`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for AMAZON.COM, INC., and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION,
`
` Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION BRIEF OF
`AMAZON.COM INC., AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC. AND TWITCH
`INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 2 of 27
`
`
`
` Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, A
`Texas limited liability company, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Defendants.
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`B.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`THE TRUE NAME PATENTS --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`A. The Patents-in-Suit treat “authorization” and “licensing” the same and
`disclose no alternate meaning for either concept ------------------------------------------ 3
` “unauthorized or unlicensed” (’310 patent, claim 20) -------------------------------- 3
` “authorization” (’420 patent, claims 25, 166) ------------------------------------------ 3
`In the True Names patents, a request for a data item includes the name for
`that data item ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
` “the request including at least a content dependent name of a particular
`data item” (’310 patent, claim 20) ------------------------------------------------------- 9
`C. The invention uses “names” to locate and verify access to data items ---------------- 11
` “content-dependent name” (’310 patent, claims 20 and 69; ’420 patent,
`claim 25) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
` “name for a data file” (’442 patent, claim 10) --------------------------------------- 11
`D. The names used by the ’544 patent are created by hashing the segments of a
`data item, then hashing the resulting values, creating a “hash of hashes” ----------- 13
` “digital key for the particular file” (’544 patent, claim 46) / “file key for
`each particular file” (’544 patent, claim 52) ...................................................... 13
` “part” (’544 patent claims 46, 52) ----------------------------------------------------- 15
` “being based on a first function of the contents of the specific part” (’544
`patent, claim 46) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
` “part value” (’544 patent, claims 46, 52) --------------------------------------------- 18
` “function of the one or more of part values” (’544 patent, claim 46) ------------ 21
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`i
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
`
`Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc.,
`616 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`EcoNova, Inc. v. DPS Utah,
`No. 1:12-CV-174, 2013 WL 65460 (D. Utah Jan. 4, 2013)------------------------------------- 6
`
`Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co.,
`563 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2009) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Medrad, Inc. v. MRI Devices Corp.,
`401 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 22
`
`MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp.,
`672 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2012.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`No. 6:11-cv-00658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013) ----------------------------------------- 8
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM Corp.,
`No. 6:12-cv-661-JRG, Dkt. 103 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) ----------------------------- 6, 8, 19
`
`Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008) --------------------------------------------------------------- 19, 22
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2016) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd ed. 1994)------------------------------------------------------ 15
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (1994) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`ii
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The patents in suit purport to solve the problem of consistently locating files (i.e., “data
`items”) in a computer system, and controlling access to files that contain licensed content to prevent
`unauthorized sharing. To accomplish this, files are identified using “True Names”—names
`computed from the data in the file itself—instead of other less reliable means such as user-provided
`file names. According to the patents, this allows a file to be uniquely identified regardless of its
`context, which in turn allows a system to reliably limit access to the file to authorized or licensed
`users.
`
`In these cases, PersonalWeb accuses the use of ETags in conditional GET requests on the
`Web. But on the Web, URLs with user-provided file names and paths are used to locate and access
`files, not ETags. Nor are ETags used to control access to licensed content. ETags as used in the
`accused conditional GET requests to determine whether a user already has the latest version of a
`requested file stored locally. That determination is anonymous. No authorization or content license
`is checked, and no user requesting a file is denied access to it. If the ETag of the local file matches
`the ETag of the latest version, the user receives a confirmation that the version of the file is current.
`If those ETags don’t match, the user receives the current version of the file. In this scenario, the
`user also still has and can continue to freely access the earlier version of the file.
`PersonalWeb cannot “construe” its patents to cover this basic Web technology that has
`nothing to do with the purported invention of the patents. The claim language, the specification,
`and the prosecution history—including a series of IPRs that were filed during PersonalWeb’s past
`round of litigations—do not allow it.
`
`II.
