Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 23
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 13
`
`EXHIBIT 13
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 22
`
`BEFORE THE
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,
`LLC PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`MDL DOCKET NO. ________
`
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND
`CONSOLIDATION OF PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS OF PERSONALWEB
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`PATENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 2 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND........................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit.................................................................................................. 3
`
`The Defendants’ Accused Systems and Associated Methods of Operation ........... 6
`
`The Pending Litigation ........................................................................................... 7
`
`Prior Litigation Involving the Patents-in-Suit......................................................... 8
`
`Amazon Declaratory Relief Action ........................................................................ 9
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 10
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Legal Standard ............................................................................................... 10
`
`The PersonalWeb Actions Should Be Transferred to the Northern District
`of California and Pretrial Proceedings Consolidated ............................................ 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The PersonalWeb Actions Present Common Questions of Fact and
`Law ........................................................................................................... 11
`
`The Interest of Protecting Against Inconsistent Judgments Favors
`Consolidation ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Consolidation and Transfer Will Best Serve the Convenience of
`the Parties and Witnesses .......................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`The Cases Should Be Consolidated for Pretrial Purposes in the Northern
`District of California ............................................................................................. 16
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`No Party Will Be Prejudiced by Consolidation in the Northern
`District of California ................................................................................. 16
`
`The Northern District of California Is Best Suited to Handle this
`MDL Proceeding ....................................................................................... 16
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.,
`318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).................................................................................. 14
`
`In re Armodafinil Patent Litig.,
`755 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2010) .............................................................................. 15
`
`In re Bear Creek Techs., Inc. (’722) Patent Litig.,
`858 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2012) ........................................................................ 11, 12
`
`In re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Securities Litig.,
`458 F. Supp. 225 (J.P.M.L. 1978) ..................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litig.,
`506 F. Supp. 651 (J.P.M.L. 1981) ..................................................................................... 16
`
`In re Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC, Patent Litigation,
`177 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2001) ........................................................................ 16, 17
`
`In re Desloratadine Patent Litig.,
`502 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2007) .............................................................................. 14
`
`In re Embryo Patent Infringement Litig.,
`328 F. Supp. 507 (J.P.M.L. 1971) ..................................................................................... 12
`
`In re Fenofibrate Patent Litig.,
`787 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2011) .............................................................................. 16
`
`In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litig.,
`840 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2011) .................................................................. 11, 14, 15
`
`In re Litig. Arising from Termination of Retirement Plan for
`Employees of Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.,
`422 F. Supp. 287 (J.P.M.L. 1976) ..................................................................................... 10
`
`In re LTV Corp. Secs. Litig.,
`470 F. Supp. 859 (J.P.M.L. 1979) ..................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc., Patent Litig.,
`867 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (J.P.M.L. 2012) ........................................................................ 10, 11
`
`In re Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems (‘858) Patent Litig.,
`730 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2010) .............................................................................. 12
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 4 of 22
`
`In re Mirtazapine Patent Litig.,
`199 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2003) .............................................................................. 17
`
`In re MLR, LLC Patent Litig.,
`269 F. Supp. 2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2003) .............................................................................. 11
`
`In re Nebivol (’040) Patent Litig.,
`867 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2012) .............................................................................. 10
`
`In re PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. Patent Litig.,
`360 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2005) ........................................................................ 11, 17
`
`In re Protegrity Corp. and Protegrity USA, Inc., Patent Litig.,
`84 F. Supp. 3d 1380, (J.P.M.L. 2015) ............................................................................... 17
`
`In re TransData, Inc. Smart Meters Patent Litig.,
`830 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2011) ........................................................................ 11, 15
`
`In re Vehicle Tracking & Sec. Sys. (’844) Patent Litig.,
`807 F.Supp.2d 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011) .................................................................... 11, 15, 16
`
`In re Webvention LLC (’294) Patent Litig.,
`831 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2011) ........................................................................ 11, 15
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`517 U.S. 370 (1996) .......................................................................................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1407 ....................................................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 299 ............................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 90-1130, at 3, reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1898, 1900 .................................. 10
`
`Rules
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 45(c) ............................................................................... 16
`
`Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Rule 6.1(b) ... 7
`
`Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Rule 6.2........ 1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 5 of 22
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“PersonalWeb”), and Level 3 Communications, LLC
`
`(“Level 3”), respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Transfer
`
`of Patent Litigation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the
`
`United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Rules”).1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In January 2018 PersonalWeb and Level 3 filed 542 single-defendant patent infringement
`
`actions in six judicial districts across the United States (the “PersonalWeb infringement actions”).
