Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 28
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. C 20-06754 WHA
`No. C 21-07559 WHA
`(Consolidated)
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`FINAL CHARGE TO THE JURY
`
`1.
`
`Membersofthe jury, it is now my duty to instruct you on the law that applies to this case.
`
`Each of you will receive a copy ofthese instructions to consult during yourdeliberations.
`
`These instructions have several parts. This first part will address guidelines for evaluating
`
`evidence, burden of proof, and related matters.
`
`2.
`
`It is your duty to find the facts fromall the evidence in the case. To those facts you must
`
`apply the law as I give it to you.
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 28
`
`WwWNO—
`
`OoFSSNHDWHFf
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`You must follow the law as I giveit to you whether you agree with it or not. You must
`
`not be influenced by any personallikes ordislikes, opinions, prejudices, or sympathies. This
`
`meansthat you must decide the case solely on the evidencebefore you. Perform these duties
`
`fairly. You will recall that you took an oath promising to do so at the beginningofthecase.
`
`In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and
`
`ignore others; they are all equally important. You must not read into these instructions, or into
`
`anything the judge may havesaid or done, as suggesting what verdict you should return. That
`
`is a matter entirely up to you.
`
`3.
`I will now instruct you about what is evidence in this case and how you mayuseit. The
`
`evidence from which youare to decide what the facts are consists of:
`
`(1) The exhibits that have been received into evidence;
`
`(2) The sworn testimony of witnesses who appeared in court, on both direct
`
`and cross-examination, regardless of whocalled the witnesses;
`(3) The sworn testimony of witnesses in depositions, read into evidence or
`
`shown by video;
`
`(4) Any facts to which all lawyers have stipulated (i.e., agreed upon) before
`
`you in court. You musttreat any stipulated facts as having been
`
`conclusively proven.
`
`4.
`
`In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the evidence that I have just described.
`
`Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding whatthe facts are.
`
`I will list them for you:
`
`(1) Arguments and statements bytrial counsel are not evidence. Trial
`counsel are not witnesses. Whatthey said in opening statements, closing
`
`arguments, and elsewhereis intended to help you interpret the evidence,
`
`but your interpretation of the evidence controls.
`
`(2) A suggestion in a question to a witness bytrial counsel or the judgeis
`
`not evidence unlessit is adopted by the answerof the witness. Inother
`
`2
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 28
`
`words, a question byitself is not evidence. Consider it as evidence only
`
`in light of the answer.
`
`(3) An objection to a question to a witness by trial counsel is not evidence.
`
`Lawyers havea duty to their clients to consider objecting when they
`
`believe a question is improper. The objection itself, however, is not
`
`evidence that a question was improper. If an objection to a questionis
`
`sustained (i.e., not overruled), you must disregard the question and any
`
`answer.
`
`(4) Anything you may haveseen or heard when court wasnotin session is
`
`not evidence. Again, you are to decide the case solely on the evidence
`
`receivedattrial.
`
`5.
`
`Evidence maybedirect or circumstantial. Direct evidenceis direct proofof a fact, such
`
`as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw, heard, ordid.
`
`Circumstantial evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find anotherfact.
`
`By way of example, if you wake up in the morning and see that the sidewalk is wet, you
`
`may find from thatfact that it rained during the night. However, other evidence, such as a
`
`turned-on garden hose, may explain the presence of water on the sidewalk. Therefore, before
`
`you decide that a fact has been proven by circumstantial evidence, you must considerall the
`
`evidencein the light of reason, experience, and commonsense. In determining what
`
`inferences to draw from evidence, you may consider, amongotherthings, a party’s failure to
`
`explain or deny that evidence.
`
`6.
`
`The law permits you to give equal weight to direct and circumstantial evidence, butit is
`
`for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.
`
`The weight of the evidenceasto a fact does not necessarily depend on the numberof
`
`witnesses whotestify. Nor does it depend on whichside called the witnesses or produced the
`
`evidence. The testimony of one witness worthy ofbelief is sufficient to prove any fact.
