenses (’310 at 31:9-12), and the license table (LT) 136
`
`in Fig. 1(b) “is a table identifying files, which may only be used by licensed users.” ’310 at 8:60-61.
`
`Using the plain and ordinary meaning of a term is often correct. See Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med.
`
`Device Alliance, Inc., 244 F.3d 1365, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he court properly instructed the jury
`
`that [‘irrigating’ and ‘frictional heat’] should receive their ordinary meanings.”). All words have
`
`definitions and thus may be rewritten using different words. This does not mean that all words in a
`
`claim should be construed. See, e.g., O2 Micro Int'l v. Beyond Innovation Tech., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every limitation
`
`present in a patent’s asserted claims.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1207
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding district court’s rejection of defendant’s proposed construction, and finding
`
`that no construction is necessary). In other words, claim construction is “not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.” United States Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`Where a term is used in accordance with its plain meaning, the court should not re-characterize it using
`
`different language.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 11 of 32
`
`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
`
`
`Thus, because the terms are not confusing to a jury, no further construction of these terms is
`
`required. If the Court believes the terms require construction, PersonalWeb believes “authorized”
`
`should be construed as “permitted,” and “licensed” should be construed as “legally permitted.”
`
`Amazon’s proposed constructions are inconsistent with the claim language and violate canons of claim
`
`construction.
`
`2.
`
`Amazon’s proposal erroneously makes the term “unauthorized”
`synonymous with
`the
`term “unlicensed” contradicting
`the
`specification and prosecution history.
`
`Amazon contends that (1) various words and forms of the word “unauthorized” and (2) various
`
`forms of the phrase “unauthorized or unlicensed” should both be construed as meaning the same thing:
`
`“not compliant with a valid license.”
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction not only departs from the plain and ordinary meaning of the
`
`term “unauthorized” (i.e., not permitted), but it also conflates the term with the separate term
`
`“unlicensed” which is a specific species of the genus “unauthorized” that connotes something that is
`
`not legally permitted under a contract or agreement. But “[c]anons of construction indicate that terms
`
`connected in the disjunctive in this manner be given separate meanings.” Garcia v. United States, 469
`
`U.S. 70, 73 (1984). See also Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979) (the use of the term “or”
`
`indicates an intent to give the nouns their separate, normal meanings); Gonzalez v. Infostream Group,
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:14–cv–906–JRG–RSP, 2015 WL 5604448, at *17–19 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2015)
`
`(recognizing that “or” is not restricted to mutually exclusive alternatives (A or B, [but not both]) and
`
`may be used to denote an inclusive list (A, or B [or both]), depending on context.). So a proper
`
`construction must give meaning to both words in the phrase “unauthorized or unlicensed.” See Merck
`
`& Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“A claim construction that
`
`gives meaning to all terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.”); Exxon Chem.
`
`Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“We must give meaning to all
`
`the words in Exxon’s claims.”). Thus, Amazon’s proposed construction is erroneous. If
`
`“unauthorized” were defined in terms of unlicensed, which is what would effectively result from
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction, then either the presence of “unauthorized” in Claim 20 would be
`
`superfluous and/or the word “or” would be construed as “and.” Such a construction would be contrary
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 12 of 32
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`to law, by disregarding the claim term “or” and its clear, disjunctive meaning.
`
`In order to narrow a claim term beyond its normal meaning, there must be clear disavowal of
`
`the scope given to a claim term. Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont'l Auto. Sys., 853 F.3d 1272, 1281-82 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2017) (“It is axiomatic that we will not narrow a claim term beyond its plain and ordinary meaning
`
`unless there is support for the limitation in the words of the claim, the specification, or the prosecution
`
`history. If the intrinsic record supports several definitions of a term, the term may be construed to
`
`encompass all such consistent meanings. Therefore, absent a clear disavowal or alternative
`
`lexicography by a patentee, he or she is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope
`
`of its plain and ordinary meaning”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`Amazon cannot point to any such clear disavowal of claim scope for the term “unauthorized.”
