Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 1 of 10
`
`Exhibit 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 2 of 10
`
`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
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB 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,
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA
`IGLESIA IN SUPPORT OF
`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
`
`February 7, 2019
`Date:
`2:00 PM
`Time:
`Dept.: Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Judge: Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`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
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 3 of 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
`
`
`
`I, Erik de la Iglesia, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I, Erik de la Iglesia, am over the age of 18 and competent to make this declaration.
`
`The facts herein are, unless otherwise stated, based upon personal knowledge, and if called upon to
`
`do so, I could, and would testify to their truth under oath. I submit this declaration in support of
`
`PersonalWeb and Level 3 Communications’ Opposition to Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Declaratory Judgment Claims and Defenses
`
`Under the Claim Preclusion and Kessler Documents.
`
`2.
`
`I hold a BS in Electrical Engineering with Highest Honors from the University of
`
`Florida and an MS in Electrical Engineering from Stanford where I was a National Science
`
`Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. I have been an entrepreneur and technologist in the area of
`
`network communication for the last 20 years with 68 issued US patents. Startups I have worked for
`
`and founded have been acquired by large, public networking companies (including Extreme
`
`Networks and McAfee). My industry work in Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”) analysis and
`
`handling qualifies me as a person of ordinary skill in the art during the timeframes relevant to this
`
`matter. More information regarding my qualifications and industry experience are described in my
`
`CV (Ex. A).
`
`3.
`
`I have reviewed both the Infringement Contentions for the Amazon entities in
`
`PersonalWeb’s Disclosures Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2 served on October 29, 2018
`
`and those for Twitch Interactive in PersonalWeb’s Disclosures Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1
`
`and 3-2 served on December 22, 2018 in the current Multidistrict Litigation (5:18-md-02834-BLF),
`
`including the exhibits thereto. In the infringement contentions, PersonalWeb uses the terms
`
`“webpage base file,” “asset file,” and “fingerprint.” I understand that “webpage base file,” “webpage
`
`asset file,” “webpage file,” and “fingerprint” have been defined in discovery requests served by
`
`PersonalWeb, including, for example, the Notice of Taking Deposition of Amazon.com, Inc. and
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) served on November 16, 2018. I am
`
`using those terms herein in a manner consistent with those definitions. Generally speaking, the
`
`infringement contentions against both the Amazon entities and Twitch allege that those entities
`
`assign content-based ETags, described in more detail below, to webpage files and use those ETags to
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 3 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 4 of 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
`
`
`
`control the mechanism by which anonymous browsers cache those webpage files in order to reduce
`
`the number of times a webpage file has to be sent to the browser while directing that the content
`
`displayed in the browser is updated when there is a change at the origin server. Additionally, the
`
`infringement contentions for Twitch Interactive allege that Twitch uses fingerprints, described in
`
`more detail below, in the filenames of webpage files to control the caching behavior of anonymous
`
`browsers and direct that the content displayed in the browser is updated when there is a change at the
`
`origin server.
`
`4.
`
`I will now address the nature and use cases of content-based ETags and their
`
`relationship with cache control for web browsers. The document RFC 2616 is recognized in the
`
`industry as the specification for HTTP/1.1. RFC Documents (Request for Comment Documents)
`
`represent a standard when adopted by the industry and HTTP/1.1 is revision 1.1 of the HyperText
`
`Transfer Protocol (June 1999) that serves as the basis of most communication over the internet
`
`today. HTTP is a request-response protocol in which a “client” computer program sends a request
`
`message (typically a GET message) and the “server” provides a response message. HTTP messages
`
`contain header fields specifying the nature of the request or response and an optional body providing
`
`data such as the web page contents requested by a client. Response messages include three-digit
`
`numbers identifying the nature of the response (e.g. 200, 304, 404). The GET request message
`
`includes a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) identifying the resource on the server requested by
`
`the client. A true and correct copy of RFC 2616 obtained from https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616 is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`5.
`
`Part 14 of RFC 2616 specifies the syntax of header fields in requests and responses in
`
`HTTP/1.1. One such header is the ETag response-header field in Part 14.19 which “provides the
`
`current value of the entity tag for the requested variant.” When a client receives a value in an ETag
`
`header of a response, it may, in a subsequent request for the same resource, use that ETag in an If-
`
`None-Match header as described in Part 14.26. An If-None-Match header is “used with a method to
`
`make it conditional.” When an ETag value is used in an If-None-Match header, the server compares
`
`the ETag value against current ETag of the requested resource and if there is a match it will not carry
`
`out the requested method (send the resource another time). In the case of a GET method using an If-
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 4 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 5 of 10
`
`None-Match header, Part 14.26 specifies that the server should not perform the GET and instead
`
`should respond with a 304 (Not Modified) response.
