Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 1 of 7
`
`MICHAEL A. SHERMAN (SBN 94783)
`masherman@stubbsalderton.com
`JEFFREY F. GERSH (SBN 87124)
`jgersh@stubbsalderton.com
`SANDEEP SETH (SBN 195914)
`sseth@stubbsalderton.com
`WESLEY W. MONROE (SBN 149211)
`wmonroe@stubbsalderton.com
`STANLEY H. THOMPSON, JR. (SBN 198825)
`sthompson@stubbsalderton.com
`VIVIANA BOERO HEDRICK (SBN 239359)
`vhedrick@stubbsalderton.com
`STUBBS, ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP
`15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor
`Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
`Telephone:
`(818) 444-4500
`Facsimile:
`(818) 444-4520
`Attorneys for PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`CASE NO.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF
`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.
`
`Case No.: 5:18-cv-00767-BLF
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA
`IGLESIA IN SUPPORT OF
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC’s OPPOSITION TO AMAZON.COM,
`INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.’S
`MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND
`COSTS
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`and LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Counterclaimants,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM, INC. and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`Counterdefendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-00767-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 2 of 7
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, a
`Texas limited liability company, and
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. a Delaware
`corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`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
`
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-00767-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 3 of 7
`
`I, Erik de la Iglesia, declare as follows:
`1.
`I am over the age of eighteen (18) and make this declaration of my own personal
`knowledge, under penalty of perjury. I was retained as an independent expert witness by the law
`firm of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP on behalf of PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC
`(“PersonalWeb”) to opine as a technical expert on (i) the technology of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,442
`(“’442 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310 (“’310 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,099,420 (“’420
`Patent”) (collectively, “the asserted True Name Patents”), including related industry standards
`such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”), and (ii) statements made about the technology of
`the asserted True Name Patents in lawsuits including In re PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, et
`al., Patent Litigation, Case No.: 5:18-md-02834-BLF (Northern District of California),
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC and Level
`3 Communications, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF (Northern District of California), and
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-05619-BLF
`(Northern District of California). Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. shall
`hereinafter be collectively referred to as “Amazon” and Twitch Interactive, Inc. shall hereinafter
`be referred to as “Twitch”. I make this declaration in support of PersonalWeb’s Opposition to
`Amazon and Twitch’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
`2.
`I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from the
`University of Florida, and a Master of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Stanford
`University where I was a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. My industry
`work, including designing an HTTP processing engine and a network security analyzer for HTTP
`and other protocols, qualifies me as a person of ordinary skill in the art in HTTP analysis for
`distributed computing systems during the timeframes relevant to this matter. A summary of my
`academic and work experience can be found in my curriculum vitae filed previously in this case
`at Dkt. 336-1, pp. 5-7.
`3.
`I have reviewed Amazon and Twitch’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs filed in
`this case at Dkt. 593. Therein, Amazon and Twitch assert that “PersonalWeb accused basic aspects
`
`1
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-00767-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 4 of 7
`
`of the HTTP protocol—the publicly available standard that governs how web browsers and web
`servers communicate” (Br. 3:2-4) and that PersonalWeb “accused basic HTTP operations” (Br.
`10:5). Amazon and Twitch never define what they mean by “basic” and they ambiguously refer
`to HTTP without specifying whether they mean HTTP/1.0 or HTTP/1.1. But it seems from context
`that by “basic” they are referring to things that a browser and/or server must do in order to comply
`with HTTP/1.1, which is how I will use “basic” herein. To the extent Amazon and Twitch are
`implying that, in general, no patent could ever cover “basic” HTTP operations (however the word
`“basic” may be construed in that context), such an implication would be incorrect. But that does
`not matter because, for all the reasons I discuss below, PersonalWeb’s infringement theory requires
`a particular implementation of HTTP/1.1 that is used specifically to implement one form of cache
`control, which is not required by the HTTP/1.1 specification itself, meaning it is nothing the
`browser and/or server must do. For these reasons, it is not merely “basic” HTTP/1.1 that was
`alleged to infringe.
`4.
`The accused method requires the use of content-based identifiers as Entity Tags
`(ETags) and the use of a “max-age” directive in a cache-control header. The True Name Patents’
`priority date of April 11, 1995 precedes the introduction of ETags and max-age directives in the
`HTTP/1.1 specification, which did not exist until January 1997. Neither the use of ETags at all,
`the use of content-based identifiers as ETags, nor the use of max-age directives in cache-control
`headers are required by the HTTP/1.1 specification. ETags do not exist in the HTTP/1.0
`specification. Using content-based identifiers as ETags is an implementation choice of a website
`operator and any suggestion that it is a “basic aspects of HTTP protocol” is incorrect.
`5.
`The HTTP/1.1 specification is described in the original Request for Comments
`(RFC) document, RFC 2068 issued in January 1997. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2068)
`Suggestions for improvements to the HTTP/1.1 specification were made in RFC 2616 issued in
`June 1999. (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616) The HTTP/1.1 specification of RFC 2068 is the
`first HTTP specification to include ETag headers and does so in sections 3.11, 13.3.2 and 14.20.
`RFC 2068 does not require the use of ETag headers at all, let alone the use of content-based
`
`2
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-00767-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 5 of 7
`
`identifiers as ETags. Nor does the HTTP/1.1 specification require the use of a max-age header
`value even where the operator chooses to use the ETag header. The max-age value is optionally
`used when the content-provider wishes to specify how long the content-recipient may reuse cached
`content before Conditional GET must be used to revalidate the cached content. HTTP/1.0, the
`previous HTTP specification, was first described in March 1995 and formalized in RFC 1945
`issued in May 1996. HTTP/1.0 does not describe the ETag header field at all.
