Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-3 Filed 04/24/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`Exhibit 3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-3 Filed 04/24/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`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
`and Level 3 Communications, LLC
`[Additional Attorneys listed below]
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et
`al.,
`
`
` Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Counterclaimants,
`v.
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON.COM,
`INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
`INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT ON DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT CLAIMS AND DEFENSES
`UNDER THE CLAIM PRECLUSION AND
`KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`
`Date: February 7, 2019
`Time: 2:00PM
`Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`
`
`
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`
`4825-3451-7893, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-3 Filed 04/24/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`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
`
`
`4825-3451-7893, V. 1
`
`Unlike S3, Amazon’s CloudFront is a content delivery network that can cache and serve files
`that a website operator hosts on S3 or a completely unrelated host system. (Monroe Decl. Ex. 4 at
`33:8-16, 155:20-156:12.) CloudFront and S3 have their own software engineers, they have their own
`separate marketing forces, they are largely written in different languages (with S3 largely written in
`Java, whereas CloudFront is written in C), and they are priced differently from the other. (Id. at 33,
`155-56.) One can be a “customer” of S3, and not a customer of CloudFront, and vice-versa. (Id.)
`Infringement Categories 1 and 2 do not involve S3. Category 1 infringement does not involve
`S3 and is not encompassed by Amazon’s motion. In this category, Twitch’s web server system
`generates MD5 ETags for its webpage base files and serves the files and their ETags to browsers
`rendering Twitch’s webpages. (DLI Decl. ¶¶6-8; Monroe Decl. Ex. 6.) These ETags are not generated
`by S3, but rather via Twitch’s own webpage server system, a fact that is absent from Amazon’s moving
`papers. (Id.) Category 2 also does not involve S3. This category involves Twitch’s generation of MD5
`ETags for its webpage asset files by Twitch’s own web server system, and not by S3. (Id.) These
`categories are nowhere dealt with in Amazon’s Motion.
`Category 4 alleges infringement that involves fingerprints generated outside of S3. Twitch
`uses its website server to generate content fingerprints for the content of its webpage asset files and
`inserts these into the asset file’s filename. (DLI Decl. ¶10; Monroe Decl. Ex. 6.) As these fingerprints
`are generated, inserted into the asset file’s name, and served via the operators own webpage server,
`using non-S3 products, it is outside the scope of the Motion. (Id.)
`The ‘544 patent infringement allegations do not involve S3. PersonalWeb’s ‘544 infringement
`allegations involve the combination of the generation and use of Category 1 website base file ETags
`and Category 4 website asset file filenames with fingerprints. (DLI Decl. ¶¶7, 10, 11, 13; Monroe
`Decl. Ex. 7D.) Again, S3 is not used to generate either of these. (Id.) The ‘544 infringement is
`likewise outside of the scope of the Motion.
`B. What the Texas Action Did Involve
`Amazon references S3’s relevance to the Texas Action as if the same transactions were and
`are at issue then and now. Yes, there is an overlap of the infringed patents between this case and the
`Texas Action, as it relates to category 3, only. And, yes both involved PersonalWeb and Amazon. But
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-3 Filed 04/24/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`Finally, the Kessler doctrine only extends to transactional facts that are “essentially the same”
`as those found to be non-infringing. Brain Life 746 F.3d at 1057. The cache-busting feature of S3 has
`never been litigated by PersonalWeb, much less held to be non-infringing by any court.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Neither claim preclusion nor the Kessler doctrine apply to any infringement category. At most,
`genuine issues of material fact preclude granting Amazon’s motion to Category 3 infringement, the
`only infringement category to which claim preclusion, or the Kessler doctrine could theoretically
`apply. Given the positions Amazon staked out in its Motion, and the plethora of what are minimally
`disputed material facts, it will likely submit reply declarations that will only serve to highlight the
`foregoing conclusion. Such an “affidavit match” should preclude the grant of summary judgment.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Dated: January 9, 2019
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`Dated: January 9, 2019
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Michael A. Sherman
`Michael A. Sherman
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`Sandeep Seth
`Wesley W. Monroe
`Stanley H. Thompson, Jr.
`Viviana Boero Hedrick
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`MACEIKO IP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Theodore S. Maceiko
`Theodore S. Maceiko (SBN 150211)
`ted@maceikoip.com
`MACEIKO IP
`420 2nd Street
`Manhattan Beach, California 90266
`Telephone:
`(310) 545-3311
`Facsimile:
`(310) 545-3344
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`
`4825-3451-7893, V. 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-3 Filed 04/24/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2019
`
`DAVID D. WIER
`
`
`
`By: /s/ David D. Wier
`David D. Wier
`david.wier@level3.com
`Vice President and Assistant General Counsel
`Level 3 Communications, LLC
`1025 Eldorado Boulevard
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Telephone: (720) 888-3539
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
`UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`
`4825-3451-7893, V. 1
`
`