Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 1 of 21
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 1 of 21
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 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
`SHANNON E. TURNER (CSB No. 310121)
`sturner@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 TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION,
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`OF TWITCH INTERACTIVE,
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2
`DISCLOSURE
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-2 Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) makes the following
`the following disclosure of proposed constructions for each claim term, phrase, or clause that was
`previously identified for construction by any party. Twitch also identifies 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. Twitch reserves the right to identify additional intrinsic and
`extrinsic evidence in response to constructions proposed and any evidenced advanced by
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”) and Level 3 Communications, LLC (“Level
`3”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) 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. Twitch further reserves its right to modify or refine the identifications of intrinsic
`and extrinsic evidence based on information learned through the course of discovery.
`Further, because of upcoming conferences concerning the proposed claim constructions,
`Twitch reserves the right individually to withdraw or modify any of the proposed constructions.
`Twitch also reserves the right to modify claim terms it proposed for construction. For example,
`Twitch 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), Twitch 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 Construction and Prehearing Statement, and establishing the procedures for exchanging
`expert disclosures, if any, relating to claim construction.
`Twitch’s proposed constructions are preliminary, and Twitch expressly reserves the right
`to amend, supplement, and/or remove terms, phrases, and clauses and constructions from this list
`to the full extent permitted under the Federal Rules, Local Rules, and the Patent Local Rules.
`Accordingly, Twitch 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
`
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2
`DISCLOSURE]
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-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 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`them that may be made during the meet and confer process mandated by Patent Local Rule 4-2(c)
`or otherwise, Twitch may rely on expert testimony to address the parties’ respective claim
`construction 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 specification and statements made by the applicants to the Patent Office during prosecution
`and reexamination 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)
`Shannon E. Turner (CSB No. 310121)
`Chieh Tung (CSB No. 318963)
`
`Counsel for TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2
`DISCLOSURE]
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-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 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 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
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 28th day of January, 2019, a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing 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
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2
`DISCLOSURE]
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-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 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`EXHIBIT A — TWITCH’S PROPOSED PRELINIINARY CONSTRUCTIONS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
`
`Claim Term, Clause
`or Phrase and
`
`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
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the alt.
`
`Proposing Party
`
`“data file(s)”
`(’442 patent claim 10)
`
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“data item”
`(’3 10 patent claims 20,
`69; ’420 patent claims
`25, 166)
`
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“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 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 7 of 21
`
`“name for a data file”
`(’442 patent claim 10)
`
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“an identifier used to
`locate and access a data
`file”
`
`
`
`“content-dependent
`name of a particular
`data item”
`(’310 patent claim 20)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“content-dependent
`name for the data item”
`(’310 patent claim 69)
`
`“an identifier used to
`locate and access a
`particular 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 History,
`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
`PersonalWeb, 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 History,
`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
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`2
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 8 of 21
`
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`[content-dependent…]
`“digital identifier”
`(’420 patent claims 25,
`166)
`
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“an identifier used to
`locate and access a
`sequence of bits that is
`generated 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
`PersonalWeb, 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 History,
`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
`PersonalWeb, 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
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`3
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 9 of 21
`
`“content-dependent
`name for a particular
`sequence of bits”
` (’420 patent claim 25,
`166)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“an identifier used to
`locate and access a
`particular 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 History,
`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
`PersonalWeb, 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.
`
`“content-dependent
`digital identifiers for
`said particular data
`item”
`
`“identifiers used to locate
`and access a particular
`sequence of bits that are
`generated by processing
`
`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 History,
`August 22, 2001 Response to Office Action at 23, August 13, 2001
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`4
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 10 of 21
`
`(’420 patent claim 25
`166)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`the sequence of bits ”
`
`“digital fingerprint”
`(’420 patent claim 29)
`Proposed by
`PersonalWeb
`
`“a digital identifier used
`to locate and access a
`sequence of bits that is
`generated by processing
`the data in the sequence
`of bits”
`
`
`
`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
`PersonalWeb, 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 History,
`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
`PersonalWeb, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 14, 15-16, 19;
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`5
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 11 of 21
`
`“True Name”
`(’420 patent claim 30)
`Proposed by both
`parties
`
`“an identifier used to
`locate and access a
`sequence of bits, which is
`generated by processing
`all of the bits in the
`sequence of bits , through
`an algorithm that makes
`the identifier substantially
`unique”
`
`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 History,
`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
`PersonalWeb, 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
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`6
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 12 of 21
`
`“the request including
`at least a content
`dependent name of a
`particular data item”
`(’310 patent claim 20)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“the request including
`at least a content-
`dependent name for the
`data item”
`(’310 patent claim 69)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“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
`PersonalWeb
`
`“the request including [at
`least] the content
`dependent 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”
`
`
`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 Purposes
`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 Response 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 a function of at least
`some of the data
`comprising the
`particular data item”
`
`“being based at least in
`part on a computation
`where at the input is at
`least some of the bits in
`the particular sequence of
`
`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.