`
`THE TRUE NAME PATENTS
`The patents address what the inventors saw as a fundamental problem with existing
`computer systems: the use of user-provided names and file system directories to identify and access
`files or other data items. The purported invention replaced these conventional names with True
`Names calculated solely from the data in the data item itself:
`
`This invention provides, in a data processing system, a method and apparatus for
`identifying a data item in the system, where the identity of the data item depends
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`1
`
`
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`on all the data in the data item and only on the data in the data item. Thus, the
`identity of a data item is independent of its name, origin, location, address, or
`other information not derivable directly from the data, and depends only on the
`data itself.
`
`(’310 patent at 3:52–58 (emphasis added).)
`The patents emphasize that in the invention True Names are used by every computer,
`whether the user’s local computer or a remote server, to uniquely identify and access every data
`item in the system. (See, e.g., id. at 31:33–37:3 (“The System in Operation”).) The True Names
`are immune to changes in context like differing computer systems, storage locations, software, or
`users: if something other than the content of the file changes (for example, the file name), the True
`Name will not change. (Declaration of J. David Hadden in Support (“Hadden Decl.”), Ex. 1, ’791
`File History, Aug. 29, 1997 Amendment, at 9–10.) In other words, the True Name never changes
`unless the content of the file does. Conversely, if the file itself changes at all (e.g., changing even
`a single character in a document), its True Name will change. (See, e.g., id. at 9.)
`Several of the patents are directed to using the True Name to control access to licensed
`content. (See, e.g., ’442 patent at Title (“Enforcement and policing of licensed content using
`content-based identifiers”), ’310 patent at Abstract (“Access to and delivery of licensed content is
`controlled using content names that were determined based on the content”).) The purported
`benefit of using True Names is that users can’t hide illegal file-sharing by changing the name of
`the file, because the True Name depends only on the file content.
`Many of the True Name patents were successfully challenged in inter partes review
`proceedings filed during PersonalWeb’s earlier litigation campaign. The Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board (“PTAB”) found claim 1 of the ’544 patent and claims 24, 32, 70, 81, 82, and 86 of the ’310
`patent invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity holding on the ’544 patent, and
`PersonalWeb declined to appeal claim 70 of the ’310 patent.1 The Board also found a number of
`claims from related patents invalid: claims 1-4, 29-33 and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791 (parent
`
`
`1 The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB with respect to the other claims of the ’310 patent, and
`the appeal process is still pending.
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`to all of the patents-in-suit); claims 36 and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280 (parent to all of the
`patents-in-suit); claims 10, 21, and 34 of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,539 (sibling of the ’310 and ’544
`patents); claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 7,949,662 (divisional of the ’442 patent); claims 1, 2, 81 and
`83 of U.S. Patent No. 8,001,096 (sibling of the ’310 and ’544 patents). All of those invaliding
`determinations were affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
`
`III. DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS
`The Patents-in-Suit treat “authorization” and “licensing” the same and
`A.
`disclose no alternate meaning for either concept.
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” (’310 patent, claim 20)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposal
`Amazon and Twitch’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`not compliant with a valid license
`Alternative construction: not permitted or
`not legally permitted
`
`“authorization” (’420 patent, claims 25, 166)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposal
`Amazon and Twitch’s Proposal
`plain and ordinary meaning.
`a valid license
`Alternative constructions: permission
`
`Every asserted claim in the ’310, ’442 and ’420 patents requires using a True Name to
`determine who is authorized to receive or access specific licensed content. The shared specification
`describes making this determination using a license table that links the True Name for a data item
`to the name of a valid licensee. (See, e.g., ’310 patent at 31:3–32.) The system provides a copy of
`the file on request, but only to licensed parties. (See, e.g., id., claim 20 (“if it is determined that the
`content is unauthorized or unlicensed, not permitting the content to be provided to or accessed”);
`id., claim 69 (“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”); ’420 patent, claim 25 (“wherein a copy
`of the sequence of bits is not to be provided or accessed without authorization”); id., claim 166
`(“wherein the data item is not to be made available for access or provided without authorization”);
`’442 patent, claim 11 (“allowing the file to be provided from one of the computers having an
`authorized or licensed copy of the file”).)
