Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 1 of 17
`
`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
`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 AMA-
`ZON WEB SERVICES, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`OF AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMA-
`ZON WEB SERVICES, INC. FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONIN-
`FRINGEMENT
`Date:
`November 15, 2019
`Time:
`9:00 a.m.
`Dept:
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Judge:
`Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs.
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`REDACTED VERSION SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER SEAL
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -------------------------- 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`II.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ----------------------------------------- 2
`III.
`ARGUMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`A.
`PersonalWeb Failed to Prosecute Its Claims on the ’544 and ’791 patents -------- 5
`B.
`PersonalWeb Failed to Put Forth Any Evidence to Meet Its Burden of
`Proof of Infringement on the Remaining Three Patents ------------------------------ 6
`No Evidence Can Show that Amazon Technology Infringes Any of the
`Asserted Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`PersonalWeb Lacks Standing to Assert Any Claim Against CloudFront
`Based on the Patents-in-Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`
`
`D.
`
`C.
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s):
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols.,
`479 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2007) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd.,
`216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc.,
`390 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs.,
`239 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2001) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Implicit Networks Inc. v. F5 Networks Inc.,
`No. C10-3365 SI, C 10-4234 SI, 2013 WL 1007250 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13,
`2013) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Intellectual Sci. & Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc.,
`589 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2009) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Voxernet LLC,
`No. 5:13-cv-01708 HRL, 2014 WL 3074296 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) ---------------------- 7
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`475 U.S. 574 (1986) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC,
`571 U.S. 191 (2014) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc.,
`271 F.3d 1043 (Fed. Cir. 2001) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,
`467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`917 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM,
`No. 16-cv-01266-EJD, 2017 WL 2180980 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) ------------------------- 7
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on November 15, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., at the United States
`District Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California,
`in the courtroom of the Honorable Beth L. Freeman, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web Ser-
`vices, Inc. (collectively “Amazon”) will and hereby do move the Court under Rule 56 of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure for an order granting summary judgment in favor of Amazon and against
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3 Communications, LLC (collectively “PersonalWeb”)
`because (1) Amazon does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,978,791 (“the ’791
`patent”), 6,928,442 (“the ’442 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 (“the ’310 patent”), U.S. Patent
`No. 7,945,544 (“the ’544 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,099,420 (“the ’420 patent”) (collectively,
`the “patents-in-suit”) and (2) PersonalWeb lacks standing to assert any claim of the patents-in-suit
`against Amazon CloudFront.
`Amazon bases its motion on this notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and au-
`thorities, the supporting declaration of Saina S. Shamilov, all pleadings and documents on file in
`this action, and such other materials or argument as the Court may consider.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Amazon seeks a declaration that it does not infringe five PersonalWeb patents. While Per-
`sonalWeb denied Amazon’s declaratory judgment claims and asserted counterclaims of infringe-
`ment, it failed to produce any expert opinion in support of its positions. Having thus failed to meet
`its burden of production, PersonalWeb cannot, as a matter of law, meet its burden of persuasion.
`This is fatal to its case.
`But even if PersonalWeb had tried to muster expert testimony to support its counterclaims,
`its case would still be fatally flawed. It abandoned its infringement allegations for two of the pa-
`tents-in-suit when it omitted them from its infringement contentions. And the remaining three pa-
`tents are directed to policing access to licensed content, which the accused Amazon technology,
`the CloudFront content delivery network, does not do, whether on its own or in combination with
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`any other technology. Given this, Amazon’s technology does not meet multiple limitations of the
`asserted claims, and the Court should enter summary judgment of noninfringement. PersonalWeb
`also lacks standing to assert claims against CloudFront because Level 3 Communications, LLC has
`the exclusive right to use and license the patents-in-suit in the field of content delivery networks.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`In January 2018, PersonalWeb initiated a widespread patent litigation campaign asserting
`that Amazon’s customers infringe related patents relating to methods of governing access to con-
`tent. Shortly thereafter, to protect its customers and technology, Amazon filed an action for declar-
`atory judgment of noninfringement of the five patents-in-suit and PersonalWeb responded by bring-
`ing infringement counterclaims against Amazon on four of the five patents and denying that Ama-
`zon does not infringe the fifth patent. (Dkt. 257.) At PersonalWeb’s request, the United States
`Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized the declaratory judgment action and the cus-
`tomer cases before this Court. (Dkt. 1.) To promote judicial efficiency, the Court stayed all cus-
`tomer cases pending resolution of the declaratory judgment action and a representative customer
`case against Twitch Interactive, Inc. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., No.
