Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 29
`Case 5:18—md-02834-BLF Document 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 29
`
`EXHIBIT (cid:23)
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 29
`
`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
`PHILLIP J. HAACK (CSB No. 262060)
`phaack@fenwick.com
`RAVI R. RANGANATH (CSB No. 272981)
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`CHIEH TUNG (CSB No. 318963)
`ctung@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone:
`650.988.8500
`Facsimile:
`650.938.5200
`Counsel for Defendant
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`IN RE PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC, ET AL., PATENT LITIGATION
`
`Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. TO
`PERSONALWEB’S SECOND SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 9-19)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Twitch Interactive,
`Inc. (hereafter, “Twitch”), by and through their counsel, hereby objects and responds to the Second
`Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 9-19) of PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level 3
`Communications, LLC (collectively “PersonalWeb”) as follows:
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 29
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`The following general objections are stated with respect to each and every interrogatory
`whether or not specifically identified in response thereto. To the extent any of these general
`objections are not raised in any particular response, Twitch does not waive those objections.
`1.
`Twitch objects to each and every instruction and interrogatory to the extent that it
`seeks to impose duties beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
`Rules of this district. Twitch’s response shall be made only in accordance with the applicable
`rule(s).
`Twitch objects to the definitions of “You,” “Your,” or “Twitch” because it seeks to
`2.
`broaden the scope of allowable discovery and seeks information that is not within the possession,
`custody, or control of Twitch, but is in the possession of third-parties and non-parties to this lawsuit.
`Twitch further objects to the definition of these terms to the extent it includes Twitch’s attorneys
`and patent agents and seeks privileged and attorney-work product information. Twitch will
`interpret these terms as referring to Twitch Interactive, Inc. only.
`3.
`Twitch objects to the definition of the term “Relevant Time Period” as overbroad,
`unduly burdensome, vague and ambiguous, not proportional to the needs of the case, exceeding
`the boundaries of discoverable information, and/or seeking information that is not relevant to any
`claim or defense in this action. Twitch will interpret this term as referring to September 14, 2012
`to December 25, 2016.
`4.
`Twitch objects to the definition of “Fingerprint” as vague and ambiguous, overly
`broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, as it does not identify the
`item or feature with specificity. Twitch will interpret this term as a Ruby on Rails fingerprint or a
`similar value that is calculated via a hash algorithm and that renders the name of a file dependent
`on the contents of the file.
`5.
`Twitch objects to the definition of “Cache-Busting” as vague, ambiguous, overly
`broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case as it does not identify the
`item or feature with specificity, and PersonalWeb does not explain what is meant by “valid”
`content.
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`2
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 29
`
`Twitch objects to the definition of the term “’544 patent” as overbroad, unduly
`6.
`burdensome, exceeding the boundaries of discoverable information, failing to describe the
`information sought with the required reasonable particularity, and/or seeking information that is
`not relevant to any claim or defense in this action to the extent that it includes “U.S. Patent No.
`7,954,544.” PersonalWeb has not alleged infringement of this patent. Twitch will interpret this
`term as referring only to U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544.
`7.
`Twitch objects to the definition of the term “patents-in-suit” as overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, exceeding the boundaries of discoverable information, failing to describe the
`information sought with the required reasonable particularity, and/or seeking information that is
`not relevant to any claim or defense in this action to the extent that it includes U.S. Patent No.
`7,954,544. Twitch will interpret this term as referring only to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791,
`6,928,442, 7,802,310, 7,945,544, and 8,099,420.
`8.
`Twitch objects to the definition of the term “asserted claims” as overbroad, unduly
`burdensome, vague, ambiguous, exceeding the boundaries of discoverable information, failing to
`describe the information sought with the required reasonable particularity, and/or seeking
`information that is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action to the extent it includes any
`products, systems, software or services that are not specifically accused and charted in
`PersonalWeb’s Disclosures Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2 (“PersonalWeb’s
`Infringement Contentions”) served to Twitch on December 22, 2018. Twitch will interpret
`“Accused Products” to include only those aspects of Twitch products, systems, software and/or
`services specifically accused and charted in PersonalWeb’s Infringement Contentions. Twitch
`further objects to each and every interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague,
`ambiguous, exceeding the boundaries of discoverable information, failing to describe the
`information sought with the required reasonable particularity, and/or seeking information that is
`not relevant to any claim or defense in this action to the extent that they seek information about
`aspects of Twitch products, systems, software and/or services not specifically accused in
`PersonalWeb’s Infringement Contentions. Twitch will only provide a witness or witnesses for
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`3
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 29
`
`examination about those aspects of Twitch products, systems, software and/or services
`specifically accused and charted in PersonalWeb’s Infringement Contentions.
