Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 1 of 55
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`No. C 20-06754 WHA
`No. C 21-07559 WHA
`
`(Consolidated)
`
`ORDER RE PROSECUTION
`LACHES AND POST-TRIAL
`MOTIONS
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In the lead-up to trial, all agreed that any remaining affirmative defenses would be
`
`decided by the judge after the jury verdict. Following a verdict in favor of the patent holder,
`
`the judge has now considered those defenses. Under the doctrine of prosecution laches, this
`
`order finds and holds that the patents in suit are UNENFORCEABLE.
`
`The essence of this order is that the patents issued after an unreasonable, inexcusable, and
`
`prejudicial delay of over thirteen years by the patent holder, Sonos, Inc. Sonos filed the
`
`provisional application from which the patents in suit claim priority in 2006, but it did not file
`
`the applications for these patents and present the asserted claims for examination until 2019.
`
`By the time these patents issued in 2019 and 2020, the industry had already marched on and
`
`put the claimed invention into practice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 2 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`In fact, in 2014, five years before Sonos filed the applications and presented the claims,
`
`accused infringer Google LLC shared with Sonos a plan for a product that would practice what
`
`would become the claimed invention. The parties were exploring a potential collaboration, but
`
`it never materialized. Google then began introducing its own products that practiced the
`
`invention in 2015. Even so, Sonos waited until 2019 to pursue claims on the invention (and
`
`until 2020 to roll out the invention in its own product line). Because Sonos’s applications for
`
`the patents in suit ostensibly descended from the 2006 provisional application, Sonos claimed a
`
`priority date before Google’s disclosures and product releases. Once the patents in suit issued,
`
`Google’s work putting the invention into practice fell under a cloud of infringement.
`
`Trial brought to light what happened here. This was not a case of an inventor leading the
`
`industry to something new. This was a case of the industry leading with something new and,
`
`only then, an inventor coming out of the woodwork to say that he had come up with the idea
`
`first — wringing fresh claims to read on a competitor’s products from an ancient application.
`
`Even if the provisional application Sonos filed in 2006 or the corresponding non-
`
`provisional application Sonos filed in 2007 had actually disclosed the invention, that would be
`
`all the more reason to hold Sonos waited too long to claim it, to the prejudice of Google, not to
`
`mention other companies and consumers. But, as will be shown below, those applications
`
`failed to disclose the invention. What’s more, in 2019, during the prosecution of the
`
`applications for the patents in suit, Sonos amended the specification to insert new matter,
`
`despite telling the patent examiner the inserted matter was not new. Under black letter patent
`
`law, that new matter necessarily sunk any claim of priority.
`
`STATEMENT
`
`This order constitutes findings of fact and conclusions of law, the affirmative defense of
`
`prosecution laches having been tried to the bench. All declarative statements herein are
`
`findings of fact.
`
`The patents in suit are United States Patent Nos. 10,848,885 and 10,469,966. They
`
`generally concern managing groups of multimedia players (e.g., “smart speakers”) in a
`
`multiroom system. Much like how one can customize, save, and invoke groups of email
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 3 of 55
`
`
`
`addresses from selected contacts with a name like “Ball Team” or “Band,” the patents
`
`contemplate customizing, saving, and invoking groups of multimedia players from selected
`
`rooms with a name like “Morning” or “Downstairs.” They refer to the multimedia players as
`
`“zone players” and the customized, saved groups of zone players that can be invoked on
`
`demand as “zone scenes.” Specifically, the patents in suit claim devices that implement
`
`overlapping zone scenes, which share one or more zone players. Just as a single email address
`
`can be a member of “Ball Team” and “Band,” a single zone player can be a member of
`
`“Morning” and “Downstairs.”
`
`This order will now walk through the relevant history, but a short synopsis helps.
`
`Seeking to improve upon the wireless multiroom audio system it released in 2005, Sonos
`
`set out to patent zone scenes, i.e., customized, saved groups of zone players that could be
`
`invoked on demand. Sonos filed a provisional application in 2006, a corresponding non-
`
`provisional application in 2007, and a daisy chain of continuation applications over the next
`
`decade. During the prosecution of those applications, however, the patent examiner insisted
`
`that the prior art had already disclosed this idea. Sonos’s applications were repeatedly rejected,
`
`and Sonos only secured zone scene claims with variations of little consequence.
