Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 37
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-
`Defendant,
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant and Counter-
`Claimant.
`
`-1-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`Consolidated with Case No. 3:21-cv-07559-
`WHA
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A
`MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`Location: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`
`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 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 37
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August 10, 2023 at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom 12 before the Honorable William H. Alsup, 450 Golden Gate
`Avenue, San Francisco, California, Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) shall and hereby does
`respectfully seek an order (1) granting judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 50(b) and (2) granting a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59
`or, in the alternative, remittitur. This Motion is based on the testimony and evidence admitted at
`trial, all pleadings, exhibits, and records in this action, and such other papers, evidence, and/or
`argument as may be submitted to the Court in connection with this Motion or that the Court may
`take notice or otherwise consider.
`Google hereby renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity of the
`asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,885 (the “’885 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,469,966
`(the “’966 patent”), non-infringement of claim 1 of the ’885 patent by Google’s new design, and
`damages for any infringement of claim 1 of the ’885 patent. In the alternative, Google hereby
`moves for a new trial on invalidity and non-infringement of Google’s new design. Google also
`hereby moves for a new trial on damages, or in the alternative remittitur, on the grounds that the
`jury’s royalty rate of $2.30 per unit is excessive and contrary to and unsupported by the evidence.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 3 of 37
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`
`By
`
`/s Sean Pak
`Sean Pak
`Melissa Baily
`James D. Judah
`Lindsay Cooper
`Marc Kaplan
`Iman Lordgooei
`
`
`Attorneys for GOOGLE LLC
`
`DATED: June 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`01980-00181/14135277.1
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 4 of 37
`
`
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`[1.0]. A first zone player comprising:
`
`[1.1] a network interface that is configured to communicatively couple the first zone
`player to at least one data network;
`
`[1.2] one or more processors;
`
`[1.3] a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
`
`[1.4] program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium
`that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the first zone player to
`perform functions comprising:
`
`[1.5] while operating in a standalone mode in which the first zone player is
`configured to play back media individually in a networked media playback system
`comprising the first zone player and at least two other zone players:
`
`[1.6] (i) receiving, from a network device over a data network, a first indication
`that the first zone player has been added to a first zone scene comprising a first
`predefined grouping of zone players including at least the first zone player and a
`second zone player that are to be configured for synchronous playback of media
`when the first zone scene is invoked; and
`
`[1.7] (ii) receiving, from the network device over the data network, a second
`indication that the first zone player has been added to a second zone scene
`comprising a second predefined grouping of zone players including at least the
`first zone player and a third zone player that are to be configured for synchronous
`playback of media when the second zone scene is invoked, wherein the second
`zone player is different than the third zone player;
`
`[1.8] after receiving the first and second indications, continuing to operate in the
`standalone mode until a given one of the first and second zone scenes has been
`selected for invocation;
`
`[1.9] after the given one of the first and second zone scenes has been selected for
`invocation, receiving, from the network device over the data network, an instruction
`to operate in accordance with a given one of the first and second zone scenes
`respectively comprising a given one of the first and second predefined groupings of
`zone players; and
`
`[1.10] based on the instruction, transitioning from operating in the standalone mode
`to operating in accordance with the given one of the first and second predefined
`groupings of zone players such that the first zone player is configured to coordinate
`with at least one other zone player in the given one of the first and second predefined
`groupings of zone players over a data network in order to output media in synchrony
`with output of media by the at least one other zone player in the given one of the first
`and second predefined groupings of zone players.
