Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 52
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 1 of 52
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 2 of 52
`
`
`
`
`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: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
` Case No. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`OF AMAZON.COM, INC. AND
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. TO
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 3 of 52
`
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Amazon.com, Inc. and
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively “Amazon”) request that PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`(“PersonalWeb”) answer the following interrogatories separately and fully, in writing and under
`oath, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of these interrogatories, at the offices of Fen-
`wick & West LLP, Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street, Mountain View, CA, 94041. These
`interrogatories are intended to be continuing in nature and should be supplemented, as required,
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e). These interrogatories should be answered in
`accordance with the definitions and instructions set forth below.
`DEFINITIONS
`1.
`The terms “you” or “PersonalWeb” means PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, and its
`predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, officers, employees, agents, and attorneys, and each
`person acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.
`2.
`The term “Amazon” means Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., in-
`cluding, without limitation, all predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, officers, employees,
`agents, and attorneys of Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., and each person acting
`or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.
`3.
`The term “Level 3” means Level 3 Communications, Inc., and its predecessors, par-
`ents, subsidiaries, divisions, officers, employees, agents, and attorneys, and each person acting or
`purporting to act on their behalf or under their control.
`4.
`The term “’791 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791.
`5.
`The term “’442 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 6,928,442.
`6.
`The term “’310 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310.
`7.
`The term “’544 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 7,954,544.
`8.
`The term “’420 patent” means U.S. Patent No. 8,099,420.
`9.
`The term “patents-in-suit” means, collectively, the ’791 patent, the ’442 patent, the
`’310 patent, the ’544 patent, and the ’420 patent. Requests referring to “each of the patents-in-suit”
`(or “each asserted claim in the patents-in-suit”) require responsive documents for each of the ’791
`patent, the ’442 patent, the ’310 patent, the ’544 patent, and the ’420 patent.
`
` 1
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 4 of 52
`
`
`10.
`The term “related patents/applications” means any and all patents, patent applica-
`tions and/or patent publications concerning subject matter similar to the claimed subject matter of
`the patents-in-suit; by way of example only, related patents/applications include any patent docu-
`ment that (i) claims priority from any of the patents-in-suit, (ii) is identified as priority for any of
`the patents-in-suit, or (iii) claims priority to any application to which any of the patents-in-suit
`claims priority.
`11.
`The term “asserted claim(s)” means any and all claims of the patents-in-suit that
`PersonalWeb contends Amazon infringes.
`12.
`The term “covered product” means any apparatus, product, device, process, method,
`act, or other instrumentality made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by PersonalWeb or any
`licensee of the Patents-in-Suit that you contend embodies the alleged inventions described in any
`asserted claim of any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`13.
`The term “2011 Texas action” means the lawsuit filed by PersonalWeb in the East-
`ern District of Texas on December 8, 2011 against Amazon, captioned PersonalWeb Techs., LLC
`v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex.).
`14.
`The term “prior art” means, as of the filing date of the patents-in-suit, any article,
`poster, abstract, chapter, display, slides, or other printed publication that discloses, or a use, sale,
`or offer for sale of a system or device disclosed or claimed in the patents-in-suit or that practices or
`could be used to practice, the alleged inventions or portions of the alleged inventions disclosed or
`claimed in the patents-in-suit or any other thing or activity which could be or could have been relied
`on by the United States Patent Office or a Court for an anticipation or obviousness determination
`of the patents-in-suit, including any and all patents, patent applications and/or publications prepared
`before the filing date of the patents-in-suit.
`15.
`The term “named inventor” means one or more of the inventors named on any of
`the patents-in-suit, including David A. Farber and Ronald D. Lachman.
`16.
`The term “source code” means computer code instructions, data structures, and data
`definitions expressed in a form suitable for input to an assembler, compiler, translator, or other data
`processing module, and associated comments and revision histories.
`2
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 5 of 52
`
`
`17.
`The term “technical documents” means all technical documents, including without
`limitation user manuals and guides, installation manuals and guides, reference manuals and guides,
`data sheets, technical documentation, technical presentations, schematics, specifications, architec-
`ture descriptions, release notes, readme files, source code, executable code, engineering notebooks,
`workbooks, diagrams, blueprints, sketches, flow charts, design requirements, design reviews, bug
`reports, project plans and papers, test reports, throughput analysis, troubleshooting guides, and bills
`of materials.