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`PersonalWeb’s infringement theory, however, has nothing to do with licensing or content
`authorization. It accuses “conditional” GET requests using If-None-Match headers on the World
`Wide Web. These requests use ETag values that can be used to determine whether a user already
`has a copy of the current object found at a given web location, or URL. If so, no new object is sent;
`if not, the current object is sent to the browser. The process is anonymous. No user is refused a
`requested object based on whether they have a valid license. And nothing forces the user to discard
`the old object. The process simply has nothing to do with controlling access to content.
`PersonalWeb wants to rewrite its claims to cover determining whether a new version of a file is
`available, not whether a particular user has a valid license and is thus authorized to access it.
`PersonalWeb’s representations during prosecution and in numerous inter partes review
`actions belie its current positions on the scope of the claims. PersonalWeb told both the PTAB and
`the Federal Circuit that the notion that a user is “unauthorized” to access an object already possessed
`because a new version is available was “illogical” and “cannot be done.” (See Hadden Decl., Ex.
`2, Patent Owner Response to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 15) at 19–20; id., Ex. 3, Brief of PersonalWeb,
`Case No. 18-1599, Dkt. 15 at 47 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018).) In distinguishing the Woodhill prior
`art reference, PersonalWeb argued that “[g]iven that the local computer 20 already has the most
`recent version of the file, as a matter of common sense there would have been no logical reason
`to . . . check[] whether that same computer is authorized to access the previous version of that same
`file.” (See id., Ex. 2, Patent Owner Response to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 15) at 19–20; see also id.,
`Ex. 3, Brief of PersonalWeb, Case No. 18-1599, Dkt. 15 at 47 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) (“The
`Board never explains how an ‘unauthorized’ user—one without access to the file—could calculate
`the Binary Object Identifiers that are necessary for Woodhill’s backup system to work. For good
`reason: it cannot be done.”).) Most important, PersonalWeb expressly distinguished using an
`identifier to determine whether an object has changed from determining whether access is
`authorized. (Id., Ex. 4, Patent Owner Response to IPR2014-00058 (Paper 19) at 3 (“Francisco
`compares the program identifier with a single value for making sure that the file is authentic (i.e.,
`that it has not changed) . . . . Thus, Francisco’s program identifier . . . is not compared to anything
`for determining whether access is authorized.”).)
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`This is why the Court cannot just leave the jury to apply its own lay understanding of the
`terms. The parties have a clear dispute regarding claim scope, which the Court and not the jury
`must resolve. O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`2008) (“When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is
`the court’s duty to resolve it.”); see also Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Am. Express Co., 563 F.3d
`1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[T]he court’s obligation is to ensure that questions of the scope of
`the patent claims are not left to the jury.”) (citing O2 Micro, 521 F.3d at 1361–62).
`Turning to the specifics of the parties’ dispute, the patents treat “unauthorized or
`unlicensed” as a single concept that relates to a fundamental purpose of the claimed invention—
`policing access to licensed content. The Court should construe the terms consistent with the
`patentee’s own use of them, and not supplant the patentee’s meaning with a vague dictionary
`definition tailored for PersonalWeb’s current infringement theory. The very title of the ’442 patent
`describes the invention as the “[e]nforcement and policing of licensed content using content-based
`identifiers.” (’442 patent, Title.) The shared specification of the patents describes how to prohibit
`unauthorized parties from accessing licensed files. (’310 patent at 31:3–32.) In fact, these portions
`of the specification that discuss policing licensing (the “Track for Licensing Purposes” mechanism
`and data structures) are the only places in the specification that use either the terms “licensed” or
`“authorized,” or any variant thereof.
`The specification repeatedly treats the concept of “licensed” use of content as
`interchangeable with whether that use is “authorized.” It describes using a “license table” that
`stores the True Name for a data item and the “licensee,” the “identity of a user authorized to have
`access to it.” (Id. at 11:31–45
`(emphasis added).) The licensing
`table records the True Name of “key
`files” required to use the licensed
`product along with the identity of the
`system or user that is “authorized” to access that file. (Id. at 31:17–23; see also Hadden Decl., Ex.
