Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 1 of 34
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET AL. PATENT
`LITIGATION
`
`
`
`Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF
`
`
`ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS IN
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,928,442; 7,802,310;
`7,945,544; 8,099,420
`
`[Re: ECF 406, 412, 420]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”), PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”)
`
`alleges patent infringement by Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., and separately
`
`by dozens of Amazon’s customers, related to the customers’ use of Amazon’s Simple Storage
`
`Service (“S3”) in connection with downloading files from S3. Two of the cases comprising this
`
`MDL are proceeding at this time: Amazon v. PersonalWeb (Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF), in
`
`which PersonalWeb asserts counterclaims of patent infringement, and PersonalWeb v. Twitch
`
`Interactive, Inc. (Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF), in which PersonalWeb asserts claims of patent
`
`infringement and which the Court has designated as a representative customer case.
`
`In each of these two actions, PersonalWeb alleges infringement of four patents, all of
`
`which are at issue in the present claim construction dispute: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,928,442 (“the ’442
`
`patent”); 7,802,310 (“the ’310 patent”); 7,945,544 (“the ’544 patent”); and 8,099,420 (“the ’420
`
`patent”). PersonalWeb filed an opening claim construction brief (ECF 406); Amazon.com, Inc.,
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Twitch, Interactive, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) filed a joint
`
`responsive brief (ECF 412); and PersonalWeb filed a reply brief (ECF 420). The Court held a
`
`tutorial on May 2, 2019 and a Markman hearing on May 24, 2019 (“the Hearing”) for the purpose
`
`of construing ten disputed terms in the above listed patents.
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 2 of 34
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`All four patents-in-suit share a specification and each claims priority to a patent application
`
`filed on April 11, 1995. The ’310 patent is titled “Controlling Access to Data in a Data Processing
`
`System” and was issued on September 21, 2010. Ex. 1 to Thompson Decl. (“’310 patent”),
`
`ECF 406-2. The ’420 patent is titled “Accessing Data in a Data Processing System” and was
`
`issued on January 17, 2012. Ex. 7 to Thompson Decl. (“’420 patent”), ECF 406-8. The ’544
`
`patent is titled “Similarity-Based Access Control of Data in a Data Processing System” and was
`
`issued on May 17, 2011. Ex. 9 to Thompson Decl. (“’544 patent”), ECF 406-10. The ’442 patent
`
`is titled “Enforcement and Policing of Licensed Content using Content-Based Identifiers” and was
`
`issued on August 9, 2005. Ex. 12 to Thompson Decl. (“’442 patent”), ECF 406-13.
`
`The patents-in-suit generally relate to methods for identifying data items in a data
`
`processing system—for example, methods for efficiently naming and identifying files on a
`
`computer network. According to the (shared) specification, the problems with prior art systems
`
`include that “[t]he same [file] name in two different [folders] may refer to different data items, and
`
`two different [file] names in the same [folder] may refer to the same data item.” See ’310 patent
`
`at 2:41–43. To address this problem, the patents-in-suit produce a content-based “True Name”
`
`identifier for a file or other particular data item, in an effort to ensure that identical file names refer
`
`to the same data, and conversely, that different file names refer to different data. See id. at 6:20–
`
`41, 34:4–12, 37:48–53. Put differently, the invention provides an identity for a given data item
`
`that “depends on all of the data in the data item and only on the data in the data item.” See id.
`
`at 3:54–55. “Thus the [True Name] identity of a data item is independent of its name, origin,
`
`location, address, or other information not derivable directly from the data, and depends only on
`
`the data itself.” See id. at 3:55–58.
`
`The specification states that “[a] True Name is computed using a [hash] function . . . which
`
`reduces a data block B . . . to a relatively small, fixed size identifier, the True Name of the data
`
`block, such that the True Name of the data block is virtually guaranteed to represent the data block
`
`B and only data block B.” ’310 patent at 12:21–26. Larger files may be split into smaller
`
`segments. See id. at 13:45–49. The hash function is applied to each segment, and the resulting
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 3 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`values are strung together into an indirect data item. See id. at 13:49–54. The True Name of this
`
`indirect data item is then computed and becomes the True Name of the larger file. See id.