`
`nhOfUGON
`
`s) N
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 28
`
`7.
`
`In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and
`
`which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witnesssays, part ofit, or none
`
`ofit. In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:
`
`oOOoNYDWTHSFYHYH
`fy4WNwvFPWHNO|&S
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`NyNYNHNYNYONYNHWNNY|=eoNOUOSFBHDNEYULDOlUlUCCOlB
`
`8.
`You have heard testimony from witnesses whotestified about their opinions and the
`
`(1) The opportunity and ability of the witness to see, hear, or know things
`testified to;
`
`(2) The memory ofthe witness;
`
`(3) The mannerofthe witness while testifying;
`
`(4) The interest of the witness in the outcomeofthe case, and any bias or
`
`prejudice;
`
`(5) Whether other evidence contradicted the testimony of the witness;
`
`(6) The reasonablenessofthe testimony of the witnessin lightofall
`
`evidence; and
`
`(7)
`
`Anyotherfactors that bear on believability.
`
`reasonsfor those opinions. These witnesses were Dr. Kevin Almeroth, Dr. Dan Schonfeld, Mr.
`
`James Malackowski, and Mr. Christopher Bakewell. This opinion testimonyis allowed
`
`because ofthe specialized knowledge,skill, experience, training, or education ofthese
`
`witnesses with respect to the underlying technology (for Dr. Almeroth and Dr. Schonfeld) and
`
`the assessment of damages (for Mr. Malackowski and Mr. Bakewell).
`
`Such opinion testimony should be judged like any other testimony. With two exceptions
`
`that I will explain later on, you may acceptor reject opinion evidence and give it as much
`
`weight as you think it deserves, considering the witnesses’ specialized knowledge,skill,
`
`experience, training, or education, the reasons provided for the opinion, andall the other
`
`evidence in the case. The two exceptions involve opinion evidence regarding (1) If This Then
`
`That (“IFTTT”) offered by Mr. Malackowski and Dr. Almeroth to support Sonos’s damages
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 28
`
`aIDBWwFSFWH
`
`oo
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`analysis, and (2) “idle mode” offered by Dr. Schonfeld to support Google’s non-infringement
`
`analysis.
`
`Note that these witnesses’ opinions are necessarily based on assumedsets of
`
`circumstances.
`
`In evaluating these opinions, you should take into account the extent to which
`
`you agree or do not agree withthe circumstances assumed by these witnesses.
`
`9.
`
`Any witness may be discredited or impeached by contradictory evidence or by evidence
`
`that, at some other time, the witness has said or done something (or has failed to say or do
`
`something)that is inconsistent with the present testimony. If you believe that any witness has
`
`been impeached and thus discredited, you may give the testimony ofthat witness the
`
`credibility, if any, you think it deserves.
`
`Discrepancies in a witness’s testimony, or between a witness’s testimony andthat of
`
`other witnesses, do not necessarily mean that such a witness should be discredited. Inability to
`
`recall and innocent misrecollection are common. You should consider whether a discrepancy
`
`pertains to an important matter or only to somethingtrivial.
`
`A witness willfully false in one part of that witness’s testimony, however, is to be
`
`distrusted in other parts. You may reject the entire testimony of a witness who haswillfully
`
`testified falsely on a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you believe that the
`
`probability oftruth favors that witness’s testimony in other particulars.
`
`10.
`
`In these instructions, I will refer to a party’s “burden of proof.” Let me explain. When a
`
`party has the burden ofproof on anyissue, it means you must be persuaded by the evidence of
`
`the truth of that party’s allegation with respect to that issue. But how persuaded must you be
`
`for that party to meet its burden? There are two standards of proofthat you will apply to the
`
`evidence in this case, depending on the issue youare deciding.
