`
`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`CHIEH TUNG (CSB No. 318963)
`ctung@fenwick.com
`TJ FOX (CSB No. 322938)
`tfox@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 INERACTIVE, INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE: PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendants,
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`MOTION OF AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AND
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Dept:
`Judge:
`
`
`June 4, 2020
`
`9:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor
`Hon. Beth L. Freeman
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`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 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ---------------------------------1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES -------------------------------------------------1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
`
`BACKGROUND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
`A.
`PersonalWeb filed 85 lawsuits with no viable infringement theory ------------------2
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Each time its infringement theory failed, PersonalWeb changed its
`theory for the sole purpose of prolonging the case unreasonably with
`the hope of extracting settlements from the customer defendants --------------------3
`PersonalWeb opposed summary judgment of claim and Kessler
`preclusion by submitting sham declarations ---------------------------------------------5
`After the Court’s claim construction order foreclosed PersonalWeb’s
`infringement claims, PersonalWeb directed its expert to apply a
`different construction to prolong the case unreasonably -------------------------------5
`
`After PersonalWeb lost all claims on multiple grounds, it tried to
`unravel the MDL by claiming the Twitch case was no longer
`representative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
`
`III.
`
`PERSONALWEB’S CONDUCT MAKES THIS CASE EXCEPTIONAL ------------------8
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`PersonalWeb asserted baseless claims ----------------------------------------------------8
`The Court should find this case exceptional because PersonalWeb
`repeatedly changed positions ------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`The Court should find this case exceptional because PersonalWeb
`needlessly and unreasonably prolonged the case after the claim
`construction order foreclosed all infringement claims -------------------------------- 12
`
`The Court should find this case exceptional because PersonalWeb
`failed to follow the Court’s rules and was not candid with the Court -------------- 13
`
`THE COURT SHOULD AWARD AMAZON AND TWITCH THE ATTORNEY
`FEES AND COSTS THEY REASONABLY INCURRED IN THIS CASE -------------- 14
`
`CONCLUSION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`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 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`Cases:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s):
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`AdjustaCam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc.,
`861 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017) --------------------------------------------------------------- 10, 12
`
`Andersen Mfg. Inc. v. Wyers Prods. Grp., Inc.,
`No. 8-cv-0235-WJM-STV, 2019 WL 4007772 (D. Colo. Aug. 23, 2019) ------------------ 10
`
`Astrazeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd.,
`No. 07 CIV. 6790 (CM), 2010 WL 1375176 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010) --------------------- 1
`
`Blum v. Stenson,
`465 U.S. 886 (1984) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Bovino v. Levenger Co.,
`No. 14-CV-00122-RM-KLM, 2016 WL 1597501 (D. Colo. Apr. 21, 2016) --------------- 14
`
`Bywaters v. United States,
`670 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2012) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Cambrian Sci. Corp. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc.,
`79 F. Supp. 3d 1111 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`DataTern, Inc. v. MicroStrategy Inc.,
`C.A. No. 11-11970-FDS, 2018 WL 2694458 (D. Mass. June 5, 2018) ---------------------- 12
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,
`510 U.S. 517 (1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Sorensen Research & Dev. Trust,
`581 F. App’x 877 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................................................ 14
`
`Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 212 (D.D.C. 2015) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`Ketab Corp. v. Mesriani & Assocs., P.C.,
`734 F. App’x 401 (9th Cir. 2018) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 13
`
`Kilopass Tech., Inc. v. v. Sidense Corp,
`82 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ------------------------------------------------------- 14–15
`
`Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. C 13–159 CW, 2014 WL 4616847 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2014) ---------------------------- 9
`
`Lumen View Tech. LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 2016) -------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 14–15
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 545 (2014) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 8
`
