Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 1 of 39
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 1 of 39
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 2 of 39
`
`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
`
`
`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 Defendants
`[Additional Attorneys listed below]
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S DISCLOSURES
`PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULES
`3-1 AND 3-2
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 3 of 39
`
`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
`
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2, Counterclaimant PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`(“Counterclaimant” or “PersonalWeb”) hereby makes the following Disclosure of Asserted Claims
`and Infringement Contentions to Counterdefendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services,
`Inc. (collectively, “the Amazon Parties” or “Defendants”). These discloses are preliminary and subject
`to change based upon discovery and the Court’s claim construction rulings:
`I.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`In making these contentions, Plaintiff has not yet received any discovery from Defendants
`regarding their infringing methods and systems and has not had access to the source code of the
`accused methods and systems. Plaintiff has, however researched available information, including (1)
`Defendants’ website(s), (2) publicly available information published by Defendants’ about their
`accused products and services, and (3) publicly available statements and information describing
`Defendants’ accused products and services. Furthermore, PersonalWeb is serving these contentions
`before being allowed access to PersonalWeb’s Final Infringement Contentions in PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon, Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:11-cv-00658 (LED), which are also non-public
`information. PersonalWeb therefore reserves the right to amend its Infringement Contentions under
`Patent L.R. 3-6(c).
`Defendants engage in the allegedly infringing conduct through computer systems operating
`proprietary software. Defendants do not publicly disclose the precise operation of their computer
`systems and do not publicly disclose their source code. Because Defendants have not publicly
`disclosed the specific operation of their accused products and services and do not publicly disclose
`their source code for those products and services, PersonalWeb is inherently limited in the degree of
`specificity it can provide in the preliminary infringement contentions. Under these circumstances, the
`Northern District of Texas recognizes that the plaintiff will not be able to provide highly specified
`infringement contentions and should be permitted further discovery to supplement initial contentions
`with additional information. SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-04479-JSW (KAW),
`2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112885, at *16 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2018). Similarly, Patent Local Rule 3-1
`“does not require [the patent owner] to produce evidence of infringement”, but rather requires that the
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 4 of 39
`
`patent owner merely provide the accused infringer “with notice of infringement beyond that which is
`provided by the mere language of the patents themselves.” Network Caching Technology, LLC v.
`Novell, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9881, 2003 WL 21699799, *4 (N.D. Cal. 2003).
`Accordingly, PersonalWeb reserves the right to amend its disclosures, including the identity
`of the claims being asserted, upon receiving discovery from Defendants.
`II.
`DISCLOSURES UNDER PATENT LOCAL 3-1
`3-1(a): Asserted Claims
`The following claims of each patent in suit are allegedly infringed by the Amazon Parties, the
`applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. §271 asserted.
`
`(a)
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Statutory Provision
`
`‘310
`
`‘420
`
`‘442
`
`
`
`20, 69
`
`25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36,
`166
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`10, 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`(b)
`
`3-1(b): Accused Instrumentality
`The accused method operates in a system that includes website file host servers of Amazon
`Web Services (“AWS”) Simple Storage Service (“S3”) (“S3 website file host servers”) when used to
`by Amazon and website operators to control the distribution of hosted webpage file content to other
`computers connected to S3 website file host servers via the Internet, such as CloudFront content
`delivery network service (“CloudFront PoP servers”), outside intermediate cache servers and
`computers running web browsers.
`The accused method operates in a system that includes Points of Presence of the CloudFront
`PoP servers when used by Amazon and website operators to control the distribution of hosted webpage
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 5 of 39
`
`file content to other computers connected to AWS CloudFront PoP servers and each other via the
`Internet, such as outside intermediate cache servers and computers running web browsers.