`
`The patents-in-suit relate to pioneering concepts in cloud computing, and PersonalWeb expects to
`
`file more actions against other defendants in the months to come.
`
`All these actions allege infringement of the same claims in the same five patents, against
`
`essentially the same accused systems and methods. The accused systems and methods involve
`
`each Defendant’s use of the same aspects of a certain web development architecture (Ruby on
`
`
`1 PersonalWeb is the primary party bringing this motion. PersonalWeb and Level 3 are
`parties to an agreement whereby each owns a fifty percent undivided interest in and to the patents-
`in-suit. Under the agreement, PersonalWeb and Level 3 have certain defined rights to use, license,
`and enforce the patents-in-suit within separate fields of use. PersonalWeb alleges that the
`infringements at issue in these actions all occur within, and are limited to, PersonalWeb’s field of
`use. Level 3 nevertheless joined as plaintiff in these actions pursuant to its contractual obligations
`to PersonalWeb, at PersonalWeb’s request. All infringement allegations; statements describing
`PersonalWeb, any defendant, or any defendant’s accused systems or methods; and statements
`regarding jurisdiction and venue in the complaints are PersonalWeb’s alone. See, Declaration of
`Michael A. Sherman (“Sherman Decl.”) ¶ 2, Exhibit 1 (“Airbnb Complaint”), ¶¶ 1-3. The
`complaints in the PersonalWeb infringement actions are largely similar. Accordingly, throughout
`this Motion, citations to the Airbnb Complaint apply equally to the similar passages in the
`complaints in the other PersonalWeb infringement actions.
`2 The distribution of the 54 actions is as follows: 28 in the Northern District of California,
`1 in the Central District of California, 5 in the Eastern District of Texas, 12 in the Southern District
`of New York, 3 in the Eastern District of New York, and 5 in the District of Delaware.
`PersonalWeb and Level 3 initially also filed a 55th action against Smugmug, Inc. in the Northern
`District of California. Following communications with counsel for Smugmug, PersonalWeb
`dismissed the action upon certain representations made by Smugmug’s counsel of facts that
`reflected no liability for patent infringement by Smugmug. Sherman Decl. ¶ 57.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 6 of 22
`
`Rails) in conjunction with their use of the same aspects of the internet protocol (content based E-
`
`Tags and Conditional Get requests with “If-None-Match” headers and HTTP 200/304 messages).
`
`While PersonalWeb was preparing this Motion, on February 5, 2018, Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) filed a complaint against PersonalWeb
`
`and Level 3 for various declaratory judgments involving the five patents-in-suit in the
`
`PersonalWeb Infringement Actions (“Amazon DJ action”). Amazon seeks declarations that
`
`PersonalWeb’s Infringement Actions are barred and an injunction barring PersonalWeb from
`
`pursuing the claims in the PersonalWeb infringement actions. Amazon also asserts that the
`
`PersonalWeb infringement actions should be stayed during the pendency of the Amazon DJ action.
`
`On February 9, 2018, the Northern District of California reassigned the Amazon action and
`
`27 of the 28 PersonalWeb infringement actions pending in the Northern District of California to
`
`Judge Beth Labson Freeman, and reassigned the 28th action to Judge Freeman on February 21,
`
`2018. Following Amazon’s filing of its complaint, on February 20, 2018 Amazon filed a motion
`
`against PersonalWeb, seeking to enjoin PersonalWeb’s prosecution of the infringement actions.
`
`Sherman Decl. ¶ 58, Exhibit 56.
