Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 21
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 21
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`EXHIBIT 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`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
`
`Counsel 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,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
` Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE OF
`AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON
`WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLO-
`SURE
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2 Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (col-
`lectively “Amazon”) make the following disclosure of proposed constructions for each claim term,
`phrase, or clause that was previously identified for construction by any party. Amazon also iden-
`tifies references from the specifications or prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit that support
`its proposed constructions, and any other intrinsic evidence, as well as extrinsic evidence in support
`of its claim construction positions. Amazon reserves the right to identify additional intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence in response to constructions proposed and any evidenced advanced by Person-
`alWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) and Level 3 Communications, LLC (“Level 3”) (col-
`lectively “Counterclaimants”) and/or as the result of the upcoming conferences of counsel relating
`to claim construction. Accordingly, the identification of supporting evidence in the attached is not
`exhaustive. Amazon further reserves its right to modify or refine the identifications of intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence based on information learned through the course of discovery. Amazon also
`reserves the right to rely on extrinsic evidence that is not in its possession because PersonalWeb
`and Level 3 have failed to produce documents, for example, from related proceedings, in advance
`of the deadline for this disclosure as requested by Amazon.
`Further, because of upcoming conferences concerning the proposed claim constructions,
`Amazon reserves the right individually to withdraw or modify any of the proposed constructions.
`Amazon also reserves the right to modify claim terms it proposed for construction. For example,
`Amazon reserves the right to seek construction of constituent portions of identified terms, phrases,
`and clauses if unable to reach agreement regarding the entire identified terms, phrases, and clauses.
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2(c), Amazon is prepared to meet and confer with PersonalWeb
`and Level 3 at a mutually agreeable time and place for the purposes of finalizing a combined list,
`narrowing or resolving differences, facilitating the ultimate preparation of a Joint Claim Construc-
`tion and Prehearing Statement, and establishing the procedures for exchanging expert disclosures,
`if any, relating to claim construction.
`Amazon’s proposed constructions are preliminary, and Amazon expressly reserves the right
`to amend, supplement, and/or remove terms, phrases, and clauses and constructions from this list
`
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLO-
`SURE
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`to the full extent permitted under the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and the Patent Local Rules. Ac-
`cordingly, Amazon reserves the right to amend, modify, or supplement this disclosure as it deems
`appropriate.
`To support its preliminary constructions identified in Exhibit A, and any modifications to
`them that may be made during the meet and confer process mandated by Patent Local Rule 4-2(c)
`or otherwise, Amazon may rely on expert testimony to address the parties’ respective claim con-
`struction positions, the substance of that testimony to include 1) an identification of the level of one
`of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the Patents-in-Suit; 2) how one of ordinary skill in the art
`would understand the claim terms, phrases and clauses identified in Exhibit A in light of the speci-
`fication and statements made by the applicants to the Patent Office during prosecution and reexam-
`ination of the Patents-in-Suit; 3) ordinary meaning of the terms, phrases and clauses identified in
`Exhibit A as understood by such a person skilled in the art at the time of filing of the Patents-in-
`Suit; 4) structures, if any, described in the specification as performing the functions recited in claim
`terms governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6; and 5) rebuttal to claim constructions and positions of
`Counterclaimants. Any such expert witnesses may also offer declaration testimony if necessary to
`respond to Counterclaimants’ contentions or for the Court’s benefit.
`
`
`Dated: January 28, 2019
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Phillip J. Haack
`J. David Hadden (CSB No. 176148)
`Saina S. Shamilov (CSB No. 215636)
`Todd R. Gregorian (CSB No. 236096)
`Phillip J. Haack (CSB No. 262060)
`Ravi R. Ranganath (CSB No. 272981)
`Chieh Tung (CSB No. 318963)
`
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMA-
`ZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLO-
`SURE
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`Theodore S. Maceiko
`ted@maceikoip.com
`MACEIKO IP
`420 2nd Street
`Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
`
`Counsel for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`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
`Counsel for Level 3 Communications, LLC
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 28th day of January, 2019, a true and correct copy of Amazon’s
`Patent Local Rule 4-2 disclosure was served on each party through their counsel of record via email.