`
`Then, in 2019, Sonos filed continuation applications for the patents in suit. To get
`
`around the prior art, Sonos sought to patent zone scenes with a new twist: overlap. With
`
`overlap, a zone player could be a member of more than one zone scene at the same time. This
`
`was thirteen years after Sonos filed the provisional application, but also five years after Google
`
`had itself disclosed overlapping zone scenes to Sonos, and four years after Google had released
`
`products that implemented the feature. Initially, Sonos’s applications for the patents in suit
`
`were rejected on obviousness grounds. Yet after Sonos amended the applications to
`
`incorporate new specification language (with new matter) and narrowed claim language (with
`
`“standalone mode” limitations), they issued as patents. Sonos promptly asserted these patents
`
`against Google.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 4 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`THE SONOS 2005 PRIOR ART SYSTEM.
`
`At the turn of the century, home audio typically involved radios, turntables, and CD
`
`players in individual rooms. Although a lucky few had multiroom systems that allowed them
`
`to play the same music in more than one room, those systems required installers to pull wires
`
`through the walls and ceilings.
`
`Founded in Santa Barbara in 2002, Sonos set out to make multiroom audio higher tech,
`
`lower cost, and more accessible by creating a wireless system built on computer networks and
`
`processors. It envisioned placing devices, called “zone players,” in various rooms of the home
`
`to provide music for those rooms, or “zones.” Each zone player would be connected to other
`
`zone players and to the internet using network technology, not wires, and operated using a
`
`hand-held controller with a screen, not an infrared remote control. A key feature of Sonos’s
`
`vision was the ability to group zone players in different zones to play music in synchrony.
`
`In 2003, as Rincon Networks, Sonos began designing hardware and writing software for
`
`its first wireless multiroom audio system. By summer 2004, it demoed product prototypes at
`
`the All Things Digital conference. And, by January 2005, Sonos shipped its first commercial
`
`wireless multiroom audio system. All agree that the system was prior art for our purposes.
`
`This order will refer to it as the Sonos 2005 prior art system. It consisted of the ZonePlayer
`
`100 (“ZP100”) and the Controller 100 (“CR100”).
`
`Readers familiar with Sonos’s contemporary products should be mindful that these
`
`earlier products were different. The ZP100 was a wireless internet-connected “smart
`
`amplifier” rather than a smart speaker. Sonos’s first zone players were wirelessly connected to
`
`other zone players and to the internet, but each one was still hard-wired to the speaker(s) it
`
`powered. Sonos released its first wireless internet-connected smart speaker in September 2014
`
`(which, incidentally, did not practice the claimed invention; that did not occur until June 2020).
`
`Moreover, the CR100 was a discrete hand-held controller rather than an app on a mobile
`
`device. Recall, in 2005, the iPhone was still two years in the future. Sonos’s first controller
`
`was its own hardware product with a non-touch screen and buttons that allowed a user to
`
`4
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 5 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`manage zone players and music playback. Sonos released its first controller app for mobile
`
`devices (the iPhone and iPod Touch) in October 2008.
`
`The Sonos 2005 prior art system made waves, drawing attention from the likes of
`
`Microsoft Cofounder Bill Gates at the flagship Consumer Electronics Show that year.
`
`Importantly, this first commercial wireless multiroom system allowed for grouping zone
`
`players in different zones to play music in synchrony. However, as Sonos Chief Innovation
`
`Officer Nicholas Millington and Sonos Director of User Experience Robert Lambourne both
`
`testified, this system had limitations in terms of how zone players could be grouped.
`
`Lambourne went on to be listed as the named inventor on the applications for the patents in
`
`suit and the applications from which they descend.
`
`As stated, a key feature of Sonos’s vision was the ability to group zone players in
`
`different zones to play music in synchrony. The Sonos 2005 prior art system achieved this
`
`using “ad hoc grouping,” in which zone players were grouped on the fly. For a user to create a
`
`“zone group” in which selected zone players would play the same music at the same time, that
`
`user had to link a first zone player to one or more additional zone players, one at a time. The
`
`linked additional zone player(s) would be instantly configured to play music in synchrony with
`
`the first zone player as soon as the linking occurred. If a user then wanted to play music on a
`
`zone player within that zone group separately or in a new zone group, that user had to destroy
`
`the existing zone group by dropping one or more linked additional zone players, one at a time.
`
`Significantly, “zone groups” were not “zone scenes.” They did not allow a user to
`
`customize and save groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand. Nor did they
`
`allow a user to create a group of zone players that included one or more zone players from an
`
`existing group without destroying the existing group. In other words, zone groups could play
`
`different music simultaneously in different sets of zone players, but zone players could be
`
`members of only one zone group. Zone groups could not overlap.