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF (N.D. Cal.); (Dkt. 313.)
`On October 29, 2018, PersonalWeb served its infringement contentions. In those conten-
`tions, PersonalWeb did not allege infringement of the ’791 patent or the ’544 patent. It alleged that
`Amazon’s S3 and/or CloudFront Content Delivery Network infringes the ’442, ’310, and ’420 pa-
`tents because each can respond to conditional GET requests with ETags as specified in the HTTP
`protocol. On March 13, 2019, the Court granted summary judgment finding that PersonalWeb’s
`claims against S3 are precluded. (Dkt. 381.) PersonalWeb’s claims against CloudFront remained.
`The parties do not dispute that the HTTP protocol governs communications between web
`browsers and web servers on the World Wide Web; all websites comply with it. (Shamilov Decl.,
`Ex. 2 (Weissman Rep.) at ¶ 26; Shamilov Decl., Ex. 1 (de la Iglesia Rep.) at ¶ 18; Shamilov Decl.,
`Ex. 3 (RFC 2616, HTTP 1.1 standard) at §§ 1.1, 1.3.) As shown by the de la Iglesia expert report
`in the Twitch case, the parties also do not dispute how the HTTP protocol functions. (Amazon cites
`Mr. de la Iglesia’s Twitch report at various points in this brief to show the parties’ agreement about
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`these functions.)
`HTTP communications consist of messages sent back and forth between a client, e.g., a web
`browser, and a web server. (Id.) Request messages include a “method” specifying the action for
`the server to perform and a “resource” on which the action is performed. (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 30;
`de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 22.) For example, to display the Amazon website, a web browser will send
`an HTTP request message to Amazon servers specifying the “method” as “GET” and the “resource”
`as “www.amazon.com.” (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 29; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 22.) The resource is iden-
`tified in the request by a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) or a URI (Uniform Resource Identifier),
`such as www.amazon.com; both are specified in the HTTP protocol and are akin to file pathnames.
`(See Weissman Rep. at ¶ 27; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 20 (citing RFC 2616 at § 3.2, pp. 14-15).) The
`server processes the request and returns a response—in this example, Amazon’s homepage. (See
`Weissman Rep. at ¶ 33; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 22.)
`The HTTP protocol specifies that web browsers can store copies of resources locally in their
`cache. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 37, 39; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 25 (citing RFC 2616 at § 13, p. 47).)
`As used in reference to web browsers, a “cache” refers to a resource downloaded from an origin
`server and stored locally on the user’s computer. By storing a resource, a browser can serve future
`requests for the same resource faster by retrieving the resource from local storage instead of down-
`loading it anew. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 40, 95; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 25.) When a web browser
`first requests a resource (e.g., an image or other object) from a server, the server sends a message
`that includes the resource, and may in some cases include an ETag corresponding to the resource,
`and a “max-age” or “expires” header. (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 40.) According to the HTTP protocol,
`the ETag uniquely identifies a version of the resource. (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 43 (citing RFC 2616
`at § 3.11); de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 28.) The accompanying header tells the web browser the amount
`of time (e.g., number of seconds) after the resource is requested that the resource is considered fresh
`or current. (Id.) If, based on the header, the resource has not expired, the web browser uses the
`version of the resource stored locally in cache without making another request to the origin server.
`(Id.)
`
`If, however, the “max-age” has been exceeded, a web browser checks whether the locally-
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`stored cache copy is current before displaying it; to accomplish this, the HTTP protocol specifies
`use of a conditional GET request with an If-None-Match header. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 45-46; de
`la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 32 (citing RFC 2616 at § 14.26, pp. 81-82.) This conditional GET request asks
`the server whether the locally-stored copy has changed, requesting that the origin server compare
`the ETag of the resource stored locally in the user’s cache with the ETag of the current version of
`the resource on the origin server. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 42, 45-46; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶¶ 32-33.)
`The server will respond to a conditional GET request by sending one of two messages: (1) a 304
`Not Modified message, if the two ETags matched, telling the web browser that the locally-stored
`cached copy is current; or (2) a 200 OK message, if the two ETags did not match, telling the browser
`that the server has a new version of the resource, and including a copy of that new version. (Id.)