`9.
`Twitch objects to the definition of “S3 System” as vague and ambiguous, overly
`broad, unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case, as it does not identify
`the products, services, or features with specificity. Twitch will interpret this term as Simple
`Storage Service (S3).
`10.
`Twitch objects to this interrogatory as seeking information that is not relevant to any
`claim or defense in this action. CloudFront is not accused in PersonalWeb’s complaint against
`Twitch, in PersonalWeb’s Infringement Contentions to Twitch, or in any of the complaints against
`Amazon’s customers. Moreover, PersonalWeb does not have standing to bring claims against
`CloudFront. (See 5:18-md-02834 Dkts. 413, 453.) To the extent Twitch provides discovery on
`CloudFront, it does so explicitly without waiver of this objection.
`11.
`Twitch objects to each and every definition and interrogatory as overly broad,
`unduly burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case because they are not limited to a
`specific geographic area. Twitch will only provide discovery with respect to the United States.
`12.
`Twitch objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information
`equally available to PersonalWeb in the public domain or that is already in the possession, custody,
`or control of PersonalWeb.
`13.
`Twitch objects to these interrogatories to the extent that they seek information that
`is in the possession, custody, or control of parties over whom Twitch has no control.
`14.
`Twitch objects to each and every instruction, definition, and interrogatory to the
`extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the
`attorney work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, or protection, as
`provided by any applicable law. Twitch does not intend to disclose such privileged or protected
`information. Twitch’s inadvertent disclosure of any such information should not be deemed a
`waiver of any privilege, immunity, or protection, and Twitch expressly reserves the right to object
`to the introduction at trial or to any other use of such information that may be inadvertently
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`4
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 29
`
`disclosed. Twitch objects to discovery of attorney-client privileged communications after the filing
`of this lawsuit and to discovery of work-product materials generated after the filing of this lawsuit.
`15.
`Twitch objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks discovery on Amazon S3.
`PersonalWeb is barred from asserting any claim of infringement in any case based on the use or
`operation of Amazon S3. (See 5:18-md-02834, Dkt. No. 381.) As such, any discovery
`concerning S3 is outside the scope of discovery in this case. To the extent Twitch provides
`discovery on S3, it does so explicitly without waiver of this objection.
`16.
`The responses given herein shall not be deemed to waive any claim of privilege or
`immunity Twitch may have as to any response, document, or thing, or any question or right of
`objection as to authenticity, competency, relevancy, materiality, admissibility, or any other
`objection Twitch may have as to a demand for further response to these or other requests, or to any
`objection to the use of such information, documents, or things in any other proceeding filed after
`the production of such information or documents.
`17.
`Discovery in this matter is ongoing and Twitch reserves the right to revise or
`supplement any response herein.
`18.
`These General Objections are applicable to and are incorporated in each specific
`response herein without further reference. The inclusion of specific objection(s) in response to any
`interrogatories shall not be construed as a waiver of such objection(s), or any of these objections,
`in any other response.
`
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
`INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`For each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit, describe in detail all facts and bases
`why You contend Your Accused Instrumentality does not infringe, whether literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents. Include in Your answer the identity of all persons having knowledge of
`such facts and bases and all documents reflecting such facts and bases.
`RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 9:
`Twitch incorporates by reference its General Objections as if fully set forth herein. Twitch
`objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`5
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 29
`
`privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, joint defense privilege, common interest exception, duty
`of confidentiality, or any other applicable privilege, immunity, doctrine or protection. Twitch
`objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks to impose upon Twitch obligations broader than,
`different from, or in addition to those obligations imposed by the Federal Rules, the Local Rules,
`case law, or any applicable order of the Court.
`Twitch objects to the terms “You,” “Your,” and “accused instrumentality” on the basis
`identified in the General Objections above and incorporates those bases herein. Twitch will
`interpret “You” and “Your” as Twitch Interactive, Inc. only.
`Twitch objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and irrelevant because it is not limited to
`a particular time period and/or geographic area relevant to the case.
`Twitch objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks not facts or contentions in this
`case, but a legal opinion or legal conclusion.
`Twitch further objects to this interrogatory as premature as expert discovery has not yet
`begun. Nothing in this response limits any of Twitch’s forthcoming expert opinions.
