Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 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
`MELANIE L. MAYER (pro hac vice)
`mmayer@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
`
`Attorneys for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., and
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`
`MICHAEL A. SHERMAN (SBN 94783)
`masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`JEFFREY F. GERSH (SBN 87124)
`jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`SANDEEP SETH (SBN 195914)
`sseth@ stubbsalderton.com
`WESLEY W. MONROE (SBN 149211)
`wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com
`STANLEY H. THOMPSON, JR. (SBN 198825)
`sthompson@stubbsalderton.com
`VIVIANA B. HEDRICK (SBN 239359)
`vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS ALDERTON MARKILES, LLP
`15260 Ventura Boulevard, 20TH Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone:
`(818) 444-4500
`Facsimile:
`(818) 444-4520
`
`Attorneys for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`[Additional Attorneys listed below]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
` Case No. 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ET
`AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants,
`
` Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON THE
`COURT’S ORDER RE SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT (DKT. 580)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Defendants and Counterclaimants
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`Defendant
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S
`ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 2 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
`
`On February 3, 2020, the Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to Ama-
`zon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) and Twitch Interactive, Inc.
`(“Twitch”) in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) (Dkt. 578). The Court ordered the parties to
`provide their views on whether the Court should enter summary judgment in the remaining cases
`(Dkt. 580). Amazon, Twitch and PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC provide this joint statement in
`accordance with that order. The following parties join Amazon and Twitch’s Statement: Airbnb,
`Inc.; Atlas Obscura, Inc.; Atlassian, Inc.; BDG Media, Inc.; Bitly, Inc.; Blue Apron, LLC; Braze,
`Inc.; Brooklyn Brewery Corporation; Capterra, Inc.; Cars.com, LLC; Centaur Media USA, Inc.;
`Cloud 66, Inc.; Cloud Warmer, Inc.; Curebit, Inc.; Curious.com, Inc.; Dollar Shave Club, Inc.;
`Doximity, Inc.; E-consultancy.com, Ltd.; Fab Commerce & Design, Inc.; Fandor, Inc.; FanDuel,
`Inc.; FanDuel Ltd.; Fiverr International Ltd.; Food52, Inc.; Goldbely, Inc.; GoPro, Inc.; Heroku,
`Inc.; Hootsuite Inc.; Imgur Inc.; Intuit Inc.; Karma Mobility Inc.; Kongregate Inc.; Leap Motion,
`Inc.; Lesson Nine Gmbh; Match Group, Inc.; Match Group, LLC; Mavenlink, Inc.; Melian Labs,
`Inc.; Merkle, Inc.; My Fitness Pal, Inc.; NRT LLC; NRT New York LLC; Optimizely, Inc.; Panjiva,
`Inc.; Peek Travel, Inc.; Quotient Technology Inc.; Reddit, Inc.; RetailMeNot, Inc.; Roblox Corpo-
`ration; ShareFile LLC; Shopify, Inc.; Shopify (USA) Inc.; Slack Technologies, Inc.; Spokeo, Inc.;
`Spongecell, Inc.; Square, Inc.; StartDate Labs, Inc.; Stitchfix, Inc.; Tastytrade, Inc.; Teespring, Inc.;
`Tophatter, Inc.; Treehouse Island, Inc.; Trello, Inc.; TripAdvisor LLC; UpWork Global, Inc.; Urban
`Dictionary, LLC; Valassis Communications, Inc.; Vimeo, Inc.; Webflow, Inc.; Wedding Wire, Inc.;
`WeWork Companies, Inc.; Yotpo Ltd.; Ziff Davis, LLC; and Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
`PersonalWeb’s Statement:
`The Court has ordered the parties to advise the Court of their views on whether the Court’s
`summary judgment order (ECF 578, “Order”) should be entered as to all remaining customer cases
`and judgment as to them. ECF 580. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC’s (“PersonalWeb”) view is
`that judgment of non-infringement should be entered in all the remaining customer cases. However,
`for the reasons detailed below, even though there is at least one ground for finding non-infringement
`as to all the remaining customer defendants, not all grounds of the summary judgment order as it
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S
`ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 3 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
`
`relates to Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) are applicable to the remaining customer cases as set
`forth below.