`
`To demonstrate, imagine a user of the Sonos 2005 prior art system had four zone players
`
`in four zones: one in her dining room, one in her living room, one in her bedroom, and one in
`
`her bathroom. Let’s say she started out playing Joan Baez in her dining room. If she wanted
`
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 6 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`to play Joan Baez in her dining room and living room simultaneously, she would create a zone
`
`group by linking those zone players on her controller, selecting “Dining Room,” then “Link
`
`Zone,” and then “Living Room.” “Living Room” would be instantly configured to play Joan
`
`Baez in synchrony with “Dining Room.” If she paused, resumed, or changed the music, the
`
`music would be paused, resumed, or changed in the dining room and living room.
`
`In the meantime, our user could play Bob Dylan in her bedroom. She could also play
`
`Bob Dylan in her bedroom and bathroom simultaneously, creating another zone group by
`
`linking those zone players on her controller, selecting “Bedroom,” then “Link Zone,” and then
`
`“Bathroom.” “Bathroom” would be instantly configured to play Bob Dylan in synchrony with
`
`“Bedroom.” At this point, our user would have two distinct zone groups: one composed of
`
`“Dining Room” and “Living Room” playing Joan Baez, the other composed of “Bedroom” and
`
`“Bathroom” playing Bob Dylan.
`
`Say our user now wanted to listen to Joan Baez in her bedroom as well. She would first
`
`destroy the zone group composed of the zone players in her bedroom and bathroom by
`
`unlinking those zone players using her controller, selecting that zone group, then “Drop Zone,”
`
`and then “Bathroom.” She would then link the zone player in her bedroom to the zone group
`
`composed of the zone players in her dining room and living room by selecting that zone group,
`
`then “Link Zone,” and then “Bedroom.” “Living Room” and “Bedroom” would be instantly
`
`configured to play Joan Baez in synchrony with “Dining Room.” This would create a new,
`
`real-time zone group composed of the zone players in her dining room, living room, and
`
`bedroom. The zone group composed of just the zone players in her dining room and living
`
`room would no longer exist.
`
`Note the Sonos 2005 prior art system did not allow users to select multiple zone players
`
`and link or unlink them simultaneously. Users had to select individual zone players and link or
`
`unlink them one at a time. There was a way to link multiple zone players simultaneously in the
`
`Sonos 2005 prior art system, however. This was done using the built-in “All Zones-Party
`
`Mode” feature, “party mode” for short.
`
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 7 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`In the Sonos 2005 prior art system, “All Zones-Party Mode” was listed alongside
`
`available zone players under “Link Zone.” When selected, it simultaneously linked all of the
`
`zone players in a given system (thereby destroying any ad hoc zone group). So, if our user was
`
`playing Joan Baez in her dining room and wanted to play Joan Baez throughout, she would
`
`simultaneously link all of the zone players in her system on her controller, selecting “Dining
`
`Room,” then “Link Zone,” and then “All Zones-Party Mode.” “Living Room,” “Bedroom,”
`
`and “Bathroom” would be instantly configured to play Joan Baez in synchrony with “Dining
`
`Room.” As explained by Inventor Lambourne, “[i]t was sort of a shortcut to grouping all of
`
`the rooms together” that “was baked into the product” (Tr. 420:9–10, 15). After selecting party
`
`mode, however, if a user wanted to play music on fewer than all of the zone players, there was
`
`no shortcut. That user would have to unlink individual zone players, one at a time. Thus, if
`
`our user wanted to play Joan Baez only in the dining room after selecting party mode, she
`
`would have to drop the zone players in the living room, bedroom, and bathroom, one by one.
`
`Putting it all together, in the Sonos 2005 prior art system, the only way to link zone
`
`players simultaneously was using party mode, which linked all of the zone players. A user of
`
`the Sonos 2005 prior art system could not customize and save a group of zone players to
`
`invoke on demand, much less customize and save multiple groups of zone players with one or
`
`more overlapping zone players to invoke on demand.
`
`2.
`
`THE IDEAS OF ZONE SCENES AND OVERLAPPING ZONE SCENES.
`
`The grouping limitations of the Sonos 2005 prior art system led Sonos customers and
`
`employees to explore potential improvements.
`
`A.
`
`CUSTOMER COMMENTS AND INVENTOR SKETCHES.