`
`The significant commonality of fact and legal issues between the existing actions and
`
`prospective actions, especially considering Amazon’s declaratory judgment action, favors the
`
`transfer and consolidation of pretrial proceedings.
`
`The Panel should transfer all the pending actions to the Northern District of California for
`
`consolidation of pretrial proceedings which would also maximize efficiency of the PersonalWeb
`
`patent litigation. Over one-half of the existing actions filed so far are already pending in that
`
`district and many of the parties and their counsel are located there or elsewhere in California. That
`
`district is highly familiar with complex patent litigation, has established patent local rules which
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 7 of 22
`
`will expedite these actions, and has already presided over PersonalWeb’s previous litigation
`
`involving the same patents and their technical subject matter. The PersonalWeb patent litigation
`
`has only just begun, so centralization in the Northern District of California at this time will prevent
`
`inconsistent pretrial rulings, such as critical claim construction issues, and conserve judicial and
`
`party resources.
`
`The transfer of these actions to the Northern District of California also provides
`
`convenience for a large number of the parties and witnesses.
`
`In view of the foregoing, PersonalWeb respectfully requests that the Panel transfer all
`
`existing actions, as well as future tag-along actions to the Northern District of California for
`
`consolidation of pretrial proceedings.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`The patents-in-suit–U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791, 6,928,442, 7,802,310, 7,945,544, and
`
`8,099,420 (collectively, “Patents-in-Suit”)–relate to fundamental aspects of cloud computing,
`
`including the identification of files or data and the efficient retrieval thereof in a manner which
`
`reduces bandwidth transmission and storage requirements. See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 10.
`
`The ability to reliably identify and access specific data is essential to any computer system
`
`or network. On a single computer or within a small network, the task is relatively easy: simply
`
`name the file, identify it by that name and its stored location on the computer or within the network,
`
`and access it by name and location. Early operating systems facilitated this approach with
`
`standardized naming conventions, storage device identifiers, and folder structures. See, e.g.,
`
`Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 11.
`
`Ronald Lachman and David Farber, the inventors of the Patents-in-Suit, recognized that
`
`the conventional approach for naming, locating, and accessing data in computer networks could
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 8 of 22
`
`not keep pace with ever-expanding, global data processing networks. New distributed storage
`
`systems use files that are stored across different devices in dispersed geographic locations. These
`
`different locations could use dissimilar conventions for identifying storage devices and data
`
`partitions. Likewise, different users could give identical names to different files or parts of files—
`
`or unknowingly give different names to identical files. No solution existed to ensure that identical
`
`file names referred to the same data, and conversely, that different file names referred to different
`
`data. As a result, expanding networks could become clogged with duplicate data and locating and
`
`controlling access to stored data was made more difficult. See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 12.
`
`Lachman and Farber developed a solution: replace conventional naming and storing
`
`conventions with system-wide “substantially unique” content-based identifiers. Their approach
`
`assigned substantially unique identifiers to all “data items” of any type–“the contents of a file, a
`
`portion of a file, a page in memory, an object in an object-oriented program, a digital message, a
`
`digital scanned image, a part of a video or audio signal, or any other entity which can be
`
`represented by a sequence of bits.” Applied system-wide, this invention would permit any data
`
`item to be stored, located, managed, synchronized, and accessed using its content-based identifier.
`
`See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 13.
`
`To create a substantially unique, content-based identifier, Lachman and Farber turned to
`
`cryptography. Cryptographic hash functions, including MD4, MD5, and SHA, had been used in
`
`computer systems to verify the integrity of retrieved data–a so-called “checksum.” Lachman and
`
`Farber recognized that these same hash functions could be devoted to a vital new purpose: if a
`
`cryptographic hash function was applied to a sequence of bits (a “data item”), it would produce a
`
`substantially unique result value, one that: (1) virtually guarantees a different result value if the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 9 of 22
`
`data item is changed; (2) is computationally difficult to reproduce with a different sequence of bits;
`
`and (3) cannot be used to recreate the original sequence of bits. See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 14.