`The accused systems and methods include certain accused functionalities when combined in
`the manner specified by the asserted claims. Inclusion in the list below does not imply that the
`functionality is an element of any particular patent claim. These functionalities include, but are not
`necessarily limited to:
`(a) generating content-based values for the content of webpage files uploaded to and stored as
`
`objects on S3 web hosting servers by website operators;
`
`(b) storing such values associated with the respective uniform resource identifiers (“URIs”) or
`
`uniform resource locators (“URLs”) of such objects;
`
`(c) inserting such content-based values as ETags in HTTP 200 messages;
`
`(d) identifying such content-based values received in conditional HTTP GET request ETag
`
`headers;
`
`(e) comparing such received content-based values with stored ETag values to determine if
`
`there is a matching value currently stored for that URI/URL;
`
`(f) receiving and responding to HTTP GET request for a given URI of a given webpage asset
`
`file of a website operator customer stored on S3 servers by generating and serving HTTP
`
`200 messages with the current content for that URI/URL placed into the message body and
`
`the current content-based value associated with the current content for that URI/URL
`
`placed into an ETag header of HTTP 200 message;
`
`(g) receiving and responding to conditional HTTP GET request having an If-None-Match
`
`header containing content-based ETag values for the content of hosted webpage file objects
`
`by comparing the content-based ETag value received in the conditional GET request with
`
`the content-based ETag values stored on the server to determine whether the received value
`
`matches the latest/current ETag value stored on the server associated with that URI/URL;
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 6 of 39
`
`(h) if there is a matching value associated with that URI/URL, generating and sending an
`
`HTTP 304 message back to the request issuing computer, with or without new cache
`
`control information;
`
`(i) if there is not a matching value associated with that URI/URL, generating and sending an
`
`HTTP 304 message back to the request issuing computer, with the new content-based ETag
`
`value, the new content associated with that URI/URL, with or without cache control
`
`information; and/or
`
`(j) inserting cache control parameters into cache control headers of such HTTP 304 and HTTP
`
`200 messages.
`
`The accused instrumentality includes software instructions executing on the S3 or CloudFront
`PoP servers, which cannot at this stage be identified by name. Upon information and belief, the
`content-based values are calculated by applying the MD5 message digest algorithm (a function) to the
`content of the object, wherein any two versions of an object having identical content will have identical
`associated E-Tag values.
`Before being received in conditional HTTP GET requests, such content-based values were
`previously sent to the other computer in an ETag header field of an HTTP 200 message in response to
`an HTTP GET request for that object.
`The HTTP 304 response message indicates to the other computer that the computer that sent
`the conditional GET request that it is permitted to access the content of the object referenced in the
`request for the purposes of that request, such as to re-serve it or use it in rendering the webpage of the
`website operator. The HTTP 200 response message, in contrast, indicates to the requesting computer
`that it is not authorized to access the copy of the content of the object referenced in the request, for the
`purposes of the request, and should instead access the new content contained in the HTTP 200 response
`message for the purposes of the request, such as to re-serve it or use it in rendering the webpage of the
`website operator.
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 7 of 39
`
`(c)
`
`3-1(c): Claim Charts
`Attached as Exhibits A to C hereto are claim charts for each patent-in-suit identifying
`specifically where and how each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each Accused
`Instrumentality. PersonalWeb does not contend that any claim limitation should be interpreted under
`35 U.S.C. § 112(6). Exhibits A to C, in turn, refer to Annexure A, which includes more specifics
`about alleged infringing acts.
`(d)
`3-1(d): Indirect Infringement
`Subject to change with discovery, on the present record, PersonalWeb asserts that the Amazon
`parties directly infringe and that the direct infringement is met by their actions. Discovery may show
`that the Amazon parties are also contributing to or inducing infringement.
`(e)
`3-1(e): Doctrine of Equivalents
`Subject to change with discovery and the Court’s claim construction order, PersonalWeb
`alleges that each limitation of each asserted claim is literally present. PersonalWeb also believes that
`any claim element not found to be literally present in the Accused Instrumentality would be present
`under the doctrine of equivalents.
`(f)
`3-1(f): Priority Date
`The priority date of the ‘310, ‘420 and ‘442 patents is April 11, 1995.
`3-1(g): Self-Practice
`PersonalWeb does not rely upon its manufacture and use of any product that practices the
`asserted claims.
`(h)
`3-1(h): Damages Period
`The time of the first infringement is presently unknown. The start of claimed damages is
`February 5, 2012, six years prior to the filing of the Amazon declaratory judgment action. The end of
`claimed damages period is April 11, 2015, the expiration date of the last asserted patent to expire.
`(i)
`3-1(i) Willful Infringement
`The Amazon Parties were aware of the asserted patents from a prior litigation, but
`PersonalWeb, without discovery, has insufficient information to decide whether it will allege willful
`
`(g)
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 8 of 39
`
`infringement, but reserves the right to make such allegation if facts obtained during discovery so
`warrant.
`III.
`3-2. Document Production Accompanying Disclosure
`With the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions,” the party claiming
`patent infringement shall produce to each opposing party or make available for inspection and
`copying:
`
`(a) PersonalWeb has no such documents in its possession, custody or control.
`
`(b) Any such documents in PersonalWeb’s possession, custody or control will be
`
`provided as bates numbers PERSONALWEB000001 to PERSONALWEB003131
`
`upon entry of the stipulated protective order.