`
`On most issues, you must decide whether certain facts have been proven by a
`
`preponderanceofthe evidence. A preponderance ofthe evidence means thatthe fact thatis to
`
`be proven is more likely true than not. To put it differently, if you were to put the evidence
`
`5
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 28
`
`favoring one party and the evidence favoring the other party on opposite sides ofa scale, the
`party with the burden of proof on the issue would have to makethe scale tip towardits side,
`
`even ifjust slightly. If that party fails to meet this burden, then that party loses on the issue.
`
`Onother issues, you must decide whethercertain facts have been proven by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. This is a more demanding standard of proof. Clear and convincing
`
`evidence meansthat the fact to be proven is highly probable. A slight tip of the scale in favor
`
`ofthe party with the burden of proofon an issue would not be enough to support a finding of
`
`clear and convincing evidence. The party with the burden of proof on the issue must present
`
`evidence that leaves you with a firm belief or conviction that the fact has been proven. Again,
`
`if that party fails to meet this burden, then that party loses on theissue.
`
`Both of these standards are different from what you may have heard aboutin criminal
`
`proceedings where a fact must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. As you move from
`preponderance of the evidence (where the proofneed only be sufficient to tip the scale in favor
`
`of the party proving the fact), to beyond a reasonable doubt (where the fact must be proven to a
`
`very high degree of certainty), you may think of clear and convincing evidence as being
`
`between those two standards.
`
`11,
`
`I will now instruct you on the law in this case. Before summarizing the contentions of
`
`the parties and what each side must prove to win onits contentions, however,I feelit is
`
`important to remind you why you are being asked to decide the facts in this matter.
`
`A patentis an intellectual property right over a new invention granted by our federal
`
`government.
`
`It is a right to exclude others from exploiting the invention during the life of the
`
`patent, whichtypically lasts twenty years. Ordinarily, for twenty years, a patent ownerhas a
`
`limited monopoly and can exclude others from making,using, selling, offering to sell, and
`
`importing into the United States the invention claimed by a patent.
`
`As the Supreme Court once explainedit, the patent system is “a reward, an inducement,
`
`to bring forth new knowledge.” One way the patent system requires this new knowledgeis
`
`throughits disclosure requirement. In exchangefor a limited monopoly on the invention, a
`
`6
`
`OoCoNDWAFPWOKH—
`emeke“aAOHFPWNO|O&O
`NyNYHONHNHNYPNYNYNY—oNDBDOHFFWHNYOKHOoCO
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 28
`
`ASeWwKN—
`oOoCONNDN
`
`patent owner must publicly disclose technical details about how to make and usethe invention.
`The patent documentitselfmust include the disclosure, usually called a specification, andit is
`
`published as part of the patent. This ensures that others can learn from the disclosure and
`
`contributes to the advancement of knowledge.
`
`Importantly, the disclosure requirement also helps prevent inventors from receiving
`
`rights broader than their contributions. No patent owner should receivea right to exclude
`
`others from exploiting something that the patent ownerdid not, in fact, disclose. A patent,
`
`therefore, must describe the invention and howitdiffers from what was already known in the
`art at the relevant time. Patents are presumed valid, but they may beinvalidated by ajury if
`the claimed invention wasnot, in fact, new or was obvious in view of what camebefore, which
`
`is referred to as the “priorart.”
`
`12.
`
`I will nowsummarize the contentions ofthe parties and whateach side mustproveto win
`
`|
`on its contentions.
`In brief, Sonos seeks money damages from Google for infringementof the °885 and °966
`
`patents. Specifically, Sonos seeks money damages from Googlefor infringementof claim 1 of
`
`the ’885 patent and claims1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the °966 patent. As you heard throughoutthe
`
`case, patent claims are numberedparagraphsat the end of the patent that describe the limits of
`
`the patent’s protection.
`
`Separately, and as a defense to infringement, Google seeks to invalidate the asserted
`
`claims of the 885 and ’966 patents. If the asserted claims are invalid, Google does not have to
`
`pay any money damagesto Sonos, evenif the asserted claims are otherwise infringed.