`
`at 13:54–59.
`
`The summary of the invention describes multiple uses for these True Names, including
`
`(1) to avoid keeping multiple copies of a given data file, regardless of how files are otherwise
`
`named; (2) to avoid copying a data file from a remote location when a local copy is already
`
`available; (3) to access files by data name without reference to file structures; (4) to maintain
`
`consistency in a cache of data items and allow corresponding directories on disconnected
`
`computers to be resynchronized with one another; (5) to confirm whether a user has a particular
`
`piece of data according to its content, independent of the name, date, or other properties of the data
`
`item; and (6) to verify that data retrieved from a remote location is the intended data. See ’310
`
`patent at 4:1–52. The patents-in-suit are directed to various specific aspects of this system.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Claim construction is a matter of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S.
`
`370, 387 (1996). “It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the
`
`invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude,’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citation omitted). As such, “[t]he appropriate
`
`starting point . . . is always with the language of the asserted claim itself.” Comark Commc’ns,
`
`Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`Claim terms “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,” defined as “the
`
`meaning . . . the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question . . . as of the
`
`effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313 (internal citation
`
`omitted). The court reads claims in light of the specification, which is “the single best guide to the
`
`meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315; see also Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs.
`
`N. Am. Corp., 744 F.3d 1272, 1284–85 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (en banc). Furthermore, “the
`
`interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding
`
`of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.” Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed.
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 4 of 34
`
`
`
`Cir. 1998)). The words of the claims must therefore be understood as the inventor used them, as
`
`such understanding is revealed by the patent and prosecution history. Id. The claim language,
`
`written description, and patent prosecution history thus form the intrinsic record that is most
`
`significant when determining the proper meaning of a disputed claim limitation. Id. at 1315–17;
`
`see also Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Evidence external to the patent is less significant than the intrinsic record, but the court
`
`may also consider such extrinsic evidence as expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and
`
`learned treatises “if the court deems it helpful in determining ‘the true meaning of language used
`
`in the patent claims.’” Philips, 415 F.3d at 1318 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 980). However,
`
`extrinsic evidence may not be used to contradict or change the meaning of claims “in derogation
`
`of the ‘indisputable public records consisting of the claims, the specification and the prosecution
`
`history,’ thereby undermining the public notice function of patents.” Id. at 1319 (quoting
`
`Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
`
`III. AGREED CONSTRUCTIONS
`
`The parties agree on the construction of five terms. Revised Joint Claim Construction and
`
`Prehearing Statement at 2, ECF 430; see id. at Appendix A. The Court approves and adopts the
`
`parties’ agreed-upon constructions as follows:
`
`Claim Term
`
`Agreed-Upon Construction
`
`“data item”
`
`(’310 patent, claim 20)
`(’420 patent, claims 25, 166)
`
`“data file(s)”
`
`(’442 patent, claim 10)
`
`“wherein the particular file
`comprises a first one or more parts”
`
`(’544 patent, claim 46)
`
`“sequence of bits”
`
`“a named data item”
`
` “wherein the particular file is made up of a first one or
`more separate sequences of bits”
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 5 of 34
`
`
`
`“wherein each file of the plurality of
`files comprises a corresponding one
`or more parts”
`
`(’544 patent, claim 52)
`
`“database”
`
`(’544 patent, claims 46, 52, 55)
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`
` “wherein each file of the plurality of files is made up of
`one or more corresponding separate sequences of bits”
`
`“plurality” means “two or more”
`
`“an organized electronic collection of data”
`
`The Court discusses in turn the ten disputed terms that appear in the four patents-in-suit.
`
`A. Disputed “authorization” and “licensing” terms in the ’310 and ’420 patents
`
`The parties dispute two analogous terms in the ’310 and ’420 patents, respectively:
`
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” (in claim 20 of the ’310 patent) and “authorization” (in claims 25
`
`and 166 of the ’420 patent). Claim 20 of the ’310 patent recites:
`
`20. A computer-implemented method operable in a system which includes a plurality of
`computers, the method comprising:
`
`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, the first device comprising 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 the same content-dependent name,
`
`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 unauthorized or unlicensed, not permitting the content to be provided to or
`accessed by the at least one other computer.