`
`Not long after Sonos first shipped the Sonos 2005 prior art system, customers began
`
`posting comments on Sonos’s own online forums calling for more advanced grouping
`
`functionalities.
`
`On February 27, 2005, in a forum post titled “Virtual Zones and Zone Grouping,” a
`
`customer going by the name of “theboyg” observed, “[t]his ‘link/unlink’ business is really
`
`cumbersome,” and asked, “[w]hy can’t I have a virtual zone — ie a zone called ‘Downstairs’”
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 8 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`so that “I can group all my downstairs zones into this” and “I don’t have to keep manually
`
`linking/unlinking multiple zones everytime” (TX2424). In other words, back in 2005, theboyg
`
`requested a customized, saved group of zone players that could be invoked on demand.
`
`On September 22, 2005, in a forum post titled “Macro / presets,” a customer going by the
`
`name of “JeffT” took it a step further, suggesting “save[d] Zone links,” such as “Morning
`
`mode for the units I want in the morning,” and “2 party modes, Summer and Winter,” in which
`
`“[t]he Summer mode would include the deck speakers and the Winter mode would not”
`
`(TX3930). In other words, back in 2005, JeffT requested customized, saved, overlapping
`
`groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand.
`
`Sonos did not introduce such grouping functionalities to its products until June 2020.
`
`Contemporaneously with these Sonos forum posts, however, Inventor Lambourne set forth
`
`parallel ideas in his notebooks and correspondence.
`
`In one notebook sketch, Inventor Lambourne depicted an alarm clock feature that would
`
`allow a user to select music to wake up to and rooms to play that music in — a customized,
`
`saved group of zone players that could be invoked on demand. This sketch was undated, but
`
`the date listed two pages later was February 28, 2005, one day after theboyg’s request for a
`
`“Downstairs” group (TX8236 at 40, 42). Shortly thereafter, in another notebook sketch,
`
`Inventor Lambourne depicted permanently joining one or more zone players together. This
`
`sketch was also undated, but the date listed on the following page was March 2, 2005 (TX6539
`
`at 2–3).
`
`The following month, Inventor Lambourne traded emails with a Sonos colleague,
`
`Andrew Schulert, about the grouping limitations of their own home systems. They compared
`
`the merits of Inventor Lambourne’s proposed “Permanent Zone Groups” approach, in which
`
`zones could be configured to always appear as one entity, and Inventor Lambourne’s proposed
`
`“Zone Profiles” approach, in which zones could be put into different customized, saved groups
`
`that could be invoked on demand, such as “downstairs” and “mornings.” Inventor Lambourne
`
`observed that “making the UI [i.e., user interface] simple enough” was a problem with the
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 9 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`proposed Zone Profiles approach. Colleague Schulert said his first reaction was that the Zone
`
`Profiles approach “would be the biggest bang for the buck” (TX0120 at 1).
`
`And, on October 21, 2005, one month after JeffT’s request for “Summer” and “Winter”
`
`groups, Inventor Lambourne sketched “Alarm Clock / Zone Profiles / Groups,” with a circle
`
`that said, “group profiles,” and text below it that said, “[p]ick a room group/profile, same room
`
`can be in two groups” (TX6539 at 24). That same day, he also sketched “Room Join Macros”
`
`illustrating “downstairs,” “party mode,” and “morning mode” alongside each other and a new
`
`group being formed, with text that explained “one room can be part of 2 sets” — customized,
`
`saved, overlapping groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand (TX6539 at 31).
`
`B.
`
`THE UI DOCUMENTS.
`
`On December 21, 2005, Inventor Lambourne wrote up a UI document setting out a path
`
`for new grouping functionality based on “zone scenes” (TX6545). He also wrote up another
`
`UI document focused on the alarm clock feature, which referred to “zone scenes” (TX6544
`
`at 27). Although the UI documents look like user manuals, they were internal, exploratory
`
`documents, for Sonos use only. The UI documents were supplied to the jury and the judge as
`
`conception documents because the parties stipulated that they disclosed the claimed invention.
`
`This order accepts this stipulation without weighing in on the adequacy of the disclosure. As
`
`such, the stipulated conception date is December 21, 2005.
`
`Relevant here, the zone scenes UI document offered two improvements to the grouping
`
`functionality of the Sonos 2005 prior art system. First, it described “zone scenes,” i.e.,
`
`customized, saved groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand. Second, it
`
`described a nimbler form of ad hoc grouping.
