Amazon.com, Inc. et al v. Personal Web Technologies, LLC et al

Filing 165

ORDER DENYING PERSONALWEB's MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (538) IN CASE 5:18-md-02834-BLF; (152) IN CASE 5:18-cv-00767-BLF. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/31/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

IN RE: PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, ET AL. PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 18-md-02834-BLF

AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING
PERSONALWEB’S MOTION FOR
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

8
9
10
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

[Re: ECF 538]

v.
12
13

PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.

14

Case No. 18-cv-00767-BLF
[Re: ECF 152]

15
16

Before the Court is PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC’s (“PersonalWeb”) motion for final

17

judgment of non-infringement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Mot., ECF 538.

18

Defendants Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) oppose the

19

motion. Opp’n, ECF 547. In its reply brief, PersonalWeb changes course and asserts that “Rule

20

54(b) may not technically be the correct rule for this motion” and now seeks to “dismiss this entire

21

action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).” Reply at 3-4, ECF 548. Having considered the parties’ respective

22

written submissions, the Court finds the matter appropriate for submission without oral argument.

23

Civ. L.R. 7-11(b). The Court therefore VACATES the hearing scheduled for January 23, 2020. For

24

the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES PersonalWeb’s motion for entry of judgment.

25

I.

BACKGROUND

26

The facts of this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) are well known to the parties and the Court

27

need not recite them in detail here. See In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, et al. Patent Litig., No. 18-

28

MD-02834-BLF, 2019 WL 1455332, at *1-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019). In brief, this Court issued

1

its Claim Construction Order on August 16, 2019. ECF 485. Based on the Court’s construction of

2

the disputed terms “unauthorized or unlicensed” and “authorization” PersonalWeb conceded that it

3

cannot meet its burden of proving infringement. Mot. at 2. PersonalWeb argues that entry of final

4

judgment of non-infringement in Amazon’s favor “will allow the parties to forego further litigation

5

and conserve judicial resources in this case while preserving PersonalWeb’s right to appeal the

6

Court’s Claim Construction Order.” Id.
Amazon opposes for three reasons: (1) Amazon has raised additional non-infringement

8

arguments at summary judgment that are independent from the claim construction issue, (2)

9

PersonalWeb’s proposed judgment (non-infringement without prejudice) as to U.S. Patent No.

10

5,978,791 (the “’791 patent”) would give PersonalWeb the opportunity to re-assert the patent, and

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

(3) any appeal in PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-

12

05619-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (the “Twitch Action”) will likely present identical claim construction issues

13

and overlapping non-infringement arguments and therefore, motions for summary judgment in both

14

actions should be heard concurrently. Opp’n at 3-4.

15

PersonalWeb responds that the Court should enter a judgment “to avoid having to work up

16

the entirety of the summary judgment motion based on issues that Amazon had never raised until

17

now—work that will be entirely wasted if Amazon prevails in the appeal on claim construction[.]”

18

Reply at 1, ECF 548. Additionally, PersonalWeb offers to modify its proposed order and final

19

judgment to include a declaratory judgment of noninfringement regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,945,544

20

(the “’544 patent”) and ’791 patents. Id. As for the Twitch Action, PersonalWeb distinguishes the

21

case that Amazon cites, but fails to provide a counter argument other than “delaying entry of

22

judgment in this action is burdensome on the parties and incongruous with protecting judicial

23

economy.” Id. at 3. Finally, PersonalWeb abandons Rule 54(b) as the basis for its motion and asks

24

this Court to dismiss “this entire action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).” Id. at 3-4.

25

II.

DISCUSSION

26

First, the Court addresses PersonalWeb’s Rule 41(a)(2) argument—raised for the first time

27

in its reply brief. District courts need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.

28

Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It would be unfair to the non-moving party
2

1

to decide the motion on grounds not raised in the moving papers. See Estate of Bojcic v. City of San

2

Jose, No. C05-3877 RS, 2007 WL 3232221, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2007). Accordingly, the Court

3

declines to consider PersonalWeb’s invitation to dismiss “this entire action,” which the Court

4

presumes is meant to include all cases consolidated in this MDL, under Rule 41(a)(2).1
As for the substance of PersonalWeb’s motion, the Court agrees with Amazon. Amazon

6

has raised additional non-infringement arguments at summary judgment that are independent from

7

the claim construction issue PersonalWeb plans to appeal. At this late stage in the litigation, the

8

Court does not see a valid reason to deprive Amazon of a ruling on its summary judgment motion,

9

which is filed and is scheduled to be heard in two weeks. Amazon is correct in noting that the

10

Federal Circuit can affirm a judgment of non-infringement based on any ground supported by the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

record, and without a decision from this Court, Amazon will be foreclosed from raising its additional

12

arguments on appeal. See Opp’n at 3.

13

The Court also finds Amazon’s argument regarding the Twitch Action persuasive. This

14

MDL includes the Twitch Action, which the Court has designated—as a representative for the

15

numerous customer cases—to proceed along with the Amazon matter. ECF 313. Decoupling these

16

cases at this late stage will be contrary to the efficiencies desired by the parties and the Court

17

throughout this MDL.

18

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES PersonalWeb’s motion for entry of judgment

19
20

CONCLUSION

of non-infringement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: October 31, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

PersonalWeb’s choice of Rule 41(a)(2) is puzzling to the Court. Rule 41(a)(2) is invoked “at the
plaintiff’s request ….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Amazon (not PersonalWeb) is the plaintiff in this
action for declaratory judgment.
3
1