Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 1 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 1 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`------------------------------------------------
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
`INC.,
`Plaintiffs-Appellees
`
`v.
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Defendant-Appellant
`
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Defendant
`------------------------------------------------
`
`PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Plaintiff-Appellant
`
`LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`TWITCH INTERACTIVE, INC.,
`Defendant-Appellee
`______________________
`
`2020-1566, 2020-1568, 2020-1569
`______________________
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 2 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 2 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`2
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court for the
`Northern District of California in Nos. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF,
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF, 5:18-md-02834-BLF, Judge Beth Lab-
`son Freeman.
`
`______________________
`
`Decided: August 12, 2021
`______________________
`
`STEPHEN UNDERWOOD, Glaser Weil Fink Howard
`Avchen & Shapiro LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for Per-
`sonalWeb Technologies LLC.
` Also represented by
`LAWRENCE MILTON HADLEY; WESLEY WARREN MONROE,
`Stubbs Alderton & Markiles LLP, Sherman Oaks, CA.
`
` J. DAVID HADDEN, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain
`View, CA, argued for Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Ser-
`vices, Inc., Twitch Interactive, Inc. Also represented by
`THOMAS FOX, RAVI RAGAVENDRA RANGANATH, SAINA S.
`SHAMILOV; TODD RICHARD GREGORIAN, San Francisco, CA.
` ______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, PROST*, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
`LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
`PersonalWeb Technologies LLC (“PersonalWeb”) ap-
`peals from a decision of the District Court for the Northern
`District of California granting summary judgment of non-
`infringement in favor of Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web
`Services, Inc., and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (collectively,
`“Amazon”). See In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, No. 18-md-
`02834, 2020 WL 6821074 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020)
`
`
`* Circuit Judge Sharon Prost vacated the position of
`Chief Judge on May 21, 2021.
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 3 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 3 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`3
`
`(“Summary Judgment Decision”). For the reasons de-
`scribed below, we affirm.
`BACKGROUND
`This is the second appeal in this case involving a mul-
`tidistrict litigation consolidating cases that PersonalWeb
`brought against more than eighty Amazon customers. Be-
`cause we previously discussed the background of the tech-
`nology at issue and the history of the case, see In re
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, 961 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020),
`we provide only the following brief summary.
`In January 2018, PersonalWeb filed a series of lawsuits
`asserting that Amazon customers infringe five patents that
`share a common specification and claim priority from the
`same abandoned patent application, which was filed on
`April 11, 1995. See id. at 1369. The patents are generally
`directed to uses of what the inventors termed “True
`Names” for data items. According to the patents, a “True
`Name” is a “‘substantially unique’ identifier for each data
`item that depend[s] only on the content of the data itself,”
`as opposed to “other purportedly less reliable means of
`identifying data items, such as user-provided file names.”
`Id. (citing U.S. Patent 6,928,442).
`In the current appeal, only three claims are at issue:
`claim 20 of U.S. Patent 7,802,310 (the “’310 patent”); and
`claims 10–11 of U.S. Patent 6,928,442 (the “’442 patent”).
`Claim 20 of the ’310 patent recites:
`20. A computer-implemented method operable
`in a system which includes a plurality of
`computers, the method comprising:
`controlling distribution of content from a first
`computer to at least one other computer, in
`response to a request obtained by a first de-
`vice in the system from a second device in
`the system, the first device comprising
`hardware including at least one processor,
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 4 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 4 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`4
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`the request including at least a content-de-
`pendent 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 pro-
`vided 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 patent col. 39 ll. 8–31 (emphasis added). Claims 10
`and 11 of the ’442 patent recite:
`10. A method, in a system in which a plurality
`of files are distributed across a plurality of
`computers, the method comprising:
`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 func-
`tion comprises the contents of the particu-
`lar file;
`determining, using at least the name, whether
`a copy of the data file is present on at least
`one of said computers; and
`determining whether a copy of the data file that
`is present on a at least one of said comput-
`ers is an unauthorized copy or an unli-
`censed copy of the data file.
