Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`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,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant and Counter-
`Claimant.
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`Consolidated with Case No. 3:21-cv-07559-
`WHA
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS
`A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`Hearing Date: August 10, 2023, 8:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William Alsup
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`REPLY ISO 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 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`’885 Patent, Claim 1:
`
`
`[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.
`
`
`-i-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`REPLY ISO 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 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`’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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`01980-00181/14200480.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 4 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`’966 Patent, Claim 2:
`
`[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.
`
`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
`
`01980-00181/14200480.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 5 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`THE ‘885 AND ‘966 PATENTS ARE INVALID AS A MATTER OF LAW .....................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`The Sonos 2005 Prior Art System “Party Mode” Is a Zone Scene ............................1
`
`Sonos Forums Disclosed How to Save Overlapping Groups and Later
`Invoke Them In Even Greater Detail Than the Asserted Patents...............................3
`
`Squeezebox and Nourse Also Rendered the Asserted Claims Obvious .....................5
`
`Google Established Motivation to Combine and Expectation of Success .................5
`
`Google Established the Asserted Claims of the ’966 Patent Are Invalid ...................6
`
`Sonos Failed To Prove Any Objective Indicia of Non-Obviousness .........................7
`
`II.
`
`THE REDESIGNED PRODUCTS DO NOT INFRINGE AS A MATTER OF
`LAW .......................................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Speakers Transitioned to Idle Mode Are No Longer “Configured to Play
`Back Media Individually” ..........................................................................................8
`
`There Is No Infringement Under the Proper Construction of the Standalone
`Mode Limitation .......................................................................................................10
`
`III.
`
`THE DAMAGES AWARD CANNOT STAND .................................................................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`Sonos Admits Its License Agreements Cannot Support the $2.30 Royalty
`Rate ...........................................................................................................................12
`
`Mr. Bakewell’s Lump-Sum Opinion Is Not “Substantial Evidence”
`Supporting the Jury’s $2.30 Royalty Rate ...............................................................12
`
`The Court Should Grant a New Trial on Limited Issues or Remittitur ....................14
`
`
`
`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
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 6 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Apple Inc. v. Wi-LAN Inc.,
`25 F.4th 960 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................................................................................. 15
`
`Boesen v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`455 F. App’x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`Bos. Sci. Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
`550 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................. 14
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 14
`
`Ingram v. City of San Bernardino,
`No. EDCV 05-925-VAPSGLX, 2007 WL 5030225 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2007) .................... 11
`
`Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG,
`61 F.4th 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2023) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`Juicy Whip, Inc. v. Orange Bang, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 728 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................. 12
`
`LaserDynamics,
`694 F.3d at 79 .......................................................................................................................... 15
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................... 11, 12, 13
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`837 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ................................................................................... 12
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.,
`13 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 14
`
`Pause Tech., LLC v. TiVo, Inc.,
`419 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 11
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp.,
`875 F.3d 651 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Uber Tech., Inc. v. X One, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1334 (2020) ............................................................................................................ 3, 6
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................... 15
`
`WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Whitserve, LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 10, 30 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ............................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Statutes
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule 50(b) ......................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Federal Rule 59 ............................................................................................................................. 11
`
`
`
`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
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE ‘885 AND ‘966 PATENTS ARE INVALID AS A MATTER OF LAW
`
`No reasonable jury could have found the asserted claims valid in view of the substantial
`
`evidence showing they were disclosed by the combination of Sonos 2005 and any one of Sonos
`
`Forums, Squeezebox, and Nourse. Dkt. 824 at 3-13. Tellingly, Sonos’s own expert failed to rebut
`
`key evidence presented on these combinations. Indeed, Dr. Almeroth did not even mention any
`
`aspect of Squeezebox, Nourse, or their combinations with Sonos 2005. Sonos claims “[e]ach
`
`combination requires that the Sonos 2005 System include zone scenes” and asserts that the Party
`
`Mode feature of Sonos 2005 was not a zone scene. Opp. 2. But Sonos fails to draw any coherent
`
`distinction between the prior art Party Mode and a zone scene, and in any event ignores that the
`
`Sonos Forums, Squeezebox, and Nourse references each undisputedly disclosed zone scenes.
`
`A.
`
`The Sonos 2005 Prior Art System “Party Mode” Is a Zone Scene
`
`Sonos’s opposition rests on the proposition that the Sonos 2005 Party Mode is not a zone
`
`scene. Opp. 2-4. But no reasonable jury would have overlooked the substantial evidence proving
`
`Party Mode met the Court’s construction. And contrary to Sonos’s arguments, Party Mode (1) was
`
`previously saved, and (2) did separate between creation and invocation.