`
`(c) Any such documents in PersonalWeb’s possession, custody or control are being
`
`provided herewith as bates numbers PERSONALWEB003132 to
`
`PERSONALWEB006626.
`
`(d) Any such documents in PersonalWeb’s possession, custody or control are being
`
`provided herewith as bates numbers PERSONALWEB006627 to
`
`PERSONALWEB006632.
`
`(e) N/A
`
`(f) Any such documents in PersonalWeb’s possession, custody or control are being
`
`provided as bates numbers PERSONALWEB006633 to PERSONALWEB007036.
`
`(g) See PERSONALWEB006627 to PERSONALWEB007036.
`
`(h) See PERSONALWEB006627 to PERSONALWEB007036.
`
`(i) N/A
`
`(j) N/A
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 9 of 39
`
`PersonalWeb has used its best efforts to identify responsive P.R. 3-2 documents and only those
`documents. However, given the volume of documents, some documents may have been inadvertently
`listed or inadvertently omitted. To the extent such deficiencies are identified, PersonalWeb will
`supplement its production accordingly.
`
`Dated: April 18, 2019October 29, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`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 Defendants/Counterclaimants
`
`Dated: April 18, 2019October 29, 2018 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 Defendant/Counterclaimant
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`Dated: April 18, 2019October 29, 2018 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 Defendant/Counterclaimant
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 10 of 39
`
`
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 10 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`US. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 11 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`20-1
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 20
`
`20. A computer-implemented
`method operable in a system
`which includes a plurality of
`computers, the method
`comprising:
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`S3:
`The accused method operates in a system that includes website file host servers of
`AWS1 S3 (“S3 website file host servers”) when used by website operators for website
`hosting and a plurality of computers directly or indirectly connected to S3 website file
`host servers and each other via the Internet. The connected computers communicate
`via messages in accordance with the HTTP 1.1 protocol, RFC 2616, including but not
`limited to its sections regarding GET requests ("HTTP GET requests) (e.g., Sec. 9.3),
`conditional GET requests ("HTTP conditional GET requests") with If None-Match
`Headers (e.g., Sec. 14.9.4), ETags (e.g., Sec. 14.19), 304 messages ("HTTP 304
`messages") (e.g., Sec. 10.3.5), 200 messages ("HTTP 200 messages") (e.g., Sec.
`10.2.1), and cache control directives (e.g., Secs. 13.1, 13.2, 13.3.2-4, 14.9, 14.21,
`14.26) to implement the cache control described herein.
`CloudFront:
`The accused method operates in a system that includes Points of Presence of the AWS
`CloudFront content delivery network service (“CloudFront PoP servers”) when used
`by website operators to deliver their webpage file content and a plurality of computers
`directly or indirectly connected to AWS CloudFront PoP servers and each other via
`the Internet. The connected computers communicate via messages in accordance with
`the HTTP 1.1 protocol, RFC 2616, including but not limited to its sections regarding
`GET requests ("HTTP GET requests) (e.g., Sec. 9.3), conditional GET requests
`("HTTP conditional GET requests") with If None-Match Headers (e.g., Sec. 14.9.4),
`ETags (e.g., Sec. 14.19), 304 messages ("HTTP 304 messages") (e.g., Sec. 10.3.5),
`
`                                                            
`1 AWS and S3 are defined in Infringement Contention Cover Pleading.
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 12 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 20
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`20-2
`
`controlling distribution of content
`from a first computer to at least
`one other computer, in response
`to a request obtained by a first
`device in the system from a
`second device in the system,
`
`200 messages ("HTTP 200 messages") (e.g., Sec. 10.2.1), and cache control directives
`(e.g., Secs. 13.1, 13.2, 13.3.2-4, 14.9, 14.21, 14.26) to implement the cache control
`described herein.
`
`S3:
`The distribution of hosted webpage file content (content) to other computers such as
`outside intermediate cache servers and computers running web browsers (“browsers,”
`“browser computers”) (collectively, other computers) is controlled from an S3 website
`file host server (a first computer). This is done in response to a conditional HTTP
`GET request (a request) obtained by an S3 website file host server (a first device in the
`system) from another computer (a second device in the system), such as a CloudFront
`PoP server, an outside intermediate cache server or a computer running a browser.