`PersonalWeb is cognizant of the Court’s expectation and mindful of the representation of
`PersonalWeb’s counsel that the Twitch case would serve as a representative test case: “THE
`COURT: If I were to bring in either Twitch or Centaur Media, and there were a verdict against
`Personal Web that no infringement was found, would you agree that none of the customer cases
`could go forward because there would be findings in each of the buckets? MR. SHERMAN: Yes.”
`Case Management Conference (Nov. 2, 2018) Trans., 6:17-22. The Court later stated, “This gives
`me better hope that with a verdict, in an Amazon and customer case, that it leads you to a mediator
`who takes care of the case for us. I mean, that's all a bellwether ever does. A bell weather isn't binding
`on anybody else, I don't even think of this as a bell weather, actually, but you know, because that
`name means lots of different things.” Id. at 10:10-15.
`PersonalWeb acknowledges that as there were findings of non-infringement for each of the
`four categories, judgments of non-infringement should be entered in all the remaining customer
`cases. Those findings for which judgments of non-infringement should be entered in favor of all
`customers include the Order’s findings of (1) Twitch’s non-infringement of the ‘544 patent (Section
`III.C. of the Order (p. 12)), and (2) permitting or allowing content to be provided or accessed and
`determining whether a copy of the data file is present using the name, which turn solely on the
`undisputed operation of computers complying with the HTTP 1.1 specification (Sections III.E.1-2
`of the Order (pp. 14-21)). PersonalWeb does not oppose entry of such judgments.
`There were other findings in the Order that do not turn solely on the undisputed operation of
`computers complying with the HTTP 1.1 specification. The Court construed “unauthorized or unli-
`censed” as “not compliant with a valid license” and “authorization” as “a valid license.” Order re
`Claim Construction (ECF 485), at 33. As reflected in Section III.D. of the Order, the limitations
`including these terms as construed could not be met in the Twitch case because the license provisions
`of Twitch’s Terms of Service in effect during the relevant timeframe were not included in the in-
`fringement contentions against Twitch or in the expert report regarding Twitch’s infringement. As
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 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
`
`the Court may recall, the Magistrate Judge refused to permit amendment of the infringement con-
`tentions to include the license provisions of Twitch’s Terms of Service – a specific procedural cir-
`cumstance that may not be applicable in any other case involving any other customer. The licensed
`nature of the website operator’s content is an issue of fact that is independent of the operation of
`computers complying with the HTTP 1.1 specification. As the Court noted, PersonalWeb’s non-
`opposition to the entry of judgment of non-infringement based on claim construction was based on
`the concession that the licensed nature of Twitch’s website content was not at issue in the Twitch
`case. Summary Judgment Order (ECF 578), at 13. PersonalWeb proffers that other website operator
`defendants did have terms of service or terms of use governing licenses in effect during the relevant
`timeframe providing the regulation of license[d] content consistent with the Court’s construction of
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” and “authorization” that could not be found to be present in the Twitch
`case. This is the type of fact particular to each individual case for which PersonalWeb’s counsel
`noted that there might be “some need for some limited and or focused/targeted discovery of some
`other website operator defendants.” Case Management Conference (Nov. 2, 2018) Trans., 11:1-4.
`Accordingly, Section III.D. of the Order should not be applied to the remaining customer defendants.
`Another determination in the Court’s summary judgment order that does not turn on the un-
`disputed operation of computers complying with the HTTP 1.1 specification is Section III.E.3, in
`which the Court’s ruled that Twitch’s web server does not perform a comparison to a plurality of
`identifiers. Order at 21-23. This portion of the ruling relied on the undisputed operation of the
`“CloudFront/Twitch server” which involved more than the way all computers complying with the
`HTTP 1.1 specification operate. In Twitch, PersonalWeb’s expert examined source code for the
`NGINX web server, one of the types of servers used by Twitch. To the extent a customer defendant’s
`web server operations were performed by S3, PersonalWeb agrees that the Court’s determination
`regarding Twitch applies to those customer defendants. However, there are thirteen customer de-
`fendants who served asset files with content-based ETags outside of S3 (Category 2 defendants).
