`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`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 Defendant
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a
`Texas limited liability company, and LEVEL 3
`COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware cor-
`poration,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
` Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-IN-
`FRINGEMENT AND TO EXCLUDE
`THE TESTIMONY OF ERIK DE LA
`IGLESIA
`
`November 14, 2019
`Date:
`9:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Dept:
`Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`Judge:
`Trial Date: March 16, 2020
`
`REPLY OF TWITCH I.S.O MOTION OF NON-IN-
`FRINGEMENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-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 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1
`TWITCH’S TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT INFRINGE FOR SEVERAL
`REASONS INCLUDING THOSE THAT DO NOT DEPEND ON THE
`COURT’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER ------------------------------------------------ 1
`A.
`Twitch Servers Do Not “Allow,” “Permit,” or “Not Permit” Access to
`Content Cached at Web Browsers --------------------------------------------------------- 1
`Twitch Servers Do Not Determine Whether an ETag Corresponds to a
`“Plurality of Identifiers” -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`Twitch Servers Do Not Use ETags to Determine the Presence of a File. ............... 5
`C.
`PERSONALWEB’S PROPOSED REDACTIONS DO NOT CAPTURE ALL OF
`MR. DE LA IGLESIA’S IRRELEVANT AND UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY ------------ 6
`TWITCH DID NOT “INDUCE” PERSONALWEB TO EXCLUDE THE ’544
`PATENT FROM ITS EXPERT REPORT -------------------------------------------------------- 7
`CONCLUSION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`REPLY OF TWITCH I.S.O MOTION OF NON-IN-
`FRINGEMENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-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 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Now Health Grp., Inc.,
`No. CV 10-8301 PSG JCX, 2012 WL 3186576 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012),
`aff’d, 579 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ---------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 16-cv-01393-JST, 2019 WL 468809 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) -------------------------- 7
`
`Rovid v. Graco Children’s Prods.,
`No. 17-cv-01506-PJH, 2018 WL 5906075 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) ------------------------- 7
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Fed, R. Civ. P. 26(e)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
`
`
`
`REPLY OF TWITCH I.S.O MOTION OF NON-IN-
`FRINGEMENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-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 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`PersonalWeb concedes Twitch does not infringe the patents as construed by the Court.
`Twitch also does not infringe for three other reasons that do not depend on the Court’s construc-
`tions. The Court should include each independent basis for Twitch’s non-infringement in its order
`granting summary judgment. And the Court should enter summary judgment even if it considers
`the expert report and the supplemental declaration of PersonalWeb’s expert, Mr. Erik de la Iglesia.
`Neither the report nor the supplemental declaration shows that the accused Twitch technology, the
`operation of which is undisputed, meets every limitation of the claims.
`While the Court should grant Twitch’s motion in its entirety, the Court should also deny
`PersonalWeb’s cross-motion for summary judgment under Rule 41(a)(2) for the same reasons the
`Court denied PersonalWeb’s similar motion in the Amazon case. (Dkt. 165.) Like Amazon, Twitch
`also does not infringe the asserted patents for reasons independent from the Court’s claim construc-
`tions. Twitch should not be foreclosed from raising these additional non-infringement bases on
`appeal, and, as the Court already recognized, proceeding on track with Amazon will result in greater
`efficiencies. (Id. at 3.)
`
`II.
`
`TWITCH’S TECHNOLOGY DOES NOT INFRINGE FOR SEVERAL REASONS
`INCLUDING THOSE THAT DO NOT DEPEND ON THE COURT’S CLAIM
`CONSTRUCTION ORDER.
`In its opposition, PersonalWeb agrees to the entry of summary judgment of non-infringe-
`ment because the accused Twitch technology does not meet the limitations of the asserted claims
`as construed by the Court. (Dkt. 551 (“Opp.”) at 1.) And while that is enough for the Court to
`grant Twitch’s motion, Twitch technology cannot infringe the asserted patents for reasons unrelated
`to the Court’s constructions. The Court should enter judgment of non-infringement for those rea-
`sons as well.