`Oplus Techs., Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc.,
`782 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Pannonia Farms, Inc. v. Re/Max Int’l, Inc.,
`407 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2005) ------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
`
`Perdue v. Kenny A. ex. rel. Winn,
`559 U.S. 542 (2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. IBM Corp.,
`No. 6:12-cv-661 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016)------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Phigenix, Inc. v. Genentech Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-01238-BLF, 2019 WL 2579260 (N.D. Cal. June 24, 2019) ---------------------- 15
`
`Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG,
`318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
`
`Raylon, LLC v. Complus Data Innovations, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Prot. Servs., Inc.,
`858 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8, 15
`
`Source Search Techs., LLC v. Kayak Software Corp.,
`No. 11-3388(NLH/KMW), 2016 WL 1259961 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2016),
`aff’d, 697 F. App’x 695 (Fed. Cir. 2017) --------------------------------------------------------- 10
`
`Spitz Techs. Corp. v. Nobel Biocare USA LLC,
`No. SACV 17-00660 JVS (JCGx), 2018 WL 6164300 (C.D. Cal. June 7,
`2018) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
`
`ThermoLife Int’l, LLC v. Myogenix Corp.,
`No. 13cv651 JLS (MDD), 2017 WL 1235766 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) --------------------- 10
`
`TNS Media Research LLC v. Tivo Research & Analytics, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-4039 (KBF), 2018 WL 2277836 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2018) ---------------------- 12
`
`Statutes & Rules:
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1-2, 8, 14
`
` Civil L.R. 5-1(i)-(j) ....................................................................................................................... 14
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on June 4, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., at the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, in the
`
`courtroom of the Honorable Beth L. Freeman, Amazon.com, Inc., and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Amazon”) and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (“Twitch”) will and hereby do move the
`Court under 35 U.S.C. § 285, Rule 54 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules 54-1
`
`through 54-5, for an order granting Amazon and Twitch their reasonable attorney fees and non-
`
`taxable costs.
`Amazon and Twitch base their motion on this notice, the accompanying memorandum of
`
`points and authorities, the supporting declaration of Todd R. Gregorian, all pleadings and
`
`documents on file in this action, and such other materials or argument as the Court may consider.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`The Court should award Amazon and Twitch the significant attorney’s fees and non-taxable
`expenses they incurred defending themselves and more than 80 other defendants from
`
`PersonalWeb’s litigation abuse. Section 285 empowers the Court to grant this relief not merely to
`
`assist aggrieved litigants but to deter those who cavalierly “abuse[] the litigation process and
`needlessly consume the scarce time of the court.” Astrazeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., No.
`
`07 CIV. 6790 (CM), 2010 WL 1375176, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010). To do so, the Court must
`
`find only that this case “stands out from others”—either because the claims were weak or because
`it was litigated unreasonably. Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545,
`
`554 (2014).
`
`Both forms of abuse occurred in this case. PersonalWeb never had a viable claim for relief.
`Eight years ago, PersonalWeb sued Amazon and Amazon’s customer Dropbox in Texas, alleging
`
`that Amazon S3 infringed its patents. PersonalWeb had no valid claim in that case: it had no choice
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`but to dismiss its complaint with prejudice after claim construction. Four years after that case
`ended, PersonalWeb took another run at extracting settlements with its now expired patents in a
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`massive nationwide litigation campaign against scores of Amazon customers, accusing their use of
`
`the same Amazon S3 service of infringing the same PersonalWeb patents. That alone should
`subject PersonalWeb to a substantial fee award.
`
`But PersonalWeb’s unreasonable conduct went much further. PersonalWeb’s infringement
`
`theory was refuted by even a cursory review of the publicly available HTTP specification. And
`rather than concede the defects in its case once exposed, PersonalWeb bobbed and weaved—it
`
`repeatedly mischaracterized its infringement theories, submitted sham declarations, and substituted
`
`its own claim constructions for the Court’s—all in the hope of ultimately coercing settlements from
`Amazon customers. This is a stand-out case by any measure.
`
`Congress empowered the Court through § 285 to deter precisely this sort of litigation abuse.
`
`The Court may do so here by granting this motion.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`PersonalWeb filed 85 lawsuits with no viable infringement theory.