`6.
`ETags, let alone using content-based identifiers as ETag values, are not a required
`feature of the HTTP/1.1 specification. Therefore, it would not be a correct assertion (or even
`implication) that the True Name claims are infringed merely by following methods required by the
`HTTP/1.1 specification. Specifically, the True Name patents require that unique data items have
`unique True Name and that those names are based, at least in part, on the contents of those data
`items. HTTP/1.1 places no such requirement on ETags. Even though strong ETags in HTTP/1.1
`need to be unique for a particular resource (e.g., a URL), they do not have to be content-based. In
`fact, as discussed below, the examples of using ETags in the HTTP/1.1 specification teach away
`from using content-based values for ETags as alleged in PersonalWeb’s infringement contentions.
`7.
`HTTP/1.1 allows ETags, even strong ETags, to be reused for different content, i.e.,
`they need not be content-based. Section 3.11 of the RFC 2068 document (the earliest HTTP/1.1
`specification) describes ETags as “opaque quoted strings” that may be either weak or strong (RFC
`2068 @ 29). Although a strong ETag “may be shared by two entities of a resource only if they are
`equivalent by octet equality,” the specification further clarifies that “[a] given entity tag value may
`be used for entities obtained by requests on different URIs without implying anything about the
`equivalence of those entities.” (RFC 2068 @ 29 (emphasis added)) This language is maintained in
`the RFC 2616 update to the HTTP/1.1 specification. In other words, HTTP/1.1 allows an ETag
`value to be reused for data items being requested at different URIs, even if the data items are
`different. This violates the True Name Patents’ teaching that different data items have different
`True Name (content-based identifiers).
`
`3
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-00767-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 6 of 7
`
`For example, a website operator could set all ETags to be the current version
`8.
`number of the website, such as “v1.2.3.” This would guarantee that the specified version number
`is the latest version (not a repetition of any previous version) and thereby assure that the provided
`ETag is unique for a given resource at a given URI. The ETags for two different images logo.jpg
`and puppy.jpg could both be “v1.2.3” and would still be considered strong validators compliant
`with the HTTP/1.1 specification. Such usage results in inefficiencies for those data items that do
`not change over multiple website versions (such as images, etc.) because changing the ETag value
`could cause the data item to be downloaded again unnecessarily. This is a problem solved by the
`True Name patents.
`9.
`HTTP/1.1 specifies that weak ETags need not be content-based. Specifically, RFC
`2068 describes weak validators which “may be shared by two entities of a resource only if the
`entities are equivalent and could be substituted for each other with no significant change in
`semantics.” (RFC2068 @ 29 (emphasis added)) This language is maintained in the RFC 2616
`update to the HTTP/1.1 specification. Sharing an identifier for two different data items is the
`antithesis of what is taught by the True Name patents.
`10.
`An example usage of such a weak validator (in complete compliance with the RFC
`2068 specification) is an ETag for a still photo for a website front page set to “March_19_2020”.
`This ETag allows for arbitrary updates to the still photo during the course of the day with the
`recognition that all versions of the still photo are equally valid for the frequently accessed front
`page on the day of March 19, 2020. Even though each still photo will be different at a binary level,
`the website operator, using the HTTP/1.1 specification, may make the policy choice to optimize
`the delivery of the website front page by recognizing that any still photo taken during the same
`day may be displayed on that website front page, even if it means a user who opens a webpage that
`is cached from 8 a.m. may see a different image than a user who first accesses the webpage at 3
`p.m.
`
`As described previously, even the strong validators of the HTTP/1.1 specification
`11.
`do not imply anything about the equivalence of entities with different URIs. Only content-based
`
`4
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA IGLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`CASE NO: 5:18-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-00767-BLF
`CASE NO: 5:18-CV-05619-BLF
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 7
`Case 5:18-md-02834—BLF Document 608-5 Filed 06/18/20 Page 7 of 7
`
`identifiers, as described in the True Name patents, can provide the aSSurance that each data item
`
`with a unique True Name is truly unique and that a copy of a data item in one location is an
`
`authentic copy of a second data item with the same True Name.
`
`12.
`
`Because using ETags is not required by the HTTPIIJ specification, and using
`
`content—based identifiers as ETags is not even described or suggested, much less required, by the
`
`HTTP:r 1.1 specification, the use of a specific implementation of HTTPH .1 via the incorporation of
`
`content-based identifiers as ETags is not something that every website following HTTP! 1.1 is
`
`required to do. On the contrary, a website configured merely to follow the examples described in
`
`the HTTP;r1 ] .1 specification would be operating under the inefficient practices the inventors Messrs.
`
`Lachman and Farber identified and improved upon before the publication of the first draft of the
`
`HTTP! 1.1 specification itself. The use of ETags or content-based identifiers as ETags is not
`
`required for the operation of any current website.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on June 16, 2020 in Mountain View, California.
`
`W
`
`Erik de la Iglesia
`
`
`
`
`
`WQONMLMMH
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`1'?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`DECLARATION OF ERIK DE LA [GLESIA ISO PWEB’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF
`AMAZON AND TWITCH INTERACTIVE. INC. FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS
`
`0: 5:1
`S-MD-02834-BLF
`CASE N
`CASE NO: 5:]8«CV-00767-BLF
`C355 No: 5:]8-CV-flfifil9-BLF
`
`