`18.
`The term “document” has the broadest meaning accorded that term by Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 34(a) and includes, but is not limited to, all of the items defined in Fed. R. Evid. 1001, and all
`preliminary and final drafts of any such item.
`19.
`The term “all documents” means any and all documents that you can locate through
`a diligent search of all locations likely to contain documents requested herein and through reason-
`able inquiry of all persons likely to know of the existence of documents requested herein. A draft
`or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. Any comment or
`notation appearing on any document, and not a part of the original text, is to be considered a sepa-
`rate “document.”
`20.
`The term “communication” shall refer to all written, oral, telephonic or other inquir-
`ies, dialogues, discussions, conversations, interviews, correspondence, consultations, negotiations,
`agreements, understandings, meetings, letters, notes, telegrams, advertisements, press releases,
`computer mail, e-mail and all other documents evidencing any verbal or nonverbal interaction be-
`tween persons and/or entities.
`21.
`The term “person” is defined as any natural person or any legal entity, including,
`without limitation, any business or governmental entity or association.
`22.
`The terms “relate to,” “relates to,” “related to,” “relating to,” “referring to,” “per-
`taining to,” “pertain to,” and “regarding” mean constitute, include, comprise, consist of, refer, re-
`flect, discuss, show, state, explain, contradict, provide context to, evidence, concern or be in any
`way logically or factually connected with the matter discussed or identified.
`
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 6 of 52
`
`
`23.
`“Identify,” when used with respect to any natural person, means to state the person’s
`full name, present or last-known address, telephone number, position/occupation, and employer.
`24.
`“Identify,” when used with respect to any legal entity (such as a corporation, com-
`pany, or person other than a natural person), means to state the entity’s name, the place of incorpo-
`ration or organization, the principal place of business, and the nature of the business conducted by
`that legal entity.
`25.
`“Identify,” when used with respect to any document, means to state the document’s
`title and subject matter, form (e.g., letter, memorandum, email, etc.), document production number
`range, date, author(s), addressee(s), recipient(s), and name of its present custodian.
`26.
`The terms “or” and “and” shall be read in the conjunctive and in the disjunctive
`wherever they appear, and neither of these words shall be interpreted to limit the scope of these
`requests.
`27.
`The term “any” and “each” should be understood to include and encompass “all.”
`28.
`All pronouns shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or neutral gen-
`der, in singular or plural, as in each case makes the request more inclusive.
`29.
`The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as including the use of the verb in
`all other tenses.
`30.
`The singular form of any word shall be deemed to include the plural. The plural
`form of any word shall be deemed to include the singular.
`INSTRUCTIONS
`1.
`Each Interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath. If
`you object to any of the Interrogatories, you must state the reasons for the objection and answer to
`the extent the Interrogatory is not objectionable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b).
`2.
`If you cannot answer an interrogatory fully and completely after exercising due dil-
`igence to make inquiry and secure the information to do so, please so state and answer each inter-
`rogatory to the fullest extent possible. Specify the portion of the interrogatory you claim you are
`unable to answer fully and completely, and further specify the facts on which you relied to support
`your contention that you are unable to answer the interrogatory fully and completely. State what
`4
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 7 of 52
`
`
`knowledge, information or belief you have concerning the unanswered portion of the interrogatory,
`and state fully, completely and in detail the acts done and inquiries made by you to show that you
`have exercised due diligence to make inquiry and secure the information necessary to answer the
`interrogatory.
`3.
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), if you contend that any information requested
`herein is privileged or otherwise shielded from disclosure, and the information requested is with-
`held (in whole or in part) based on a claim of privilege or any other claim of immunity from dis-
`covery, (i) describe the factual and legal basis for your claim of privilege or immunity in sufficient
`detail so as to permit the Court to adjudicate the validity of the claim and (ii) provide all responsive
`information that does not fall within your claim of privilege. In addition, to the extent the withheld
`information is contained within a document, for each document or portion thereof withheld, state
`the following: (a) the type of document (e.g., email, letter, memorandum, contract, etc.); (b) its
`subject line or title, as appropriate; (c) its date; (d) its subject matter; (e) the identity of all persons
`who authored, drafted, or prepared it; (f) the identity of all persons to whom it was directed, circu-
`lated, or copied, or who had access thereto; (g) the grounds on which the document is being with-
`held (e.g., “attorney-client privilege,” “work product immunity,” etc.); and (h) its present location.