`
`A.
`
`Twitch Servers Do Not “Allow,” “Permit,” or “Not Permit” Access to Content
`Cached at Web Browsers.
`
`The asserted claims require “allowing” or “permitting” access, or “not permitting” access
`to content. (’310 patent claim 20; ’442 patent claim 11; ’420 patent claims 25, 166.) These terms
`
`REPLY OF TWITCH I.S.O MOTION OF NON-IN-
`FRINGEMENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`require no constructions and Twitch is not proposing or relying on any in its motion. “Permitting”
`(or “allowing”) access and “not permitting” access means exactly that: permitting it or not permit-
`ting it. The verbs “preventing” or “prohibiting” are mere synonyms of “not permitting” and are
`used in the Twitch motion to avoid grammatically-prohibited double negatives such as “Twitch’s
`technology does not ‘not permit’ access to content cached at web browsers.”
`PersonalWeb argues that by providing a new version of an object, an HTTP server denies
`the browser permission to access the previously received cached object. (Opp. at 4-5.) This is akin
`to arguing that by delivering today’s paper, the Wall Street Journal rescinds permission to read the
`paper delivered yesterday. This is illogical. Nor is there any support for PersonalWeb’s argument
`in the HTTP specification itself. There is no mechanism in the HTTP protocol, and PersonalWeb
`points to none, for a server to “revoke” a browser’s ability to access a cached object that the same
`server has already provided to it. The HTTP specification in fact says just the opposite, that brows-
`ers should be able to access cached content whether or not it is current. (Dkt. 543 (Shamilov Decl.)
`Ex. 3 (RFC 2616, HTTP 1.1 standard) at § 13.1.1 (cache that cannot communicate with origin
`server should forward stale content to a browser for display with an optional warning indication of
`staleness); § 13.1.4 (at a user’s direction, browsers may override basic mechanisms to validate stale
`entities in cache); § 13.13 (history mechanisms can redisplay entities showing “exactly what the
`user saw at the time when the resource was retrieved” and should display an entity in storage “even
`if the entity has expired”); Shamilov Decl. Ex. 2 (Weissman Rep.) at ¶¶ 54, 97, 152, 179, 189.)
`PersonalWeb acknowledges that this is the case. (Opp. at 9-10.) PersonalWeb argues, however,
`that the ability of browsers to freely access cached content whether current or not is “irrelevant”
`because it requires “no request . . . to the server” and is not one of “the primary purposes of a
`browser.” (Id.) But the claims require the act of “not permitting access.” If access is always
`permitted, the required act of “not permitting” is not performed by Twitch or anyone else.
`Indeed, the HTTP protocol, the basis of PersonalWeb’s infringement theories, does not per-
`mit or not permit access to content using ETags. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 53-56; Shamilov Decl. Ex.
`1 (de la Iglesia Rep.) at ¶¶ 86-87.) The accused conditional GET requests specified in the HTTP
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`protocol merely determine whether a version of the file on the browser is the same version as the
`file on the server; that is it. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 45-46; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 29.) It is a version
`control mechanism. The response to the conditional GET request does not prevent the browser
`from continuing to use the version it already has. This is common sense, even according to Per-
`sonalWeb itself. During an inter partes review of the ’310 patent, PersonalWeb told the Patent
`Office that “there is no logical reason to have modified [the prior art] to implement a system for
`checking whether that same local computer 20 is authorized to access a previous version of the
`same file” and “the local computer 20 is permitted to access a prior version of a file if that computer
`already has the current version of that file.” (Declaration of J. David Hadden (“Hadden Decl.”)
`Ex. 6 (Patent Owner’s Response to IPR2013-00596, Paper 15) (“’596 POR”) at 19–20; Weissman
`Rep. at ¶ 151.)