`Twitch objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it calls for Twitch’s position related to
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. PersonalWeb has not identified any infringement
`theory under the doctrine of equivalents. The sole statement regarding the doctrine of equivalents
`in PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions is a conclusory assertion that “PersonalWeb also
`believes that any claim element not found to be literally present in the Accused Instrumentality
`would be present under the doctrine of equivalents.” This is insufficient to state a theory of
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
`Subject to and without waiving any objections, Twitch responds as follows:
`PersonalWeb has not and cannot meet its burden to show infringement. The standard HTTP
`caching mechanisms used by Twitch’s website do not require authorization or licensing,1 or
`selectively permit access2 to the accused static content, as required by the claims. PersonalWeb
`
`1 For example, this applies to “unauthorized or unlicensed” (’310, claim 20); “authorized” /
`“unauthorized” / “authorization” (’310 patent, claims 20, 69; ’442 patent, claims 10, 11; ’420
`patent, claims 25, 66); “unauthorized copy or an unlicensed copy” (’442 patent, claim 10);
`“licensed” / “unlicensed” (’310 patent, claim 20; ’442 patent, claim 10).
`2 For example, this applies to “selectively permit” (’420, claim 166); “selectively allowing a
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`6
`
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 8 of 29
`
`accuses the use of ETags in “conditional” HTTP GET requests (i.e., GET requests including an If-
`None-Match header) to a requested file or HTTP resource found at a given URL (uniform resource
`locator). ETags are not used to control access to content or to determine whether content is licensed.
`ETags as used in the accused conditional GET requests are used by an HTTP client, such as a web
`browser, to determine whether already it has the current version of a requested file stored in its
`cache once that file is no longer fresh. That determination is anonymous. No authorization or
`content license is checked, and no user requesting a file is denied access to it. If the ETag of the
`cached file from that URL matches the ETag of the latest version of the file found at that URL on
`the server, the client receives a confirmation that the version of the file is the current one. If the
`ETag for the current version of the requested file does not match the ETag specified in the If-None-
`Match header, the web server sends an HTTP 200 response along with the current version of the
`file. Nothing prevents access to the prior version of the file.
`Further, the “content dependent name”3 in the accused conditional GET requests is not a
`name for the requested file or HTTP resource, and is not used to locate and access those data items.
`On the Web, uniform resource locators (URLs) with user-provided file names and paths are used
`to locate and access files, not ETags. An ETag is neither necessary nor sufficient to access an
`HTTP resource.
`Moreover, even if the alleged “content dependent name” 4 in the accused conditional GET
`
`copy of the particular sequence of bits to be provided to or accessed by or from at least one of the
`computers in a network of computers” (’420, claim 25); “the first device (A) permitting the content
`to be provided to or accessed by the at least one other computer if it is not determined that the
`content is unauthorized or unlicensed, otherwise, (B) if it is determined that the content is
`unauthorized or unlicensed, not permitting the content to be provided to or accessed by the at least
`one other computer” (’310, claim 20); “based on whether or not it is determined that access to the
`data item is authorized or unauthorized, to allow the data item to be provided to or accessed by the
`second computer if it is not determined that access to the data item is unauthorized” (’310, claim
`69).
`3 For example, this applies to “Con(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:4136)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:83)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:71)(cid:72)(cid:81)(cid:87)(cid:3)(cid:81)(cid:68)(cid:80)(cid:72)(cid:3)(cid:82)(cid:73)(cid:3)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:83)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:87)(cid:76)(cid:70)(cid:88)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:71)(cid:68)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:3)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:72)(cid:80)(cid:180)(cid:3)(cid:11)(cid:182)(cid:22)(cid:20)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:3)(cid:70)(cid:79)(cid:68)(cid:76)(cid:80)(cid:3)
`20), “content-dependent name for the data item” (’310, claim 69); “content dependent name for a
`particular sequence of bits” (’420 patent, claim 25); “Name for a data file” (’442 patent, claim 10);
`“content-dependent digital identifier” (’420 patent, claim 166); “content-dependent digital
`identifiers for said particular data item” (’420 patent, claim 166); “digital key for the particular file”
`/ “file key for each particular file” (’544 patent, claims 46, 52).
`4 For example, this applies to “the request including at least a content dependent name of a
`particular data item” (’310, claim 20); “the request including at least a content dependent name for
`the data item” (’310 patent, 69).