`
`
`01980-00181/14135277.1
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`’885 Patent, Claim 1:
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 5 of 37
`
`
`
`
`’966 Patent, Claim 1:
`
`
`[1.0] A computing device comprising:
`
`[1.1] one or more processors;
`
`[1.2] a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and
`
`[1.3] program instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium that,
`when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform
`functions comprising:
`
`[1.4] while serving as a controller for a networked media playback system comprising a first
`zone player and at least two other zone players, wherein the first zone player is operating in
`a standalone mode in which the first zone player is configured to play back media
`individually:
`
`[1.5] receiving a first request to create a first zone scene comprising a first predefined
`grouping of zone players including at least the first zone player and a second zone player
`that are to be configured for synchronous playback of media when the first zone scene is
`invoked;
`
`[1.6] based on the first request, i) causing creation of the first zone scene, ii) causing an
`indication of the first zone scene to be transmitted to the first zone player, and iii) causing
`storage of the first zone scene;
`
`[1.7] receiving a second request to create a second zone scene comprising a second
`predefined grouping of zone players including at least the first zone player and a third zone
`player that are to be configured for synchronous playback of media when the second zone
`scene is invoked, wherein the third zone player is different than the second zone player;
`
`[1.8] based on the second request, i) causing creation of the second zone scene, ii) causing
`an indication of the second zone scene to be transmitted to the first zone player, and iii)
`causing storage of the second zone scene;
`
`[1.9] displaying a representation of the first zone scene and a representation of the second
`zone scene; and
`
`[1.10] while displaying the representation of the first zone scene and the representation of
`the second zone scene, receiving a third request to invoke the first zone scene; and
`
`[1.11] based on the third request, causing the first zone player to transition from operating
`in the standalone mode to operating in accordance with the first predefined grouping of zone
`players such that the first zone player is configured to coordinate with at least the second
`zone player to output media in synchrony with output of media by at least the second zone
`player.
`
`
`’966 Patent, Claim 2:
`01980-00181/14135277.1
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`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 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 6 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[2.0] The computing device of claim 1,
`
`[2.1] further comprising program instructions stored on the non-transistory computer-
`readable medium that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing
`device to perform functions comprising:
`
`[2.2] while the first zone player is configured to coordinate with at least the second zone
`player to play back media in synchrony with at least the second zone player, receiving a
`fourth request to invoke the second zone scene; and
`
`[2.3] based on the fourth request, causing the first zone player to (a) cease to operate in
`accordance with the first predefined grouping of zone players such that the first zone player
`is no longer configured to coordinate with at least the second zone player to output media in
`synchrony with output of media by at least the second zone player and (b) begin to operate
`in accordance with the second predefined grouping of zone players such that the first zone
`player is configured to coordinate with a t least the third zone player to output media in
`synchrony with output of media by at least the third zone player.
`
`
`’966 Patent, Claim 4:
`
`[4.0] The computing device of claim 3,
`
`[4.1] wherein the location other than the computing device comprises a zone player of the
`first predefined group of zone players.
`
` ’966 Patent, Claim 6:
`
`
`[6.0] The computing device of claim 1,
`
`[6.1] wherein the first predefined grouping of zone players does not include the third zone
`player, and wherein the second predefined grouping of zone players does not include the
`second zone player.
`
`’966 Patent, Claim 8:
`
`
`[8.0] The computing device of claim 1,
`
`[8.1] wherein receiving the first request comprises receiving a first set of one or more inputs
`via a user interface of the computing device, wherein receiving the second request comprises
`receiving a second set of one or more inputs via the user interface, and wherein receiving
`the third request comprises receiving a third set of one or more inputs via the user interface.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`01980-00181/14135277.1
`
`
`
`-v-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`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 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 7 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................1 
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................2 
`The Court Should Enter Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ’885 And ’966
`A. 
`Patents As A Matter of Law .......................................................................................2 
`1. 
`Claim 1 of the ’885 Patent Is Invalid .............................................................3 
`2. 
`The Asserted Claims of the ’966 Patent Are Invalid for the Same
`Reasons .........................................................................................................12 
`Sonos Did Not Prove Any Secondary Considerations .................................12 
`3. 
`The Court Should Enter Judgment OF Non-Infringement Of the ’885 Patent
`As A Matter of Law .................................................................................................13 
`Google’s New Design Enters An Idle Mode And Does Not Practice
`1. 
`the “Operating In Standalone” Limitations While Continuing To
`Operate In The Claimed Standalone Mode ..................................................14 
`Google’s New Design Does Not Continue To Operate In The
`Claimed Standalone Mode Under The Proper Claim Construction
`Requiring Active Playback Of Media ..........................................................16 
`The Court Should Enter Judgment For Google On Damages As a Matter Of
`Law ...........................................................................................................................18 
`1. 
`The $2.30/Unit Royalty Rate Had No Evidentiary Support .........................18 
`2. 