`ECF 295. At the time of the CMC on November 2, 2018 where the Court suggested the parties
`identify the representative case, PersonalWeb’s understanding was that Twitch served assets without
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 5 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
`
`using S3, and thus was a Category 2 defendant. Moreover, Amazon and Twitch agreed that the
`Twitch case covered all categories. During subsequent discovery, however, PersonalWeb learned
`that this was not the case. Rather, Mr. Richard of Twitch testified that the assets that Twitch appeared
`to the public to be served without S3 were actually served by S3 in the background. James Richards
`Deposition, July 26, 2019 at 184:11-17. In other words, what appeared to be Category 2 activity by
`Twitch was actually Category 3 activity. Mr. Richard also testified that there would have been no
`way for a member of the public to determine that these assets were actually served by S3. As to those
`defendants that in fact serve assets without using S3 (what PersonalWeb believes, and continues to
`believe, to be the actual Category 2 defendants), there is no evidence in the record that their servers
`determined a match or non-match in the same way that Twitch did, i.e., a one-to-one comparison.
`For that reason, the summary judgment order determination regarding a comparison to a plurality of
`identifiers as applied to Twitch may not apply to the thirteen other customers who had been identified
`Category 2 defendants. These defendants are: Bitly, Dollar Shave Club, Centaur Media, Imgur, In-
`tuit, Kongregate, Reddit, RetailMeNot, Slack Technologies, Stack Exchange, TripAdvisor, Vimeo,
`and MWM My Wedding Match.
`The issue discussed in Section III.E.3 of the Order is Twitch’s noninfringement theory that
`is based on the specific way the Twitch servers operated behind the scenes, raised for the first time
`in its summary judgment motion filed on October 4, 2019. This noninfringement theory is not based
`on anything in the HTTP 1.1 specification. The HTTP 1.1 specification states that a comparison is
`made, but not how it is made—and Twitch’s noninfringement argument is entirely based on how a
`comparison is made. Twitch criticizes PersonalWeb’s position here on the basis that PersonalWeb’s
`infringement theory is based on servers operating according to the HTTP 1.1 specification. While
`this is true as far as it goes, Twitch’s noninfringement theory in its moving papers and the Court’s
`discussion in Section III.E.3 do not discuss PersonalWeb’s infringement theory or HTTP 1.1. See
`ECF 540-3 at 12-13, ECF 562 at 5.
`Twitch also criticizes PersonalWeb for not informing the Court earlier that Twitch disclosed
`in discovery that it did not perform any Category 2 activity. This is simply because there has not
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 6 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
`
`been an issue before the Court between July 2019 to which this has been germane. Indeed, Twitch
`has not identified and PersonalWeb is not aware of anything that would have changed had Person-
`alWeb found a way in July 2019 to bring this to the Court’s attention. Twitch’s Motion for summary
`judgment of noninfringement was based on what Twitch did, not what it did not do. Further, the
`issue of how the Twitch servers internally carry out the HTTP 1.1 specification is an issue that
`Twitch raised for the very first time in its summary judgment motion. It is precisely that issue on
`which there has been no discovery—whether the thirteen identified defendants do what Twitch did
`or not.
`Statement of Amazon, Twitch, and Remaining Defendants Identified Above:
`Amazon, Twitch, and the remaining defendants agree that the Court should enter the sum-
`mary judgment order of non-infringement (Dkt. 578) in all remaining cases. The Court stayed those
`cases while a single representative case, against Twitch, resolved all asserted infringement theories.
`PersonalWeb asserted the same patent claims in the remaining cases that it asserted against Twitch.
`See Exhibit A.
`PersonalWeb agreed to use the Twitch case as the representative case. It repeatedly stated
`that its infringement theories in each of the remaining cases are the same as those asserted in the
`Twitch case. For example, in the Preliminary Joint Case Management Statement filed September
`13, 2018, PersonalWeb stated that “there are four categories of website operator activity involved in
`the infringement” and specifically identified which category of the four it was asserted against each
`defendant. Dkt. 96 at 5-6; Dkt. 96-1 (Appendix A). On October 26, 2018, after the Court questioned
`whether the same MDL should include all the customer cases, PersonalWeb reaffirmed that all of
`the customer cases involved the same infringement theories:
`
`[E]ach of the defendant website operators were accused of using the same basic
`infringing method of using content-based ETags and certain of the same elements
`of the HTTP 1.1 protocol to provide notifications and authorizations in order to
`ensure that a browser only uses the latest authorized content in rendering their
`webpages. The common steps of this basic method are the same across all of the
`cases, which only differ in the instrumentality the website operator chooses to use
`to generate and serve the ETag and the notifications.
