Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 167 Filed 03/17/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. C 20-06754 WHA
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR
`LEAVE TO AMEND
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Sonos has filed two motions for leave to amend its infringement contentions pursuant to
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-6 (Dkt. Nos. 128, 150). Sonos argues there is good cause for both
`
`amendments because they advance backup infringement theories contingent upon new claim
`
`constructions tendered by Google. Google opposes, and argues that Sonos’s amendments are
`
`not backup contentions at all and that Sonos has provided no justification for why these
`
`contentions could not have been brought earlier. These motions are suitable for resolution on
`
`the papers. Civ. L.R. 7-6.1
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-6 states: “Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the
`
`Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good
`
`cause.” “[T]he primary question of good cause is a party’s diligence, and ‘in considering the
`
`
`1 In light of this order’s conclusion and the particular benefit of expediency here, this order was
`entered prior to Sonos’s filing of a reply brief in support of its second motion.
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 167 Filed 03/17/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`party’s diligence, the critical question is whether the party could have discovered the new
`
`information earlier had it acted with the requisite diligence.’” Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc.,
`
`2020 WL 5073938, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (citation omitted). Fluidigm held:
`
`“Where a party may wish to advance backup infringement or invalidity theories contingent
`
`upon the opposition’s claim construction, the clock starts ticking when the parties exchange
`
`those formal claim constructions. And, in this Court’s view, twenty eight days will generally
`
`be the outside limit of a reasonable and adequate amount of time for a party to move for leave
`
`to amend its contentions.” Ibid.
`
`Upon review, Sonos has properly advanced backup infringement theories contingent
`
`upon Google’s claim constructions.
`
`First, on January 10, Google advanced constructions of the terms “resource locators” and
`
`“local playback queue on the particular playback device.” Sonos filed its first motion for leave
`
`to include backup infringement theories in light of those constructions on February 7.
`
`Second, on February 3, the day prior to the parties’ deadline for exchanging expert
`
`reports on claim construction, Google withdrew its construction of the term “local playback
`
`queue on the particular playback device” and advanced a new construction of the term
`
`“playback queue.” Sonos filed its second motion for leave to include backup infringement
`
`theories in light of this new construction on March 1. This order pauses to note that Sonos
`
`stated in its initial February 7 motion that it was investigating this further change but had not
`
`yet had adequate time to determine whether it would need to amend again to address this new
`
`construction (Dkt. No. 128 at 2 n.1).
`
`Yes, Sonos has revised its contentions several times both in this district and in the related
`
`lawsuit when it was pending in Texas. Moreover, Sonos’s January 20 amendment dealt with
`
`related issues and proceeded in parallel with the first of Sonos’s motions at issue here (Hrg. Tr.
`
`13, Dkt. No. 112). Google says Sonos should have proffered the contentions in the proposed
`
`amendments here earlier, at the latest in the January 20 amendment.
`
` Sonos, however, brought both of its motions for leave to amend within twenty-eight
`
`days of January 10 and February 3, the dates on which Google advanced its new claim
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 167 Filed 03/17/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`constructions. Google had not previously advanced those specific constructions. This order
`
`finds both proposed amendments add backup infringement contentions contingent upon
`
`Google’s proposed constructions. The January 20 amendment did address similar issues, but it
`
`was not directed to Google’s claim constructions. It is inapposite, moreover, that the timeline
`
`for the January 20 amendment overlapped to some extent with the timeline for the February 7
`
`motion. In sum, Sonos has good cause to amend, and both motions are GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 17, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`WILLIAM ALSUP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`