throbber
Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 807 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Sean Pak (Bar No. 219032)
`seanpak@quinnemanuel.com
`Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649)
`melissabaily@quinnemanuel.com
`James Judah (Bar No. 257112)
`jamesjudah@quinnemanuel.com
`Lindsay Cooper (Bar No. 287125)
`lindsaycooper@quinnemanuel.com
`Iman Lordgooei (Bar No. 251320)
`imanlordgooei@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-4788
`Telephone:
`(415) 875-6600
`Facsimile:
`(415) 875-6700
`
`Marc Kaplan (pro hac vice)
`marckaplan@quinnemanuel.com
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 2700
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone:
`(312) 705-7400
`Facsimile:
`(312) 705-7401
`
`Attorneys for GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
` Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`Consolidated with Case No. 3:21-cv-07559-
`WHA
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S RESPONSE TO
`SONOS’S REPLY RE THE COURT’S
`REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
`CONCERNING WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION (DKT. 789)
`
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-
`Defendant,
`
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant and Counter-
`Plaintiff.
`
`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 No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`GOOGLE’S RESP. TO SONOS REPLY RE REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 807 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Google submits this short response to address a brand-new argument raised in Sonos’s reply
`brief (Dkt. 789, “Reply”), which was not raised in its prior summary judgment briefing nor in its
`discovery responses. Despite having repeatedly argued at trial that “Party Mode” is not a “zone
`scene” as claimed for a variety of reasons (e.g., Trial Tr. at 458:5-20 (Lambourne), 1659:19-1660:5
`(Almeroth)), Sonos’s Reply now contends that Figure 7 of the ’885 and ’966 Patents provides
`written description support for overlapping zone scenes because it shows a user interface with “a
`‘Party Mode’ zone scene and a ‘Morning Wakeup’ zone scene.” Reply at 4. This last-minute
`turnabout by Sonos, while potentially relevant to Google’s invalidity arguments under Rule 50(a),
`misses the mark in terms of the written description issue at hand. Figure 7 (left) and the entirety of
`the specification’s description of that figure (right) are reproduced below:
`
`
`
`“FIG. 7 shows an example user
`interface for invoking a zone scene.”
`(’885 patent at 4:4-5);
`
`
`“FIG. 7 shows an example user
`interface for invoking a zone scene. The
`user interface of FIG. 7 shows a Zone
`Menu
`that
`includes
`selectable
`indications of zone scenes.”
`(’885 patent at 11:12-14).
`
`
`
`
`Figure 7 and its accompanying descriptions fail as a matter of law to provide written
`description support for overlapping zone scenes for at least the following reasons: First, Federal
`Circuit authority makes clear that “novel aspects of the invention must be disclosed and not left to
`inference.” Crown Operations Int’l, Ltd. v. Solutia Inc., 289 F.3d 1367, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
`(emphasis added). Here, Figure 7 and its accompanying descriptions do not include any discussion
`of the specific zone players in the “Party Mode” or “Morning Wakeup” zone scenes. Critically,
`there is no mention of the zone players overlapping. Nor is there any disclosure in the specifications
`that “Party Mode” in this figure comprises all the zone players in the home. In fact, the phrases
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`GOOGLE’S RESP. TO SONOS REPLY RE REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 807 Filed 06/02/23 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`“Party Mode” and “Morning Wakeup” do not even appear in the patent outside of Figure 7 because
`references to the “Party Mode” feature of the prior art Sonos 2005 system were omitted from the
`provisional application and subsequently from the non-provisional applications. See Dkt. 785 at 3.
`Although the prior art Sonos 2005 system included a “Party Mode” that consisted of all the
`zone players in the home, as described by Dr. Schonfeld during trial as part of his obviousness
`analysis taking into account the background knowledge of the prior art, the written description
`requirement cannot be supplemented by the background knowledge of those skilled in the art—
`instead, the test for adequate written description support looks only to the “four corners of the
`specification.” See, e.g., Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1319-23 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`(“Rivera argues that the background knowledge of those skilled in the art can supplement the
`teaching in the specification to provide written description support. We reject Rivera’s argument.
`As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to ‘the four corners of the
`specification’ to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as
`broadly claimed.”) (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
`2010) (en banc)) (emphasis added). Accordingly, since neither Figure 7 nor any disclosure in the
`written specification describes the “Party Mode,” there is nothing within the “four corners of the
`specification” that would inform those of ordinary skill in the art that Sonos was in possession of
`overlapping zone scenes. Nor is it enough that “Party Mode” in the prior art Sonos 2005 system
`rendered obvious overlapping zone scenes. PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299,
`1310 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Obviousness simply is not enough; the subject matter must be disclosed to
`establish possession.”); Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“One
`shows that one is ‘in possession’ of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed
`limitations, not that which makes it obvious.”).
`Second, an adequate written description requires “a description of an invention, not an
`indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention.” Regents of the Univ. of
`Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., Inc., 119 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (emphasis added); Taylor v. Iancu,
`809 F. App’x 821, 824 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (a description that amounts to “a ‘mere wish or plan’ for
`obtaining the claimed invention” fails the written description requirement). Even setting aside that
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`GOOGLE’S RESP. TO SONOS REPLY RE REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 807 Filed 06/02/23 Page 4 of 5
`
`Figure 7 and its accompanying description do not disclose overlapping zone scenes, the disclosures
`nevertheless cannot satisfy the written description requirement because they disclose, if anything,
`merely a result, not any particular way of achieving that result. Indeed, Figure 7 simply shows “an
`example user interface for invoking a zone scene.” ’885 patent at 4:4-5. It says nothing about how
`to implement a system that creates, saves, and invokes overlapping zone scenes—again, leaving
`that disclosure, at best, to inference. See, e.g., Crown Operations Int’l, 289 F.3d at 1380 (“novel
`aspects of the invention must be disclosed and not left to inference.” (emphasis added)).
`Even Sonos’s counsel argued at trial that Figure 7 relates to a different patent’s claims
`directed to simultaneously displaying zone scenes, but does not say anything about overlapping
`zone scenes. Trial Tr. at 1193:11-24 (Mr. Shea: “this was not talking about the claim language of
`the patents in suit and the word ‘overlap’ or the discussion of overlap was not being discussed
`specifically here. It was about simultaneous display”). Sonos also elicited the following testimony
`from Mr. Lambourne regarding the “Party Mode” in his conception document (from which Figure
`7 was copied): “For instance, Party Mode for somebody might not be: I want to play all the rooms
`in the house. Maybe Party Mode for somebody is: I want to play in all the rooms but not the baby’s
`room, for instance.” Trial Tr. at 458:5-20 (emphasis added). Thus, per Mr. Lambourne, the Party
`Mode in Figure 7 by itself (without taking into consideration background knowledge of the prior art
`Sonos 2005 system) had no predefined set of zone players associated with it and, as such, could not
`disclose overlapping zone scenes without additional information going beyond the “four corners of
`the specification.”
`In sum, the fact that Sonos now belatedly—and for the first time—relies on Figure 7 does
`nothing more than confirm that there is a complete lack of written description support for
`overlapping zone scenes.
`Dated: June 2, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Sean Pak
`Attorneys for GOOGLE LLC
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`Counsel for Google LLC
`3
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`GOOGLE’S RESP. TO SONOS REPLY RE REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
`
`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 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 807 Filed 06/02/23 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 5-1, I hereby certify
`that, on June 2, 2023, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with a
`copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`DATED: June 2, 2023
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Sean Pak
`
`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
`
`4
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`GOOGLE’S RESP. TO SONOS REPLY RE REQUEST FOR FURTHER BRIEFING
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket