CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`BLACK HILLS MEDIA, LLC,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:14-CV-00486 SJO (PJWx)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`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
`
`
`
`SONOS 1013 - 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
`
`
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 2
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`5.
`
` For example, the asserted claims of the ‘517 Patent describe multiple music
`
`players that form an “ad hoc” (devices can communicate directly with each other, not limited to
`
`communicating through a central device) wireless data network and play selected music all at
`
`the same time. The asserted claims of the ‘739 Patent describe a similar basic situation but also
`
`comprise music sharing and a random-access controller for a system. The asserted claim of the
`
`‘740 Patent comprises rebroadcasting media content from one media player device to another.
`
`The asserted claims of the ‘283 Patent describe use of a central processor and include the
`
`capability of playing different audio signals concurrently.
`
`6.
`
`As set forth in detail below, I find Defendant’s accused products to contain and
`
`practice all the elements of the Asserted Claims.
`
`III. EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
`
`7.
`
`I expect to testify concerning my qualifications, background and experience
`
`relevant to the issues in this investigation. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`8.
`
`I am a Principal Consultant of eComp Consultants, a position I have held for over
`
`10 years.
`
`9.
`
`I have over 30 years of experience in computer science including early
`
`wireless/cell phone communication, CTI (Computer Telephony Integration), eCommerce,
`
`Geolocation, and Web multi-media publishing (content, images, audio/video streaming, media
`
`file sharing).
`
`10.
`
`eComp Consultants provides professional consulting services relating to computer
`
`and technical matters in a wide range of industries including embedded internet systems,
`
`cellular telephony, and cloud-based services. Such consulting services include working with
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`6
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 3
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`clients on specific information technology projects, process improvement, project management
`
`and other technology issues as well as providing professional expert witness services.
`
`11. At eComp Consultants, I have been qualified as a technical expert in over 24
`
`matters including embedded internet systems, cellular telephony and cloud-based services. A
`
`complete list of the cases in which I have testified in the last four years is included in Exhibit 1.
`
`12.
`
`I received a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Science, with a minor in Electrical
`
`Engineering Digital Circuit Design, from the University of Pittsburgh in 1980. In 1981 I
`
`received a Master’s degree in Computer Networks from the University of Pittsburgh. My thesis
`
`was published in Byte Magazine.
`
`13.
`
`In my professional career, I have worked for companies such as Digital
`
`Equipment Corp. and GTE/Verizon Telecomm on projects designing, developing and
`
`integrating software and hardware for major computer and telecommunications systems. For
`
`example, relevant multimedia projects from my career include:
`
`a. Digital Equipment Corp.
`
`Video disk drivers – designed and implemented video disk driver interfaces.
`
`Computer video interfaces – digital video network communications.
`
`b. GTE Verizon – wireless communication
`
`Developed digital voice and multimedia communications using high speed ISDN
`
`& FDDI.
`
`Developed strategic systems for cell phone provisioning and activation.
`
`c. Evatone
`
`Implemented online video streaming, and music purchase systems (view,
`
`download and/or purchase), such as the Warner Brothers music eCommerce
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`7
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 4
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`website.
`
`Director of EBusiness Department to Deliver Audio, Video and other Media
`
`distribution and eCommerce solutions. Automated web publishing & content
`
`management systems.
`
`14.
`
`I have designed, developed, and consulted on a variety of eCommerce and
`
`Geolocation related projects including:
`
`a. GTE / Verizon, 1987-1996
`
`i. GIS Dispatch Mapping (AWAS) – Implemented Geographic based mobile
`
`field services for locating subscribers and displaying routing information
`
`on a geographic map.
`
`ii. CAD Mapping (CIS) – Designed an automated mapping system using a
`
`hierarchical database for combining geographic location and facilities
`
`information for displaying multiple levels of mapped information.
`
`b. Utility Partners, 1996 – 1999 - MobileUP – Web based geographic work order and
`
`mapping system for dispatching Field Service personnel using a geographic based
`
`tracking a location service.
`
`c. eComp Consultants, 2000-Present - Providing Internet technology and cell phone
`
`forensics consulting for geolocation analysis and event location mapping.
`
`15. From 1980 to 1987, I was a software engineer at Digital Equipment Corporation
`
`where I developed operating systems, database storage and retrieval systems. I specialized in
`
`developing CAD/CAM system, manufacturing automation processes, supply chain
`
`methodology based on the GM MAP standards, and programmed automated insertion machines.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`8
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 5
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`16. From 1996 to 1999, I was Director of Networks and Customer Support at Utility
`
`Partners Inc., where I designed and managed a system to automatically create and distribute
`
`service orders for Mobile Field units for various Utility companies.
`
`17.
`
`I have been frequently called upon to provide my expert opinion on matters
`
`concerning patent disputes for over 10 years. I have given testimony as an expert at trial and by
`
`deposition, including in areas that relate to the technology described in the patents-in-suit. For
`
`example, I was qualified as an expert in embedded internet systems, cellular telephony,
`
`Geolocation, Graphical Information Systems (GIS), Geographic CAD mapping systems and
`
`cloud-based services in the following cases:
`
`a. • Zamora v. CBS Radio et.al. 09-20940-CIV-MORENO (S.D. FL 2010) (settled
`
`2010) Last.fm, Ltd., CBS Radio, Inc., CBS Corp., Slacker, Inc., Pandora Media,
`
`Inc., Rhapsody America LLC, Realnetworks, Inc., DKCM, Inc., AOL, LLC,
`
`Accuradio, LLC, Yahoo! Inc. and Soundpedia, Inc. Expert for Plaintiff on Patent
`
`Infringement for Internet radio technology. Provided expert report and deposition
`
`regarding the use of streaming media and Web radio players.