`
`Let’s start with “zone scenes.” According to the zones scenes UI document, “[t]he Zone
`
`Scene feature” would “allow[] the user to arrange the zones into groups using one single
`
`command” (TX6545 at 2). “Simple Scenes” would allow a user to set up one group in a zone
`
`scene. The document gave the example of a “Morning Scene” that could group zone players in
`
`the bedroom, den, and dining room, while leaving the remaining zone players in the bathroom,
`
`family room, and foyer untouched (id. at 2). “Advanced Scenes” would allow a user to set up
`
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 10 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`more than one group in a zone scene. The document gave the example of an “Evening Scene”
`
`that could group zone players in the bedroom, den, and dining room — and, separately, the
`
`garage and garden — with the remaining zone players in the bathroom, family room, and foyer
`
`“separated from any group if they were part of a group before the Zone Scene was invoked”
`
`(id. at 2–3).
`
`The zone scenes UI document explicitly disclosed customizing and saving a group of
`
`zone players that could be invoked on demand like “Morning Scene” and “Evening Scene.” It
`
`also explicitly disclosed customizing and saving several such groups, depicting selection from
`
`a “Party Mode” zone scene and a “Morning Wakeup” zone scene in one instance, as well as
`
`from a “Party Mode” zone scene, a “Wakeup” zone scene, and a “Garden Party” zone scene in
`
`another (id. at 5–6). But the zone scenes UI document did not explicitly disclose customized,
`
`saved, overlapping groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand. Whereas
`
`Inventor Lambourne’s notebook sketches had text that stated the “same room can be in two
`
`groups” and “one room can be part of 2 sets,” no such text can be found in the zone scenes UI
`
`document (see TX6539 at 24, 31). Note “Morning Scene” and “Evening Scene” belonged to
`
`different systems, with the system in which “Evening Scene” was created containing additional
`
`zone players in the garage and garden. Similarly, there was no explicit disclosure of
`
`customized, saved, overlapping groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand in the
`
`alarm clock UI document.
`
`So how did the UI documents disclose the claimed invention? They implicitly disclosed
`
`overlapping zone scenes by reference to party mode in the Sonos 2005 prior art system.
`
`Significantly, the alarm clock UI document stated that “‘Party Mode’ that currently ships with
`
`the product is one example of a Zone Scene” (TX6544 at 27). The zone scenes UI document
`
`similarly referred to the “current Party Mode setting” and represented “Party Mode” as a “Zone
`
`Scene” in various figures (TX6545 at 2; see id. at 5–6). When the zone scenes UI document
`
`showed a “Party Mode” zone scene next to a “Morning Wakeup” zone scene in one instance,
`
`and a “Party Mode” zone scene next to “Wakeup” and “Garden Party” zone scenes in another,
`
`it would have been understood that zone scenes would overlap because it would have been
`
`10
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 11 of 55
`
`
`
`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
`
`understood that the “Party Mode” zone scene would group all of the zone players in a given
`
`system. As such, the UI documents implicitly disclosed customized, saved, overlapping
`
`groups of zone players that could be invoked on demand. To be sure, this disclosure depended
`
`on inference, but both sides stipulated that the UI documents disclosed the claimed invention.
`
`Accordingly, this order credits the implicit disclosure.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`The zone scenes UI document had distinct sections on “Invoking a Scene,” showing
`
`“various user Interface methods for invoking a configuration on a Handheld Controller or
`
`Desktop Controller,” versus “Scene Setup,” showing various user interface methods for
`
`configuring a zone scene from a desktop controller only. According to this document, it was
`
`“not expected that the Zone Scenes should be set up using the Handheld Controller” (id. at 5,
`
`9).
`
`Meanwhile, the zone scenes UI document had a distinct section on “Alternative Linking
`
`Methods,” which showed an “adaptation of the Link and Drop Zone feature” of the Sonos 2005
`
`prior art system, i.e., ad hoc grouping (id. at 17–18). Whereas the zone scene feature would
`
`allow for groups of zone players to be set up in advance on a desktop controller, this “Zone
`
`Linking” feature would allow for groups of zone players to be set up in real-time on a
`
`handheld controller. It pertained to ad hoc “zone groups,” not “zone scenes.” This ad hoc
`
`grouping was an improvement over the ad hoc grouping in the Sonos 2005 prior art system,
`
`however.