`A.
`PersonalWeb sued Amazon and its customer Dropbox eight years ago in the Eastern District
`of Texas, alleging infringement by Amazon S3, and lost. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com
`
`Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00658 (E.D. Tex. Filed Dec. 8, 2011). PersonalWeb dismissed its claims with
`
`prejudice after it received the court’s claim construction, and the court entered final judgment.
`(Dkts. 315-7; 315-8.)
`
`Almost four years after the Texas case ended, PersonalWeb hired new counsel and
`
`implemented a new plan to extract settlements from a vast array of innocent companies whose only
`common “fault” was the use of Amazon S3 service to serve web content efficiently using the HTTP
`
`protocol, just like thousands of other companies and organizations. Starting in January 2018,
`
`PersonalWeb filed 85 lawsuits against different Amazon customers around the country, alleging
`that their use of the same Amazon S3 service infringed the same patents at issue in the Texas case.
`
`(See Dkt. 295.) These claims were plainly barred by the earlier judgment, as this Court ultimately
`
`ruled. (Dkts. 315, 394, 411.)
`Not only were these suits barred, they were baseless. The patents claim a method of naming
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`a computer file with a name created from the contents of the file and using that name to check
`
`whether a user has a license to access the file. But in these cases, PersonalWeb accused basic
`aspects of the HTTP protocol—the publicly available standard that governs how web browsers and
`
`web servers communicate—a technology that has nothing to do with checking for valid licenses or
`
`permitting access to content. (Dkt. 540-6 (“Weissman Report”) ¶¶ 26, 94; see Dkt. 54 at 33:11-
`19.) As a result, PersonalWeb never had a basis to allege that any of the scores of defendants met
`
`the key elements of the asserted claims, including the requirements to determine whether content
`
`is unauthorized or unlicensed, and, if so, not permitting a user to access that content. (Weissman
`Report ¶ 84.) PersonalWeb publicly announced that it spent a year “studying” the alleged
`
`widespread infringement of the patents by the defendants before filing. (See Gregorian Decl. Ex.
`
`12.) It chose to bring these baseless claims anyway.
`
`B.
`
`Each time its infringement theory failed, PersonalWeb changed its theory for
`the sole purpose of prolonging the case unreasonably with the hope of
`extracting settlements from the customer defendants.
`Throughout this multi-year litigation, PersonalWeb repeatedly flip-flopped positions,
`telling the court whatever was expedient to keep its cases alive at that moment. PersonalWeb
`
`sought to centralize all the customer cases in an MDL. (See Gregorian Decl. Exs. 13, 15 (In re
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC & Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC Patent Litig., MDL No. 2834 (“MDL
`Action”), Dkts. 1-1, 133).) To win centralization, PersonalWeb told the JPML that all its
`
`infringement claims were based on the customer defendants’ use of Amazon S3:
`
`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.
`
`(Id., Dkt. 1-1 at 7; see also id. at 6 (“Once each defendant’s webpage files have been compiled . . .
`
`each defendant is alleged to upload them to an Amazon S3 host system as objects . . . .”), 8-9.
`
`PersonalWeb quickly abandoned this core position to try to avoid Amazon’s declaratory
`judgment suit and Amazon’s motion to enjoin PersonalWeb from proceeding against Amazon’s
`
`customers. PersonalWeb told this Court that its claims were really focused on Ruby on Rails, not
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`Amazon S3. (Amazon.com, Inc. v. Personal Web Techs., LLC, No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF (“DJ
`
`Action”), Dkt. 37 at 1; id., Dkt. 54 at 44:1-2 (“PersonalWeb’s theory of infringement revolves
`around Ruby on Rails not S3”); see also Gregorian Decl. Ex. 14 (MDL Action, May 31, 2018
`
`Hearing Transcript, Dkt. 136) at 3:23-25.) PersonalWeb’s surprise pivot would then mature into a
`
`full blown 180-degree reversal when it filed its motion to dismiss Amazon’s declaratory judgment
`complaint and argued that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because there was no dispute
`
`about infringement by Amazon S3. (DJ Action, Dkt. 43.)
