Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 507-3 Filed 08/26/19 Page 1 of 3
`Case 5:18-md-02834—BLF Document 507-3 Filed 08/26/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 507-3 Filed 08/26/19 Page 2 of 3
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 507-3 Filed 08/26/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`STUBBS
`
`8AM ’ALDERTON &
`
`-- -
`
`MARKlLES, LLP
`
`Michael A. Sherman
`
`Partner
`
`Phone/Fax/Text
`Mobile
`E-Mail
`
`818.444.4528
`818.631.9109
`mashermaantubbsaldenoncom
`
`August 19, 2019
`
`VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
`
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`
`David J. Hadden
`
`Fenwick & West LLP
`
`801 California Street
`
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`Re:
`
`In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et (1!. Patent Litigation,
`Nos. 18-md-02834 WD. Cal.)
`
`Dear David:
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) proposes stipulating to judgment of
`non-infringement on its counterclaims in case no. 5:18-cv-00767—BLF (“Case”) as respects all
`claims for patent infringement asserted against AWS’ “CloudFront” product (and while not
`presently part of the case in the trial court, AWS’ S3 product), while preserving all rights to
`appeal as enumerated in the penultimate sentence of this paragraph; so too, PersonalWeb
`proposes stipulating to judgment of non-infringement on all US. Patent No. 7,945,544 patent
`claims asserted against Twitch and all other website operators in the cases against website
`operators that are within the MDL (and while not presently part of the case in the trial court,
`claims of infringement against Twitch and other website operators’ use of AWS’ S3 products).
`As part of that same stipulation, we propose that Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services,
`Inc. dismiss their complaint in the Case without prejudice to its refiling as future circumstances
`might dictate as alluded below. PersonalWeb makes this proposal without intending in any
`way to affect the ongoing consideration of the appeal it filed bearing the case name “In re:
`PersonalWeb Technologies LLC,” US. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case no. 19-
`1918 (“Appeal”), and in no way should any of us argue that these proposed stipulations of
`judgment of non-infringement impact the Appeal or be relied upon in the Appeal in any way
`(e. g., such proposed stipulations should not in any way affect the Kessler arguments at issue in
`the Appeal, or the other issues we have previously identified in our Notice of Appeal). We
`make this proposal given our present intention to appeal the Court’s Claim Construction Order
`of August 16, 2019, and obviously we are continuing to carefully review that Order on behalf
`of our client to protect PersonalWeb’s rights.
`
`Do let me know if you would like to discuss our proposal or if you would like to seek
`any clarification of our proposal.
`
`15260 Ventura Boulevard, 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, California 91403
`main 8i 8.444.4500
`
`1316 3rd Street Promenade, Suite 107
`Santa Monica, California 9040]
`main 3] 0.746.9800
`
`www.5tubbsalderlon.com
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 507-3 Filed 08/26/19 Page 3 of 3
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 507-3 Filed 08/26/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`David J. Hadden
`
`August 19, 2019
`Page 2
`
`As to your letter of Friday, August 16, 2019, we do believe that our proposals of
`stipulations of non-infringement are both directly responsive to your letter and specifically to
`Court constructions of “authorization” terms and the “part” and part value” terms which you
`reference in your letter.
`
`Very ru
`
`ours,
`
`Michael A. Sherman
`
`4817-6462-7037, V. 1
`
`