`
`6.
`
`I understand that PersonalWeb has previously referred to four categories of infringing
`
`activity in this action. If an ETag value is content-based, i.e., the value is derived from the content of
`
`a resource, then its value can be used to verify whether the content of a requested resource has
`
`changed since the resource’s content was previously delivered and cached. If the content-based ETag
`
`values match, it may be assumed that resource’s content has not changed since it was cached and an
`
`HTTP 304 message can be sent reauthorizing the use of the previously cached content. In
`
`Categories 1 and in all other categories based upon the use of a content-based ETag (i.e., categories
`
`2, 3 and ’544), the ETag is generated using a method that produces a substantially unique value from
`
`the content of the resource, such as by applying the MD5 algorithm to the content of a resource to
`
`produce an MD5 hash of its content. In this manner, an ETag may be used for cache control
`
`purposes to avoid serving an object (sending a 304 response instead) if the requesting client’s cache
`
`contains an asset having content that matches the current content of the requested resource. A
`
`content-based ETag may be used by a website operator to communicate to the browser when it is
`
`permitted to re-use previously cached content for a given webpage file, as in when the browser
`
`already has the latest authorized content in its cache, and when it must instead obtain the newer
`
`content for that file so as to use that new content in rendering the webpage.
`
`7.
`
`PersonalWeb alleges that Twitch infringes certain asserted patents in a manner
`
`described as Category 1. Category 1 infringement involves assigning an ETag to a webpage base
`
`file. This ETag is not generated by the S3 system but rather by Twitch’s own web server application
`
`system. When an anonymous browser or intermediate cache server has received a webpage base file
`
`with an ETag on a previous request and makes a subsequent request for the same resource using a
`
`conditional GET request with an If-None-Match header, the previously received ETag is sent for
`
`comparison to the ETag assigned to the current version of that resource. If the ETag values match,
`
`the requesting browser or intermediate cache server receives a 304 response from the server
`
`confirming authorization to continue using the locally cached file. If the ETag values do not match,
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 5 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 6 of 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
`
`
`
`the requesting browser or intermediate cache server receives a 200 response from the server with a
`
`new version of the webpage base file and a new ETag.
`
`8.
`
`PersonalWeb alleges that Twitch infringes certain asserted patents in a manner
`
`described as Category 2. Category 2 infringement involves an ETag assigned to a webpage asset file.
`
`In this category, it is similarly alleged that the webpage asset files were not stored on S3 nor their
`
`ETag generated by S3. The webpage asset files’ content-based ETags are generated in Twitch’s web
`
`server application system and served via Twitch’s web server. When an anonymous browser or
`
`intermediate cache server has received an asset file with an ETag in a previous request and makes a
`
`subsequent request for the same resource using a conditional GET request with an If-None-Match
`
`header, the previously received ETag will be sent with the subsequent request for comparison by the
`
`server to the ETag assigned to the current version of that resource. If the ETag values match, the
`
`requesting browser or intermediate cache server will receive a 304 response from the server
`
`confirming authorization to continue using the locally cached file. If the ETag values do not match,
`
`the requesting browser or intermediate cache server will receive a 200 response from the server with
`
`a new version of the webpage base file and a new ETag.
`
`9.
`
`PersonalWeb alleges that both the Amazon entities and Twitch infringe certain
`
`asserted patents in a manner described as Category 3. Category 3 infringement is identical to
`
`Category 2 infringement, except that PersonalWeb alleges that in this category the relevant webpage
`
`asset files were stored on S3 and their ETags generated by S3. With Twitch, these webpage asset
`
`files are also served by S3. With the Amazon entities, some webpage asset files are served by S3 and
`
`others are server by CloudFront.
`
`10.