`
`These cryptographic hash functions would thus assign any sequence of bits, based on
`
`content alone, with a substantially unique identifier. Lachman and Farber estimated that the odds
`
`of these hash functions producing the same identifier for two different sequences of bits (i.e., the
`
`“probability of collision”) would be about 1 in 2 to the 29th power. Lachman and Farber dubbed
`
`their content-based identifier a “True Name.” See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 15.
`
`Using a True Name, Lachman and Farber conceived various data structures and methods
`
`for managing data (each data item correlated with a single True Name) within a network – no
`
`matter the complexity of the data or the network. These data structures provide a key-map
`
`organization, allowing for a rapid identification of any particular data item anywhere in a network
`
`by comparing a True Name for the data item against other True Names for data items already in
`
`the network. In operation, managing data using True Names allows a user to determine the location
`
`of any data in a network, determine whether access is authorized, and selectively provide access
`
`to specific content not possible using the conventional naming arts. See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint,
`
`¶ 16.
`
`On April 11, 1995, Lachman and Farber filed their first patent application relating to the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, describing these and other ways in which content-based “True Names” elevated
`
`data-processing systems over conventional file-naming systems. The first True Name patent
`
`issued on November 2, 1999. The last of the Patents-in-Suit has expired, but the allegations in all
`
`the existing and future tag-along actions are directed to the time period before expiration of the
`
`last of the Patents-in-Suit. Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 17.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 10 of 22
`
`B.
`
`The Defendants’ Accused Systems and Associated Methods of Operation
`
`The defendants to the PersonalWeb infringement actions are alleged to operate websites
`
`that embody and use systems and methods that infringe the Patents-in-Suit. All the accused
`
`systems and methods of the defendant website operators are essentially the same because they all
`
`use the same webpage architecture, namely Ruby on Rails, and are alleged to provide their latest
`
`authorized webpage content to their users in the same manner, i.e., by using a system of
`
`notifications and authorizations to control the distribution of their respective content to determine
`
`what webpage content may be served from webpage servers and intermediate caches and what
`
`webpage content a user’s browser is authorized to use to render defendant’s webpages. Each
`
`defendant’s system, and its associated method of providing webpage content, is alleged to use
`
`CONDITIONAL GET requests with IF-NONE-MATCH headers and associated content-based E-
`
`Tag values for each file required to render a webpage on the defendant’s websites, including the
`
`index file for that webpage. In this manner, all of the defendants’ systems and associated methods
`
`are alleged to, using the Patents-in-Suit, force both intermediate cache servers and end point caches
`
`to check whether the website is still authorized to access the previously cached webpage files of a
`
`defendant, or whether it must access newly authorized content in rendering any of the defendant’s
`
`webpage. See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶ 19.
`
`More specifically, each defendant’s website is alleged to use a Ruby on Rails architecture
`
`to develop and compile its webpage files that are required to render a webpage, and to generate a
`
`fingerprint of the content of each of the files when compiled. Once each defendant’s webpage
`
`files have been compiled and are complete, each defendant is alleged to upload them to an Amazon
`
`S3 host system as objects having unique content-based E-Tag values that are used in the allegedly
`
`infringing systems and methods to authorize new content and re-authorize what old web page files
`
`may be used to render their web pages, and communicate those authorizations using the same parts
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 11 of 22
`
`of the internet protocol, namely HTTP 200 AND HTTP 304 messages. Each defendant is alleged
`
`to have contracted with the same third party to serve its content on its behalf using the same S3
`
`host system so that it may control its content distribution in an infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`See, e.g., Airbnb Complaint, ¶¶ 21, 22.
`
`C.
`
`The Pending Litigation
`
`In January 2018, PersonalWeb filed 54 single-defendant patent infringement actions
`
`relating to the Patents-in-Suit and the accused systems and methods that are currently pending.