`
`The concepts of permitting and not permitting access to content are simple. We face these
`concepts in our daily lives. If the HTTP protocol and the Twitch servers using it did in fact permit
`or not permit access to content via conditional GET requests and ETags, one would expect Person-
`alWeb to point to clear mechanisms of such permission and non-permission in the HTTP protocol
`or Twitch’s documentation. PersonalWeb does not do that because such mechanisms do not exist
`in either. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 56, 95-99, 147, 152.) Instead, while faulting Twitch for rewriting
`the claims (a red herring as described above), PersonalWeb equates the straightforward claim re-
`quirements of access permission with the mere mechanism of determining whether two accessible
`files are the same.
`PersonalWeb argues that if the ETags of the file cached by the browser and the file stored
`at the server match, the server “permits” the browser to continue to access the cached file, and if
`the ETags do not match and the server sends an HTTP 200 message with a new version of the file
`the server rescinds the browser’s “permission” to access older content. (Opp. at 7-8.) This argu-
`ment contradicts the HTTP protocol itself, which specifically allows browsers to use old content.
`(RFC 2616 at §§ 13.1.1, 13.1.4, 13.13; Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 54, 97, 152, 179, 189.) It is also
`directly contrary to PersonalWeb’s admissions made to the Patent Office. (’596 POR at 19-20
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`(equating possession of a file with permission to access older versions).) And while acknowledging
`that a browser may access stale cached content at any time a user chooses, PersonalWeb argues that
`this specification of the HTTP protocol should be ignored, because the claims do not require barring
`access “forever” and are limited to the interactions between computers. (Opp. at 9; Dkt. 551-1 (de
`la Iglesia Decl.) at ¶ 26.) But this characterization of the claims is irrelevant. If the web browser
`is allowed to use stale content, as the HTTP protocol specifies and PersonalWeb admits, how does
`it also somehow lack permission to use that content? PersonalWeb does not and cannot answer
`that question because the conditional GET requests and their corresponding 200 OK and 304 re-
`sponses have nothing to do with permitting or not permitting a browser to access its cached content
`and do not, at any time, deny or remove the browser’s ability to access content it has already re-
`ceived. They merely confirm whether a file version cached at the web browser is the same as the
`one stored at the server and, if not, provide the newest version. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 46, 90; de la
`Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 33.)
`For the same reasons, PersonalWeb’s unsupported assertion that setting the max-age for a
`file somehow sets access permissions for that file fails. (Opp. at 6.) As the HTTP protocol speci-
`fies, the max-age merely sets a time when the web browser should check if a new version of the
`cached file became available. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 40, 53; de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 27.) It does not
`prevent the web browser from accessing any prior versions of the file. (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 150
`(“The HTTP specification does not require that a browser delete stale object’s in its cache and
`HTTP headers are malleable by end users. Therefore, a user could view and access stale content,
`even if the max-age value is expired, even if past the Expires time, and even if the browser received
`a 200 OK message in response to a conditional GET request sent with that object’s ETag.”); RFC
`2616 at § 13.1.4 (“For example, the user agent might allow the user to specify that cached entities
`(even explicitly stale ones) are never validated.”).)
`PersonalWeb also cites open-source code that matches ETags and conditionally sends a 304
`NOT MODIFIED message, claiming this message is a “determination to permit a browser to keep
`using and accessing the cached content.” (Dkt. 551 at 6-7.) However, as explained above, the 304
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`response simply informs a server that a file is current. (Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 90, 103, 113.) Even
`if Twitch servers use this code it has nothing to do with determining permissions.
`
`B.
`
`Twitch Servers Do Not Determine Whether an ETag Corresponds to a
`“Plurality of Identifiers.”