`
`’310 Patent at 39:8–31 (emphasis added).
`
`With respect to the ’420 patent, claim 25 is representative and recites:
`
`25. A computer-implemented method implemented at least in part by hardware in
`combination with software, the method comprising the steps:
`
`. . . selectively allowing a copy of the particular sequence of bits to be provided
`to or accessed by or from at least one of the computers in a network of
`computers, wherein a copy of the sequence of bits is not to be provided or
`accessed with authorization, as determined, at least in part, based on whether or
`not said first content-dependent name of the particular sequence of bits
`corresponds to one of the plurality of identifiers.
`
`5
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 6 of 34
`
`
`
`’420 Patent at 40:9–39 (emphasis added). Each term is discussed in turn.
`
`1. “unauthorized or unlicensed” (claim 20 of ’310 patent)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively:
`“not permitted or not
`permitted under a license”1
`
`
`Amazon’s Proposal
`“not compliant with a valid
`license”
`
`Court’s Construction
`“not compliant with a valid
`license”
`
`
`
`PersonalWeb contends that in the context of the ’310 patent, the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of “authorization” equates to “permission.” See Opening Br. at 1, ECF 406. In support,
`
`PersonalWeb argues that “the specification includes several examples of certain exemplary
`
`embodiments of the inventive system permitting, or not permitting, certain actions to take place on
`
`the basis of [] given criteria.” See id. at 1–2. PersonalWeb next contends that a “license” is
`
`something narrower—“a specific kind of authorization.” See id. at 2. PersonalWeb’s theory is
`
`that “the [] term ‘unlicensed’ is a specific species of the genus ‘unauthorized’” and that the ’310
`
`patent additionally contemplates restricting more general unauthorized transactions on a basis that
`
`is not license-dependent. See id. at 4–5.
`
`In its opening brief, PersonalWeb discusses two purported examples of general, genus
`
`level authorizations. First, PersonalWeb points out “that a ‘region’ (directory) can be set as read-
`
`only, meaning another computer would not have permission to change the contents of the region.”
`
`Id. at 2; see ’310 Patent at 10:23–35. Second, PersonalWeb states that “[t]he specification also
`
`discusses that a file can be locked so that another computer does not have permission to modify
`
`it.” Opening Br. at 2; see ’310 Patent at 20:19–22. Therefore, PersonalWeb argues, Amazon’s
`
`proposed construction is improper because it “expressly reads [the broader word] ‘unauthorized’
`
`out of the claim,” contrary to canons of construction that indicate separate words should be given
`
`separate meanings. See id. at 4 (citing Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364,
`
`1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and other cases).
`
`
`
`Amazon counters that the patents-in-suit “treat ‘unauthorized or unlicensed’ as a single
`
`
`1 Alterative construction as modified by PersonalWeb at the Hearing. See Hearing Tr. at 8:16–
`9:13, ECF 446.
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 7 of 34
`
`
`
`concept that relates to a fundamental purpose of the claimed invention—policing access to
`
`licensed content.” See Responsive Br. at 5, ECF 412. Amazon argues that the ’310 patent
`
`specification “repeatedly treats the concept of ‘licensed’ use of content as interchangeable with
`
`whether that use is ‘authorized.’” See id. at 5. As an illustrative example pointed out by Amazon,
`
`see id., the specification states that “[t]he True Name provides a safe way to identify licensed
`
`material” and goes on to describe “[e]nforcing use of valid licenses . . . for example, by creating a
`
`report of users who do not have proper authorization,” see ’310 Patent at 31:3–12. Amazon
`
`further argues that PersonalWeb’s two purported examples of unauthorized transactions that are
`
`not license-dependent are merely “conventional techniques for preventing computers from making
`
`inconsistent changes to the same data at the same time . . . [and have] nothing to do with
`
`‘authorizing’ access to content.” See Responsive Br. at 7.
`
`In addition, Amazon points out that in prior litigation involving the ’310 patent, ’420
`
`patent, and ’442 patent,2 Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas construed the term
`
`“authorized” as used in claims 1, 2, and 16–19 of the ’310 patent to mean “compliant with a valid
`
`license.” See Responsive Br. at 8 (citing and quoting PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM Corp., No.