`
`Whereas the ad hoc grouping in the Sonos 2005 prior art system “allow[ed] the user to
`
`link and drop Zones one at a time,” “[t]his feature would allow the user to link and drop
`
`multiple zones in one screen,” “check[ing] Zones that w[ould] be a part of a zone group, and
`
`uncheck[ing] those that w[ould not]” (ibid.) (emphasis added). Here, “the list of the zones in
`
`the screen” would “include[] ALL the zones in the system, including the Zones that [were]
`
`already grouped” (id. at 17). This would allow for more efficient ad hoc grouping. The “Zone
`
`Linking” feature was depicted as follows:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 12 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Zone Scenes UI Document: “Zone Linking” Feature Diagram.
`
`
`
`(ibid.).
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 13 of 55
`
`
`
`To repeat, “Zone Linking,” as depicted above, was ad hoc grouping, not “Scene Setup.”
`
`Ad hoc “zone groups” were not “zone scenes.” They were addressed in different sections in
`
`the zone scenes UI document and even accessed using different soft buttons on the handheld
`
`controller. By way of demonstration, the diagram is cropped below:
`
`Zone Scenes UI Document: Cropped “Zone Linking” Feature
`Diagram (Soft Buttons).
`
`
`
`The complete diagram will become all the more important later on in connection with the issue
`
`of new matter inserted by way of amendment.
`
`3.
`
`THE FIRST ZONE SCENE PATENT APPLICATIONS.
`
`The patents in suit descend from a family of patent applications that claim priority to, or
`
`the benefit of, a provisional application filed in September 2006 through a corresponding non-
`
`provisional application filed in September 2007. September 2006 was more than one year after
`
`the commercial release of the Sonos 2005 prior art system but less than one year after the
`
`stipulated conception date. Each of the earlier applications in the “zone scene patent family” is
`
`“incorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes” in its successors, including the
`
`patents in suit.1
`
`
`1 Specifically, the April 2019 applications for the ’885 and ’966 patents were continuations of, and
`claimed priority to, an application filed in April 2016, which issued in July 2022 as United States
`Patent No. 11,388,532. The April 2016 application for the ’532 patent was a continuation of, and
`claimed priority to, an application filed in August 2014, which issued in May 2016 as United
`States Patent No. 9,344,206. The August 2014 application for the ’206 patent was a continuation
`of, and claimed priority to, an application filed in May 2013, which issued in September 2014 as
`United States Patent No. 8,843,228. The May 2013 application for the ’228 patent was a
`continuation of, and claimed priority to, an application filed in September 2007, which issued in
`July 2013 as United States Patent No. 8,483,853. And, the September 2007 application for the
`’853 patent claimed priority to a corresponding provisional application filed in September 2006 as
`United States Patent Application No. 60/825,407.
`13
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07559-WHA Document 274 Filed 10/06/23 Page 14 of 55
`
`
`
`The prosecution histories of the applications for the patents in suit are in the trial record,
`
`abridged to exclude tens of thousands of pages of prior art references and other publications
`
`(gratuitously) submitted (see TX004; TX006). The prosecution histories of the parent
`
`applications in the patent family are not in the trial record, though the parties provided excerpts
`
`in binders requested by the judge during trial (see Tr. 1030:13–19). The same holds for the
`
`resulting patents (ibid.). Seeing that the judge must consider these prosecution histories and
`
`patents in order to evaluate arguments raised herein, this order takes judicial notice of these
`
`prosecution histories and patents.2
`
`A.
`
`THE 2006 PROVISIONAL APPLICATION.
`
`On September 12, 2006, Sonos filed a “provisional application,” with Inventor
`
`Lambourne listed as the named inventor, entitled “Controlling and manipulating groupings in a
`
`multi-zone music or media system” (TX2651). A provisional application is a temporary form
`
`of patent application that is not required to include any patent claims or information disclosure
`
`(prior art) and is never reviewed by a patent examiner. It operates as a low-cost placeholder,
`
`establishing an earlier effective filing date for a corresponding non-provisional application
`
`filed within twelve months that claims its subject matter. Although a provisional application is
`
`never “published” or made publicly searchable, it is “made available to the public” as an
`
`individual file when a corresponding non-provisional application is published, as one was here
`
`eventually.3
`
`The specification of this provisional application consisted of a “Detailed Description of
`
`the Preferred Embodiments,” an assortment of implementations involving zones, zone players,
`
`zone groups, and zone scenes. It was drafted broadly. Many described embodiments did not
`
`relate to zone scenes at all, such as those in which “memory is used to save one or more saved
`
`
`2 Courts may judicially notice facts t