`
`PersonalWeb alleges that Twitch infringes certain asserted patents in a manner
`
`described as Category 4. Category 4 infringement alleges the use of fingerprints in filenames for
`
`webpage asset files. Specifically, it is alleged that the fingerprints were not generated by S3. The
`
`fingerprints are alphanumeric strings of characters resulting from using a method that produces a
`
`substantially unique value from the content of the assets. PersonalWeb alleges that Twitch uses its
`
`own web server application system to apply the MD5 algorithm to the concatenation of the contents
`
`of a webpage asset file and a seed to produce a fingerprint which is then inserted in a filename for
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 6 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 7 of 10
`
`that webpage asset file. Because the fingerprint is based on the content of a webpage asset file, any
`
`change to the webpage asset file’s content causes the fingerprint and therefore its URI to change. As
`
`a consequence, when a browser renders a webpage for a first time, it stores the URI and caches the
`
`content of each webpage asset file it obtained to render the webpage. On a subsequent rendering of
`
`that webpage, the browser obtains a new webpage base file containing references to the current URIs
`
`of webpage asset files needed to render the webpage. If the webpage asset files’ contents have not
`
`changed, their fingerprints and therefore URIs will not have changed, and the browser is able to
`
`access and reuse the cached content for that webpage’s asset files. Conversely, if the contents and
`
`hence the fingerprints and URIs have changed, the browser is forced to make a new request for that
`
`new content for any asset file that has no matching URI in its cache. In this manner, the browser is
`
`directed to only use the latest authorized content. Similarly, a subsequent conditional HTTP GET
`
`request for a previously cached asset file will include the filename, and thus the fingerprint, of the
`
`asset as part of the URI. If the URI matches one of its list of current authorized URIs, the server
`
`responding to the request for that URI in the conditional HTTP GET request will send a 304
`
`response confirming authorization to continue using the locally cached file. If not, a 304 response
`
`will not be sent.
`
`11.
`
`Lastly, PersonalWeb alleges that Twitch Interactive infringed the ’544 patent. The
`
`infringement of the ’544 patent involves a combination of Category 1 infringement and Category 4
`
`infringement. PersonalWeb alleges that Twitch generated ETags for webpage base files and
`
`delivered webpage base files that included URIs for webpage asset files with fingerprints of the
`
`current asset contents in their filenames. The use of URIs for webpage asset files with content-based
`
`filenames causes the webpage base file’s name and contents (the listing of URIs of webpage asset
`
`files) to be dependent on the contents of all referenced webpage asset files. When an anonymous
`
`browser or intermediate cache server receives and caches such a webpage base file and subsequently
`
`issues a conditional GET for that webpage base file, only an unaltered webpage base file with
`
`unaltered webpage asset files will receive an HTTP 304 message authorizing allowing the reuse of
`
`the cached webpage base file and result in the reuse of all cached contents.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 7 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 8 of 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
`
`
`
`12.
`
`If the content of any asset with a fingerprint in its filename changes, the fingerprint
`
`changes and the corresponding URI reference in the webpage base file changes. The change in the
`
`URI reference results in the contents and ETag for the webpage base file changing. Therefore, the
`
`subsequent conditional GET request for the webpage base file results in an HTTP 304 message
`
`being sent if no fingerprints change, and results in an HTTP 200 message being sent with a new
`
`webpage base file if any fingerprints change. In the event of receiving an HTTP 304 message, the
`
`browser is permitted to use each of the referenced (previously cached) webpage asset files. In the
`
`event of receiving an HTTP 200 message with a new webpage base file, the browser is permitted to
`
`the use each previously cached webpage asset file whose content has not changed but forced to
`
`obtain the new content for any webpage asset file whose content has changed—that change being
`
`identified based on the new URI (with the new fingerprint) not matching any prior URI for a cached
`
`webpage asset file.
`
`13.
`
`Among Categories 1-4 of infringement, only Category 3 involves the use of S3 as
`
`part of the accused instrumentality. As infringement of the ’544 patent combines infringement of
`
`Categories 1 and 4, those contentions similarly do not allege the use of S3 as part of the accused
`
`instrumentality.
`
`14.
`
`I have been informed that PersonalWeb was a plaintiff in PersonalWeb Technologies
`
`LLC and Level 3 Communications v. Amazon.com, Inc, et al., Case No. 6:11-cv-00658 in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas (“the Texas Action”). I was provided and reviewed the claim charts for the
`
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs”) for the patents asserted in the Texas Action in which
`
`PersonalWeb identified aspects of S3 as the accused instrumentality, produced in this current
`
`litigation at AMZ_PWT_00005796-5838, AMZ_PWT_00005848-5925, AMZ_PWT_00005941-
`
`5986, AMZ_PWT_00005994-6147, AMZ_PWT_00006159-6254, and AMZ_PWT_00006264-6374.