`
`Previously saved: Party Mode was undisputedly a “previously saved grouping.” Sonos’s
`
`own witnesses testified that Party Mode was hard coded into Sonos’s controllers (TX3923 ¶ 6; Tr.
`
`(Lambourne) 420:1-16, 1383:7-1384:14; id. (Millington) 334:24-335:2) and that Sonos 2005 had
`
`pre-saved knowledge of all zone players in the Party Mode group before the user invoked Party
`
`Mode. Id. (Lambourne) 420:1-16 (explaining that “what rooms were in this Party Mode” “was
`
`baked into the product” and “was coded by the engineers into the CR100 [controller] product”),
`
`504:20-25 (“Q. . . . [S]omewhere in the system that information is saved; correct? A. Yes. The
`
`system knows that those players are together.”); id. (Millington) 348:10-349:8, 355:10-357:18,
`
`398:19-399:9 (the identity of every zone player in a Sonos 2005 system was saved in each zone
`
`player and controller); id. (Schonfeld) 1381:8-1383:6 (same). Sonos and its expert’s ipse dixit
`
`assertion that the Party Mode “group membership would not be saved” (Opp. 2 and Tr. (Almeroth)
`
`1659:24-1660:1) is, thus, contrary to the undisputed evidence of Sonos 2005’s operation.
`
`Similarly, no reasonable jury would have credited Mr. Lambourne’s testimony that “the
`
`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
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`players that would play in Party Mode wasn’t saved in the system in the original design.” Tr. at
`
`459:8-13; see also Opp. 3. Mr. Lambourne’s testimony was belied by contemporaneous evidence
`
`and contradicted by his own admissions that the prior art Party Mode was a zone scene and saved
`
`the identities of the zone players. Id. at 520:21-521:10, 546:11-22, 627:6-12, 420:1-16, 504:20-25;
`
`TX3941; TX6544. Moreover, Mr. Lambourne is not a programmer and never wrote code for any
`
`Sonos product. Tr. (Lambourne) 530:6-11. No reasonable jury would have credited his testimony
`
`over the extensive evidence that identities of the zone players were pre-saved as part of Party Mode,
`
`including the testimony of Mr. Millington, a Sonos 2005 software developer. Id. at 251:6-252:4,
`
`264:13-25, 348:10-349:8, 355:10-357:18, 398:19-399:9 (pre-saving speaker identities in 2005).
`
`Sonos’s analogy to “the reply-all function in an email client” (Opp. 2-3) fails for the same
`
`reason. While “all of the other email addresses on the original message” used as part of the “reply-
`
`all function” may not be pre-saved in an email application, all the identifiers for every zone player
`
`in Sonos 2005 were pre-saved as zone topology information. The identities of the zone players in
`
`the “All Zones-Party Mode” group were not created for the first time at invocation of Party Mode.
`
`Created and later invoked: Sonos also attempts to distinguish Party Mode from a zone
`
`scene by arguing (incorrectly) that Sonos 2005 created and invoked Party Mode “simultaneously.”
`
`Opp. 3-4. Sonos argues that as a result, Sonos 2005 did not meet the limitations requiring a zone
`
`player to receive an indication that it has been added to the Party Mode and, later, an instruction
`
`invoking the Party Mode for synchronous media playback. This argument fails for several reasons.
`
`First, unrebutted evidence showed that zone players received an indication that they were
`
`added to the Party Mode in the form of a “SetAVTransportURI” message and were later invoked
`
`for synchronous media playback using a separate play message. E.g., Tr. (Schonfeld) 1378:7-
`
`1380:3, 1386:15-1388:4, 1380:11-1381:4; see also id. (Millington) 336:5-10, 342:24-343:16.
`
`Indeed, “a whole sequence of . . . exchanges …[] take place” from when a Sonos 2005 zone player
`
`receives an indication it has been added to Party Mode to the invocation of the Party Mode. Id.
`
`(Schonfeld) 1713:9-1714:6; id. at 1379:12-1380:3, 1386:15-1388:4. Contrary to Sonos’s assertion,
`
`Dr. Schonfeld did not testify that “each indication comes with the invocation” for Party Mode. Opp.
`
`4. Rather, he explained, consistent with his deposition, that the indication for Party Mode comes
`
`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
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`with invocation “[o]nly if the coordinator is actually playing music” but “if the coordinator is not
`
`playing music, that would not be correct.” Tr. (Schonfeld) 1476:8-22, 1477:13-24.