`4.
`If a document or information contained in a document is responsive to an interrog-
`atory, but that document subsequently has been destroyed or otherwise lost, describe the document
`in detail. Within each description, include the following information: (a) the type of document
`(e.g., email, letter, memorandum, contract, etc.); (b) its subject line or title, as appropriate; (c) its
`date; (d) its subject matter; (e) the identity of all persons who authored, drafted, or prepared it;
`(f) the identity of all persons to whom it was directed, circulated, or copied, or who had access
`thereto; (g) the date or approximate date that the document was destroyed or otherwise lost; (h) the
`identity of all persons who possessed the document at any time; (i) the identity of all persons who
`destroyed or lost the document; (j) the identify of all persons at whose request or direction the
`document was destroyed or lost; and (k) the identity of all persons who have or had knowledge of
`the document’s contents.
`
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 8 of 52
`
`
`5.
`If a document or information contained in a document is responsive to an interrog-
`atory, and that document is not in your possession, custody or control, identify the persons who
`have possession, custody or control of such document. If such document was in your possession,
`custody or control in the past but is no longer in your possession, custody or control, describe in
`detail what disposition was made of it, the reasons for such disposition, and identify any persons
`having any knowledge of, or responsible for, such disposition.
`6.
`In the event that you object to any interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad
`and/or unduly burdensome for any reason, respond to that interrogatory as narrowed to the extent
`necessary, in your judgment, to render it not overbroad/unduly burdensome and state specifically
`the extent to which you have narrowed that interrogatory for purposes of your response.
`7.
`In the event that you object to any interrogatory on the ground that it is vague and/or
`ambiguous, identify the particular words, terms or phrases that are asserted to make such request
`vague and/or ambiguous and specify the meaning actually attributed to you by such words for pur-
`poses of your response thereto.
`8.
`If you object to the scope or time period of an interrogatory and refuse to answer for
`that scope or time period, state your objection and answer the interrogatory for the scope or time
`period you believe is appropriate (including in your answer a specific statement as to why you
`believe the scope or time period is inappropriate and the time period you used for your response).
`9.
`In the event you object to any part of an interrogatory on any other grounds and
`refuse to answer, state your objection and answer the remaining portion of the interrogatory.
`10.
`Because these interrogatories are continuing, you remain under a duty to supplement
`or amend any response herein in accordance with Rule 26(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-
`dure, e.g., in the event that you or any of your attorneys, agents, representatives or employees ob-
`tains further or different information after the date of your initial answer.
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`For each claim of the patents-in-suit, describe in detail the circumstances of its invention,
`including without limitation: the earliest claimed date(s) of conception and reduction to practice,
`6
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 9 of 52
`
`
`when and where such conception and reduction to practice occurred, all persons involved in or
`otherwise having knowledge of such conception and reduction to practice, the nature and extent of
`each individual’s involvement in and their relative contribution to such activities, and the identifi-
`cation of all documents and tangible things relating to the earliest claimed date(s) of conception
`and reduction to practice. If you contend the inventors were diligent in reducing such claim to
`practice, the full factual and legal basis for that contention, including any basis you contend excuses
`any period(s) of non-diligence.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
`For each claim of the patents-in-suit, describe in detail all facts and circumstances relating
`to the first written description, offer for sale, sale, public disclosure, public use, or disclosure to any
`person other than a named inventor of the claimed invention, including, without limitation, the
`identity of the person involved in each such event, the date on which each such event occurred, and
`the identification of each document that reflects or relates to such facts and circumstances.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
`Identify all products and/or services that you contend practice or embody (or have at any
`time practiced or embodied) any alleged invention described or claimed in each of the patents-in-
`suit, including without limitation any allegedly practicing products and/or services of PersonalWeb,
`its licensees, assignees, or any of their subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors or successors-in-inter-
`est.