`
`6:12-cv-661-JRG, Dkt. No. 103 at 25, 28 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) (“Gilstrap Order”), Ex. 5 to
`
`Hadden Decl., ECF 412-6). Similarly, Judge Gilstrap construed “unauthorized” as used in
`
`claims 7 and 23 of the ’442 patent to mean “not compliant with a valid license.” See Gilstrap
`
`Order at 26, 28. Judge Gilstrap also construed “unlicensed” as used in claims 7 and 23 of the ’442
`
`patent to mean “invalid rights to content.” See id. at 21, 25. Thus, Amazon argues, Judge Gilstrap
`
`“recognized that licensing and authorization are the same concept in the patents, and provided the
`
`correct construction for these terms.” See Responsive Br. at 8.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with Amazon that “unauthorized or
`
`unlicensed” as used in claim 20 of the ’310 patent refers to the single concept of regulating access
`
`to licensed content. Accordingly, the Court adopts Amazon’s proposed construction for this term.
`
`As an initial matter, the Court recognizes the general principle that “[a] claim construction
`
`
`2 As well as U.S. Patent No. 6,415,280, which is not asserted in the instant action.
`7
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 8 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one that does not do so.” Merck
`
`& Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Put differently,
`
`“[c]anons of construction indicate that terms connected in the disjunctive [by the conjunction ‘or’]
`
`be given separate meanings.” Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 73 (1984). Here,
`
`PersonalWeb makes precisely this argument—that Amazon’s proposed construction renders “the
`
`presence of ‘unauthorized’ in Claim 20 [] superfluous and/or the word ‘or’ would be construed as
`
`‘and.’” See Opening Br. at 4. However, “[t]he preference for giving meaning to all terms [] is not
`
`an inflexible rule that supersedes all other principles of claim construction.” SimpleAir, Inc. v.
`
`Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820 F.3d 419, 429 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Rather, “[t]he
`
`construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s
`
`description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” Id. at 430 (quoting
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 430 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Indeed, the
`
`preference of giving meaning to all terms “is overcome where [] the evidence indicates that the
`
`patentee used the two terms interchangeably.” Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309,
`
`1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (upholding the district court’s finding that the terms “releasably” and
`
`“detachable” have the same meaning in the patent at issue).
`
`Here, while PersonalWeb’s argument in favor of separate meanings has superficial appeal,
`
`the intrinsic record reveals that the patentee used the words “authorized” and “licensed”
`
`interchangeably in the ’310 patent. The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a
`
`disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. As pointed out by Amazon, see Responsive Br. at 5,
`
`the ’310 patent specification describes a “license table” that “records a relationship between a
`
`licensable data item and the user licensed to have access to it,” see ’310 Patent at 11:33–36. Each
`
`record in the license table includes the following: (1) a “True Name”—the “True Name of a data
`
`item subject to license validation”; and (2) a “licensee”—the “identify of a user authorized to
`
`have access to this object.” See ’310 Patent at 11:33–45 (emphasis added). In the same vein, the
`
`specification later describes “Track[ing] for Licensing Purposes,” a “mechanism [to] ensure[] that
`
`licensed files are not used by unauthorized parties.” Id. at 31:4–6 (emphasis added). The
`
`specification further provides that “[e]nforcing use of valid licenses can be active (for example, by
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 9 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`refusing to provide access to a file without authorization) or passive (for example, by creating a
`
`report of users who do not have proper authorization).” Id. at 31:9–12. Thus, the specification
`
`explicitly equates holding a “valid license” with “authorization.” See id. (emphasis added).