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`7
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 13 of 21
`
`(’310 patent claim 20)
`Proposed by
`PersonalWeb
`
`“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
`PersonalWeb
`
`“at least in part by
`applying a particular
`function to at least
`some of the particular
`sequence of bits”
`(’420 patent claim 25)
`Proposed by
`PersonalWeb
`
`bits”
`
`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
`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.
`
`“at least in part by
`performing a computation
`where the input is some
`of the bits in the
`particular 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 a given function of
`at least some of the bits
`in the particular
`sequence of bits”
`(’420 patent claim 166)
`
`“based at least in part by
`performing a computation
`where the input is some
`of the bits in the
`particular 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)
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`8
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 14 of 21
`
`Proposed by
`PersonalWeb
`
`“wherein two identical
`sequences of bits will
`have the same content-
`dependent name as
`determined using said
`particular function”
`(’420 patent claim 25)
`Proposed by
`PersonalWeb
`
`“being based on a first
`function of the contents
`of the specific part”
`(’544 patent claim 46)
`Proposed by
`PersonalWeb
`
`Plain meaning.
`
`“being based on a
`computation where the
`input is the all of the data
`in the specific part”
`
`
`“wherein the particular
`file comprises a first
`one or more parts”
`(’544 patent claim 46)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“wherein the particular
`file is made up of one or
`more distinct sequences
`of bits”
`
`
`
`(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
`PersonalWeb, 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
`PersonalWeb, 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.
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of
`PersonalWeb, 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.
`
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`9
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 15 of 21
`
`“wherein each file of
`the plurality of files
`comprises a
`corresponding one or
`more parts”
`(’544 patent claim 52)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“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 Twitch
`
`“a distinct sequence of
`bits within a ‘data item’
`or ‘data file’”
`
`“unique identifier used to
`locate [the/each]
`particular file”
`
`
`“digital key for the
`particular file” (’544
`patent claim 46)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“file key for each
`particular file”
`(’544 patent claim 52)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`’420 patent at 5:24-25, 5:39-43, FIG. 10(b), 13:13-31; Brief of
`PersonalWeb, 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
`PersonalWeb, 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,
`December 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
`Dictionary (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.
`
`“wherein the particular
`digital key for the
`particular file is
`determined using a
`
`“wherein ‘the digital key
`for the particular file’ is
`determined based on a
`computation where the
`
`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,
`December 30, 2010 Response to Office Action at 17-18
`
`EXHIBIT A TO
`TWITCH’S PATENT L.R. 4-2 DISCLOSURE
`
`10
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 527-3 Filed 09/11/19 Page 16 of 21
`
`second function of the
`one or more of part
`values of said first one
`or more parts” (’544
`patent claim 46)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“the file key for each
`particular file being
`based on a second hash
`function of the part
`values of the one or
`more parts of that file”
`(’544 patent claim 52)
`Proposed by Twitch
`
`“authorized” /
`“unauthorized” /
`“authorization”
`(’442 patent claims 10,
`11; ’310 patent claims
`20, 69; ’420 patent
`
`input is the part values of
`each of the distinct
`sequences of bits in the
`file”
`
`part value: “a value
`created by a computation
`on the sequence of bits
`that makes up the part”
`
`
`
`“wherein ‘the file key for
`each particular file’ is
`determined based on a
`computation where the
`input is the part values of
`each of the distinct
`sequences of bits in the
`file”
`
`See “part value” above.
`
`
`
` “compliant/not compliant
`with a valid license”/“a
`valid license”
`
`Brief of PersonalWeb, Case No. 14-1602 (Fed. Cir.) Dkt. 29 at 59, 72;
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`Newton’s Telecom Dictionary (1994) (“key”); M