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 5 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 5 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`5
`
`11. A method as in claim 10 further comprising:
`allowing the file to be provided from one of the
`computers having an authorized or li-
`censed copy of the file.
`’442 patent col. 41 ll. 13–27 (emphases added).
`Broadly speaking, PersonalWeb’s infringement allega-
`tions targeted Amazon’s S3 web host servers and Amazon’s
`CloudFront service. Amazon intervened in the actions
`against its customers and filed a declaratory judgment ac-
`tion against PersonalWeb. See PersonalWeb, 961 F.3d at
`1372. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation con-
`solidated the cases in the United States District Court for
`the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings.
`Id. The court decided to first proceed with Amazon’s de-
`claratory judgment action and PersonalWeb’s case against
`one representative Amazon customer, Twitch Interactive,
`Inc. (“Twitch”).1 Id. The court stayed all other customer
`cases on the basis of PersonalWeb’s representation that it
`would not be able to proceed in the other customer cases if
`it lost its case against Twitch. Id.
`Because of a prior lawsuit in 2011 by PersonalWeb al-
`leging infringement by Amazon’s S3 web host servers, the
`district court granted partial summary judgment in favor
`of Amazon based on claim preclusion and the Kessler doc-
`trine, which this court later affirmed. Id. at 1373. The lit-
`igation continued in the district court with respect to
`PersonalWeb’s infringement allegations against Amazon’s
`CloudFront servers. Those allegations centered on the
`
`
`1 Twitch is an Amazon subsidiary. Although the
`case against Twitch in the district court appears to have
`proceeded in parallel with the case against Amazon, for
`purposes of this appeal the noninfringement issues are
`identical. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, we refer to
`the appellees collectively as “Amazon.”
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 6 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 6 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`6
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`servers’ communication over the Internet using the Hyper-
`Text Transfer Protocol (“HTTP”), and specifically the
`cache-control functionality in the HTTP 1.1 standard. Per-
`sonalWeb alleged that “entity tags” or “ETags” in the head-
`ers of HTTP requests and responses are an embodiment of
`the patented True Names. According to PersonalWeb, the
`CloudFront servers infringe the patent claims by using
`ETags to validate whether cached copies of previously
`served data items are still usable or whether the data items
`have instead become stale and must be served again by the
`server.
`In August 2019, the district court issued a claim con-
`struction order, construing ten disputed claim terms. See
`In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC Patent Litig., N. 18-md-
`02834, 2019 WL 3859023 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2019) (“Claim
`Construction Opinion”). Most relevant to this appeal, the
`court construed the term “unauthorized or unlicensed” to
`mean “not compliant with a valid license.” Id. at *18. Re-
`latedly, the court construed the term “authorization” to
`mean “a valid license.” Id. The court subsequently denied
`PersonalWeb’s motion to clarify the claim construction or-
`der. In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, No. 18-md-02834,
`2019 WL 4837185 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019).
`Based on the district court’s construction of the terms
`“unauthorized or unlicensed” and “authorization,” Person-
`alWeb conceded that it could not meet its burden of proving
`infringement of any of the patent claims. See In re Person-
`alWeb Techs., LLC, No. 18-md-02834, 2019 WL 7212318,
`at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2019). PersonalWeb then moved
`for entry of final judgment of noninfringement based on the
`court’s claim constructions. Id. In view of a pending sum-
`mary judgment motion that Amazon had already filed,
`which relied on additional noninfringement grounds be-
`yond the court’s claim constructions, the court denied Per-
`sonalWeb’s motion. Id. at *2.
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 7 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 7 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`7
`
`On February 3, 2020, the district court granted Ama-
`zon’s motion for summary judgment. Summary Judgment
`Decision, 2020 WL 6821074. The court considered four sep-
`arate grounds of noninfringement. First the court granted
`Amazon’s motion on the unopposed ground that Amazon’s
`CloudFront servers do not infringe the asserted claims un-
`der the court’s constructions of “unauthorized or unli-
`censed” and “authorization.” Id. at *7. The court also
`granted Amazon’s motion for summary judgment of nonin-
`fringement because the CloudFront servers do not meet
`limitations directed to “permitting” content to be provided
`or accessed, determining whether a copy of a data file “is
`present,” or “comparing” to a plurality of identifiers. Id. at
`*7–14.
`PersonalWeb appeals from the district court’s grant of
`summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1295(a)(1).
`
`DISCUSSION
`We review a district court’s grant of summary judg-
`ment according to the law of the regional circuit. Kaneka
`Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., 790 F.3d 1298,
`1303 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse El-
`ecs., Inc., 769 F.3d 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). In the
`Ninth Circuit, summary judgment is reviewed de novo, and
`we thus apply the standard applied by the district court.
`Id. (citing Bos. Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647
`F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). “[S]ummary judgment is
`appropriate when, drawing reasonable inferences in favor
`of the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of mate-
`rial fact.” Id. (citing Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo
`Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 657 F.3d 936, 942 (9th Cir.
`2011)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
`In this case, PersonalWeb raises four challenges to the
`district court’s grant of summary judgment. The parties
`agree, however, that an affirmance of the district court’s
`construction of
`the claim
`term
`“unauthorized or
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 8 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 8 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`8
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`unlicensed,” would dispose of the appeal in its entirety. See
`Oral Argument
`
` at 0:34–1:08; 23:48–24:20
`,
`http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=20-
`1566_03012021.mp3. We therefore begin with that issue.
`Claim construction is an issue of law that we review de
`novo. Nevro Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 955 F.3d 35, 43 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020) (citing Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`574 U.S. 318 (2015)). “The words of a claim are generally
`given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood
`by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the
`context of the specification and prosecution history.”
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362,
`1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It is well established that a patent’s
`written description is “the single best guide to the meaning
`of a disputed term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`The district court construed “unauthorized or unli-
`censed” to mean “not complying with a valid license.” The
`court reached that conclusion because, despite the use of
`the disjunctive connector “or” in the claim term, “the intrin-
`sic record reveals that the patentee used the words ‘author-
`ized’ and ‘licensed’ interchangeably” in the patents. Claim
`Construction Opinion, 2019 WL 3859023, at *5. The court
`concluded that “the specification explicitly equates holding
`a ‘valid license’ with ‘authorization.’” Id. (emphases in
`original).
`PersonalWeb’s primary argument on appeal is the
`same as its primary argument before the district court,
`namely, that the court’s construction fails to give meaning
`all of the words in the claim. According to PersonalWeb,
`the court’s construction ignores the disjunctive “or” and
`reads the word “unauthorized” out of the claim. Personal-
`Web further argues that the words “unauthorized” and
`“unlicensed” are used differently in the written description
`and the prosecution history, that the patents contain ex-
`amples of data items that are “unauthorized” but not
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 9 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 9 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`9
`
`necessarily “unlicensed,” and that the term “unlicensed” is
`one species of the broader genus “unauthorized.”
`Amazon responds that the district court correctly found
`that the patents treat “unauthorized or unlicensed” as a
`single concept that relates to the purpose of the claimed
`invention, which is controlling access to licensed content.
`Amazon points to the mechanism described in the patents
`for prohibiting unauthorized parties from accessing li-
`censed data files, which includes a “license table” that
`stores the name of a “licensee,” defined as the “identity of
`a user authorized to have access” to a data file. See ’310
`patent col. 11 ll. 33–44; col. 31 ll. 3–32. Amazon contends
`that, although PersonalWeb has identified some examples
`in the written description involving permitted actions in
`the patented system, the patents do not use the word “au-
`thorized” in relation to any of those examples. Addition-
`ally, Amazon argues, none of those examples has anything
`to do with whether or not a user is authorized or licensed
`to access content.
`We agree with Amazon that the district court’s con-
`struction is correct. Beginning in the initial sentences of
`the abstract, the ’310 patent makes clear that an object of
`the patented system is to use content-based identifiers for
`the purpose of controlling access to “licensed” content such
`that only “authorized” users may access it. ’310 patent at
`Abstract (“Access to and delivery of licensed content is
`controlled using content names that were determined
`based on the content. . . . Access to the data item is au-
`thorized based at least in part on the name.” (emphases
`added)). The patents’ written description proceeds to de-
`scribe the invention, interchangeably using the terms “li-
`censed” and “authorized” to refer to the same concept.
`For example, in describing a “Track for Licensing Pur-
`poses” mechanism, the patents state that “[t]his mecha-
`nism ensures that licensed files are not used by
`unauthorized parties.” Id. at col. 31 ll. 4–6 (emphases
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 10 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 10 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`10
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`added); see also id. at col. 31 ll. 9–32 (using both terms to
`describe license enforcement and validation). Additionally,
`when describing the license table that stores information
`about files and the users licensed to access them, the pa-
`tent first states:
`Each record 150 of the license table 136 rec-
`ords a relationship between a licensable
`data item and the user licensed to have ac-
`cess to it.
`Id. at col. 11 ll. 33–35 (emphasis added). Immediately
`thereafter, the patent provides a “description” for the field
`in the license table that contains the “licensee”:
`identity of a user authorized to have ac-
`cess to this object.
`Id. at col. 11 ll. 42–43 (emphasis added). These two sen-
`tences describe precisely the same concept, using the
`phrase “licensed to have access” the first time and “author-
`ized to have access” the second time.
`PersonalWeb acknowledges that the two words “unau-
`thorized” and “unlicensed” are not mutually exclusive, ar-
`guing that “unlicensed” is a subset of the broader term
`“unauthorized.” Under PersonalWeb’s argument, however,
`the scope of the claim term as written—“unauthorized or
`unlicensed”—is exactly the same as the scope would have
`been if the claim term instead said “unauthorized.” Be-
`cause a major component of PersonalWeb’s challenge is
`that the district court read the first two words—“unauthor-
`ized or”—out of the claim term, it must be pointed out that
`PersonalWeb is essentially urging us to instead read the
`last two words—“or unlicensed”—out of the claim term. Of
`course, a claim construction should generally attempt to
`“give meaning to all the words in [the] claims,” Exxon
`Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557
`(Fed. Cir. 1995), and avoid “reading out” words from the
`claim. See Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc., 234
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 11 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 11 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`11
`
`F.3d 14, 24–25 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “The preference for giving
`meaning to all terms, however, is not an inflexible rule that
`supersedes all other principles of claim construction.” Sim-
`pleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc’ns AB, 820
`F.3d 419, 429 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Power Mosfet Techs.,
`L.L.C. v. Siemens AG, 378 F.3d 1396, 1410 (Fed. Cir.
`2005)). Here, as the parties appear to agree that there is
`significant overlap between the words “unauthorized” and
`“unlicensed” as used in the patents, we agree with the dis-
`trict court’s analysis which focused on the patentee’s con-
`sistent
`interchangeable use
`of
`the
`two words
`“unauthorized” and “unlicensed” in the intrinsic record.
`See Baran v. Medical Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309,
`1316 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that although the use of dif-
`ferent terms usually implies that they have different mean-
`ings, “that implication is overcome where . . . the evidence
`indicates that the patentee used the two terms inter-
`changeably”).
`For similar reasons, we do not agree with Personal-
`Web’s argument regarding the claim’s use of the disjunc-
`tive connector “or.” If, as PersonalWeb argues, the word
`“unlicensed” were a species of the genus “unauthorized,”
`then the word “or” between those two words in the claim
`term would be nonsensical. We thus agree with Amazon
`that the disjunctive “or” in the claim is being used to con-
`nect two words that are synonyms or equivalents of each
`other in the patent. To be sure, neither party cites a case
`in which this court has held the word “or” in a patent claim
`to be a connector for synonyms. But the Supreme Court
`has held in the context of statutory construction that “or”
`can be used to connect synonyms, see Hawaiian Airlines,
`Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 255 (1994), and we have recog-
`nized that “many of the canons of statutory construction
`apply equally when interpreting patent claims.” PPC
`Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC,
`815 F.3d 747, 752–53 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 12 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 12 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`12
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`We also find, as the district court did, that Personal-
`Web lacks support in the intrinsic evidence for its argu-
`ment that the patents contemplate other types of
`“authorization” that are unrelated to license status. See
`Claim Construction Opinion, 2019 WL 3859023, at *6. Am-
`azon correctly points out that, although PersonalWeb has
`identified individual examples of actions that may or may
`not be permitted in the patented system based on settings
`associated with data items (e.g., read-only, lock flag), none
`of those examples has anything to do with controlling ac-
`cess to licensed or authorized content. And contrary to Per-
`sonalWeb’s assertion that it “does not matter” that the
`“specification does not use the exact word ‘authorization’ to
`describe those examples,” see Appellant’s Br. 43, the ab-
`sence of the word “authorization” from those examples
`matters a great deal because the entire issue in dispute is
`the construction of a term that includes the word “unau-
`thorized” based on the repeated use of the exact word “au-
`thorized” in the context of licensed content. If we were to
`infer, as PersonalWeb asks us to do, that the patent implic-
`itly sets forth other types of authorization without using
`that word, we would simply be rewriting the patent speci-
`fication.
`Finally, we are not persuaded by PersonalWeb’s argu-
`ment about claim differentiation and the prosecution his-
`tory. PersonalWeb suggests that because some claims in
`the True Name patent family use the term “unauthorized
`or unlicensed,” others use the term “unauthorized,” and
`others use the term “unlicensed,” we should interpret those
`phrases to have different meanings. PersonalWeb points
`to an example in the prosecution history in which the pa-
`tentee amended a claim from “unauthorized or unlicensed”
`to “unauthorized” as evidence that the patentee understood
`the two terms to have different scope. See J.A. 3409–10.
`But, again, according to the genus/species argument that
`PersonalWeb is advancing in this appeal, a claim that re-
`cites “unauthorized or unlicensed” would actually have the
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 709 Filed 08/12/21 Page 13 of 13
`Case: 20-1566 Document: 65 Page: 13 Filed: 08/12/2021
`
`IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`13
`
`same scope—i.e., not different scope—as a claim that
`merely says “unauthorized.” Moreover, under Personal-
`Web’s argument, the identified claim amendment would
`have had no substantive effect on the scope of the amended
`claim. Thus, PersonalWeb’s selectively applied claim dif-
`ferentiation argument is self-defeating, and we will not pri-
`oritize unclear portions of the prosecution history over the
`clarity with which the terms “authorized” and “licensed”
`are used interchangeably in the written description. See
`Phillips, 414 F.3d at 1317 (“[B]ecause the prosecution his-
`tory represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO
`and the applicant, rather than the final product of that ne-
`gotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and
`thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.”).
`For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district
`court correctly construed the term “unauthorized or unli-
`censed” to mean “not complying with a valid license.” Un-
`der that claim construction, PersonalWeb has conceded
`that it cannot meet its burden of proving that Amazon in-
`fringes any patent claims in the True Name patent family.
`Because the claim construction issue is dispositive of the
`entire appeal, we need not reach any of the other issues in
`this case. Accordingly, we hold that the district court cor-
`rectly granted summary judgment in favor of Amazon.
`CONCLUSION
`We have considered PersonalWeb’s remaining argu-
`ments but we find them unpersuasive. The judgment of
`the district court is affirmed.
`AFFIRMED
`
`