Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 561-3 Filed 11/01/19 Page 1 of 4
`Case 5:18-md-02834—BLF Document 561-3 Filed 11/01/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 561-3 Filed 11/01/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`From: David Hadden
`Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 3:17 PM
`To: Michael Sherman <masherman@stubbsalderton.com>
`Cc: David Hadden <DHadden@fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et al. Patent Litigation,
`
`Michael,
`The simple answer is that HTTP cache control headers and Etags have nothing do with determining “compliance with a
`valid license” generally or as used by Twitch. Nor do your infringement contentions identify any such determination of
`“license compliance” based on Etags. To the extend you are suggesting that you plan to “re-construe” the Court’s claim
`construction to eliminate the required “license compliance” determination, that is of course, improper. What you have
`suggested below is not a good faith basis to proceed against Twitch on any of the asserted patent claims. Per my prior
`letter we will seek all appropriate sanctions.
`Take care
`Dave
`
`From: Michael Sherman [mailto:masherman@stubbsalderton.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 2:52 PM
`To: David Hadden <DHadden@fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et al. Patent Litigation,
`
`Dave
`
`Thanks for your response back. A few reactions:
`
`From early in this case, you have advocated that you would seek the same constructions as Judge Gilstrap had
`ordered. In his March 10, 2016 Order in the IBM case, Judge Gilstrap did construe “licensed” as “valid rights to content,”
`and “unlicensed” as “invalid rights to content.” I am unaware of any other judicial construction of that term, applicable
`in any respect to our present dispute.
`
`Today, I am sure we would both agree that Judge Freeman’s claim construction order equates license with
`authorization, i.e., “the single concept of regulating access to licensed content.” Order, p. 7. Lest there be any doubt
`about it, the Court adopts your construction, finding that the claim term “unauthorized or unlicensed” is to be construed
`as “not compliant with a valid license.” Stated differently, “authorization” was not removed from the claim
`specifications; it was just construed to functionally equate to license.
`
`Our operative Twitch infringement contentions explain how “authorized for the purposes of the request” are met with,
`e.g., HTTP 200 messages, content based ETag values, max-age values, HTTP 304 messages and HTTP conditional GET
`requests (that phrase, and one like it, appears repeatedly) and the essence of something that is “authorized for the
`purpose of the request” is a determination whether there are valid rights to content.
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 561-3 Filed 11/01/19 Page 3 of 4
`While I appreciate the points you make, could you please explain how/why any of what I just wrote cannot be
`maintained by PersonalWeb and myself, in good faith and with a factual basis?
`
`As for CloudFront, in light of the Court’s claim construction order and as learned during discovery, as far as PersonalWeb
`knows, CloudFront did not control the parameters that determine whether a browser had valid rights to content. Twitch
`is not in the same position.
`
`Please get back to me on the proposed stipulation.
`
`Regards
`Michael
`
`
`From: David Hadden <DHadden@fenwick.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:09 AM
`To: Ana Escamilla <aescamilla@stubbsalderton.com>
`Cc: Michael Sherman <masherman@stubbsalderton.com>; David Hadden <DHadden@fenwick.com>
`Subject: RE: In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et al. Patent Litigation,
`
`Michael,
`While we consider your proposed stipulated judgment, given that your operative infringement contentions against
`Twitch are nearly identical to those against Amazon and do not refer to any license or license validation, what is your
`Rule 11 basis for continuing with the remaining three patents against Twitch?
`Dave
`
`From: Ana Escamilla [mailto:aescamilla@stubbsalderton.com]
`Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 6:25 PM
`To: David Hadden <DHadden@fenwick.com>
`Cc: Michael Sherman <masherman@stubbsalderton.com>
`Subject: In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et al. Patent Litigation,
`
`Dear Mr. Hadden,
`
`Please see the attached letter regarding the above-referenced matter.
`Thank you.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`
`1316 3rd Street Promenade, Suite 107
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Call/Text/Fax: 818.444.4526
`
`2
`
` Website
`
`Ana Escamilla
`Legal Assistant
`aescamilla@stubbsalderton.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 561-3 Filed 11/01/19 Page 4 of 4
`-------------------------------------------
`NOTICE:
`This email and all attachments are confidential, may be legally privileged, and are intended solely for the individual or entity to
`whom the email is addressed. However, mistakes sometimes happen in addressing emails. If you believe that you are not an
`intended recipient, please stop reading immediately. Do not copy, forward, or rely on the contents in any way. Notify the sender
`and/or Fenwick & West LLP by telephone at (650) 988-8500 and then delete or destroy any copy of this email and its
`attachments. Sender reserves and asserts all rights to confidentiality, including all privileges that may apply.
`
`3
`
`