`
`Unsurprisingly, this reversal did not escape the attention of the Court. (See Dkt. 54 at 10:10-
`11 (“And I am not satisfied that you have adequately alleged the role that Ruby on Rails plays, or
`
`that you even can . . . .”); 11:6-8 (“But you barely mention Ruby on Rails. You don’t map it on to
`
`the claimed elements at all. It’s not even clear that it maps on to all of the claims that you’ve
`asserted.”).) And yet the Court was accommodating, suggesting that it would stay the customer
`
`cases pending the resolution of the subject matter jurisdiction dispute raised by PersonalWeb’s
`
`motion to dismiss. (Id. 25:13-20.)
`But rather than press its new position, PersonalWeb flip-flopped back, withdrawing its
`
`baseless motion (DJ Action, Dkt. 59) and re-asserting its S3 infringement theory with three new
`
`purported variants. To try to keep the customer cases in play, PersonalWeb announced that it was
`really accusing four different categories of “website operator activity,” including Amazon S3. (See
`
`Dkt. 96, Joint Case Management Statement at 5:19-25; see also Dkt. 121 at 25:22-25; 60:25-61:6.)
`
`These “different” theories all collapsed into the same nonsense HTTP theory, which the Court
`rightly and completely rejected at summary judgment. On September 26, 2018, the Court ordered
`
`the customer cases stayed while Amazon’s DJ Action proceeded. (Dkt. 157; Dkt. 300 at 28:18-
`
`29:11.) The Court designated the Twitch case as representative of the customer cases and allowed
`it to proceed as well, based on PersonalWeb’s express representation that the Twitch case included
`
`all four of its infringement theories. (Dkt. 313; see also Dkt. 96 at 5-6; Dkt. 96-1 (Appendix A);
`
`Dkt. 303.)
`Knowing that its infringement claims against Amazon S3 were barred by the final judgment
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`in its first suit against Amazon, PersonalWeb concocted a new claim against CloudFront, Amazon’s
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`content delivery network. PersonalWeb served infringement contentions that accused CloudFront
`
`and vaguely described uses of CloudFront “in combination” with Amazon S3. (See Dkt. 315-13.)
`None of PersonalWeb’s pleadings, original or amended, had mentioned, much less asserted any
`
`claims against, CloudFront.
`
`C.
`
`PersonalWeb opposed summary judgment of claim and Kessler preclusion by
`submitting sham declarations.
`Amazon moved for summary judgment that PersonalWeb’s claims against S3 were barred
`by PersonalWeb’s prior litigation against Amazon in Texas. (Dkt. 315.) To avoid summary
`
`judgment, PersonalWeb submitted sham declarations of its counsel Lawrence Hadley and its
`
`Chairman Kevin Bermeister that attempted to manufacture a dispute. Mr. Hadley testified that the
`parties to the Texas case all “recognized” that PersonalWeb retained the right to assert infringement
`
`claims involving S3 in the future, notwithstanding that the dismissal filed with the Texas court said
`
`the opposite. And both witnesses tried to testify, contrary to the pleadings and other records from
`the Texas case, that PersonalWeb had not accused Amazon S3 of infringement but rather only the
`
`multipart upload feature within S3. (Hadley Decl. & Bermeister Decl., Dkts. 335, 337.) Naturally,
`
`the Court found no triable issue and was “troubled” by Mr. Hadley’s “uncorroborated and self-
`serving” declaration. (Dkt 394 at 18:12-13; see also Dkt. 376 at 53:19-22 (“Mr. Hadley’s
`
`declaration is troubling to me because I actually think it’s contrary to the evidence from his own
`
`case.”).)
