CONFIDENTIAL  BUSINESS  INFORMATION  -  SUBJECT  TO  PROTECTIVE  ORDER
`
`UNITED  STATES  DISTRICT  COURT
`CENTRAL  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA  WESTERN  DIVISION
`
`Case  No.  2:14-CV-00486  SJO  (PJWx)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`BLACK  HILLS  MEDIA,  LLC,
`
`v.
`
`SONOS  INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`EXPERT  REPORT  OF  MR.  IVAN  ZATKOVICH  REGARDING  INFRINGEMENT  
`OF  U.S.  PATENT  NOS.  6,757,517,  7,236,739,  7,742,740  and  6,826,283  
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert  Report  of  Ivan  Zatkovich  on  Infringement  -  Final  9292014
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1025 Page 1
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL  BUSINESS  INFORMATION  -  SUBJECT  TO  PROTECTIVE  ORDER
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. My  name  is  Ivan  Zatkovich.  I  have  been  retained  by  the  law  firm  of  Hayes,  
`
`Messina,  Gilman  &  Hayes  LLC  (“Hayes  Messina”)  to  investigate  and  opine  on  certain  issues  
`
`related  to  this  case  and  the  infringement  of  U.S.  Patent  Nos.  6,757,517  (“the  ‘517  Patent”),  
`
`7,236,739  (“the  ‘739  Patent”),  7,742,740  (“the  ‘740  Patent”),  and  6,826,283  (“the  ‘283  Patent)  
`
`by  the  Sonos  Defendant.  The  following  is  my  written  report  detailing  certain  subject  matter  
`
`areas  and  opinions  on  which  I  expect  to  testify  in  this  case.  
`
`2.
`
`I  have  been  retained  to  review  the  ‘517,  ‘739,  ‘740  and  ‘283  Patents,  review  
`
`documents  and  source  code  produced  by  Defendant,  examine  and,  where  feasible,  test  selected  
`
`accused  products  of  Defendant,  and  to  provide  my  opinion  regarding  infringement  of  the  
`
`asserted  claims  of  each  patent  and  the  understanding  of  a  person  having  ordinary  skill  in  the  art  
`
`at  the  time  of  the  inventions  claimed  in  each  patent.  The  details  of  my  investigation  and  
`
`conclusions  are  set  forth  below.  
`II.
`
`SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`
`3.
`
`Based  on  my  analysis  presented  below,  I  find  that  Defendant’s  accused  products  
`
`contain  each  element  of,  and  thus  infringe,  the  claims  asserted  in  this  case  (jointly    the  
`
`“Asserted  Claims”):
`
`-  claims  6  and  13  of  the  ‘517  Patent;;
`
`-  claims  2  and  9  of  the  ‘739  Patent;;
`
`-  claim  1  of  the  ‘740  Patent;;  and
`
`-  claims  6  and  10  of  the  ‘283  Patent.
`
`4.
`
`I  also  find  that  even  though  at  least  some  of  the  Asserted  Claims  include  
`
`embodiments  directed  to  a  particular  industry,  namely  home  audio  entertainment,  each  of  these  
`
`claims  describes  novel  inventions  not  found  in  the  others.
`
`Expert  Report  of  Ivan  Zatkovich  on  Infringement  -  Final  9292014
`
`5
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1025 Page 2
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL  BUSINESS  INFORMATION  -  SUBJECT  TO  PROTECTIVE  ORDER
`
`24. The  details  and  results  of  all  of  these  analyses  are  set  forth  in  detail  bellow  in  this  
`
`report  and  in  the  accompanying  claim  charts  for  the  asserted  claims.  
`V.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN THIS CASE
`
`25. The  accused  products  in  this  case  are  the  Sonos  players,  bridges,  and  controllers  
`
`listed  in  Exhibit  3  -  Sonos  Testing  Index.  The  accused  products  all  practice  and/or  contain  or  
`
`embody  the  methods  and  apparatuses  taught  in  the  Asserted  Claims.
`
`26. Some  of  the  accused  devices  listed  in  the  complaint  have  undergone  product  name  
`
`changes  since  first  being  offered  for  sale  by  Sonos,  and  some  of  the  accused  devices  have  
`
`undergone  slight  modifications  in  functionality.  However,  the  renamed  devices  and  the  
`
`modified  and  discontinued  devices  remain  relevant  because  they  are  part  of  the  history  of  
`
`infringement  of  the  Asserted  Claims  by  the  Defendant.  I  have  therefore  considered  such  
`
`products  as  the  Sonos  ZonePlayer  80  &  90  devices  and  find  no  material  difference  in  terms  of  
`
`infringement  of  the  Asserted  Claims  to  the  current  Sonos  devices.    All  ‘ZonePlayer’  devices,  all  
`
`‘Play’  devices,  and  all  ‘Connect’  devices  are  designed  to  have  materially  the  same  functionality.  