`CloudFront:
`The distribution of hosted webpage file content (content) to other computers such as
`outside intermediate cache servers and computers running web browsers (“browsers,”
`“browser computers”) (collectively, other computers) is controlled from a CloudFront
`PoP server (a first computer). This is done in response to a conditional HTTP GET
`request (a request) obtained by a CloudFront PoP server (a first device in the system)
`from another computer (a second device in the system), such as an outside intermediate
`cache server or a browser.
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`20-3
`
`20-4
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 13 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 20
`
`the first device comprising
`hardware including at least
`one processor,
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`S3:
`S3 website file host servers comprise hardware including at least one processor.
`CloudFront:
`CloudFront PoP servers comprise hardware including at least one processor.
`
`the request including at least a
`content-dependent name of a
`particular data item, the
`content-dependent name being
`based at least in part on a
`function of at least some of the
`data comprising the particular
`data item, wherein the
`function comprises a message
`digest function or a hash
`function, and wherein two
`identical data items will have
`
`S3 and CloudFront:
`The conditional HTTP GET request has an If-None-Match header containing an ETag
`value (a content-dependent name) of the content of an object (a particular data item)
`referenced in the request. That ETag value is calculated by applying the MD5 message
`digest algorithm (a function) to the content of the requested object at the time of the
`ETag’s calculation. That ETag value is therefore based at least in part on a function of
`at least some of the content of that particular object wherein any two versions of an
`object having identical content will have identical associated E-Tag values. The MD5
`message-digest algorithm is both a hash algorithm and a message digest function.
`S3:
`The ETag value in the request was so generated by an S3 website file host server when
`the website operator uploaded the content of the S3 object to the S3 website file host
`server. That ETag value was previously sent to the other computer in an ETag header
`field of an HTTP 200 message when the S3 object referenced in the conditional HTTP
`GET request was previously sent, either directly or indirectly, to the other computer in
`response to an HTTP GET request for that object.
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 14 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 20
`the same content-dependent
`name,
`
`20-5
`
`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
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`CloudFront:
`If the object referenced in the request originated from S3, the ETag value in the request
`was so generated by the S3 website file host server when the website operator uploaded
`the content of the S3 object to the S3 website file host server. Otherwise, the website
`operator so generated the ETag value in the request before sending the object to the
`CloudFront PoP server. That ETag value was previously sent to the other computer in
`an ETag header field of an HTTP 200 message when the object referenced in the
`conditional HTTP GET request was previously sent, either directly or indirectly, to the
`other computer in response to an HTTP GET request for that object.
`
`S3 and CloudFront:
`The S3 website host server or CloudFront PoP server (first device) compares the ETag
`value in the obtained request with stored ETag values to determine whether the
`received ETag value matches the current ETag value for the content of an object
`referenced in the request. If there was a matching ETag for the content of an object
`referenced in the request, the S3 website host server or CloudFront PoP server,
`respectively, does did not determine that the content of an object referenced in the
`request stored on the other computer is unauthorized for the purposes of the request
`and serves an HTTP 304 response message to the other computer. Similarly, to the
`extent that the content is subject to a license, such as Terms of Service or an End User
`License, or the like, if there is a matching ETag for the content of an object referenced
`in the request, the S3 website host server or CloudFront PoP server, respectively, does
`not determine that the content of an object referenced in the request stored on the other
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 15 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 20
`unauthorized or unlicensed,
`not permitting the content to
`be provided to or accessed by
`the at least one other
`computer.
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`computer is unlicensed for the purposes of the request and serves an HTTP 304
`response message to the other computer.
`If there was not a matching ETag for the content of an object referenced in the request,
`the S3 website host server or CloudFront PoP server, respectively, does did determine
`that the content of an object referenced in the request stored on the other computer is
`unauthorized for the purposes of the request and serves an HTTP 200 response
`message to the other computer. Similarly, to the extent that the content is subject to a
`license, such as Terms of Service or an End User License, or the like, if there is not a
`matching ETag for the content of an object referenced in the request, the S3 website
`host server or CloudFront PoP server, respectively, does determine that the content of
`an object referenced in the request stored on the other computer is unlicensed for the
`purposes of the request and serves an HTTP 200 response message to the other
`computer. The HTTP 200 response includes the content of an object referenced in the
`request as then stored on the S3 website host server.
`The HTTP 304 response message indicates to the other computer that the other
`computer is permitted to access the content of an object referenced in the request,
`stored at the other computer, for the purpose of the request, such as to re-serve it or
`use it in rendering the webpage of the website operator. The HTTP 200 response
`message, in contrast, indicates to the other computer that the other computer is not
`permitted to access the copy of the content of an object referenced in the request stored
`at the other computer and that the other computer must instead access the new content
`of the object contained in the HTTP 200 response message for the purposes of the
`request, such as to re-serve it or use it in rendering the webpage of the website operator.
