Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 547 Filed 10/16/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148)
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB No. 215636)
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`MELANIE L. MAYER (admitted pro hac vice)
`mmayer@fenwick.com
`TODD R. GREGORIAN (CSB No. 236096)
`tgregorian@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 AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`
`SERVICES, INC.,
`OPPOSITION OF AMAZON.COM,
`Plaintiffs
`INC. AND AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
`INC. TO MOTION FOR ORDER AND
`ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER AND
`ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case Nos.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-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 547 Filed 10/16/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Court should deny PersonalWeb’s request for a partial judgment under Rule 54(b)
`because it would create an inefficient and disorderly series of appeals inconsistent with the very
`purpose of the rule. The Court should proceed to rule on Amazon’s motion for summary judgment
`of non-infringement, which rests on additional arguments that are both fatal to PersonalWeb’s
`infringement theories and independent of the claim construction PersonalWeb wishes to appeal.
`Doing so will allow the Federal Circuit to consider non-infringement based on a complete record
`and avoid the likelihood that the Federal Circuit simply remands a partial judgment back to this
`Court to consider these issues in the first instance.
`ARGUMENT
`
`Rule 54(b) provides:
`
`When an action presents more than one claim for relief . . . or when multiple parties
`are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but
`fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is
`no just reason for delay.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). A court considering entry of partial judgment under this rule should employ a
`“pragmatic approach focusing on severability and efficient judicial administration.” Cont’l Airlines,
`Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 819 F.2d 1519, 1525 (9th Cir. 1987).
`More specifically, the court considers whether entering a partial judgment will speed
`resolution of the dispute without offending the policy against piecemeal appeals. See Curtiss-Wright
`Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 (1980). The court should ask “whether the claims under
`review [are] separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and whether the nature of the
`claims already determined [is] such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues
`more than once even if there [are] subsequent appeals.” Id. “Similar legal facts or issues that may
`require the appellate court to review legal or factual issues similar to those in the pending claims
`will weigh heavily against entry of judgment under Rule 54(b).” Henderson v. City & Cnty. of S.F.,
`No. 05-cv-234-VRW, 2009 WL 2058369, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2009) (internal quotation marks
`and citation omitted); see also Rheumatology Diagnostics Lab., Inc. v. Aetna, Inc., No. 12-CV-
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER AND ENTRY
`OF JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 547 Filed 10/16/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`05847-WHO, 2014 WL 2586339, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2014).
`The judgment PersonalWeb requests does not meet this standard because it is designed to
`create an inefficient patchwork of overlapping appeals.
`First, Amazon has raised additional non-infringement arguments at summary judgment that
`are independent from the claim construction issue PersonalWeb plans to appeal:
`• PersonalWeb failed to include any infringement allegations for the ’544 and ’791 patents
`in its infringement contentions. (Dkt. 541 at 5-6.)
`• PersonalWeb failed to disclose any expert opinion testimony regarding the operation of
`Amazon’s technology or how it allegedly meets any claim of any asserted patent. (Id. at
`6-8.)
`• Amazon’s technology does not perform the step of “permitting” or “not permitting the
`content to be provided to or accessed” as required by claims 20 and 69 of the ’310 patent,
`claims 25 and 166 of the ’420 patent, and claim 11 of the ’442 patent. (Id. at 8-11.)
`• Amazon’s technology does not perform the step of determining whether a copy of the
`data file is present using the name as required by claim 10 of the ’442 patent. (Id. at 11-
`12.)
`• Amazon’s technology does not compare the received content-dependent name to a
`plurality of identifiers or values, as required by claims 25 and 166 of the ’420 patent and
`claim 69 of the ’310 patent. (Id. at 12-13.)
`The parties agree that PersonalWeb cannot prove infringement under the Court’s construction of
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” and “authorization.” But the Federal Circuit can affirm a judgment of
`non-infringement based on any ground supported by the record, and Amazon will therefore also raise
`the above arguments in any appeal. It makes no sense to ask the Federal Circuit to consider these
`arguments in the first instance. This Court’s reasoned opinion on summary judgment will guide the
`Circuit’s review of these issues and decrease the likelihood of a remand and second appeal.
`Second, to get its preferred judgment, PersonalWeb asks the Court to dismiss Amazon’s
`declaratory judgment counterclaims on the ’791 patent involuntarily. But there is no reason to do so
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER AND ENTRY
`OF JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 547 Filed 10/16/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`as these claims are ripe for summary judgment. PersonalWeb bore the burden to come forward with
`its infringement theory on the ’791 patent and any supporting evidence. See Medtronic, Inc. v.
`Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191, 198-99 (2014) (“It is well established that the burden
`of proving infringement generally rests upon the patentee. . . . [I]n a licensee’s declaratory judgment
`action, the burden of proving infringement should remain with the patentee.”). PersonalWeb’s
`failure to do so means it forfeited its claims based on that patent. See PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v.
`IBM Corp., 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.”) And given this, PersonalWeb’s
`remarkable request—that the Court simply remove the ’791 patent from the case so PersonalWeb
`could potentially file brand new lawsuits asserting it—should be rejected.
`Third, any appeal in the Twitch action will likely present identical claim construction issues
`and overlapping non-infringement arguments. The Court will hear the Twitch summary judgment
`motion at the same time as Amazon’s. Entering judgment in the Twitch case concurrently with the
`judgment in this case will allow the related appeals to proceed in parallel. Cf. Solannex, Inc. v.
`Miasole, Inc., No. CV 11-00171 PSG, 2013 WL 430984, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2013) (denying
`54(b) judgment in order to coordinate appeals raising similar claim construction issues).
`CONCLUSION
`The Federal Circuit is not shy about vacating partial final judgments that raise the potential
`for multiple overlapping appeals. See Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC, 409 F. App’x 329,
`331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (vacating Rule 54(b) judgment); Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 31
`F. App’x 700, 703 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (same); Cyrix Corp. v. Intel Corp., 9 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
`(same). Introducing the complication of a partial final judgment now, as this well-managed MDL
`proceeding potentially nears a conclusion, makes little sense. Amazon respectfully requests the
`Court deny the motion and instead rule on the pending summary judgment motions.
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER AND ENTRY
`OF JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 547 Filed 10/16/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`October 16, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ J. David Hadden
`J. David Hadden
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`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
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER AND ENTRY
`OF JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case Nos.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`