Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 878 Filed 11/08/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`CLEMENT SETH ROBERTS (STATE BAR NO. 209203)
`croberts@orrick.com
`BAS DE BLANK (STATE BAR NO. 191487)
`basdeblank@orrick.com
`ALYSSA CARIDIS (STATE BAR NO. 260103)
`acaridis@orrick.com
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`The Orrick Building
`405 Howard Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2669
`Telephone:
`+1 415 773 5700
`Facsimile:
`+1 415 773 5759
`
`SEAN M. SULLIVAN (admitted pro hac vice)
`sullivan@ls3ip.com
`COLE RICHTER (admitted pro hac vice)
`richter@ls3ip.com
`LEE SULLIVAN SHEA & SMITH LLP
`656 W Randolph St., Floor 5W
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone:
`+1 312 754 0002
`Facsimile:
`+1 312 754 0003
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Sonos, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff and Counter-defendant,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant and Counter-claimant.
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-06754-WHA
`
`Consolidated with
`Case No. 3:21-cv-07559-WHA
`
`SONOS, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO AMEND
`THE JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
`FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)
`
`Date: December 14, 2023
`Time: 8:00 a.m.
`Place: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William Alsup
`
`SONOS’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S
`MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
`3:20-CV-06754-WHA
`
`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 878 Filed 11/08/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`Sonos writes to clarify two statements in Google’s motion, Dkt. 877. Neither of these
`
`clarifications requires any modification to the proposed judgment filed at Dkt. 877-2.
`
`First, Google says that the Court’s order finding the ’885 and ’966 patents unenforceable
`
`and invalid “moot[ed]” nine of its affirmative defenses for those patents, ranging from unclean
`
`hands to implied license. Dkt. 877 at 6-7. Sonos’s position is that those defenses, at least for the
`
`’885 and ’966 patents, are forfeited and not mooted. After trial, Google raised only prosecution
`
`laches and equitable estoppel in its post-trial brief on affirmative defenses. Dkt. 819. Thus, Google
`
`forfeited every other affirmative defense for the ’885 and ’966 patents and may not raise those other
`
`affirmative defenses on remand. See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863-64 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (holding that Google forfeited arguments it failed to raise before the PTAB).
`
`Second, Google says that “Sonos elected not to try the remaining claims [of the ’615 patent]
`
`based on” the Court’s ruling that claim 13 is not infringed and is invalid. Dkt. 877 at 4, 6. This is
`
`inaccurate. After the Court’s noninfringement ruling for claim 13, Sonos could not have pursued
`
`infringement for any of the ’615 patent’s asserted claims that depend from claim 13 (claims 14-15
`
`and 18-21).1 See Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553 n. 9 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1989). And in April 2023, the PTAB held that, among others, claims 14 and 18-25 were
`
`unpatentable.2 The Court then determined before trial that “the ’615 patent is out of the case,” in
`
`part because Google had “long ago” “abandoned” its claims for “[i]nvalidity of claims 18, 19, and
`
`25 of the ’615 patent.” Dkt. 580 at 1-2; see also Dkt. 588 at 27-28 (during a hearing, the Court
`
`stated: “those issues, the ’615 … those miscellaneous claims are out of the case. O-U-T.”). Thus,
`
`the Court ruled that Sonos could not try the ’615 patent.
`
`1 In addition, independent claim 25 is substantively identical to independent claim 13, so Sonos
`had no basis to try infringement of claim 25 (and its dependents) in view of the Court’s
`noninfringement ruling for claim 13.
`2 By that point, Google had already effectively abandoned its invalidity claims here for claims 14,
`15, 20, 21, and 26 by failing to address those claims in its invalidity expert report in November
`2022. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision
`Care, Inc., 725 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (an expert witness “may not testify to subject
`matter beyond the scope of the witness’s expert report unless the failure to include that
`information in the report was substantially justified or harmless” (citation omitted)).
`SONOS’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S
`MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
`3:20-CV-06754-WHA
`
`- 1 -
`
`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 878 Filed 11/08/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`Dated: November 8, 2023
`
`By: /s/ Clement S. Roberts
`Clement S. Roberts
`Bas de Blank
`Alyssa Caridis
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`Sean M. Sullivan
`Cole Richter
`
`LEE SULLIVAN SHEA & SMITH LLP
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and
`Counter-defendant Sonos, Inc.
`
`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 -
`
`SONOS’S RESPONSE TO GOOGLE’S
`MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT
`3:20-CV-06754-WHA
`
`