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 16 of 39
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 69
`
`69-1 69. A system operable in a
`network of computers, the system
`comprising hardware including at
`least a processor, and software, in
`combination with said hardware:
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`S3:
`The accused system, operable in the Internet, that includes website file host servers of
`AWS S3 (“S3 website file host servers”) when used by website operators for website
`hosting and a plurality of computers directly or indirectly connected to S3 website file
`host servers and each other via the Internet. The connected computers communicate via
`messages in accordance with the HTTP 1.1 protocol, RFC 2616, including but not
`limited to its sections regarding GET requests ("HTTP GET requests) (e.g., Sec. 9.3),
`conditional GET requests ("HTTP conditional GET requests") with If None-Match
`Headers (e.g., Sec. 14.9.4), ETags (e.g., Sec. 14.19), 304 messages ("HTTP 304
`messages") (e.g., Sec. 10.3.5), 200 messages ("HTTP 200 messages") (e.g., Sec. 10.2.1),
`and cache control directives (e.g., Secs. 13.1, 13.2, 13.3.2-4, 14.9, 14.21, 14.26) to
`implement the cache control described herein.
`CloudFront:
`The accused system, operable in the Internet, that includes Points of Presence of the
`AWS CloudFront content delivery network service (“CloudFront PoP servers”) when
`used by website operators to deliver their webpage file content and a plurality of
`computers directly or indirectly connected to AWS CloudFront PoP servers and each
`other via the Internet. The connected computers communicate via messages in
`accordance with the HTTP 1.1 protocol, RFC 2616, including but not limited to its
`sections regarding GET requests ("HTTP GET requests) (e.g., Sec. 9.3), conditional
`GET requests ("HTTP conditional GET requests") with If None-Match Headers (e.g.,
`Sec. 14.9.4), ETags (e.g., Sec. 14.19), 304 messages ("HTTP 304 messages") (e.g., Sec.
`10.3.5), 200 messages ("HTTP 200 messages") (e.g., Sec. 10.2.1), and cache control
`directives (e.g., Secs. 13.1, 13.2, 13.3.2-4, 14.9, 14.21, 14.26) to implement the cache
`control described herein.
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 17 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`
`
`69-2
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 69
`
`(a) to receive at a first computer,
`from a second computer, a request
`regarding a data item,
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`S3:
`An S3 website file host server (a first computer) receives a conditional HTTP GET
`request (a request) from another computer (a second computer), such as a CloudFront
`PoP server, an outside intermediate cache server or a browser.
`CloudFront:
`A CloudFront PoP server (a first computer) receives a conditional HTTP GET request
`(a request) from another computer (a second device in the system), such as an outside
`intermediate cache server or a browser.
`
`69-3
`
`said request including at least a
`content-dependent name for the
`data item, the content-dependent
`name 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, wherein
`the function that was used is a
`
`S3 and CloudFront:
`The conditional HTTP GET request has an If-None-Match header containing an ETag
`value (a content-dependent name) of the content of an object referenced in the request
`(the data item). That ETag value was calculated by applying the MD5 message digest
`algorithm (function) to the content of the requested object at the time of the ETag’s
`calculation. That ETag value is therefore based at least in part on a function of at least
`some of the contents of that particular object wherein any two versions of an object
`having identical content will have identical associated E-Tag values. The MD5 message-
`digest algorithm is both a hash algorithm and a message digest function.
`S3:
`The ETag value in the request was so generated by the S3 website file host server when
`the website operator uploaded the content of the S3 object to the S3 website file host
`server. That ETag value was previously sent to the other computer in an ETag header
`field of an HTTP 200 message when the S3 object referenced in the conditional HTTP
`
` 
`
`1 
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 448-2 Filed 06/11/19 Page 18 of 39
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310 – Claims: 20 and 69
`Accused Instrumentality: WEBPAGE FILE DISTRIBUTION
`VIA AWS SIMPLE STORAGE SERVICE (S3) and CLOUDFRONT
` 
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,802,310
`CLAIM 69
`message digest function or a hash
`function, and wherein two
`identical data items will have the
`same content-dependent name;
`and
`
`69-4
`
`(b) in response to said request:
`
`(i) to cause the content-dependent
`name of the data item to be
`compared to a plurality of values;
`and
`
`ELEMENTS IN ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITY
`
`GET request was previously sent, either directly or indirectly, to the other computer in
`response to an HTTP GET request for th