`
`13.
`
`With respect to the °885 patent, Sonos accuses Google media players of infringement of
`claim 1. These media players are Google’s Chromecast, Chromecast Audio, Chromecast Ultra,
`
`Chromecast with Google TV, Home, Home Mini, Home Max,Nest Audio, Nest Mini, Nest
`
`Hub(a/k/a Home Hub), Nest Hub Max, and Nest Wifi Point. We will refer to these as the
`
`“°885 accused products.”
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`—oCSONYDBDUWFSFWYLN
`
`You will recall that I have already determined that the original versions of the °885
`
`accused products infringed claim 1 of the ’885 patent. I have also already determined that
`
`Google’s infringementof the ’885 patent was not willful, recognizing that this patent issued
`
`after this lawsuit wasfiled and that Google did not have sufficient notice of infringement.
`
`But I have not determined whether the redesigned versions of the °885 accused products
`
`infringe claim 1. Sonos contends that they do, and Google disputes this. You must decide
`
`whether or not Google’s redesigned products infringe claim 1. And,if that claim is valid, you
`
`will need to decide the amount of money damages to compensate Sonosforinfringementof the
`’885 patent.
`|
`
`14.
`
`With respect to the ’966 patent, Sonos accuses “computing devices,” such as phones,
`
`tablets, and laptops, that have or had the Google Homeappinstalled. We will refer to these as
`
`the “’966 accused products.”
`
`I have not made any determination on whetherthe original and redesigned versionsof the
`
`’966 accused productsinfringe any of the asserted claims of the °966 patent. The same goes
`
`for the determination of whether any infringementof the ’966 patent was willful. You must
`
`decide whetheror not the asserted claims of the "966 patent have been infringed. And,if you
`
`decide that any of the asserted claims are valid and infringed, you will need to decide any
`money damagesto be awarded to Sonos to compensateit for infringementofthe ’966 patent.
`
`Youwill also need to make a finding as to whether any infringementof the °966 patent was
`willful. If you decide that any infringementwas willful, that decision should not affect any
`
`damages award you give.
`
`I will take any willfulness finding by you into accountlater.
`
`15.
`
`Youwill need to understand these patent claims. You must interpret the language of the
`
`claims using its plain and ordinary meaning, except where I give.you a specific definition.
`
`I have interpreted the meaning of someof the language in the patent claims involved in
`
`this case. You must accept these interpretations as correct. My interpretation of the language
`
`should not be taken as an indication that I have a view regarding the issues of infringement and
`
`8
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 9 of 28
`
`invalidity. Once more, factual determinations bearing on infringementand invalidity are yours
`
`to make.
`
`Patent Clim
`
`°885 patent claim 1
`
`“indicationthat the first
`
`“indication from the
`
`theme”
`
`zone player has been added
`
`network device that thefirst
`
`toa... zone scene”
`
`zone player has been added
`
`to a zone scene”
`
`*885 patent claim 1;
`
`“zone scene”
`
`“a previously-saved
`
`°966 patent claims1, 2, 4,
`
`6, and 8
`
`grouping ofzone players
`
`according to a common
`
`You may recognize these constructions. Early in the trial, the parties requested that |
`
`read to youa stipulated version of “what I had previously determined,” which I did. The above
`
`constructions, however, are more precise, and they are the onesthat control.
`
`Previously, the parties requestedI tell you that “for the ’885 patent, I have determined
`
`that the phrase ‘indication that the first zone player has been added to a zone scene’ means
`
`‘indication from the network devicethat the zone player has been added by the user to a zone
`
`scene.’” I have now omitted the user language from the construction above.
`
`16.
`
`I will now instruct youon the law regarding invalidity of patents. There can be no
`
`infringementof invalid patent claims,so it is necessary to decideif the asserted claims of the
`
`°885 and °966 patents are invalid.