`
`In its reply brief, PersonalWeb responds that “Amazon’s reference to the license table is
`
`unremarkable because PersonalWeb has not taken the position that a license is not a form of
`
`authorization.” See Reply Br. at 7, ECF 420. That may be so. However, PersonalWeb’s corollary
`
`argument—that “[j]ust because all licenses grant authorization does not mean that all
`
`authorizations are licenses,” see id., is without support. In other words, PersonalWeb’s argument
`
`that the ’310 patent contemplates authorizations not related to license status fails because the ’310
`
`patent is completely absent of any such more general authorizations. As previously discussed,
`
`PersonalWeb raises two purported examples of general, genus level authorizations: (1) “that a
`
`‘region’ (directory) can be set as read-only, meaning another computer would not have permission
`
`to change the contents of the region”; and (2) that “[t]he specification [] discusses that a file can be
`
`locked so that another computer does not have permission to modify it.” See Opening Br. at 2;
`
`’310 Patent at 10:23–35, 20:19–22. Amazon counters that these are merely “conventional [data]
`
`techniques . . . [and have] nothing to do with ‘authorizing’ access to content.” See Responsive Br.
`
`at 7.
`
`The Court agrees with Amazon. The plain language of claim 20 provides that the
`
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” determination is a prerequisite to “permitting [or not permitting] the
`
`content to be provided to or accessed by the at least one other computer.” See ’310 Patent
`
`at 39:24–31 (emphasis added). This determination informs whether to permit content to be
`
`provided or accessed, and thus does not encompass PersonalWeb’s purported examples which
`
`concern modification/alteration. PersonalWeb states that “if the region (directory) or file at issue
`
`is read-only or locked, respectively . . . . then certain actions, such as altering them, are
`
`unauthorized.” See Reply Br. at 8. This point is not in meaningful dispute. However,
`
`PersonalWeb goes on to argue that “[o]nce [a read-only flag or lock flag] is detected, the [next]
`
`step [under claim 20] is preventing access to make unauthorized alterations.” See id. This
`
`argument is without merit. Claim 20 concerns whether “the content is unauthorized or
`
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 10 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`unlicensed,” not whether alterations to the content are unauthorized. See ’310 Patent at 39:24–31
`
`(emphasis added). Put differently, “read-only” and “lock” flags restrict modification, not access.
`
`Thus, “read-only” and/or “lock” flags do not form a basis under claim 20 to prevent access to
`
`content, because qualified content would be “provided” or “accessed” notwithstanding the
`
`presence of “read-only” and/or “lock” flags. Accordingly, PersonalWeb’s “read-only” and “lock”
`
`flag examples are not evidence of more general, genus level content-access authorizations.
`
`If anything, the remoteness of PersonalWeb’s “read-only” and “lock” flag examples from
`
`having anything to do with content-access authorization demonstrates the merit of Amazon’s
`
`proposed construction. Although a “patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain
`
`the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or
`
`disavows its full scope,” Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012), here, as previously discussed, the specification explicitly and interchangeably uses the
`
`words “authorized” and “licensed” to describe the same concept—regulating access to licensed
`
`content. Thus, PersonalWeb’s argument in favor of giving separate meaning to the different
`
`words “unauthorized” and “unlicensed” is unpersuasive. Baran, 616 F.3d at 1316.
`
`PersonalWeb separately argues that “the prosecution history of the [’420]3 patent
`
`unambiguously shows that the patentee was not using the words ‘authorized’ to mean ‘licensed,’
`
`but rather was using the term ‘authorized’ as a broader ‘genus’ term, and the term ‘licensed’ as a
`
`narrower ‘species’ term.” See Opening Br. at 5. In support of this proposition, PersonalWeb cites
`
`to proposed claim amendments to the ’420 patent in 2010 that split the term “unauthorized or
`
`unlicensed copy” into the term “unauthorized copy” in one proposed claim and the term
`
`“unlicensed copy” in a separate proposed claim. See 2/14/2010 Response to Final Office Action at
`
`9–10, Ex. 3 to Thompson Decl., ECF 406-4. PersonalWeb’s prosecution history argument fails
`
`for at least two independent reasons. First, the proposed claims identified by PersonalWeb were
`
`not included in the issued ’420 patent and thus not part of the claimed invention. See generally
`
`’420 Patent. “An inventor in entitled to claim in a patent what [she] has invented, but no more.”
`
`
`3 PersonalWeb’s opening brief describes the prosecution history as relating to the ’442 patent;
`however, the recited excerpts are from the file history of the ’420 patent.
`10
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 11 of 34
`
`
`
`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
`
`MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the proposed claim
`
`amendments are not part of the claimed invention. Nor are the proposed claim amendments
`
`disclosed in the ’420 patent specification, which is identical to the ’310 patent specification.