`
`Michael A. Sherman
`masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`Jeffrey F. Gersh
`jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`Sandeep Seth
`sseth@stubbsalderton.com
`Wesley W. Monroe
`wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com
`Stanley H. Thompson
`sthompson@stubbsalderton.com
`Viviana Boero Hedrick
`vedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`15620 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`Counsel for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Phillip J. Haack
`Phillip J. Haack
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLO-
`SURE
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`EXHIBIT A — AMAZON’S PROPOSED PRELINIINARY CONSTRUCTIONS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`Claim Term, Clause or
`Phrase and Proposing
`Party
`
`Proposed Preliminary
`Construction
`
`Preliminary Supporting Evidence
`
`“a named ‘data item(s)”’
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’420 patent at 1:58-63; 5:36-41; ’442 patent at Abstract; ’791 File History
`at Aug. 29, 1997 Amendment C at 10; ’280 File History at August 13, 2001
`Interview; August 22, 2001 Amendment C at 47-58; ’442 File History, May
`25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only; June 7, 2004 Amendment and
`Reply.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12—cv—66l, Dkt. 103
`
`(ED. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); Alan Freedman,
`THE COMPUTER GLOSSARY (7th ed. 1995) at 92 (“data file”); id. at 148
`(“file”). Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been under-
`stood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`
`“data fi1e(s)”
`(’442 patent claim 10)
`
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“data item”
`(’3 10 patent claims 20,
`69; ’420 patent claims
`25, 166)
`
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“sequence of bits”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`’420 patent at 1:58-63; 5:36-41; ’442 patent at Abstract; ’791 File History
`at Aug. 29, 1997 Amendment C at 10; ’280 File History at August 13, 2001
`Interview; August 22, 2001 Amendment C at 47-58; ’442 File History, May
`25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only; June 7, 2004 Amendment and
`Reply.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv—661, Dkt. 103
`(ED. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); Expert testimony
`regarding how this term would have been understood by one of ordinary
`skill in the art.
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 7 of 21
`
`“name for a data file”
`(’442 patent claim 10)
`
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“an identifier used to lo-
`cate and access a data
`file”
`
`
`
`“content-dependent
`name of a particular data
`item”
`(’310 patent claim 20)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“content-dependent
`name for the data item”
`(’310 patent claim 69)
`
`“an identifier used to lo-
`cate and access a particu-
`lar sequence of bits that is
`generated by processing
`the sequence of bits”
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 8 of 21
`
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`[content-dependent…]
`“digital identifier”
`(’420 patent claims 25,
`166)
`
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“an identifier used to lo-
`cate and access a se-
`quence of bits that is gen-
`erated by processing the
`sequence of bits”
`
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 9 of 21
`
`“content-dependent
`name for a particular se-
`quence of bits”
` (’420 patent claim 25,
`166)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“an identifier used to lo-
`cate and access a particu-
`lar sequence of bits that is
`generated by processing
`the data in the particular
`sequence of bits”
`
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`4
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 10 of 21
`
`“content-dependent digi-
`tal identifiers for said
`particular data item”
`(’420 patent claim 25
`166)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“identifiers used to locate
`and access a particular
`sequence of bits that are
`generated by processing
`the sequence of bits ”
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“digital fingerprint”
`(’420 patent claim 29)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`“a digital identifier used
`to locate and access a se-
`quence of bits that is gen-
`erated by processing the
`data in the sequence of
`bits”
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`5
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 11 of 21
`
`“True Name”
`(’420 patent claim 30)
`Proposed by both parties
`
`“an identifier used to lo-
`cate and access a se-
`quence of bits, which is
`generated by processing
`all of the bits in the se-
`quence of bits , through
`an algorithm that makes
`the identifier substantially
`unique”
`
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 1:19-23; 3:5-10; 3:25-33; 5:61-65; 7:66-8:4; 8:8-12; 8:40-
`57; 9:10; 13:6-12; 14:24-45; 31:37-47; 32:57-59; 33:11-13; ’280 File His-
`tory, August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`Interview Summary; August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 24;
`’791 File History, March 12, 1997 Response to Office Action at 10-11, 20,
`Dec. 29, 2008 Amendment, Mar. 13, 2008 Response; ’442 File History,
`May 25, 2004 Fax For Discussion Purposes Only and June 7, 2004
`Amendment and Reply (incorporating Fax); ’662 File History,; ’310 File
`History, March 17, 2010 Interview (discussing, inter alia, claim 1); March
`15, 2010 Letter; ’310 File History April 19, 2010 Amendment; see also id.
`30-32, 35; April 22, 2010 Supplemental Amendment; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19; Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 8) at 33-34;
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR 2013-00087 at 10-11.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`6
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 12 of 21
`
`“the request including [at
`least] the content depend-
`ent name for a particular
`requested sequence of
`bits”
`
`
`
`“being based at least in
`part on a computation
`where the input is all of
`the data in the file”
`
`
`“the request including at
`least a content dependent
`name of a particular data
`item”
`(’310 patent claim 20)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“the request including at
`least a content-depend-
`ent name for the data
`item”
`(’310 patent claim 69)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“based at least in part on
`a given function of the
`data, wherein the data
`used by the function
`comprises the contents
`of the particular file”
`(’442 patent claim 10)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims); Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 23:38-42; ’280 File History, August 22, 2001 Response to
`Office Action at 23-24; ’310 File History, Dec. 11, 2009 Response; March
`17, 2010 Interview Summary; April 19, 2010 RCE and Response; April
`22, 2010 Interview Summary and May 15, 2010 Fax for Discussion Pur-
`poses Only; April 19, 2010 RCE and Response; ’310 File History, May
`27, 2010 Notice of Allowance at 3-4; ’420 File History, May 19, 2009 Re-
`sponse to Office Action at 16-17, February 14, 2010 Response to Office
`Action at 18; Patent Owner’s Preliminary Opposition to IPR2013-00596
`(Paper 8) at 31; Patent Owner Response to IPR2013-00596 (Paper 15) at
`5, 8-10, 31-32, 33-34; Patent Owner Response to IPR2013-00084 (Paper
`9) at 13.
