`
`
`
`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 RE: JOINT STATEMENT ON
`RESOLUTION OF CUSTOMER CASES
`PER SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER
`
`[Re: ECF 405]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Statement re Resolution of Customer Cases per
`
`Summary Judgment Order (“Joint Statement”). Joint Statement, ECF 405. The parties agree that
`
`eight customer cases are fully adjudicated. See id. at 1. The parties shall file a written stipulation
`
`and proposed order dismissing these eight cases, as well as a proposed judgment, no later than
`
`April 19, 2019.
`
`The parties dispute whether two additional cases1 are fully adjudicated by the Court’s
`
`summary judgment order:
`
`PersonalWeb Tech., LLC et al. v. Fab Commerce & Design, Inc. (No. 5:18-cv-03578); and
`
`PersonalWeb Tech., LLC et al. v. Zoom Video Commc’n Inc. (No. 5:18-cv-05625).
`
`Amazon argues that PersonalWeb repeatedly told the Court that these two cases involve “only S3
`
`Related Activity” and would be “out” of the MDL if the Court granted Amazon’s claim
`
`preclusion/Kessler motion. See Joint Statement at 1. PersonalWeb counters that Amazon’s claim
`
`preclusion/Kessler motion was denied without prejudice with respect to CloudFront and argues
`
`that it “explicitly alleged infringement involving CloudFront in its First Amended Complaints” in
`
`Fab Commerce and Zoom Video. See Joint Statement at 5–6, 10–11.
`
`
`1 The parties incorrectly list the case numbers for these two cases. See Joint Statement at 1, 10.
`
`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 408 Filed 04/16/19 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court has reviewed the operative complaints in Fab Commerce and Zoom Video and
`
`finds any allegations with respect to CloudFront far from explicit. However, the respective
`
`complaints each make vague reference to CloudFront via exhibit. At this stage it is unclear
`
`whether PersonalWeb is requesting leave to further amend the complaints in Fab Commerce and
`
`Zoom Video to make clear that Amazon’s CloudFront product is accused in these two cases. The
`
`parties are hereby ordered to meet and confer regarding whether a stipulation to file amended
`
`complaints is in order and advise the Court of how they wish to proceed no later than April 19,
`
`2019.
`
`
`
`Finally, with respect to the remaining cases in which the parties agree the Court’s summary
`
`judgment order only partially resolves the infringement allegations, the parties shall file a
`
`stipulation identifying the specific paragraph(s) or claim(s) of the respective complaints that are
`
`fully adjudicated by the Court’s summary judgment order. This stipulation shall be due no later
`
`than April 26, 2019.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: April 16, 2019
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`BETH LABSON FREEMAN
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`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
`
`
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