`
`PersonalWeb argues that the claim requirement of determining whether a content-depend-
`ent name corresponds to one of “a plurality of identifiers” does not require a plurality of identifiers
`at all, but merely means determining whether the content-dependent name corresponds to a single
`identifier. (Opp. at 12-13; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶¶ 32-33.) This interpretation of the claims flies in
`the face of PersonalWeb’s own argument at the Patent Office that the prior art did not render claim
`166 of the ’420 patent (reciting “whether or not at least one of said one or more content-dependent
`digital identifiers . . . corresponds to an entry in one or more databases, each of said one or more
`databases comprising a plurality of identifiers”) invalid because it did not disclose “compar[ing]”
`an identifier “with a plurality of identifiers.” (Hadden Decl. Ex. 7 (Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response to IPR2014-00058, Paper 9) at 12; Weissman Rep. at ¶ 116.) PersonalWeb cannot have
`it both ways. Indeed, it is undisputed that Twitch’s servers do not compare an ETag to a plurality
`of values. (Opp. at 13; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶ 33; Weissman Rep. at ¶ 117.) The server associates
`only one ETag with each object (URL/URI). (Opp. at 11-12; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶ 30; Weissman
`Rep. at ¶¶ 117-118.) It locates the object by its URL/URI, and then compares that one associated
`ETag to the ETag in the GET request. (de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶ 30; Weissman Rep. at ¶¶ 117-118.)
`There is no plurality of ETags to which the ETag from the browser in the conditional GET request
`could be compared. (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 118.) Thus, for the same reason PersonalWeb argued to
`the Patent Office that the prior art does not render its claims invalid because it does not compare an
`identifier with a plurality of identifiers, the accused Twitch servers cannot infringe.
`
`Twitch Servers Do Not Use ETags to Determine the Presence of a File.
`C.
`PersonalWeb argues that 1) the claims do not require a determination of the presence of a
`file and 2) Twitch servers determine whether a “copy” of a file is present using ETags, and that is
`sufficient to meet the claims. (Opp. at 10-11.) Both arguments fail.
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`First, PersonalWeb’s own expert disagrees with PersonalWeb’s interpretation of the claims.
`For example, in his analysis of claim 10 of the ’442 patent, which recites “determining . . . whether
`a copy of the data file is present,” Mr. de la Iglesia states “[t]he name (ETag value) . . . is used to
`locate a file as present in the Twitch web servers.” (de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 112 (emphasis added).)
`Second, PersonalWeb’s infringement theory is unavailing even if the claims require a de-
`termination of whether a “copy,” and not the file itself, is present. (’442 patent claim 10.) Person-
`alWeb argues that if the ETag received in the conditional GET request matches the ETag of the file
`with the same URL/URI on the server, the Twitch server determines that the file is present at the
`browser, and if the ETags do not match, then the Twitch server determines that the file is present
`at the server. (Opp. at 11-12; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶ 28; Weissman Rep. at ¶ 161.) The claim
`language, however, requires “obtaining a name for a data file” and using that name to “determin[e]
`“whether a copy” of that “data file is present” on a computer. (’442 patent claim 10.) PersonalWeb
`maps the “name for a data file” to an ETag received in the conditional GET request. (Opp. at 10-
`11; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶ 28.) But if that ETag does not match the ETag of the file on the server,
`the file on the server is not the same file identified by the ETag in the GET request; it is not a copy
`of the file with the ETag in the GET request. (Weissman Rep. at ¶ 168.)
`Using a name to locate a file is a simple concept. PersonalWeb’s infringement theory,
`however, is convoluted, and unreasonable, because the ETags, as used in accordance with the HTTP
`protocol, are not used to determine the presence of anything. As PersonalWeb recognizes, they can
`be used only to evaluate whether two files match. (Opp. at 10; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶¶ 29-30.) The
`presence of files is always determined using URLs/URIs. (Opp. at 11; de la Iglesia Decl. at ¶ 30.)
`PersonalWeb cannot prove infringement, even with the opinions of Mr. de la Iglesia in his report
`and untimely declaration.
`
`III.
`
`PERSONALWEB’S PROPOSED REDACTIONS DO NOT CAPTURE ALL OF
`MR. DE LA IGLESIA’S IRRELEVANT AND UNRELIABLE TESTIMONY.
`
`The redactions proposed by PersonalWeb do not encompass the full breadth of Mr. de la
`Iglesia’s improper opinion even as it relates to his misapplication of the Court’s claim construc
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`tions. For example, unredacted paragraphs mention “valid rights,” an artifact of the misapplication.
`(Dkt. 551-1 Ex. 1 (Redacted de la Iglesia Rep.) at ¶¶ 102, 132, 144, 179.) Others discuss “valid
`copy,” which Mr. de la Iglesia links to “valid rights.” (See, e.g., de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 114 (“[The
`Accused Instrumentality] determines that the content of the copy of the object referenced in the
`request cached at the browser is not a valid copy. In other words, the Accused Instrumentality
`determines that the browser has no valid rights to keep using the cached copy.”).) The entire report
`is based on the misapplication of the Court’s constructions. But, in any event, for the reasons above,
`the report fails to show infringement.
`And PersonalWeb’s attempt to introduce a declaration containing supplemental opinion to
`augment Mr. de la Iglesia’s deficient report is improper. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enter.
`Co., No. 16-cv-01393-JST, 2019 WL 468809, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) (“[A] party may not
`rely on Rule 26(e) ‘as a way to remedy a deficient expert report.’”) (citation omitted). The proposed
`supplement falls outside the Court’s schedule for expert disclosures and is invalid for that reason
`as well. Rovid v. Graco Children’s Prods., No. 17-cv-01506-PJH, 2018 WL 5906075, at *11 (N.D.
`Cal. Nov. 9, 2018) (Rule 26(e) does not “create a loophole through which a party who submits
`partial expert witness disclosures, or who wishes to revise her disclosures in light of her opponent's
`challenges to the analysis and conclusions therein, can add to them to her advantage after the court's
`deadline for doing so has passed.”) (quoting Luke v. Family Care & Urgent Med. Clinics, 323 F.
`App’x 496, 500 (9th Cir. 2009)). The Court should disregard Mr. de la Iglesia’s declaration. Jar-
`row Formulas, Inc. v. Now Health Grp., Inc., No. CV 10-8301 PSG JCX, 2012 WL 3186576, at
`*15 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2012) (“[A] supplemental expert report that states additional opinions or
`seeks to strengthen or deepen opinions expressed in the original expert report is beyond the scope
`of supplementation and subject to exclusion under Rule 37(c).”) (internal quotations omitted),
`aff’d, 579 F. App’x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2014). But even if the Court were to consider the declaration, it
`would not stand in the way of the Court finding non-infringement by Twitch for the reasons above.
`
`IV.
`
`TWITCH DID NOT “INDUCE” PERSONALWEB TO EXCLUDE THE ’544
`PATENT FROM ITS EXPERT REPORT.
`Twitch did not induce any “absence of the ’544 patent in PersonalWeb’s expert reports” as
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 562 Filed 11/01/19 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`PersonalWeb contends. (Opp. at 3-4.) Mr. de la Iglesia did include the ’544 patent in his report,
`admitting unconditionally that Twitch does not infringe. (de la Iglesia Rep. at ¶ 195 (“The ’544
`patent is not required to practice this [accused] method of caching.”).) He did not qualify this
`statement or offer any other opinion regarding the ’544 patent. The Court should enter summary
`judgment of non-infringement of the ’544 patent for this reason alone.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in Twitch’s opening brief, the Court
`should (1) enter summary judgment on all established grounds of non-infringement; and (2) exclude
`the expert report of Mr. Erik de la Iglesia.
`
`
`Dated: November 1, 2019
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ Todd R. Gregorian
`Todd R. Gregorian
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`
`MOTION OF TWITCH FOR SJ OF NON-INFRINGE-
`MENT AND TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
`OF DE LA IGLESIA
`
`8
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF;
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 1
`
`2 2
`
`3 3
`
`4 4
`
`5 5
`
`6 6
`
`7 7
`
`8 8
`
`9 9
`
`10 10
`
`11 11
`
`12 12
`
`13 13
`
`14 14
`
`15 15
`
`16 16
`
`17 17
`
`18 18
`
`19 19
`
`20 20
`
`21 21
`
`22 22
`
`23 23
`
`24 24
`
`25 25
`
`26 26
`
`27 27
`
`28 28
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`