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`See supra, citations for “content-dependent name of a particular data item”
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims). Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`“based at least in part on
`
`“being based at least in
`
`See supra, citations for “content-dependent name of a particular data item”
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`7
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 13 of 21
`
`a function of at least
`some of the data com-
`prising the particular
`data item”
`(’310 patent claim 20)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`“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”
`(’310 patent claim 69)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`“at least in part by ap-
`plying a particular func-
`tion to at least some of
`the particular sequence
`of bits”
`(’420 patent claim 25)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`part on a computation
`where at the input is at
`least some of the bits in
`the particular sequence of
`bits”
`
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims). Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`“being based at least in
`part on a computation
`where the input is at least
`some of the bits in the se-
`quence of bits”
`
`
`
`See supra, citations for “content-dependent name of a particular data item”
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims). Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“at least in part by per-
`forming a computation
`where the input is some
`of the bits in the particu-
`lar sequence of bits”
`
`See supra, citations for “content-dependent name of a particular data item”
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims). Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`“based at least in part on
`
`“based at least in part by
`
`See supra, citations for “content-dependent name of a particular data item”
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`8
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 14 of 21
`
`a given function of at
`least some of the bits in
`the particular sequence
`of bits”
`(’420 patent claim 166)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`“wherein two identical
`sequences of bits will
`have the same content-
`dependent name as de-
`termined using said par-
`ticular function”
`(’420 patent claim 25)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`“being based on a first
`function of the contents
`of the specific part”
`(’544 patent claim 46)
`Proposed by Personal-
`Web
`
`performing a computation
`where the input is some
`of the bits in the particu-
`lar sequence of bits”
`
`Plain meaning.
`
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims). Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 59, 72.
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`“being based on a compu-
`tation where the input is
`the all of the data in the
`specific part”
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 59, 72.
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`PersonalWeb v. International Business Machines, 6:12-cv-661, Dkt. 103
`(E.D. Tex. March 10, 2016) (Order construing claims); PersonalWeb v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013)
`(Order construing claims). Expert testimony regarding how this term
`would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`9
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 15 of 21
`
`“wherein the particular
`file comprises a first one
`or more parts”
`(’544 patent claim 46)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“wherein the particular
`file is made up of one or
`more distinct sequences
`of bits”
`
`
`
`“wherein each file of the
`plurality of files com-
`prises a corresponding
`one or more parts”
`(’544 patent claim 52)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“wherein each file of the
`two or more files is made
`up of one or more distinct
`sequences of bits”
`
`“part”
`(’544 patent claims 46,
`52)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“a distinct sequence of
`bits within a ‘data item’
`or ‘data file’”
`
`“digital key for the par-
`ticular file” (’544 patent
`claim 46)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“file key for each partic-
`ular file”
`
`“unique identifier used to
`locate [the/each] particu-
`lar file”
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 59, 72.
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 72.
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of Personal-
`Web, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 72.
`
`Extrinsic evidence
`Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been understood by
`one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31;’791 File History,
`August 29, 1997 Response to Office Action at 18;’544 File History, De-
`cember 30, 2010 Response to Office Action at 17-18
`Brief of PersonalWeb, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 59, 72;
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`AMAZON’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`10
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-6 Filed 06/25/19 Page 16 of 21
`
`(’544 patent claim 52)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`“wherein the particular
`digital key for the partic-
`ular file is determined
`using a second function
`of the one or more of
`part values of said first
`one or more parts” (’544
`patent claim 46) Pro-
`posed by Amazon
`
`“the file key for each
`particular file being
`based on a second hash
`function of the part val-
`ues of the one or more
`parts of that file”
`(’544 patent claim 52)
`Proposed by Amazon
`
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (1994) (“key”); Microsoft Computer Dic-
`tionary (2nd ed. 1994) (“key”); IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th ed.
`1994) (“key”). Expert testimony regarding how this term would have been
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31;’791 File History,
`August 29, 1997 Response to Office Action at 18;’544 File History, De-
`cember 30, 2010 Response to Office Action at 17-18
`Brief of PersonalWeb, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 59, 72;
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (1994) (“key”); Microsoft Computer Dic-
`tionary (2nd ed. 1994) (“key”); IBM Dictionary of Computing (10th ed.
`1994) (“key”).
`Expert testimo