`
`On March 13, 2019, this Court granted Amazon’s motion as to all claims based on the use
`
`or operation of any feature of S3. (Dkt. 394.) The Court then dismissed with prejudice eight
`
`customer cases which alleged infringement based on S3 only. (Dkt. 411.)
`
`D.
`
`After the Court’s claim construction order foreclosed PersonalWeb’s
`infringement claims, PersonalWeb directed its expert to apply a different
`construction to prolong the case unreasonably.
`On May 24, 2019, the Court conducted the claim construction hearing. (See Dkt. 437.)
`Faced with the possibility of unfavorable rulings, PersonalWeb sought once again to change its
`
`infringement theories—this time by a motion to amend its infringement contentions. (See Dkt.
`
`448.) The Magistrate Judge denied the motion. (Dkt. 481.) The proposed amendment raised issues
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`that PersonalWeb had litigated in its past cases but simply failed to address in its infringement
`
`contentions until it thought it was likely to lose. (Dkt. 476 at 2:23-25; 12:16-18.) When pressed
`on this by the Court, PersonalWeb actually argued that it would be somehow “unreasonable” to
`
`expect a party to be aware of its own past litigation where it had sued so many defendants on the
`
`same patents. (See id. at 5:3-7; 12:12-13:19.) The Court disagreed with this cavalier view and
`found instead that PersonalWeb had a “heightened” responsibility to consider past cases, and that
`
`PersonalWeb’s failure to do so showed a lack of diligence. (Dkt. 481 at 9-11.)
`
`On August 16, 2019, the Court issued its claim construction order. (Dkt. 485.) The Court
`
`construed the claim term “unauthorized or unlicensed” as “not compliant with a valid license” and
`
`the claim term “authorization” as “a valid license.” (Dkt. 485 at 12, 33.) Later that day, counsel
`
`for Amazon and Twitch sent PersonalWeb’s counsel a letter informing them that PersonalWeb no
`longer had viable claims and that any continued litigation lacked a Rule 11 basis and was subject
`
`to sanctions. (See Dkt. 507-2.) In response, PersonalWeb offered to dismiss only one of the five
`
`asserted patents. (Dkt. 507-3.)
`PersonalWeb then directed its expert, Mr. Erik de la Iglesia, to substitute PersonalWeb’s
`
`preferred constructions for the Court’s. (See Dkt. 543-1.) Instead of the Court’s construction
`
`“compliant with a valid license,” Mr. de La Iglesia’s expert report used “compliant with valid rights
`to content.” Instead of the Court’s construction “a valid license,” he used “valid rights to content.”
`
`(Id. ¶ 64.) Based on these new constructions, Mr. de la Iglesia concluded that the Twitch website
`
`infringes because, using the HTTP protocol, Twitch’s website checks whether the user has the
`current version of a file in her browser cache, which he deemed to be analogous to checking a
`
`license. (Id. ¶ 103.)
`
`Knowing it had violated the claim construction order, PersonalWeb then moved to “clarify”
`it, asking the Court to replace its constructions with the ones PersonalWeb’s expert had applied.
`
`(See Dkt. 507 at 2.) At the hearing, the Court admonished PersonalWeb for once again raising new
`
`issues that could and should have been vetted before even filing these cases:
`
`You didn’t raise this. It can’t come as a surprise to you that by, in this binary choice
`that I had of your plain and ordinary meaning or Amazon’s proposal, that when you
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`lost that, that you would need something more. You’ve utterly—I mean, I just don’t
`even know what you’re talking about. I don’t see anything to clarify because I
`chose a term that you never suggested was unclear. . . . And I don’t know of any
`authority for the court to construe a term in its own construction. I’ve never heard
`of that before.
`
`
`(Dkt. 519 at 12:16-13:4; see also id. 6:18-24; 10:9-25; 12:7-14:11; 16:11-14.)
`The Court denied the motion on October 1, 2019. (Dkt. 537.) The next day, PersonalWeb
`
`requested entry of partial judgment of non-infringement under the Court’s claim construction.