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`
`7
`
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 9 of 29
`
`requests was a name, it is not a name for the data item that is requested as the claims require. If the
`ETag in the request is the same as the ETag value for the current version of an HTTP resource, the
`resource is not retrieved. Data is returned in response to a conditional HTTP GET request only
`when the ETag value specified in an If-None-Match header is different from the ETag value for the
`current file or HTTP resource. That is, not only is an ETag value not a name, but the request is for
`a file with a different ETag value—anything but the one included in the request.
`Moreover, PersonalWeb cannot show that the “content dependent name” is generated by
`processing only the data in the data item, as required by the claims.5 As shown at least by the
`example “seed string” identified in PersonalWeb’s complaint, the alleged content dependent name
`of certain accused items is generated in part by processing data that is not part of or dependent on
`the contents of a file or data item.
`With respect to PersonalWeb’s allegation of infringement as to the ’544 patent, the alleged
`“part”6 identified by PersonalWeb in its infringement contentions is not a segment or portion of a
`file or data item as required by the claims. PersonalWeb accuses “parts” as separate “asset files”
`(e.g., images) that are not a part of the “webpage base file” that it identifies as the “particular file”
`of the claim. The purported “parts”—the asset files—are not part of the “webpage base file.”
`Accordingly, for U.S. Patent No. 6,928,442, at least the following claim elements are
`missing from the aspects of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in PersonalWeb’s infringement
`contentions: “obtaining a name for a data file, the name being based at least in part on a given
`function of the data, wherein the data used by the function comprises the contents of the particular
`
`5 This also applies to “based at least in part on a function of at least some of the data comprising
`the particular data item” (’310 patent, claim 20); “based at least in part on a function of the data in
`the data item, wherein the data used by the function to determine the content dependent name
`comprises at least some of the contents of the data item” (’310 patent, claim 69); “based at least in
`part on a given function of the data, wherein the data used by the function comprises the contents
`of the particular file” (’442 patent, claim 10); “at least in part by applying a particular function to
`at least some of the particular sequence of bits” (’420 patent, claim 25); “based at least in part on a
`given function of at least some of the bits in the particular sequence of bits” (’420 patent, claim
`166); “being based on a first function of the contents of the specific part” (’544 patent, claim 46);
`“wherein the particular digital key for the particular file is determined using a second function of
`the one or more of part values of said first one or more parts” (’544 patent, claim 46); “the file key
`for each particular file being based on a second hash function of the part values of the one or more
`parts of that file” (’544 patent, claim 52).
`6 For example, this applies to “part” (’544 patent claims 46, 52).
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 10 of 29
`
`file”; “determining, using at least the name, whether a copy of the data file is present on at least
`one of said computers”; “determining whether a copy of the data file that is present on a at least
`one of said computers is an unauthorized copy or an unlicensed copy of the data file”; and “allowing
`the file to be provided from one of the computers having an authorized or licensed copy of the file.”
`For U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310, at least the following claim elements are missing from the
`aspects of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions:
`“the request including at least a content-dependent name of a particular data item, the content-
`dependent name being based at least in part on a function of at least some of the data comprising
`the particular data item, wherein the function comprises a message digest function or a hash
`function, and wherein two identical data items will have the same content-dependent name”; “based
`at least in part on said content-dependent name of said particular data item, the first device (A)
`permitting the content to be provided to or accessed by the at least one other computer if it is not
`determined that the content is unauthorized or unlicensed, otherwise, (B) if it is determined that the
`content is unauthorized or unlicensed, not permitting the content to be provided to or accessed by
`the at least one other computer”; “to receive at a first computer, from a second computer, a request
`regarding a data item said request including at least a content-dependent name for the data item,
`the content-dependent name being based at least in part on a function of the data in the data item,
`wherein the data used by the function to determine the content-dependent name comprises at least
`some of the contents of the data item, wherein the function that was used is a message digest
`function or a hash function, and wherein two identical data items will have the same content-
`dependent name”; and “in response to said request: (i) to cause the content-dependent name of the
`data item to be compared to a plurality of values; and (ii) to determine if access to the data item is
`authorized or unauthorized based on whether or not the content-dependent name corresponds to at
`least one of said plurality of values, and (iii) based on whether or not it is determined that access to
`the data item is authorized or unauthorized, to allow the data item to be provided to or accessed by
`the second computer if it is not determined that access to the data item is unauthorized.”