`The Legally Relevant Evidence Does Not Support A Damages
`Verdict In Excess Of $2.25 Million .............................................................22 
`The Court should Grant a New Trial On Limited Issues .........................................22 
`Google Is Entitled To A New Trial On Validity Of The ’885 Patent
`1. 
`And Infringement Of Its New Design ..........................................................22 
`Google Is Entitled To A New Trial On Damages ........................................22 
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`-i-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 8 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc.,
`25 F.4th 960 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................................ 19, 23
`
`Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN, Inc.,
`No. 14CV2235 DMS (BLM), 2019 WL 4248899 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019), aff’d,
`25 F.4th 960 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................................................................. 25
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`926 F. Supp. 2d 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................... 2
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2013 WL 5958176 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2013) ........................... 21, 24
`
`Brocade Commc’ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
`No. C 10-3428 PSG, 2013 WL 831528 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2013) ......................................... 25
`
`CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc.,
`53 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................ 16
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`509 U.S. 579 (1993) ................................................................................................................ 23
`
`Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey,
`95 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................... 1, 22
`
`Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2015 WL 396010 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) .................................... 1
`
`ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.,
`764 F. Supp. 2d 807 (E.D. Va. 2011), aff’d, 700 F.3d 509 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................... 21
`
`Forest Laboratories, LLC v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC,
`918 F.3d 928 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Frazier v. Layne Christensen Co.,
`239 Fed. App’x 604 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................ 7
`
`Hanson v. Alpine Valley Ski Area, Inc.,
`718 F.2d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................................... 22
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
`No. CV-00-20905-RMW, 2006 WL 1991760 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2006) ........................... 2, 25
`
`Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, Inc.,
`No. C 02 03378 EDL, 2007 WL 2344962 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2007) ................................... 25
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`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 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 9 of 37
`
`
`InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc.,
`751 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`
`
`Landes Const. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada,
`833 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 19, 24
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device All., Inc.,
`244 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`429 Fed. App’x. 967 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................... 13
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.,
`13 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .............................................................................. 18, 19, 21, 23
`
`Pavao v. Pagay,
`307 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 3
`
`ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.,
`594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.,
`563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 1
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns AB,
`820 F.3d 419 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`TransCore, LP v. Elec. Transaction Consultants Corp.,
`563 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................... 21
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................... 19, 23, 24
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 10 of 37
`
`
`Vectura Ltd. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC,
`981 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`Viasat, Inc. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc.,
`No. 3:12-CV-00260-H WVG, 2014 WL 3896073 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2014) ......................... 25
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................... 1, 19, 22
`
`ZUP, LLC v. Nash Mfg.,
`896 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 9, 10
`
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ........................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ............................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a) ...................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 702 ........................................................................................................................ 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 11 of 37
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND POINTS OF AUTHORITIES
`Google renews its motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 50(b). No substantial evidence supported a verdict for Sonos on validity of the asserted
`patents or infringement of the ’885 patent by Google’s redesigned products, and the evidence did
`not support more than the $2.25 million lump sum damages proposed by Google’s damages expert.
`At a minimum, Google should be awarded a new trial.
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`The Court should enter JMOL following a jury trial where “the evidence, construed in the
`light most favorable to the nonmoving party, permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that
`conclusion is contrary to that of the jury.” InTouch Techs., Inc. v. VGO Commc’ns, Inc., 751 F.3d
`1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quotations omitted). “In other words, to set aside the verdict, there
`must be an absence of substantial evidence—meaning relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
`would accept as adequate to support a conclusion—to support the jury’s verdict.” Emblaze Ltd. v.
`Apple Inc., No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2015 WL 396010, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2015) (cleaned up).
`A new trial should be awarded if “the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence,
`or is based upon evidence which is false, or to prevent, in the sound discretion of the trial court, a
`miscarriage of justice.” Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc., 609 F.3d 1308,
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted). In addressing a Rule 59 motion, “the judge can weigh
`the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses, and need not view the evidence from the
`perspective most favorable to the prevailing party.” Landes Const. Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada,
`833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987); Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d
`1358, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Thus, a “trial court may grant a new trial, even though the verdict is
`supported by substantial evidence[.]” Mentor H/S, Inc. v. Med. Device All., Inc., 244 F.3d 1365,
`1374 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 2007). In particular,
`a trial court should grant a new trial if the jury’s damages award “is grossly excessive or monstrous,
`clearly not supported by the evidence, or based only on speculation or guesswork.” Del Monte
`Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 95 F.3d 1422, 1435 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations
`omitted). Rule 59 also permits remittitur, reducing an excessive jury award to a supportable
`
`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
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 12 of 37
`
`
`
`
`amount. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 926 F. Supp. 2d 1100, 1109-10 (N.D. Cal. 2013). If the
`Court chooses remittitur, the party that prevailed may accept the reduced award or demand a new
`trial. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. CV-00-20905-RMW, 2006 WL 1991760 (N.D.