`5, Memorandum Order, PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM Corp., No. 6:12-cv-661-JRG, Dkt. 103
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`5
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`at 24 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) (“Gilstrap Order”).) Both the description of the license table and
`the table itself use “licensed” and “authorized” interchangeably. (Compare ’310 patent, 11:33–35
`(“the license table 136 records a relationship between a licensable data item and the user licensed
`to have access to it”), with id. at 11:43 (“identity of a user authorized to have access”) (above
`right) (emphasis added).)
`As important, the patents disclose the license table as the sole means of controlling access
`to content; there is no separate means disclosed in the patents for determining whether content is
`“unauthorized.” The specification recites that “[t]his mechanism ensures that licensed files are not
`used by unauthorized parties,” and then notes that license enforcement is performed for users “who
`do not have proper authorization.” (Id. at 31:4–5, 9–12.) In the patents, “authorization” refers to
`a valid license, and “unauthorized” and “unlicensed” refer synonymously to behavior that is not
`compliant with a valid license.
`Given this, the Court should adopt Amazon’s constructions despite the general rule that
`“interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored.”
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 429–30 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(citations omitted). “The preference for giving meaning to all terms [] is not an inflexible rule that
`supersedes all other principles of claim construction.” Id. This is because “the construction that
`stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the
`invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 430 (quoting Phillips v. AWH
`Corp., 415 F.3d 430 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Here, where the specification so
`repeatedly and consistently describes licensing and authorization as the same concept, the doctrine
`does not apply. See Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
`(applying same meaning to terms “detachable” and “releasable” in a single claim because “the
`evidence indicates that the patentee used the two terms interchangeably”); EcoNova, Inc. v. DPS
`Utah, No. 1:12-CV-174, 2013 WL 65460, at *13–14 (D. Utah Jan. 4, 2013) (in construing the
`disjunctive phrase “at or adjacent to the peripheral wall,” “conclud[ing] that ‘at’ is synonymous
`with ‘adjacent’ and means ‘near’ [because] this is simply a case where [patentee] used different
`words to express similar concepts”) (citations omitted).
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`By contrast, “authorized” is not used in the patents to refer only to any “permitted” action,
`as PersonalWeb argues. The two examples of “permissions” PersonalWeb points to in the
`specification in fact do not even use the term “authorized,” and they have nothing to do with
`authorizing access to content. (Op. Br. at 2.) They therefore shed no light on the meaning of
`“authorized” as it is used in the claims. The first example is a “region table” that describes part of
`the file system on which the True Names invention is built. (See ’310 patent at 9:62–10:33.) A
`region table can identify a region or file as “read-only,” which prevents writing changes to it. (Id.)
`The only disclosed example of a read-only file is removable media, such as a CD-ROM. (See id.
`at 27:35–39.) Banning writing changes to a file using the file system is related to neither locating
`or accessing a True Name file, nor determining which users are authorized to access the file’s
`content.
`The second example is a “lock flag,” which, again, has nothing to do with authorizing access
`to content. (Op. Br. at 2.) Instead, it describes a conventional method of handling shared resources
`in a distributed system. The lock flag “indicates whether a file is locked, that is, it is being modified
`by the local processor or a remote processor.” (’310 patent at 9:23–26.) Because “[o]nly one
`processor may modify a file at a time,” the flag lets processors share resources in an orderly fashion.
`(Id.) The specification notes that the use of “appropriate locking techniques” to quarantine access
`to shared resources was “well understood by ordinarily skilled programmers of distributed
`applications.” (Id. at 8:11–18.) What PersonalWeb cites describes conventional techniques for
`preventing computers from making inconsistent changes to the same data at the same time; it has
`nothing to do with “authorizing” access to content.