`Dkt. 271 at 5. Based on this representation, the Court identified the Twitch case as the representative
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`customer case. See Order re Representative Customer Case, Dkt. 313 (“As agreed to by the parties,
`Twitch seems to be an ideal exemplar. Twitch involves all four categories of infringement identified
`by PersonalWeb”). But before doing so, the Court made sure that both sides agreed on the record
`that a judgment in the Twitch case would also apply in the remaining cases. As PersonalWeb
`acknowledges, its counsel agreed that if the Twitch case culminated in “a verdict against Personal-
`Web that no infringement was found,” “none of the customer cases could go forward.” Nov. 2, 2018
`CMC Hrg. Tr. at 6:17-22. Accordingly, the summary judgment of non-infringement in the Twitch
`case resolves PersonalWeb’s claims against the other defendants, and the Court’s judgment should
`be entered in those cases as well.
`PersonalWeb agrees that summary judgment of non-infringement should be entered in all
`the remaining cases and on each of its four asserted infringement theories. But it also argues that
`two rulings in the summary judgment order—Sections III.D (“unauthorized or unlicensed”) and
`III.E.3 (plurality of identifiers)—do not apply to all cases. PersonalWeb arguments for excluding
`these two rulings from the remaining cases both fail.
`With respect to Section III.D, PersonalWeb argues that it should get to re-do its infringement
`theory for the “unauthorized/unlicensed” limitation in all of the remaining cases because “the Mag-
`istrate Judge refused to permit amendment of the infringement contentions to include the license
`provisions of Twitch’s Terms of Service.” PersonalWeb moved to amend its infringement conten-
`tions to reference the Terms of Service, purportedly in response to defendants’ proposed claim con-
`structions. (Dkt. 448). Judge van Keulen denied amendment because she found that PersonalWeb
`was not diligent in requesting leave: PersonalWeb was well aware of the issue raised by defendants’
`claim construction proposal before it even filed these cases, and thus could and should have ad-
`dressed it in the original infringement contentions. Dkt. 481 at 9. PersonalWeb’s failure to advance
`all of its available infringement theories in the Twitch case applies to all other pending cases. The
`case against Twitch was chosen as representative; its entire point was to resolve all of PersonalWeb’s
`infringement theories. PersonalWeb does not get yet another do-over to escape Judge van Keulen’s
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`order and concoct another set of infringement theories for the remaining cases.1
`With respect to Section III.E.3, PersonalWeb suggests that the Court should not enter sum-
`mary judgment based on the “plurality of identifiers” as to 13 defendants that allegedly might have
`used servers that operate differently than Twitch’s with respect to this claim limitation. First, Per-
`sonalWeb’s infringement theory for both Category 2 (Non-S3 Assets with Content-Based Etag) and
`Category 3 (S3 Assets with Content-Based Etags) is based on standard HTTP operations. Personal-
`Web tries to distinguish between these categories based on the server that serves the web asset. But
`the server makes no difference to PersonalWeb’s infringement theory because they all function (and
`are alleged to function) the very same way: according to the HTTP standard. Categories 2 and 3
`are indistinguishable for purposes of PersonalWeb’s infringement theories. Moreover, as the party
`asserting infringement, PersonalWeb must bear the responsibility for any failure of proof as to its
`Category 2 infringement theory.2
`More important, according to PersonalWeb, it learned as early as July 2019 that its Category
`2 infringement allegation against Twitch was purportedly wrong. Yet PersonalWeb stayed silent,
`briefed summary judgment motions, and only complained that Twitch might not be a representative
`case after losing. Presumably had there been a verdict of infringement PersonalWeb would never
`have suggested that Twitch was not a proper representative case. PersonalWeb cannot use this mis-
`conduct to unravel the work the parties have done in the representative case.
`In any event, PersonalWeb’s arguments do not affect the question currently before the Court
`since the parties agree that the Court should enter judgment of non-infringement in all the remaining
`cases because at least one basis for the Court’s summary judgment order applies to each of the four
`infringement theories asserted against all remaining defendants.