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
`If you contend that there exist any secondary considerations or objective evidence of non-
`obviousness with respect to each of the claimed inventions of the patents-in-suit, state in detail
`the full factual and legal basis for your contention, including identifying all persons and docu-
`ments supporting this contention. Your answer should also identify and explain any nexus you
`contend exists between the claimed invention(s) and any evidence of secondary considerations or
`7
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 10 of 52
`
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness, including without limitation a claim-by-claim description
`of the connection between each of the asserted claims and any evidence of commercial success.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 5:
`For each claim of the patents-in-suit, identify, on an element-by-element basis, the portion
`or portions of the specification that contains the written description of the alleged invention covered
`by the claim, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and
`exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most
`nearly connected, to make and use the same, and if you contend the specification sets forth the best
`mode contemplated by any inventor(s) of carrying out his invention, identify the specific portions
`of the specification setting forth the best mode of the claimed invention.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`For each of the patents-in-suit, provide all facts and identify all corroborating documents
`regarding the ownership of any right, title, or interest in or to each patent, including identifying the
`entity that currently owns the right, title, or interest and a full explanation of the chain of title to
`any and all rights, title, or interests in or to each patent.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`Describe in detail each instance of an offer, discussion, negotiation, and/or agreement to
`sell, buy, acquire, license, sublicense, covenant-not-to-sue, settle any claims, or otherwise convey
`any right(s) or decline to enforce any rights in any of the patents-in-suit or related patents/applica-
`tions. Such description should include, without limitation, the date(s) of such offer, discussion,
`negotiation, or agreement; the identity of any person having knowledge of and/or involvement in
`the same; the outcome and/or current status of the same; an identification of any resulting agree-
`ment(s) and/or license(s); the effective date of any resulting agreement(s) and/or license(s), includ-
`ing whether they are still in effect and whether there has been any allegation of breach; the terms
`of any resulting agreement(s) and/or license(s) including any fees, payments, royalties or other
`8
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 11 of 52
`
`
`consideration and any restrictions, including field of use restrictions; and the identity of any docu-
`ments (including agreements and licenses) constituting or referring to such offer, discussion, or
`negotiation.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`For each claim of the patents-in-suit, identify and describe any investigations, evaluations,
`communications, or opinions relating to the validity, patentability, and/or enforceability of such
`claim, whether performed by you or any other entity, and identify all persons with knowledge of
`such investigations, evaluations, communications, or opinions and all documents related thereto.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`If you contend that you are entitled to an award of damages by way of any claim in this
`action, state whether you believe it to be a reasonable royalty, lost profits, or another measure,
`provide you calculation of damages, describe in detail the factual bases upon which you base your
`calculation, and identify all persons with knowledge of such factual bases.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 10:
`If you contend that any of the patents-in-suit or any of its claims is entitled to a priority date
`prior to the actual filing date of that patent, state all factual and legal bases for that contention,
`including identifying which claims and patents you contend are entitled to which priority dates,
`which documents support or refute your contentions and if any of the supporting documents are
`other patent applications or patents, identify where in those patents applications or patents there is
`written description support to provide the contended priority date.
`
`
`Dated: December 7, 2018
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Saina S. Shamilov
`Saina S. Shamilov
`9
`
`
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 12 of 52
`
`
`
`Counsel for
`AMAZON. COM, INC. and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`
`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
`
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`10
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 13 of 52
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on this 7th day of December, 2018, a true and correct copy of the fore-
`going document 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
`vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`15620 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`Counsel for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`Theodore S. Maceiko
`ted@maceikoip.com
`MACEIKO IP
`420 2nd Street
`Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
`
`Counsel for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`David Wier
`david.wier@level3.com
`Level 3 Communications, LLC
`1025 Eldorado Boulevard
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`
`Counsel for Level 3 Communications, LLC
`
`/s/ Crystal Nwaneri
`Crystal Nwaneri
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON’S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`TO PERSONALWEB
`
`
`
`11
`
`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 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 14 of 52
`
`
`
`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 PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`RESPONSE TO AMAZON.COM, INC.
`AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.’S
`FIRST SET OF PROPOUNDING
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB RESPONSES TO AMAZON’S
`FIRST SET OF PROPOUNDING INTERROGATORIES
`
`
`
`4823-2505-9973, V. 3
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
` CASE NO. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 15 of 52
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, PersonalWeb
`
`Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”), by and through counsel, hereby objects and responds to the First
`
`Set of Interrogatories of Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively “Amazon”)
`
`as follows:
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`1.
`
`The following general objections are stated with respect to each and every interrogatory
`
`whether or not specifically identified in response thereto. To the extent any of these general objections
`
`are not raised in any particular response, PersonalWeb does not waive those objections.
`
`2.
`
`PersonalWeb objects to each and every instruction and interrogatory to the extent that
`
`it seeks to impose duties beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
`
`Rules of this district. PersonalWeb’s response shall be made only in accordance with the applicable
`
`12
`
`rule(s).
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`3.
`
`PersonalWeb objects to each and every instruction and interrogatory to the extent that
`
`it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-
`
`product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection, as provided by any
`
`applicable law. PersonalWeb does not intend to disclose such privileged or protected information.
`
`4.
`
`PersonalWeb’s inadvertent disclosure of any such information should not be deemed a
`
`waiver of any privilege, immunity, or protection, and PersonalWeb expressly reserves the right to
`
`object to the introduction at trial or to any other use of such information that may be inadvertently
`
`disclosed. PersonalWeb objects to discovery of attorney-client privileged communications after the
`
`filing of this lawsuit and to discovery of work-product materials generated after the filing of this
`
`lawsuit. Per the parties’ Joint Preliminary Pretrial Conference Statement, PersonalWeb will not
`
`identify these privileged or protected materials in a privilege log.
`
`5.
`
`The responses given herein shall not be deemed to waive any claim of privilege or
`
`immunity PersonalWeb may have as to any response, document, or thing, or any question or right of
`
`objection as to authenticity, competency, relevancy, materiality, admissibility, or any other objection
`
`PersonalWeb may have as to a demand for further response to these or other Interrogatories, or to any
`
`objection to the use of such information, documents, or things in any other proceeding filed after the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PERSONALWEB RESPONSES TO AMAZON’S
`FIRST SET OF PROPOUNDING INTERROGATORIES
`
`1
`
`4823-2505-9973, V. 3
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
` CASE NO. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 466-1 Filed 07/24/19 Page 16 of 52
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`production of such information or documents.
`
`6.
`
`PersonalWeb objects to each and every definition inasmuch as it purports to define
`
`terms used by PersonalWeb in its responses. PersonalWeb explicitly rejects any of Amazon’s
`
`purported definitions applying to PersonalWeb’s responses, unless specifically stated otherwise.
`
`7.
`
`PersonalWeb objects to each and every definition and each and every interrogatory
`
`including them as impermissibly vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and uncertain as the purportedly
`
`defined terms are not consistently capitalized or otherwise indicated as referring to a use as a
`
`purportedly defined term as compared to the use of the purportedly defined term in its ordinary usage.
`
`8.
`
`PersonalWeb objects to each and every definition and interrogatory as overly broad,
`
`unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case because they are not limited to a
`
`specific geographic area. PersonalWeb will only provide discovery with respect to the United States.
`
`9.
`
`PersonalWeb objects to the definitions of “You,” “Your,” or “PersonalWeb” because
`
`PersonalWeb has no knowledge of the entity “PersonalWeb Technologies LLC.” To the extent that
`
`this definition is intended to refer to “PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC”, PersonalWeb objects to the
`
`definition as it seeks to broaden the scope of allowable discovery and seeks information that is not
`
`within the possession, custody, or control of PersonalWeb, but is in the possession of third-parties and
`
`non-parties to this lawsuit. PersonalWeb further objects to each and every interrogatory including
`
`“PersonalWeb” as impermissibly vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and uncertain as Amazon has given
`
`“PersonalWeb” different and inconsistent definitions in the preamble to the interrogatories and in the
`
`“Definitions” section of the interrogatories. PersonalWeb further objects to the definition of these
`
`terms to the extent it includes PersonalWeb attorneys and