`
`First, there is no discussion in the specification that is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning
`
`of the term “unauthorized” and the disjunctive term “or.” Second, the prosecution history also supports
`
`separate meanings to “unauthorized” and “unlicensed”. Indeed, the prosecution history of the ’442
`
`patent unambiguously shows that the patentee was not using the words “authorized” to mean
`
`“licensed”, but rather was using the term “authorized” as a broader “genus” term, and the term
`
`“licensed” as a narrower “species” term. For example, PersonalWeb amended claim 23 to only recite
`
`the term “unauthorized” and moved the term “unlicensed” into a new claim 25 that depended from
`
`18
`
`claim 23:
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 5 (Response to Final Office Action (Feb. 14, 2010)), at 9-10. See also id. at 14 (“Nor does
`
`Gardener teach or in any suggest (as per claim 23) that ‘an unauthorized copy of a file is not allowed
`
`to be provided from one of the computers.’ Nor does Gardner teach or in any way suggest (as per
`
`claim 25) that an unlicensed copy of a file is not allowed to be provided from one of the computers.”
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 13 of 32
`
`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
`
`
`(original emphasis))
`
`3.
`
`Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply.
`
`It is anticipated that Amazon will argue that collateral estoppel applies for its proposed
`
`construction of “unlicensed or unauthorized” because that proposed construction is based upon a prior
`
`construction in a case between PersonalWeb and IBM. In that case, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the
`
`Eastern District of Texas separately construed “licensed,” “unlicensed,” “authorized,” “unauthorized”
`
`and “authorization.” Ex. 6, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Dkt. 103) at 25, 28, PersonalWeb
`
`Techs., LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 6:12-cv-00661 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016). After that
`
`matter was transferred to the Northern District of California, the parties eventually reached a
`
`settlement and stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice. Ex. 7, Order of Dismissal With Prejudice
`
`(Dkt. 381), PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 5:16-cv-01266 (Dkt. 381)
`
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2017). In another Eastern District case, PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com
`
`Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex. Filed Dec. 8, 2011) (“Amazon I”), which actually involved
`
`Amazon (in contrast to the IBM ruling upon which Amazon now relies), Judge Leonard Davis
`
`ruled that no construction of the terms “licensed” and “unlicensed” was needed. Ex. 8, Memorandum
`
`Opinion and Order (Dkt. 140) at 26, 47, PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 6:11-cv-
`
`00658 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013). Neither claim construction ruling is binding here.
`
`“Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its
`
`judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action
`
`involving a party to the first case.” Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 2000).
`
`Under both California and federal law, collateral estoppel applies only where it is established that “(1)
`
`the issue necessarily decided at the previous proceeding is identical to the one which is sought to be
`
`relitigated; (2) the first proceeding ended with a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against
`
`whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or in privity with a party at the first proceeding.” Id.
`
`The conditions for collateral estoppel are not met here. First, neither of the prior Eastern
`
`District of Texas claim construction rulings made any determination of the scope or meaning of the
`
`identical phrase “unauthorized or unlicensed” at issue in this case. In other words, the issue of the
`
`separation of these words by the disjunctive phrase “or” was never considered and ruled upon. Second,
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S OPENING CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 399 Filed 04/08/19 Page 14 of 32
`
`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
`
`
`there was no final judgment that relied upon any claim construction from the IBM case because that
`
`case settled and the parties did not have the opportunity to appeal. Further, Amazon cannot show that
`
`a construction of terms “authorized” and “licensed” were in any manner outcome determinative
`
`regarding the products in that case. Accordingly, Amazon cannot demonstrate that collateral estoppel
`
`applies to Judge Gilstrap’s decision. Thus, “unauthorized or unlicensed” should be given its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, which necessarily includes the disjunctive term “or.” If construed, however, the
`
`phrase should be construed as “not permitted or not legally permitted.”
`
`Amazon’s proposed constructions are based on a prior construction of these individual terms.
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., No. 6:12-CV-659 (Dkt. 103), 2016 WL
`
`922880 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016). As discussed above, collateral estoppel does not apply to Judge
`
`Gilstrap’s construction, which is not even from Amazon I. Moreover, Judge Gilstrap’s decision is
`
`different from and in conflict with the construction of Judge Davis (in Amazon I). Judge Davis held
`
`the term “authorized” did not require any construction, which is consistent with the plain usage of the
`
`term, and the claim language, specification a