`
`Second, even if these claims had been issued, which they were not, “[c]laim differentiation cannot
`
`overcome . . . a contrary construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history.”
`
`Wi-LAN USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1374, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and
`
`citation omitted). As previously discussed, the Court finds that the patentee used “authorized” and
`
`“licensed” interchangeably in the specification. Accordingly, claim differentiation based on the
`
`proposed claim amendments would not control. Wi-LAN, 830 F.3d at 1391.
`
`
`
`Finally, the Court notes that both parties discuss two Markman orders from the Eastern
`
`District of Texas involving some of the patents-in-suit in the instant action: (1) PersonalWeb
`
`Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 6:11-cv-658, Dkt. No. 140 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013) (“Davis
`
`Order”), Ex. 6 to Hadden Decl., ECF 412-7; and (2) PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM Corp., No.
`
`6:12-cv-661-JRG, Dkt. No. 103 at 25, 28 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) (“Gilstrap Order”), Ex. 5 to
`
`Hadden Decl., ECF 412-6. PersonalWeb argues that neither the Davis Order nor the Gilstrap
`
`Order “is binding here.” See Opening Br. at 6. The Court agrees. Neither order addressed the
`
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” term found in claim 20 of the ’310 patent. Judge Davis declined to
`
`construe “licensed” and “unlicensed” as used in certain claims of the ’442 patent. See Davis Order
`
`at 24–26. On the other hand, Judge Gilstrap construed “unlicensed” as used in claims 7 and 23 of
`
`the ’442 patent to mean “invalid rights to content.” See Gilstrap Order at 21, 25. Judge Gilstrap
`
`also construed the term “authorized” as used in claims 1, 2, and 16–19 of the ’310 patent to mean
`
`“compliant with a valid license.” See id. at 25, 28. Similarly, Judge Gilstrap construed
`
`“unauthorized” as used in claims 7 and 23 of the ’442 patent to mean “not compliant with a valid
`
`license.” See id. at 26, 28. While neither the Davis Order nor the Gilstrap Order is directly on
`
`point with the instant dispute, the Gilstrap Order is the closer of two and noted that
`
`“‘authorization’ merely refers to a valid license,” see Gilstrap Order at 28. The Court finds the
`
`Gilstrap Order persuasive and not inconsistent with the Court’s ruling on the instant dispute.
`
`
`
`In sum, the Court construes the disputed term “unauthorized or unlicensed” in claim 20 of
`
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 485 Filed 08/16/19 Page 12 of 34
`
`
`
`the ’310 patent as “not compliant with a valid license.” Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court
`
`need not and does not address any remaining arguments raised by the parties with respect to this
`
`term.
`
`2. “authorization” (claims 25 and 166 of ’420 patent)
`
`PersonalWeb’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`Alternatively:
`“permission”
`
`Amazon’s Proposal
`“a valid license”
`
`Court’s Construction
`“a valid license”
`
`The parties’ arguments with respect to the term “authorization” in claims 25 and 166 of the
`
`’420 patent are the same as the parties’ arguments made with respect to the term “unauthorized or
`
`unlicensed” in claim 20 of the ’310 patent. See Opening Br. at 1–9; Responsive Br. at 3–9; Reply
`
`Br. at 4–8. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Section IV.A.1 supra, the Court adopts
`
`Amazon’s proposed construction “a valid license” for the term “authorization” in claims 25 and
`
`166 of the ’420 patent.
`
`B. Additional disputed terms in the ’310 and ’420 patents
`
`The parties dispute two additional terms in the ’310 and ’420 patents: (1) “the request
`
`including at least a content-dependent name of a particular data item” (in claim 20 of the ’310
`
`patent); and (2) “content-dependent name” (in claims 20 and 69 of the ’310 patent and claim 25 of
`
`the ’420 patent). Claim 20 of the ’310 patent is representative of both terms and recites:
`
`20. A computer-implemented method operable in a system which includes a plurality of
`computers, the method comprising:
`
`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, the first device comprising 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 the same content-
`dependent name,
`
`based at least in part on said content-dependent name of said particular data