`Cal. July 14, 2006).
`II.
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`The Court Should Enter Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ’885 And ’966
`Patents As A Matter of Law
`The Court should grant JMOL that the asserted claims are invalid because no reasonable
`jury could have found the asserted claims valid over: (1) the Sonos 2005 System in view of Sonos
`Forums; (2) the Sonos 2005 System in view of Squeezebox; and (3) the Sonos 2005 System in view
`of Nourse.
`It is undisputed that the Sonos 2005 System is prior art. Multiple Sonos witnesses confirmed
`that the Sonos 2005 System was on sale in January 2005, which is more than a year before the filing
`of Sonos’s provisional application in September of 2006. Trial Tr. (Millington) at 280:4-11, 280:16-
`19, 314:3-9, 315:13-24; id. (Lambourne) at 520:14-16; TX0062; TX0063; TX6991; TX6974;
`TX6979; TX6730.
`Google’s expert, Dr. Schonfeld, also testified that the prior art rendered obvious every
`element of Claim 1 of the ’885 and ’966 patents. Trial Tr. at 1375:15-1390:17, 1419:21-1426:13,
`1431:13-1438:5, 1438:6-1441:10, 1441:11-1451:9, 1455:13-1456:5, 1713:9-1714:2. For instance,
`Google presented testimony from Dr. Schonfeld on ’885 patent elements [1.0]-[1.4] (id. at 1375:18-
`1377:8) and [1.5]-[1.6] (id. at 1377:9-1389:14) and [1.0]-[1.6] and ’966 patent elements [1.9] (id. at
`1389:17-1390:18). Google also presented testimony from Dr. Schonfeld on elements [1.9]-[1.10] of
`the ’885 patent (id. at 1420:5-1422:3) and [1.10]-[1.11] of the ’966 patent (id. at 1422:6-14).1 And
`with respect to ‘885 patent elements [1.7]-[1.8] and ’966 patent elements [1.7]-[1.8], because Sonos
`2005 disclosed a first zone scene (as well as overlapping groups) but not a second overlapping zone
`
`
`1 See also Trial Tr. (Millington) at 357:8-14, 357:24-358:4, 395:16-396:2 (Sonos 2005 taught claim
`limitations 1.0-1.4), 336:5-10, 343:5-16 (describing indication messages received by zone players
`in Sonos 2005), 320:21-321:9 (Sonos 2005 taught limitation 1.9); id. (Lambourne) at 429:17-20
`(equating standalone with “not in a group”), 421:9-21 (admitting that Sonos 2005 system taught
`operating in a standalone mode).
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`
`
`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 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 13 of 37
`
`
`
`
`scene, Google showed that this difference was obvious in view of the knowledge of a person of skill
`in the art and when combined with any one of the Sonos Forums, Nourse, and Squeezebox prior art
`references. Id. at 1422:15-1451:9.
` Google also presented substantively unrebutted testimony from Dr. Schonfeld with respect
`to the asserted dependent claims of the ’966 patent. Trial Tr. (Schonfeld) at 1451:10-1455:2. Dr.
`Schonfeld showed that the prior art teaches the ’966 patent claims 2 (id. at 1451:23-1452:12), 3-4
`(id. at 1452:13-1453:9), 6 (id. at 1453:10-1454:11), and 8 (id. at 1454:12-1455:2). The evidence,
`even “construed in the light most favorable to [Sonos], permits only one reasonable conclusion, and
`that conclusion is” that all asserted claims are invalid. See Pavao v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915, 918 (9th
`Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Below, Google addresses Sonos’s attempted distinctions.
`1.