`Neither the HTTP protocol nor Amazon’s servers prevent access to old resources stored
`locally in cache after those resources are no longer current. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 53-54.) In fact,
`the HTTP protocol specifies that a user can view cached content, whether it is stale or not, by hitting
`the “back” button in the browser or by viewing the browser’s history. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 56,
`95; RFC 2616 at § 13.13 (“User agents often have history mechanisms, such as ‘Back’ buttons and
`history lists, which can be used to redisplay an entity retrieved earlier in a session. . . . [A] history
`mechanism is meant to show exactly what the user saw at the time when the resource was re-
`trieved.”).) The HTTP protocol also does not specify that the ETag be implemented in a particular
`way. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 43, 65, 113; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶¶ 28, 33, 47.)
`On August 16, 2019, the Court issued a claim construction order. (Dkt. 485). In that order,
`the Court explained that the “patents-in-suit generally relate to methods for identifying data items
`in a data processing system.” (Id. at 2.) The patents’ “(shared) specification” states that prior art
`systems suffered from several problems, including that “‘the 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.’” (Id.) To solve this problem, the patents “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.” (Id.) In other
`words, as the Court acknowledged, “the invention provides an identity for a given data item that
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`‘depends on all of the data in the data item and only on the data in the data item’” and computes
`the data item’s True Name using a hash function. (Id.) According to the patents, True Names may
`be used to police access to licensed data items. To do so, the specification “describes a ‘license
`table’ that ‘records a relationship between a licensable data item and the user licensed to have access
`to it.’” (Id. at 8.) “Each record in the license table includes . . . a ‘True Name’—the ‘True Name
`of a data item subject to license validation’ . . . and [] a ‘licensee’—the ‘identity of a user authorized
`to have access to this object.’” (Id.) The specification describes a tracking “‘mechanism to ensure
`that licensed files are not used by unauthorized parties.” (Id.) Accordingly, the Court construed
`the claim term “unauthorized or unlicensed” as “not compliant with a valid license” and the claim
`term “authorization” as “a valid license.” (Dkt. 485 at 12, 33.)
`On August 23, 2019, PersonalWeb served an expert report on infringement. In that report,
`PersonalWeb’s expert, Mr. Erik de la Iglesia, addresses PersonalWeb’s allegations against Twitch.
`He does not address PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions against Amazon and does not opine,
`analyze, or conclude that any of Amazon’s technology infringes any of the patents-in-suit. (See
`generally de la Iglesia Rep.) The report’s caption does not identify the Amazon’s declaratory judg-
`ment action. PersonalWeb served no other report on infringement
`On October 2, 2019, pursuant to Rule 54(b), PersonalWeb filed a motion seeking a partial
`final judgment of noninfringement in favor of Amazon “in order to seek appellate review of this
`Court’s Claim Construction Order” and “the forthcoming entry of final judgment of non-infringe-
`ment.” (Dkt. 538 at 2-3.) The motion remains pending.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`Amazon requests the Court enter summary judgment on the grounds set forth below. The
`Court’s reasoned opinion explaining the bases for its ruling and judgment will—unlike the judg-
`ment requested by PersonalWeb in its Rule 54(b) motion—help clarify the scope of appeal and any
`further proceedings in the event of a remand.
`
`A.
`PersonalWeb Failed to Prosecute Its Claims on the ’544 and ’791 patents.
`PersonalWeb failed to include any infringement allegations for the ’544 and ’791 patents in
`its infringement contentions as required by the patent local rules of this district. (See generally
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`Shamilov Decl., Ex. 5 (Inf. Cont.).) This failure entitles Amazon to summary judgment of nonin-
`fringement and the Court should enter one in Amazon’s favor. O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd. v. Monolithic
`Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (affirming grant of summary judgment
`for non-infringement where patentee’s infringement theory was not disclosed in accordance with
`N.D. Cal. patent local rules).
`
`B.
`
`PersonalWeb Failed to Put Forth Any Evidence to Meet Its Burden of Proof
`of Infringement on the Remaining Three Patents.
`
`For the remaining three patents in this case, PersonalWeb failed to put forth any evidence
`of infringement and it thus cannot overcome summary judgment of noninfringement on those pa-
`tents. Indeed, when a party has failed to “make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its]
`case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof,” the Court should enter summary judgment
`against that party. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). This is no less true in patent
`cases: “an accused infringer seeking summary judgment of noninfringement may meet its initial
`responsibility . . . by showing that the evidence on file fails to establish a material issue of fact
`essential to the patentee’s case.” See Novartis Corp. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 271 F.3d 1043, 1046
`(Fed. Cir. 2001). PersonalWeb bears the burden of proof on infringement, both with respect to its
`infringement counterclaims and Amazon’s declaratory judgment claims of noninfringement. See
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191, 198-99 (2014) (“It is well estab-
`lished that the burden of proving infringement generally rests upon the patentee. . . . [I]n a licen-
`see’s declaratory judgment action, the burden of proving infringement should remain with the pa-
`tentee.”).
`To meet its burden, PersonalWeb must put forth enough evidence to enable a reasonable
`jury to reach a decision in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986);
`see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986))
`(“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving
`party, there is no genuine issue for trial.”). And that in turn requires expert testimony establishing
`that the accused products meet each limitation of each asserted claim:
`
`To satisfy the summary judgment standard, a patentee’s expert must
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`6
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`set forth the factual foundation for his infringement opinion in suf-
`ficient detail for the court to be certain that features of the accused
`product would support a finding of infringement under the claim
`construction adopted by the court, with all reasonable inferences
`drawn in favor of the non-movant.
`Intellectual Sci. & Tech., Inc. v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 589 F.3d 1179, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming
`summary judgment of noninfringement where patentee’s expert did not sufficiently identify the
`claim limitation in the accused device); Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042,
`1046 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (same); see also IPVX Patent Holdings, Inc. v. Voxernet LLC, No. 5:13-cv-
`01708 HRL, 2014 WL 3074296, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) (attorney argument in lieu of evi-
`dence “entirely insufficient to create a material issue of fact”) (citing Glaverbel Societe Anonyme
`v. Northlake Mktg. & Supply, Inc., 45 F.3d 1550, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
`PersonalWeb has no such evidence. The de la Iglesia report in the Twitch case, served at
`the deadline for PersonalWeb to disclose all expert opinion testimony on infringement, does not
`assert any infringement theory against Amazon. Without such evidence, the factfinder lacks any
`technical guidance to understand PersonalWeb’s purported mapping of patent claims to Amazon’s
`technology, and has no foundation on which to base a decision in PersonalWeb’s favor. See, e.g.,
`AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Sols., 479 F.3d 1320, 1329 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Even where
`literal infringement is involved, expert infringement testimony is generally required in cases in-
`volving complex technology.”); Implicit Networks Inc. v. F5 Networks Inc., No. C10-3365 SI, C
`10-4234 SI, 2013 WL 1007250, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013) (stating that the plaintiff had a
`burden in a “technically complex” case “to show by expert testimony how the accused products
`actually work”); PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM, No. 16-cv-01266-EJD, 2017 WL 2180980, at
`*19-20 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) (“[B]ecause PersonalWeb’s expert report only covers claim 166
`of the ’420 [sic], it has no evidence upon which it can rely to prove infringement as to these other
`claims. Accordingly, IBM is entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement for those claims.”).
`For its part, Amazon served the expert report of Dr. Jon Weissman establishing that Amazon
`and its technology do not infringe the three patents that PersonalWeb included in its infringement
`contentions. “[W]here the accused infringer offers expert testimony negating infringement, the
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`patentee cannot satisfy its burden of proof by relying only on testimony from those who are admit-
`tedly not expert in the field.” Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
`2004). Accordingly, there can be no genuine dispute as to any material fact with respect to nonin-
`fringement by the Amazon technology and the Court should enter summary judgment of nonin-
`fringement on Amazon’s declaratory judgment claims.
`
`C.
`
`No Evidence Can Show that Amazon Technology Infringes Any of the As-
`serted Claims.
`
`Even if PersonalWeb put forth expert testimony to attempt to support its counterclaims of
`infringement, it still would not be able to meet its burden of proof. To show infringement, Person-
`alWeb must show that the Amazon CloudFront, alone or in combination with Amazon’s S3, as it
`alleged in its infringement contentions, meets each and every limitation of the asserted claims.