`(Dkt. 538.) But this was another bad faith gambit that Amazon would not accept and that the Court
`
`saw through. PersonalWeb proposed a judgment that would secure advantages for itself while
`
`creating disorder in the MDL. Specifically, PersonalWeb wanted the Court to enter judgment on
`only a single claim construction and only in the Amazon case, to avoid losing on the additional
`
`grounds raised in Amazon’s summary judgment motion. (Id. at 3-4; Dkt. 541.) PersonalWeb also
`
`asked the Court to dismiss the ’791 patent without prejudice, leaving it free to reassert that patent
`in a new lawsuit. (Dkt. 538 at 1.) The Court denied PersonalWeb’s motion. (Dkt. 559.) It held
`
`that there was no “valid reason to deprive Amazon of a ruling on its summary judgment motion”
`
`and that “decoupling” the Amazon and Twitch cases would be “contrary to the efficiencies desired
`by the parties and the Court throughout this MDL.” (Id. at 3.)
`
`E.
`
`After PersonalWeb lost all claims on multiple grounds, it tried to unravel the
`MDL by claiming the Twitch case was no longer representative.
`On October 4, 2019, Amazon and Twitch moved for summary judgment of non-
`
`infringement for all asserted patents. (Dkts. 541, 542.) PersonalWeb’s opposition included a
`declaration from its expert with new opinions that it had not disclosed in his report. (Dkt. 551-1;
`
`see also Dkt 562 at 7.)
`
`The Court struck PersonalWeb’s untimely expert declaration and granted summary
`judgment for Amazon and Twitch on all claims on multiple independent grounds: (1) there is no
`
`determination of compliance with a valid license (’310 and ’420 patents); (2) there is no “permitting
`
`content to be provided or accessed” (’442, ’310 and ’420 patents); (3) there is no “determining
`whether a copy of the data file is present using the name” (’442 patent); and (4) there is no
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`7
`
`“comparison to a plurality of identifiers” (’420 patent). (Dkt. 578; see also Dkt. 573 at 51:13-22;
`CASE NOS. 5:18-md-02834-BLF,
`5:18-cv-00767-BLF, and
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`AMAZON AND TWITCH MOTION FOR
`ATTORNEY FEES
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 593 Filed 03/20/20 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`83:10-14; 91:8-10.) PersonalWeb had already totally abandoned (but not dismissed) its claims for
`
`infringement of the ’544 and ’791 patents by failing to include them in its expert report, and so the
`Court awarded summary judgment on these as well. (Dkt. 578 at 11-12.)
`
`After all this, PersonalWeb still asked for a do-over. PersonalWeb induced the Court to
`
`structure the entire MDL on the premise that “a verdict against PersonalWeb that no infringement
`was found” in the Twitch case would mean that “none of the customer cases could go forward.”
`
`(See Dkt. 300 at 8:17-18; 6:17-22.) As soon as it lost, PersonalWeb reneged. It claimed that the
`
`Twitch case was no longer representative of the customer cases, and that PersonalWeb should be
`permitted to pursue some of those cases separately in the event of a remand following appeal. (Dkt.
`
`584 at 4-6, 8.)
`
`III.
`
`PERSONALWEB’S CONDUCT MAKES THIS CASE EXCEPTIONAL
`The Patent Act provides that the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney
`
`fees to the prevailing party. 35 U.S.C. § 285. An exceptional case is simply one that “stands out
`
`from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both
`the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was
`
`litigated.” Octane Fitness, 572 U.S. at 554. Factors relevant to this inquiry include “frivolousness,
`
`motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and
`the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.”
`
`Id. n.6 (adopting factors considered in Copyright Act fee awards from Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510
`
`U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994)). In sum, “Section 285 discourages certain ‘exceptional’ conduct by
`imposing the cost of bad decisions on the decision maker.” Cambrian Sci. Corp. v. Cox Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., 79 F. Supp. 3d 1111, 1114 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
`
`PersonalWeb asserted baseless claims.
`A.
`A