`PersonalWeb’s reliance on these disclosures highlights another problem with its proposed
`constructions. Not only does it unmoor the concept of “authorized” from its use in the specification,
`it also conflates the step of determining whether access to the licensed content is authorized with
`permitting that content to be accessed or not. These are separate operations in the claims. For
`example, claim 20 of the ’310 patent separately requires “permitting the content to be provided to
`or accessed” based on the determination of whether the content is authorized or licensed. (Id.,
`claim 20 (39:24–28).) Authorized cannot mean “permitted” because permitting access is a separate
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`7
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`claim step that is performed after, and depends on, first determining whether the content is
`unauthorized or unlicensed.
`Judge Gilstrap recognized that licensing and authorization are the same concept in the
`patents, and provided the correct construction for these terms. (Compare Gilstrap Order at 25
`(construing “licensed” as “valid rights to content”), with id. at 28 (construing “authorized” as
`“compliant with a valid license”); see also id. (“The Court therefore reaches the same conclusions
`[regarding the “authorization” terms] for substantially the same reasons as for the terms ‘licensed’
`and ‘unlicensed.’”).) In his order, Judge Gilstrap quoted the precise language proposed for
`construction here. (Gilstrap Order at 25 (quoting the phrase “unauthorized or unlicensed copies”
`in the ’442 patent).) He also correctly declined to follow Judge Davis’s decision not to construe.
`As he recognized, the dispute before Judge Davis did not address “authorization” at all. (Gilstrap
`Order at 23.) There, with respect to the terms “licensed” and “unlicensed,” the parties disputed
`“whether the license must be to the content of a file or to the system as a whole,” and whether a licensed
`file must be “requested.” (Hadden Decl., Ex. 6, Memorandum Opinion and Order, PersonalWeb
`Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00658, Dkt. 140 at 25–26, 47 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5,
`2013).)
`PersonalWeb contends that the prosecution history supports its position, but this argument
`fails. PersonalWeb points to claim amendments made to the ’420 patent in 20102 as evidence that
`the applicants intended to treat licensing differently than authorization. (Op. Br. at 5.) Even if the
`claims PersonalWeb identifies were in the issued patent, which they are not, the differences in these
`claims cannot overcome the clear description of the specification. Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Claim differentiation cannot ‘overcome . . . a contrary
`construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history.’”) (citing Marine Polymer
`Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “An inventor is entitled to
`claim in a patent what he has invented, but no more.” MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d
`
`
`2 PersonalWeb describes the amendments as relating to the ’442 patent, but the recited excerpts
`are from the file history of the ’420 patent.
`
`RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`BRIEF OF AMAZON AND TWITCH
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 412 Filed 04/22/19 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`1250, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2012.) PersonalWeb cannot expand the scope of its invention 15 years after
`the fact by trying to slice the single concept “unauthorized or unlicensed” into two distinct criteria
`and thereby expand its claims in ways that were not contemplated by the inventors or described in
`their specification.
`In sum, PersonalWeb is trying to rewrite the access control claims that require determining
`whether content is “unauthorized or unlicensed” to cover merely providing updated content if the
`requesting computer does not already have it. The intrinsic record plainly prevents this. But apart
`from that record, PersonalWeb may not do so for another reason. Claims with that precise scope
`were found invalid by the PTAB in a final written decision and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
`For example, claim 33 of the ’791 patent, now invalid, is directed to using a True Name to
`“determin[e] . . . whether the data item is present at the destination location” and then “based on
`the determining whether the data item is present, providing the destination location with the data
`item only if the data item is not present at the destination.” This is exactly the claim scope that
`PersonalWeb is aiming for here—claim scope that the PTAB and Federal Circuit have already
`concluded PersonalWeb is not entitled to remove from the public domain.
`
`B.
`
`In the True Names patents, a request for a data item includes the name for
`that data item.
`“the request including at least a content dependent name of a
`
`particular data item” (’310 patent, claim 20)
`PersonalWeb’s Proposal
`Amazon and Twitch’s Proposal
`the reque