`
`Finally, even if the indication and invocation of Party Mode were simultaneous, Sonos’s
`
`argument ignores that the limitations requiring creating and sending an indication of a zone scene
`
`for later invocation would have been obvious once a second zone scene was added to the Sonos
`
`2005 system, as suggested by Sonos Forums (and disclosed in the Squeezebox system and Nourse
`
`patent). Even Mr. Lambourne agreed that Sonos Forums disclosed adding multiple zone scenes
`
`saved for later use. E.g., Tr. (Lambourne) 539:17-24 (agreeing Sonos Forums disclosed “having
`
`multiple zone scenes that are saved for later”), 549:24-550:10 (agreeing Sonos Forums disclosed “a
`
`downstairs zone that is saved for future use” which “was describing [Lambourne’s] idea for zone
`
`scenes”). Thus, even if Sonos 2005 did not disclose zone scenes, Sonos has not rebutted that each
`
`of the secondary references combined with Sonos 2005 taught zone scenes. Dkt. 824 at 4-7 (Sonos
`
`Forums disclosed overlapping zone scenes), 10 (same for Squeezebox), 11 (Nourse).
`
`B.
`
`Sonos Forums Disclosed How to Save Overlapping Groups and Later Invoke
`Them In Even Greater Detail Than the Asserted Patents
`
`Sonos Forums not only described zone scenes and how to implement overlapping groups
`
`and groups that could be saved and invoked later, it did so in greater detail than the asserted patents.
`
`As the Court has recognized, the written description for overlapping zone scenes is “thin” at best,
`
`and what little there is “in the specification has come down to one paragraph.” Tr. 660:8-661:5,
`
`749:3-13, 949:14-19. Yet neither that one paragraph (’885 Patent at 10:12-19) nor any other part of
`
`the asserted patents describes “how to implement overlapping groups or groups that could be saved
`
`and invoked later” or provides any “specific solution for creating and saving separate groups of
`
`media players” as Sonos demands from the prior art. The asserted patents at best imply overlapping
`
`zone scenes by describing that zones could be added to a zone scene using a checkbox and then
`
`saved with no disclosure of how. Id.; id. at 10:42-43 (stating “[a]t 606, the scene is saved” without
`
`any describing how); id. at Fig. 6 (black boxes to “configure” and “save” without disclosing how).
`
`Sonos cannot hold the prior art to a higher standard of disclosure than its own patents. E.g.,
`
`Uber Tech., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339 (2020). Consistent with the case law, the Court
`
`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
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`instructed the jury that “[i]f 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 implement that aspect of the
`
`claimed invention.” Dkt. 762 at 11. Here, compared to the disclosure of the asserted patents, a
`
`reasonable jury would have found Sonos Forums contained more details than the patents and more
`
`than sufficient description of overlapping zone scenes to teach the alleged invention.
`
`In particular, Sonos Forums disclosed “a macro type function” that saved different zone
`
`configurations and automated the existing zone grouping process in the Sonos 2005 system to group
`
`and synchronize media playback on zone players in one of several pre-saved zone scenes—such as
`
`Morning, Summer Party, or Winter Party zone scenes. Dkt. 824 at 4-7. This was not just a “vague[]
`
`reference[]” to zone scenes that failed to “teach any of the claim limitations requiring
`
`sending/receiving indications that a player has been added to the group, or separately
`
`sending/receiving indications that the group is being invoked,” as Sonos alleges. Opp. 5. Rather,
`
`Sonos Forums disclosed using macros with the existing mechanisms of Sonos 2005 to set up and
`
`save multiple zone scenes with overlapping speakers for later invocation. Indeed, macros were one
`
`of the solutions Mr. Lambourne himself had in mind for implementing zone scenes. Tr. 542:9-12.
`
`Sonos Forums did not need to expressly disclose the specific separate indications because the
`
`Forums posts were suggesting modifications to the existing Sonos 2005 system, which already
`
`included a SetAVTransportURI message to indicate that a zone player was added to a group and a
`
`play message to later invoke the group to play back music. See supra.
`
`Sonos also argues that Dr. Schonfeld never addressed “the foundational architectural
`
`differences between the ad hoc, immediately invoked groups in the Sonos 2005 System and the
`
`static groups that could be saved and invoked later in the asserted patents.” Opp. 6. But there was
`
`no evidence of any such “foundational” differences. Rather, the only evidence was Dr. Schonfeld’s
`
`testimony that saving a zone group as a zone scene and using the existing SetAVTransportURI
`
`indications and “play” button to later invoke the scene would have been a trivial modification to the
`
`Sonos 2005 system—a sentiment shared by many of the Sonos Forums users. See Tr. (Schonfeld)
`
`1423:22-1425:18; Dkt. 824 at 6-9; Tr. (Almeroth) 1691:6-1695:21.