`
`These consist of:
`
`(i)
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`(iv)
`
`(v)
`
`(vi)
`
`28 actions in the Northern District of California;
`
`twelve actions in the Southern District of New York;
`
`five actions in the District of Delaware;
`
`five actions in the Eastern District of Texas;
`
`three actions in the Eastern District of New York; and
`
`one action in the Central District of California.3
`
`Initial case management conferences have so far been scheduled in March 2018 by two
`
`judges for actions pending in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. While all of the
`
`cases in the Northern District of California are now assigned to Judge Freeman, Judge Davila of
`
`the Northern District of California has presided over several of PersonalWeb’s prior patent
`
`infringement actions. These prior actions over which Judge Davila presided asserted patents
`
`including the current Patents-in-Suit, and thus involved the same technology.
`
`
`3 Pursuant to MDL Rule 6.1(b) , a schedule of the pending actions is filed herewith.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 13 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 12 of 22
`
`The scheduling of these initial case management conferences has triggered a number of
`
`due dates such as the exchange of Initial Disclosures under Rule 26(f) and/or other early meetings
`
`of counsel in March 2018. In any event, discovery has not yet commenced in any of the actions.
`
`PersonalWeb expects to file more actions against other defendants in the months to come.
`
`Many of these actions, like the currently-pending actions, will allege infringement of the same
`
`claims in the same five Patents-in-Suit using the same accused systems and methods as described
`
`above, and will thus be tag-along actions subject to transfer for multi-district litigation along with
`
`the currently-pending actions.
`
`D.
`
`Prior Litigation Involving the Patents-in-Suit
`
`PersonalWeb has previously brought a number of patent infringement actions involving
`
`the Patents-in-Suit. Several of these were originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas but were
`
`subsequently moved to the Northern District of California and as noted above, were presided over
`
`by Judge Davila. Others remained in the Eastern District of Texas until they were closed.
`
`One of the prior actions over which Judge Davila presided–PersonalWeb Technologies,
`
`LLC et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-01266-EJD–involved the
`
`same ‘420 patent claim 166 which is now asserted against all the existing defendants, and is
`
`anticipated to be asserted against prospective defendants in future actions. The PersonalWeb v.
`
`IBM action progressed through discovery and pretrial, and only settled on the eve of trial. As such,
`
`Judge Davila and the Northern District of California became versed in issues such as claim
`
`construction, discovery issues and factual and legal issues that will arise in PersonalWeb’s current
`
`and future patent infringement actions.
`
`One of the prior actions in the Eastern District of Texas–PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`
`et al. v. Amazon.com. Inc. et al., Case No. 6:11-cv-00658-LED (“Amazon Texas action”)–involved
`
`Amazon’s S3 offerings, but different aspects of Amazon S3 than those used by the defendants in
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 14 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 13 of 22
`
`the presently pending PersonalWeb infringement actions. The Amazon Texas action was before
`
`Judge Leonard Davis, who has since retired, and the Amazon Texas action was dismissed in 2014.
`
`E.
`
`Amazon Declaratory Relief Action and Injunction Motion
`
`On February 5, 2018, Amazon filed a complaint against PersonalWeb and Level 3 for
`
`various declaratory judgments involving the Patents-in-Suit. Sherman Decl., ¶ 56, Exhibit 55
`
`(“Amazon complaint’). The Amazon complaint alleges that, due to the dismissal of the Amazon
`
`Texas action, claim preclusion and the so-called “Kessler Doctrine,” (Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S.
`
`285, 27 S.Ct. 611 51 L.E. 1065 (1907)_bar PersonalWeb’s claims in the PersonalWeb
`
`infringement actions. Amazon complaint, ¶ 3, Prayer for Relief ¶¶ A-B. In addition, Amazon seeks
`
`declaratory judgments that neither Amazon nor its technology, including Amazon S3, infringe any
`
`of patents in the PersonalWeb infringement actions. Amazon complaint, ¶¶ 50, 58, 66, 74, and 82,
`
`Prayer for Relief ¶¶ D-H. In Amazon’s motion filed on February 20, 2018 that seeks to enjoin
`
`PersonalWeb’s prosecution of the infringement actions, it asserts that “PersonalWeb’s complaints
`
`are identical, alleging infringement of the same patents and accusing the same Amazon technology
`
`at issue in this case … .” Sherman Decl., Exhibit 56, p. 10, lines 5-6.