`
`
`
`1 Indeed, PersonalWeb told Magistrate Judge van Keulen that its proposed amendment was not
`even necessary. July 24, 2019 Hrg. Tr. at 14:5-7 (“frankly, you know, we’re not sure that we even
`need to have this amendment”; PersonalWeb is only asking for it “out of an abundance of caution”).
`2 For example, in the Twitch case, a Level 3 (not S3) server served some portion of the web
`assets at issue during the infringement period.
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`8
`
`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 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Michael A. Sherman
`MICHAEL A. SHERMAN
`
`Counsel for PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Melanie L. Mayer
`MELANIE L. MAYER
`Counsel for AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AIRBNB,
`INC.; ATLAS OBSCURA, INC.; ATLASSIAN,
`INC.; BDG MEDIA, INC.; BITLY, INC.; BLUE
`APRON, LLC; BROOKLYN BREWERY
`CORPORATION; CENTAUR MEDIA USA,
`INC.; E-CONSULTANCY.COM, LTD.;
`CLOUD 66, INC.; CLOUD WARMER, INC.;
`CUREBIT, INC.; CURIOUS.COM, INC.;
`DOLLAR SHAVE CLUB, INC.; DOXIMITY,
`INC.; FAB COMMERCE & DESIGN, INC.;
`FANDOR, INC.; FANDUEL, INC.; FANDUEL
`LTD.; FIVERR INTERNATIONAL LTD.;
`FOOD52, INC.; GOLDBELY, INC.; GOPRO,
`INC.; HOOTSUITE INC.; IMGUR INC.;
`INTUIT, INC.; KARMA MOBILITY INC.;
`KONGREGATE INC.; LEAP MOTION, INC.;
`LESSON NINE GMBH; MATCH GROUP,
`INC.; MATCH GROUP, LLC; MAVENLINK,
`INC.; MELIAN LABS, INC.; MY FITNESS
`PAL, INC.; NRT LLC; NRT NEW YORK LLC;
`OPTIMIZELY, INC.; PANJIVA, INC.; PEEK
`TRAVEL, INC.; QUOTIENT TECHNOLOGY
`INC.; ROBLOX CORPORATION; SHAREFILE
`LLC; SPOKEO, INC.; SPONGECELL, INC.;
`SQUARE, INC.; STITCHFIX, INC.;
`TASTYTRADE, INC.; TEESPRING, INC.;
`TOPHATTER, INC.; TREEHOUSE ISLAND,
`INC.; TRELLO, INC.; TRIPADVISOR LLC;
`VIMEO, INC.; URBAN DICTIONARY, LLC;
`WEBFLOW, INC.; WEDDING WIRE, INC.;
`WEWORK COMPANIES, INC.; YOTPO LTD.;
`ZIFF DAVIS, LLC; AND ZOOM VIDEO
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`9
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`By: /s/ Todd R. Gregorian
`TODD R. GREGORIAN
`Counsel for TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Marcus Barber
`MARCUS BARBER
`Counsel for REDDIT, INC.
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`By: /s/ Daniel T. Shvodian
`DANIEL T. SHVODIAN
`
`Counsel for BRAZE, INC.
`
`KING & SPALDING LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Brent P. Ray
`Brent P. Ray
`Counsel for UPWORK GLOBAL, INC.,
`RETAILMENOT, INC., VALASSIS
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SHOPIFY, INC.,
`SHOPIFY (USA) INC.
`PIERCE ATWOOD LLP
`
`By: /s/ Robert H. Stier
`Robert H. Stier
`Counsel for STARTDATE LABS, INC.
`
`ARNOLD PORTER
`
`By: /s/ Michael Berta
`Michael Berta
`Counsel for HEROKU, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`10
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 584 Filed 02/17/20 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`Dated: February 17, 2020
`
`By: /s/ Robert McCauley
`Robert McCauley
`Counsel for CAPTERRA, INC., MERKLE, INC.
`
`
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Bijal Vakil
`BIJAL VAKIL
`
`Counsel for SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Robert Gerstein
`Robert Gerstein
`Counsel for CARS.COM, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT STATEMENT ON COURT’S ORDER
`RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`11
`
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`CASE NO.: 5:18-cv-00767-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
`
`