`
`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
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 12 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, Sonos’s argument that Mr. Lambourne did not take the idea of overlapping groups
`
`from Sonos Forums misses the point. Opp. 6. Even if Mr. Lambourne came up with the idea
`
`independently, he testified that the prior art Sonos Forums disclosed the same problem and the same
`
`solution as his alleged invention. Dkt. 824 at 5-9 (citing evidence including Tr. (Lambourne)
`
`528:11-25, 529:1-7, 531:15-22, 541:2-25, 542:1-12, 546:8-13, 548:8-17). No reasonable jury could
`
`have found the patents valid in view of such admissions from the inventor himself.
`
`C.
`
`Squeezebox and Nourse Also Rendered the Asserted Claims Obvious
`
`Because Sonos did not rebut any aspect of Dr. Schonfeld’s testimony at trial, its only
`
`argument against Squeezebox now is that “[t]he jury could have discounted” his opinions because
`
`he did not test a physical Squeezebox player with prior art firmware. Opp. 6-7. But “Sonos did not
`
`dispute that the Squeezebox source code Dr. Schonfeld relied upon was prior art, or that Dr.
`
`Schonfeld ran ‘virtual machines’ that simulated the operation of the Squeezeboxes in 2005. Sonos
`
`never responded to Dr. Schonfeld’s virtual machine or software testing, so any reasonable jury
`
`would have found that the prior art combination including Squeezebox disclosed overlapping zone
`
`scenes.” Dkt. 824, n.5; see also id. at 9-11; Tr. at 1482:22-1485:18, 1505:25-1507:11. And contrary
`
`to Sonos’s assertion, the evidence showed the PTO examiner did not consider Squeezebox products,
`
`software, or source code that are the basis for invalidity. E.g., Tr. (Schonfeld) at 1508:20-1509:17.
`
`Sonos’s sole argument against Nourse is similarly unavailing. No reasonable jury could
`
`have found, as Sonos argues, that Nourse did not save groups merely because it assigned “up to four
`
`group identifiers” to each speaker. Opp. 7. Indeed, assigning group identifiers to speakers that are
`
`part of the group is akin to the very functionality Sonos accused and the jury found to infringe. See
`
`also Dkt. 824 at 11. If, as Sonos argued for infringement, assigning a group ID to each speaker
`
`constitutes saving the zone scene, then Nourse invalidates.
`
`D.
`
`Google Established Motivation to Combine and Expectation of Success
`
`Sonos next argues that Dr. Schonfeld “never explained why a POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to combine [the prior art] in the manner of Sonos’s claimed inventions, as opposed to
`
`some other way.” Opp. 8. Yet Dr. Schonfeld clearly explained that Sonos Forums provided the
`
`motivation for modifying Sonos 2005 in the claimed manner because Sonos Forums identified the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`REPLY ISO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND NEW TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 843 Filed 07/14/23 Page 13 of 23
`
`
`
`
`
`same problem and suggested the same solution. Dkt. 824 at 7-9. A POSITA would have been
`
`motivated to “combine the teachings exactly as Sonos’s invention does” (Opp. 8) because Sonos
`
`Forums expressly proposed the claimed invention of overlapping zone groups that are saved for
`
`later invocation. See supra § I.B; Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023) (because prior art “address[ed] the same problem and [provided] a known way to address
`
`that problem” that was “precisely the reason that there’s a motivation to combine”). The same
`
`suggestions would have also led a POSITA to look to Squeezebox, a similar product in the same
`
`field that Mr. Lambourne and others investigated in designing Sonos’s products. Tr. (Lambourne)
`
`556:15-22, 560:15-566:18; TX3937. A POSITA would have similarly been motivated to look to
`
`Nourse, a relevant patent in the same field of invention as the asserted patents.
`
`Sonos’s only rebuttal is that there was no evidence of why a POSITA would have combined
`
`the references “exactly as Sonos’s invention does.” But this argument fails because all but one
`
`aspect of the alleged invention were already part of the Sonos 2005 system. Supra § I.A. The only
`
`thing missing was the concept of overlapping zone groups saved for later invocation, which was
`
`taught by Sonos Forums, Squeezebox, and Nourse. Dkt. 824 at 9-11. And since the asserted patents
`
`do not describe overlapping zone scenes in any level of detail (supra § I.B), a POSITA need only
`
`have added the concept of overlapping zone scenes to So