`
`Patents are issued by the Patent and Trademark Office and are presumedto be valid. The
`
`burden ofproofto proveinvalidity of a claim is on Google, and that burden of proofis by clear
`
`and convincing evidence.
`
`I already explained to you what I mean by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. To prove invalidity of any asserted claim, Google must persuade you by clear and
`
`9
`
`.
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 10 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 10 of 28
`
`YUnAwWABPWBBB&
`
`Oo
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`convincing evidence that the asserted claim is invalid. A patent claim is invalid if the claimed
`invention would have been obviousto a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`
`the claimed invention, which I will further explain in detail. The claims have already been |
`
`explained at length in thistrial, so I will not go into them here.
`
`17.
`With one exception, you must consider each ofthe asserted claims ofthe patent
`
`individually. The one exception to considering claims individually concerns dependentclaims.
`
`A dependentclaim includesall of the requirements of a particular independentclaim, plus
`
`additional requirements of its own. If you find that an independentclaim isinvalid,its
`
`dependent claims, dueto the additionallimitations, are not necessarily invalid. Conversely, if
`
`you find that an independentclaim is not infringed, you mustalso find that its dependent
`
`claimsare not infringed. And,if you find that an independent claim has beeninfringed, you
`
`muststill separately decide whether the additional requirements of its dependent claims have
`
`also been infringed.
`
`Sonosasserts independent claim 1 of the 885 patent as to the redesigned versions of the
`
`°885 accused products. Sonosasserts claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 of the 966 patent. Claim 4
`
`dependsfrom claim 3. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 depend from claim 1.
`
`18.
`
`The question of invalidity of a patent claim is determined from the perspective of a
`
`person having ordinary skill in theart in the field of invention in the relevant timeframe. Here,
`
`the parties have stipulated to the level of ordinary skill in the art and the relevant timeframe.
`
`For the ’885 and ’966 patents, that timeframe is December 2005. And, the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art is a person having (a) a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer
`
`engineering, electrical engineering, or an equivalent thereof; and (b) 2-4 years of professional
`
`experiencein the field of networking and networked-based systems or multimedia playback
`
`systems, such as consumeraudio systems, or an equivalent level of skill, knowledge, or
`
`experience.
`
`10
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 11 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 11 of 28
`
`we=
`
`oOoSBNDneFPWD
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`19,
`
`In deciding what would have been known by thoseofordinary skill in the art, you may
`
`take into account the extent to which a patent specification explained a pointin detail, or did
`
`not explain a pointin detail. On the one hand, a detailed explanation mayindicate that the
`inventor expectedthose ofordinary skill in the art might need the details to practice that point.
`
`Onthe other hand, cursory detail may indicate that the inventor expected those of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would already know enoughto practice that point with only minimal disclosure.
`
`Youwill recall that the specification, which comesbefore the patent claims, is supposed
`
`to include a description of the invention and an explanation of how to practice it. An important
`
`aspect of our patent system is to confer a right of exclusive ownership of an invention for
`
`twenty years in exchangefor an explanation to the world of howto practice it. You may
`consider the extent to which the detail provided in the specification explains how to implement
`
`certain aspects of the inventionas indicative of the view of the inventor as to how much help
`those of ordinary skillin the art would have neededthatdetailto practice the invention.
`
`If one of the claimed inventive features of a claim over the prior art received very little
`
`explanation in the patent specification, then you may infer that the inventor expected those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art already understood how to implementthat aspect of the claimed
`
`invention. Conversely, if considerable detail was set forth as to that claimed inventive aspect,
`
`then you mayinfer that the inventor expected those of ordinary skill in the art would need the
`
`extra detail to practice the claimed invention.
`
`It is up to you to decide how much weightto
`
`give any evidence, including this inference.
`
`20.