`
`While PersonalWeb disagrees with Amazon that Amazon is entitled to the sought-after
`
`declaration, and disagrees that Amazon’s technology is the “sine qua non” of whether there is
`
`patent infringement or not, Amazon makes the argument for centralization/coordination, as it
`
`specifically alleges in its complaint that “[t]his is the only Court, and this is the only case, where
`
`this patent dispute should be litigated.” Amazon complaint, ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 15 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 14 of 22
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Legal Standard
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Panel may order MDL centralization of two or more civil
`
`cases pending in different judicial districts if: (i) the cases “involve[] one or more common
`
`questions of fact”; (ii) centralization will further “the convenience of the parties and witnesses”;
`
`and (iii) centralization “will promote the just and efficient conduct of [the] actions.” When
`
`balancing these three individual requirements for transfer, the Panel considers the overall statutory
`
`purpose to achieve efficiencies in the pretrial process. Thus, no individual requirement is
`
`determinative. In re Commonwealth Oil/Tesoro Petroleum Securities Litig., 458 F. Supp. 225,
`
`229 (J.P.M.L. 1978). As explained herein, the PersonalWeb patent litigation meets all three of the
`
`efficiency, commonality, and convenience factors.
`
`Centralization under § 1407 is especially appropriate when it will eliminate the possibility
`
`of overlapping or inconsistent rulings and prevent the duplication of discovery. See In re LTV
`
`Corp. Secs. Litig., 470 F. Supp. 859, 862 (J.P.M.L. 1979); In re Litig. Arising from Termination of
`
`Retirement Plan for Employees of Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 422 F. Supp. 287, 290 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
`
`Notably, in enacting § 1407, Congress specifically identified patent cases as among the type of
`
`disputes well-suited for MDL centralization. See H.R. Rep. No. 90-1130, at 3, reprinted in 1968
`
`U.S.C.C.A.N. 1898, 1900 (“The types of cases in which massive filings of multidistrict litigation
`
`are reasonably certain to occur include ... patent and trademark suits ....”).
`
`Consistent with the MDL statute’s purpose, the Panel has recently and repeatedly ordered
`
`MDL centralization in patent cases presenting common questions of infringement, validity,
`
`damages, and claim construction, recognizing the benefits of the efficient and consistent resolution
`
`of those common questions through coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. See, e.g. In
`
`re Nebivol (’040) Patent Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1355 (J.P.M.L. 2012); In re Maxim
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 592-14 Filed 03/20/20 Page 16 of 23
`Case MDL No. 2834 Document 1-1 Filed 02/27/18 Page 15 of 22
`
`Integrated Prods., Inc., Patent Litig., 867 F. Supp. 2d 1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2012); In re Bear
`
`Creek Techs., Inc. (’722) Patent Litig., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2012); In re Innovatio
`
`IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litig., 840 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1355 (J.P.M.L. 2011) ; In re Webvention
`
`LLC (’294) Patent Litig., 831 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2011). In re TransData, Inc. Smart
`
`Meters Patent Litig., 830 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1381-82 (J.P.M.L. 2011); In re Vehicle Tracking &
`
`Sec. Sys. (’844) Patent Litig., 807 F.Supp.2d 1380, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
`
`B.
`
`The PersonalWeb Actions Should Be Transferred to the Northern District of
`California and Pretrial Proceedings Consolidated
`
`1.
`
`The PersonalWeb Actions Present Common Questions of Fact and
`Law
`
`The PersonalWeb actions filed to date, as well as the anticipated actions to be filed, present
`
`numerous common questions of fact. First and foremost, the same five Patents-in-Suit are
`
`involved in all cases. The Panel has recognized that actions involving the same or overlapping
`
`patents are particularly well-suited for transfer and consolidation of pretrial proceedings because
`
`they, by their very nature, present many common questions of fact. For example, in In re
`
`PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. Patent Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2005), the Panel
`
`recognized that when overlapping patents are asserted in multiple actions, “[a]ll actions … can …
`
`be expected to share factual an