`
`The  code  versions  I  have  reviewed  indicate  that  these  devices  provide  substantially  the  same  
`
`functions.    This  is  also  confirmed,  for  example,  in  the  deposition  of  Jonathan  Lang.  pg.  51  ln  6-
`
`7.
`VI. RELEVANT FIELD AND LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`27.
`It  is  my  opinion  that  the  relevant  field  with  respect  to  the  ‘517,  ‘739,  ‘740,  and  
`
`‘283  Patents  is  the  setup  and  management  of  ad  hoc  wireless  networks,  along  with  distribution  
`
`of  media  over  networks  and  control  of  same.
`
`28. The  ordinary  level  of  skill  in  this  art  is  a  Bachelor’s  degree  in  computer  science  or  
`
`electrical  engineering  or  its  equivalent  and  at  least  1-2  years  of  experience  in  the  relevant  field,  
`
`in  areas  such  as  computer  networking.
`
`Expert  Report  of  Ivan  Zatkovich  on  Infringement  -  Final  9292014
`
`12
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1025 Page 3
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL  BUSINESS  INFORMATION  -  SUBJECT  TO  PROTECTIVE  ORDER
`
`29.
`
`In  reaching  this  opinion,  I  have  considered  the  types  of  problems  encountered  in  
`
`the  art,  the  sophistication  of  the  technology  and  the  education  level  and  professional  capabilities  
`
`of  workers  in  the  field.  The  basis  of  my  familiarity  with  the  level  of  skill  in  the  art  is  my  years  
`
`of  interaction  with  large  numbers  of  workers  in  the  field  and  my  knowledge  of  the  technical  
`
`issues  in  the  field.
`VII. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS
`A. Infringement  of  the  ‘517  Patent
`30.
`It  is  my  opinion  that  Defendant’s  products  (listed  in  Exhibit  3  -  Sonos  Testing  
`
`Index)  directly  infringe  claims  6,  and  13  of  the  ‘517  Patent  as  detailed  herein.
`B. Infringement  of  the  ‘739  Patent
`31.
`It  is  my  opinion  that  Defendant’s  products  (listed  in  Exhibit  3  -  Sonos  Testing  
`
`Index)  directly  infringe  claims  2  and  9  of  the  ‘739  Patent  as  detailed  herein.
`C. Infringement  of  the  ‘740  Patent
`32.
`It  is  my  opinion  that  Defendant’s  products  (listed  in  Exhibit  3  -  Sonos  Testing  
`
`Index)  directly  infringe  claim  1  of  the  ‘740  Patent  as  detailed  herein.
`D. Infringement  of  the  ‘283  Patent
`33.
`It  is  my  opinion  that  Defendant’s  products  (listed  in  Exhibit  3  -  Sonos  Testing  
`
`Index)  directly  infringe  claims  6  and  10  of  the  ‘283  Patent  as  detailed  herein.  
`E. Doctrine  of  Equivalents
`34. Expert  discovery  is  on-going  and  while  it  is  my  opinion  that  Defendant’s  products  
`
`literally  infringe  the  patents-in-suit,  I  reserve  the  right  to  supplement  or  amend  my  opinion  to  
`
`specifically  opine  on  infringement  via  the  doctrine  of  equivalents  in  response  to  Defendant’s  
`
`non-infringement  and/or  invalidity  arguments  or  other  expert  discovery.    In  the  event  that  one  or  
`
`Expert  Report  of  Ivan  Zatkovich  on  Infringement  -  Final  9292014
`
`13
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1025 Page 4
`
`

`

`CONFIDENTIAL  BUSINESS  INFORMATION  -  SUBJECT  TO  PROTECTIVE  ORDER
`
`  I  declare  under  penalty  of  perjury  that  the  foregoing  is  true  and  correct.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ivan  Zatkovich
`
`September  29,  2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Expert  Report  of  Ivan  Zatkovich  on  Infringement  -  Final  9292014
`
`
`
`
`Yamaha Corporation of America Exhibit 1025 Page 5
`
`