`Claim 1 of the ’885 Patent Is Invalid
`(a)
`
`Claim 1 is Invalid Over the Combination of the Sonos 2005 System
`and the Sonos Forums
`
`(i)
`Sonos 2005 System Disclosed a Party Mode Zone Scene
`With respect to the Sonos 2005 System, Sonos’s expert, Dr. Almeroth, disputed only that
`the Sonos 2005 System disclosed “zone scenes.” Trial Tr. 1653:21-1654:8; 1658:1-1665:11. Thus,
`Dr. Schonfeld’s mapping of the Sonos 2005 prior art system to the asserted claims limitations was
`otherwise undisputed. There also was no genuine dispute that the Sonos 2005 System included a
`first “zone scene.” The Court construed “zone scene” as “a previously-saved grouping of zone
`players according to a common theme.” Dkt. 762 at 8-9. Dr. Schonfeld showed that the “party
`mode” in the Sonos 2005 system was a previously-saved grouping of zone players according to a
`common theme. Trial Tr. at 1381:8-1383:6. The testimony of Sonos’s own witnesses, including
`Mr. Lambourne (the sole inventor) was in accord. The Sonos 2005 System’s party mode was a
`grouping of all zone players in the system that was “hard-coded” in the controller (i.e., previously
`stored) and grouped according to a common theme (i.e., a whole-house “party”). E.g., Trial Tr.
`(Millington) 324:7-22, 327:3-17; Trial Tr. (Lambourne) at 420:1-7, 489:23-25, 490:1-5, 502:25-
`503:1-2, 503:12-23, 505:9-23, 504:20-25, 505:20-506:1; TX3923 (Lambourne Decl.) ¶ 6; see also
`TX0062 at 30; TX0063 at 4. The pre-saved party mode could then be invoked from the zone menu
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 824 Filed 06/23/23 Page 14 of 37
`
`
`
`
`screen using a “single touch.” TX3923 ¶ 6. Users could also modify the party mode to remove
`zone players and create a smaller group of zone players. E.g., Trial Tr. (Millington) at 327:14-
`328:1; Trial Tr. (Schonfeld) at 1384:15-24. The testimony from Sonos’s inventor, corroborated by
`his contemporaneous documents, conclusively established that the party mode in the Sonos 2005
`System was a “zone scene.” E.g., Trial Tr. (Lambourne) at 420:1-7, 489:23-25, 490:1-5, 502:25-
`503:1-2, 503:12-23, 505:9-23, 520:20-521:10, 546:11-22, 627:6-12; see also TX6544 at 27 (Sonos
`UI Specification: “‘Party Mode’ that currently ships with the product is one example of a Zone
`Scene.”); ’966 Patent at Fig. 7 (illustrating “Party Mode” as an exemplary zone scene); TX3941 at
`1 (“Zone Scene Macros. ‘Party Mode’ is one example”); TX0120 at 1 (“think Party mode”).
`Dr. Almeroth nevertheless argued that party mode was not a zone scene because it “did not
`provide users with any ability to customize and pre-save their own defined groups of zone
`players.” Trial Tr. (Almeroth) 1659:21-1660:5, 1661:17-20 (emphasis added). But claim 1 has no
`such requirement. In fact, the Court expressly “omitted the user language from the
`construction.”2 Dkt. 762 (Final Charge to the Jury) at 8-9; see also Trial Tr. (Lambourne) 479:22-
`483:23, 501:11-25 (agreeing the claim nowhere requires a user), 509:19-23. Under the correct claim
`construction, no reasonable jury could find that party mode in the Sonos 2005 system was not a zone
`scene. Thus, the only claim elements not taught by Sonos 2005 were the addition of a second zone
`scene that overlaps with the first zone scene and remaining in standalone mode until a zone scene is
`invoked. And those limitations were conclusively disclosed by Sonos Forums and other prior art.
`(ii)
`Sonos Forums Disclosed Multiple Overlapping Zone Scenes
`Google established that the Sonos Forums website—which “allowed users to write about
`their experiences of using a Sonos system”—rendered the asserted claims obvious by adding to the
`Sonos 2005 System a second, overlapping zone scene that could be saved and later invoked—prior
`to Sonos’s alleged December 21, 2005 conception date. Trial Tr. at 466:12-15, 535:11-551:25;
`TX2424; TX3928; TX3930. Google showe