`
`‘In order for someoneto be entitled to a patent, their alleged invention mustactually be
`
`“new”and, evenif it is new, it must not be obviousin light of the prior art. Prior art is
`
`considered in determining whethera claim of a patent would have been obviousto a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art in the relevant timeframe, in this case, December 2005. Prior
`
`art may include items that were publicly known,or that have been used or offered for sale, or
`
`references, such as publications or patents, that disclose the claimed invention or elements of
`
`11
`
`
`
`UnitedStatésDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 12 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 12 of 28
`
`oCoNNDBAFSFWWNH
`BROBRDOBOeOoNYKF&DCDOOCOHNDHnDF&FWNHFF&S
`
`24
`
`25.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`the claimed invention. The prior art must predate the stipulated conception date, the date that
`
`Sonosallegedly conceivedofthe invention, which is December 21, 2005.
`
`For example, the Sonos 2005 system is prior art because it was shipped to customers as
`
`early as January 2005. Similarly, the Sonos forum posts that expressly predate December 21,
`
`2005, are prior art (e.g., those of “theboyg” and “JeffT”). Meanwhile, the Creston 2008 user
`
`manualis not prior art because it was published after December 21, 2005.
`
`21.
`
`Google contends thatthe asserted claims of the °885 and ’966patents are invalid because
`
`their claimed inventions would have been obvious in December 2005 to those of ordinary skill
`
`in the art. A patentclaim is invalid if the claimed invention would have been obviousto a
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made. In other
`
`words, even if the claimed invention was newin the sense that it had never been described
`
`before in the priorart, it might nevertheless be true (or not true) that the claimed invention
`
`would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art with knowledgeofall the
`
`priorart.
`
`22.
`
`The ultimate conclusion of whether a claim is obvious must be based upon your
`
`determination of several factual issues. (Lawyers often refer to these as the Graham factors.)
`
`First, you ordinarily must decide the level of ordinary skill in the art that someone would
`
`have had at the time the claimed invention was invented. Here, the lawyers have donethat for
`
`you.
`
`| already instructed you onthis.
`
`Second, you must decide the scope and content ofthe prior art. In order to be considered
`
`as prior art to the asserted patents, the items must be reasonably related to the claimed
`
`invention of that patent. An item is reasonably related if it is in the samefield as the claimed
`
`invention or is from anotherfield to which a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to
`
`solve a known problem.
`
`Third, you must decide what difference, if any, existed between the claimed invention
`
`and the priorart.
`
`12
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 13 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 13 of 28
`
`—OoOoNDBDUHFFWYHN
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`Finally, you should consider any of the following factors that you find have been shown
`
`by the evidence:
`(1) Commercialsuccessof a product due to the merits of the claimed
`
`invention;
`
`(2) A long felt need for the solution provided by the claimed invention;
`
`(3) Unsuccessful attempts by others to find the solution provided by the
`
`claimed invention;
`
`(4) Copying of the claimed invention by others;
`
`(5) Unexpected and superior results from the claimed invention;
`
`(6) Acceptanceby others of the claimed invention as shown bypraise from
`
`others in the field or from the licensing of the claimed invention;
`
`(7) Other evidence tending to show nonobviousness;
`
`(8) Independent invention of the claimed invention by others beforeorat
`
`about the same time as the named inventor thoughtofit; and
`
`(9) Other evidence tending to show obviousness.
`
`23.
`
`A patent claim composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
`
`demonstrating that each ofits elements was independently known in theprior art. In
`
`evaluating whether such a claim would have been obvious, you must consider whether Google
`
`has proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art, as
`
`of December 2005, with knowledgeofthe prior art, would have been motivated to combine
`
`their teachings to achieve the invention set forth in each asserted claim. If you determinethat
`
`Google has madethis showing, then you must further determine whether Google has proven,
`
`by clear and convincing evidence, that a person having ordinary skill in the art, as of December
`
`2005, with knowledgeofthe prior art, would have had a reasonable expectation ofsuccess in
`
`combining those teachings to achieve the invention set forth in each asserted claim.
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 14 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 14 of 28
`
`In making these factual determinations, you may also consider:
`
`24,
`
`(1) Whether an inventor would look tothe prior art to help solve the particular
`
`problem at hand;
`
`(2) Whether the change was merely the predictable result of usingprior art
`
`elements according to their known functions, or whether it was the result
`of true inventiveness;
`.
`
`(3) Whetherthere is some teaching or suggestion in the prior art to make the
`
`modification or combination of elements claimedin the patent;
`
`(4) Whetherthe innovation applied a known technique that had been used to
`
`improve a similar device or method in a similar way; and
`
`(5) Whetherthe claimed invention was oneofa relatively small number of
`
`possible approachesto the problem with a reasonable expectation of
`
`success by thoseofordinary skill in the art.
`
`25.
`
`You must be careful not to determine obviousness using the benefit of hindsight; many
`
`true inventions might seem obviousafter the fact. You should put yourself in the position of a
`
`person ofordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was invented, and you
`
`should not consider what is known today or what is learned from the teaching of the patent.
`
`26.
`
`I will now instruct you on the law regarding infringementof patents and the rules you
`
`must follow in deciding whether Sonos has proven that Google has infringed. More
`
`specifically, I will now instruct you on the rules you must follow in deciding whether the
`
`redesigned versions of the 885 accused products infringe claim 1 of the ’885 patent, and
`
`whetherthe original and redesigned versions of the °966 accused productsinfringe claims 1, 2
`
`4, 6, and 8 of the °966 patent.
`
`14
`
`— b
`
`eWwWN
`OoCONSDWwr
`
`
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 15 of 28
`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 262 Filed 05/19/23 Page 15 of 28
`
`27.
`
`The burden of proof on Sonosfor proving all infringementis a preponderanceof the
`
`evidence.
`
`I already-explained to you what ] mean by preponderanceof the evidence. As
`
`applied here, this meansthat in order to prove infringementof any asserted claim, Sonos must
`
`persuade youthatit is morelikely than not that Google hasinfringed the asserted claim.
`
`Infringement (or not) is a question of fact for you to decide.
`
`28.
`
`Before explaining ways in which a patent may beinfringed and how to determine
`infringement, I will instruct you on tworelevantrulings that I have made.
`
`First, with respect to the ’966 accused products, I have determined that the mere
`
`installation of the Google Home app on a computing device doesnotitself infringe. The claim
`
`language does notrecite any functions to be performed by the accused products unrelated to
`
`OoCOSNDBDUHFSFWYNY=
`re“aDnvABPWwNOS|&
`
`NorthernDistrictofCalifornia
`
`
`
`UnitedStatesDistrictCourt
`nyNYNYNHNWYYYNHYYLHYSao.mUmGNLlLUlUCUNORONKDSOi
`
`those computing devices“serving as a controller.” Significantly, a computing deviceis not
`capable of serving as a controller unlessit is networked with at least three zone players that
`may be added to overlapping zone scenes. Until, if ever, a computing device with the Google
`
`Homeappinstalled is networked with at least three zone players that may be added to
`
`overlapping zone scenes using the Google Homeapp,it cannot fall within the claims ofthe
`
`°966 patent. And Googleis not capableof infringing unless a computing device is networked
`
`with at least three zone players that may be added to overlapping scenes using the Google
`
`Homeapp. I instruct you that only computing devices networked with at least three zone
`
`players that may be added to overlapping zone scenes using the Google Homeapp qualify for
`
`consideration. This would be a subset of the computing devices that Sonos has accused of
`
`infringing. But that subset may (or may not) infringe. That determination will be up to you
`and must be made based on yourfinding of whetheror notall other claim requirements, or
`
`“limitations,” are met as to that subset.
`
`Second, with respect to the redesigned ’885 and °966 products, as you mayrecall, I struck
`
`Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony concerning “idle mode” from the evidence. You mustdisregard that
`
`testimony. Idle mode wasusedto refer to a mode thatis neith