Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 9
`Case 5:18-md-02834—BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 1 of 9
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`EXHIBIT 6
`
`

`

`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 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 2 of 9
`
`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]
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`
`PERSONALWEB’S DISCLOSURES
`PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULES
`3-1 AND 3-2
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, et
`al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`Counterclaimants,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counterdefendants.
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 3 of 9
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 9
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 4 of 9
`
`patent owner merely provide the accused infiinger “with notice of infringement beyond that which is
`
`provided by the mere language of the patents themselves.” Network Caching Teclmologv, LLC v.
`
`Novell, Inc, 2003 US. 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
`
`(a)
`
`3-1‘a}: Asserted Claims
`
`The following claims of each patent in suit are allegedly infiinged by the Amazon Parties, the
`
`applicable statutory subsections of 35 U.S.C. §271 asserted.
`
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`‘310
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Statutory Provision
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`
`
`25, 26, 27, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`166
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
`
`
`(b)
`
`3-1
`
`: Accused Instrumentali
`
`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 ofhosted webpage
`
`—
`
`—
`
`CASE NO: 5:sl8—rnd—02834—BLF
`CASE N0:51:8-cv—00767—BLF
`
`l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 5 of 9
`
`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;
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 6 of 9
`
`(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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 7 of 9
`
`(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.
`
`(g)
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 8 of 9
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 452-7 Filed 06/25/19 Page 9 of 9
`
`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.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: October 29, 2018
`
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`Dated: October 29, 2018
`
`Dated: October 29, 2018
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT L.R. 3-1/3-2 DISCLOSURES
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`