`Forest Labs., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 239 F.3d 1305, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patentee claiming
`infringement must present proof that the accused product meets each and every claim limitation.”).
`It cannot do so for any of the three patents it included in its infringement contentions.
`There is no determination of license compliance. As construed by the Court, the asserted
`claims require a determination that a data item complies with a valid license before permitting
`access to that data item. For example, asserted claim 20 of the ’310 patent requires:
`
`(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 con-
`tent to be provided to or accessed by the at least one other com-
`puter.
`
`Likewise, claim 69 of the ’310 patent recites a determination of whether “access to the data item is
`authorized or unauthorized.” Asserted independent claims 25 and 166 of the ’420 patent similarly
`require “selectively allowing a copy of the particular sequence of bits to be provided to or accessed
`by . . . , wherein a copy of the sequence of bits is not to be provided or accessed without authoriza-
`tion” and “selectively permit the particular data item to be made available for access and to be
`provided to or accessed by . . . , wherein the data item is not to be made available for access or
`provided without authorization,” respectively. The Court construed “unauthorized or unlicensed”
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`in claim 20 of the ’310 patent to mean “not compliant with a valid license,” and “authorization” in
`independent claims 25 and 166 of the ’420 patent to mean “a valid license.” (Dkt. 485 at 6, 12.)
`Asserted independent claim 10 of the ’442 patent similarly requires “determining whether
`a copy of the data file that is present on a at least one of said computers is an unauthorized copy or
`an unlicensed copy of the data file” and the parties do not dispute that the Court’s constructions of
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” and “authorization” apply to the asserted claims of the ’442 patent.
`(See de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 63 (acknowledging that the Court’s constructions apply to the asserted
`claims of the ’442 patent).) Accordingly, as construed by the Court, all asserted claims require
`either a determination of compliance with a valid license or denial of access to a data item without
`a valid license.
`In its infringement contentions, PersonalWeb has not identified any license, a determination
`of compliance with a valid license, or refusal to grant access without a valid license by CloudFront,
`alone or in combination with S3, or the HTTP protocol that CloudFront supports. (See generally
`Inf. Cont.; Weissman Rep. at ¶ 87.) Nor can PersonalWeb identify such a license determination,
`as the Amazon servers do not check for any license when responding to conditional GET requests.
`(Id. at ¶ 94.) The servers merely compare the ETag in the request with the ETag of the requested
`resources at the server to determine if the content of the resource has changed. (Weissman Rep. at
`¶¶ 45-46.) They do not determine whether the content complies with any license.
`There is no permitting content to be provided or accessed. Claim 20 of the ’310 patent
`requires “permitting” or “not permitting the content to be provided to or accessed” after the deter-
`mination of whether the content “is unauthorized or unlicensed.” Claim 25 of the ’420 patent sim-
`ilarly recites “wherein a copy of the sequence of bits is not to be provided or accessed without
`authorization,” and claim 166 of the ’420 patent recites “selectively permit the particular data item
`to be made available for access and to be provided to or accessed . . . wherein the data item is not
`to be made available for access or provided without authorization.” Claim 11 of the ’442 patent
`similarly requires “allowing the file to be provided from one of the computers having an authorized
`or licensed copy of the file.” As Dr. Weissman explains in his report, CloudFront, alone or in
`combination with S3, does not prohibit or grant access to content already cached by a web browser,
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON FOR SJ OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-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 541 Filed 10/04/19 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`whether based on a determination of compliance with a license or otherwise. (Weissman Rep. at
`¶¶ 64, 94, 100, 104).
`In its infringement contentions, PersonalWeb’s infringement theory was as follows. A web
`browser with a locally cached object sends to a web server a conditional If Not Modified Get re-
`quest with an ETag of the locally stored object. (See, e.g., Inf. Cont. Ex. A Claim 20 at 3, Ex. B at
`2-3, Ex. C Claim 25 at 3.) The web server compares the ETag in the GET request with the ETag
`associated with the version of the object stored at the server. (See, e.g., Inf. Cont. Ex. A Claim 20
`at 6, Ex. B at 3, Ex. C Claim 25 at 3.) If the ETags do not match, the server responds with a 304
`Not Modified message indicating to the web browser that the version stored there is still current.
`(See, e.g., Inf. Cont. Ex. A Claim 20 at