`
`Based upon my own knowledge of S3 and my review of these documents, I conclude that the PICs
`
`from the Texas Action accused the multipart upload functionality of S3. As described above, the
`
`accused instrumentality in the current Amazon and Twitch actions involves the use of ETags and
`
`fingerprints in filenames to control the caching behavior of anonymous browsers. The functionalities
`
`at issue in the current litigation are orthogonal to those of the Texas Action. I have reviewed the
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 8 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 9 of 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
`
`
`
`Declaration of Patrick McClory In Support of 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 Doctrines and agree with his conclusions, which confirm my findings.
`
`15.
`
`The multipart upload commands cited in the Texas Action were S3-specific
`
`commands and not “standard” HTTP commands such as those used by the website operators at issue
`
`in current Amazon and Twitch cases. S3’s use of a command to conditionally copy data constitutes a
`
`substantially and materially different use of ETags than the currently accused Amazon web server
`
`and development system functionality. For example, the Upload Part - Copy command, described at
`
`https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/mpUploadUploadPartCopy.html implements a
`
`custom x-header HTTP request header with corresponding custom web server processing beyond the
`
`scope of RFC 2616 and outside the standard browser - web server model. For example, the x-header
`
`“x-amz-copy-source-if-match” is not used (or even known) by any standard web browser and could
`
`not be used in any HTTP request unless scripts to do so were provided by the application server. The
`
`x-header “x-amz-copy-source-if-match” is expected to be used as an API by scripts (such as Python,
`
`Perl, JavaScript, etc.) wherein the complete HTTP header can be manipulated to include custom
`
`controls for specific S3 server functions. Standard web servers will ignore the x-header “x-amz-
`
`copy-source-if-match” as there is no definition of this header in RFC 2616. Processing, by any
`
`server, of an HTTP Request including the x-header “x-amz-copy-source-if-match” requires custom
`
`server coding beyond the purview of the HTTP/1.1 protocol. Specifically, only an Amazon S3 server
`
`or a server designed to clone Amazon’s custom functionality is capable of responding to such a
`
`request. Only a client programmed according to the Amazon API or API designed to clone
`
`Amazon’s custom functionality is capable of issuing such a request. The categories 1-4 of
`
`infringement and infringement of the ’544 patent alleged describe actions taken in conformance with
`
`the HTTP/1.1 protocol based on configuration of the web server application system and interaction
`
`with any arbitrary web browser.
`
`16.
`
`I also reviewed the underlying data for the Exhibits 1’s to the First Amended
`
`Complaints filed by PersonalWeb against various other entities besides Twitch Interactive on
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON’S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`4820-1314-7524, V. 1
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 336 Filed 01/09/19 Page 9 of 9Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 414-5 Filed 04/24/19 Page 10 of 10
`
`1 October 3 and October 4, 2018. Therefore, I expect that the nature of the infringement contentions
`
`2 against the other defendants would be similar to those against Twitch for those defendants'
`
`3
`
`respective alleged categories of infringement and would not allege the use of S3 as part of the
`
`4 accused instrumentality except for Category 3 infringement.
`
`5
`
`17.
`
`I am familiar with an Amazon product called CloudFront. I understand CloudFront to
`
`6 be a separate product from S3. On its webpage (https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/) A WS describes
`
`7 CloudFront as "a fast content delivery network (CDN) service that securely delivers data, videos,
`
`8 applications, and APis to customers globally with low latency, high transfer speeds, all within a
`
`9 developer-friendly environment." I understand that CloudFront's operation during the relevant
`
`10
`
`11
`
`timeframe for infringement was substantially the same as that description. I have reviewed the
`
`Infringement Contentions against the Amazon entities, and I have concluded that the Infringement
`
`12 Contentions show how the use of CloudFront without S3 meets all of the limitations of the claims in
`
`13 which CloudFront is cited as an accused instrumentality for webpage asset files for which a content-
`
`14 based ETag has been assigned.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing I true and correct.
`Executed on January 9, 2019 in ~A~~~IIN=A~<l~'~N-~1(._{e_W~---' California.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA
`ISO PWEB'S OPPOSITION TO AMAZON'S
`MSJ UNDER CP AND KESSLER DOCTRINE
`
`8
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`