`For U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544, at least the following claim elements are missing from the
`aspects of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions:
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`9
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 11 of 29
`
`“determining a particular digital key for the particular file, wherein the particular file comprises a
`first one or more parts, each part of said first one or more parts having a corresponding part value,
`the part value of each specific part of said first one or more parts being based on a first function of
`the contents of the specific part, wherein two identical parts will have the same part value as
`determined by the first function, and wherein the particular digital key for the particular file is
`determined using a second function of the one or more of part values of said first one or more
`parts”; “adding the particular digital key of the particular file to a database, the database including
`a mapping from digital keys of files to information about the corresponding files”; “wherein the
`search criteria comprise a second one or more parts, each of said second one or more parts of said
`search criteria having a corresponding part value, the part value of each specific part of said second
`one or more parts being based on the first function of the contents of the specific part, and wherein
`the search key is determined using the second function of the one or more of part values of said
`second one or more parts”; “attempting to match the search key with a digital key in the database;
`and”; “if the search key matches a particular digital key in the database, providing information
`about the file corresponding to the particular digital key”; “wherein the plurality of files are files
`located in a network of computers”; “determining a corresponding particular file key”; “adding an
`entry to a database to map said particular file key to information about the particular file, the
`information about the particular file including one or more locations of the particular file”; “wherein
`each file of the plurality of files comprises a corresponding one or more parts”; “wherein each of
`the one or more parts of each file has a corresponding part value, the part value for each particular
`part being based on a first hash function of that particular part, wherein two identical parts will
`have the same part value as determined using the first hash function”; “the file key for each
`particular file being based on a second hash function of the part values of the one or more parts of
`that file”; “determining a second key value, the second key value being based on one or more
`particular parts”; “each of the one or more particular parts having a corresponding part value,
`wherein the part value for each specific part of the one or more particular parts is based on the first
`hash function of that specific part”; “wherein the second key value is based on the second hash
`function of the part values of the one or more particular parts”; “comparing the second key value
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`10
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 12 of 29
`
`to key values in the database to ascertain whether or not the one or more particular parts correspond
`to any of the plurality of files”; and “when the second key value corresponds to a certain key value
`in the database, providing information from the database corresponding to the certain key value.”
`For U.S. Patent No. 8,099,420, at least the following claim elements are missing from the
`aspects of the Accused Instrumentalities identified in PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions:
`“ascertaining whether or not said first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits
`corresponds to one of a plurality of identifiers, said plurality of identifiers corresponding to a
`plurality of data items, each identifier of said plurality of identifiers being based, at least in part, on
`a first given function of the data that comprise the contents of a corresponding one of the plurality
`of data items, wherein said first given function comprises the particular function used to determine
`the first content-dependent name for said particular sequence of bits”; “based at least in part on said
`ascertaining in step (B), selectively allowing a copy of the particular sequence of bits to be provided
`to or accessed by or from at least one of the computers in a network of computers, wherein a copy
`of the sequence of bits is not to be provided or accessed without authorization, as determined, at
`least in part, based on whether or not said first content-dependent name of the particular sequence
`of bits corresponds to one of the plurality of identifiers”; “wherein the plurality of identifiers is in
`a table comprising said plurality of identifiers”; “wherein the plurality of identifiers is in a database
`comprising said plurality of identifiers”; “wherein the first content-dependent name for the
`particular sequence of bits comprises a digital fingerprint of the particular sequence of bits”;
`“wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence of bits is a True Name of the
`particular sequence of bits”; “wherein the first content-dependent name for the particular sequence
`of bits was determined using all of the bits in the sequence of bits”; “wherein the first content-
`dependent name for the particular sequence of bits was determined using only bits in the sequence
`of bits”; “determine one or more content-dependent digital identifiers for said particular data item,
`each said content-dependent digital identifier being based at least in part on a given function of at
`least some of the bits in the particular sequence of bits of the particular data item, wherein two
`identical data items will have the same digital identifiers as determined using said given function”;
`and “selectively permit the particular data item to be made available for access and to be provided
`
`TWITCH’S RESPONSES TO PERSONALWEB’S
`SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
`
`11
`
`5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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 608-10 Filed 06/18/20 Page 13 of 29
`
`to or accessed by or from at least some of the computers in a network of computers, wherein the
`data item is not to be made available for access or provided without authorization, as resolved
`based, at least in part, on whether or not at least one of said one or more content-dependent digital
`identifiers for said particular data item corresponds to an entry in one or more databases, each of
`said one or more databases comprising a plurality of identifiers, each of said identifiers in each said
`database corresponding to at least one data item of a plurality of data items, and each of said