`
`b. • eBay v. IDT Corp., 4:08-cv-4015-HFB (W.D. Ark) (settled 2010) Patent
`
`infringement. Perform analysis of Voice Over IP providers and prior art
`
`candidates; provided non-infringement (suit) and infringement (counter suit)
`
`expert reports.
`
`c. • ABC v. ENC, CISCO, WebEx communications, et al., H-06-1032 (S.D. TX.)
`
`Patent infringement dispute concerning computer remote control, remote
`
`command processing, and remote communication. Developed non-infringement
`
`and invalidity rebuttal reports and was deposed.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`9
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 6
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`d. • TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp, IDT, 512 F. Supp. 2d 727 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (settled
`
`2007). Expert for Defendant on non-infringement. Patent and prior art dispute
`
`concerning call processing center and service provisioning in which I analyzed
`
`telephone network, call processing center, and call routing patents; developed
`
`detailed non-infringement positions; and rebutted plaintiff’s expert.
`
`e. • Ameranth v. 6 Continents Hotels – Trade Secrets – Testifying expert in web
`
`portals for internet and service access for hotel guests including geographic based
`
`search and map display of local businesses.
`
`f. • US v. Holt – Cell phone forensics – Criminal case to identify location of
`
`defendant using GPS and Cell phone location. Provided expert report and trial
`
`testimony.
`
`g. • Pointserve v. Scient – Trade Secrets & Contract dispute – Dispute involving the
`
`development of business yellow pages allowing the user to locate and book
`
`services based on geographic location.
`
`h. • Katz v. Echostar et al. – Patent Litigation – Expert for 6 Defendants on non-
`
`infringement. Expert on call center and call processing using ANI, DNIS, caller
`
`ID to identify and locate caller. Provided non-infringement report and deposition.
`
`
`
`18. By virtue of the above experience, I have gained a detailed understanding of the
`
`technology that is at issue in this case. In addition, my experience with commercial and
`
`technical aspects of delivery of stored and streaming audio content over wide-area and local
`
`area networks is directly relevant to the subject matter of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`10
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 7
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`19.
`
`eComp Consultants is compensated at a standard rate of $475 per hour for my
`
`work on this matter. This compensation is not dependent on my opinions or testimony or the
`
`outcome of this matter.
`
`IV. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
`
`20.
`
`In preparing this report, I considered the documents and materials listed in the
`
`Lists of Materials Considered attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`21. As set forth in Exhibit 2, I considered a variety of documents, materials, and other
`
`sources to form the opinions detailed in this report. Among them were the ‘517, ‘739, ‘740 and
`
`‘283 Patents and their respective file histories. I have analyzed and considered the Defendant’s
`
`devices, in particular, the devices listed in the accused products and as tested and outlined in
`
`Exhibit 3 - Sonos Testing Index. Many of the documents and other materials provided by the
`
`Plaintiff, Defendant, and third parties that I considered are cited in this report, including those
`
`listed in Exhibit 2, and the accompanying claim charts included as Exhibits 4 - 7. Other
`
`materials relied upon are included in Exhibit 2. I have also had discussions with consultants
`
`Jonathan Babb, Ph.D., Nicholas Zatkovich, Leonard Laub, Marvin Scaff and Steven Smoot in
`
`the context of our testing of the accused products, and review of the source code and other
`
`materials produced by Defendant and third parties.
`
`22.
`
`In the course of my investigation and testing of the Defendant’s devices, tests
`
`were performed on the operation of the devices, by among other things, using the Wireshark
`
`packet analysis tool to analyze the communications between the various devices and application
`
`providers including their content servers. I compared certain of those communications with the
`
`documents and source code produced by the Defendant.
`
`23. For many of the devices and associated applications we also reviewed and
`
`analyzed the source code to confirm and/or determine the relevant methods and operations.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`11
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 8
`
`

`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 9
`
`

`
`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
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 10
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`more of the patents is not literally infringed, then the patents are infringed under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`VIII. BACKGROUND
`
`35. Music is valuable and vital to most people. Since the late 19th century music
`
`lovers have been able to bring music into their homes by buying recordings. Since the early 20th
`
`century, they’ve also been able to receive radio broadcasts at home and in their vehicles of
`
`music chosen by others to suit generic tastes. Since the 1980s (with the advent of the
`
`Walkman®) music lovers have been able to listen to their recordings while being or going
`
`anywhere.
`
`A. 1950s: Home playback devices
`
`36. Home playback of music began with single-box players of cylinders and discs,
`
`which evolved in the 1950s into the numerous components of “high fidelity” systems, which
`
`then proliferated around living rooms in the 1960s as stereo sound became popular. The need to
`
`have stereo speakers separated at least from each other, and maybe also from source and
`
`amplification components, created the perennial problem of routing wires among all these
`
`system components.
`
`B. 1970s: Multiroom systems and remote control
`
`37. This wire routing problem expanded when homeowners sought to have music
`
`systems in multiple rooms but under some form of collective or central control. Meanwhile,
`
`remote controllers for some audio system components became available, but limited to specific
`
`components, leading to the common problem of proliferation of “clickers.”
`
`C. 1980s: Digital audio
`
`38. Digital delivery of audio arrived in the consumer market in the 1980s with the
`
`advent of the Compact Disc®. Digital audio rapidly became the dominant format for consumer
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`14
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 11
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`recordings based on its high quality and essentially compete reliability and durability. However,
`
`initially digital audio was only available to consumers on physical discs or tapes which had to
`
`be played in the room, or at least the home, in which someone wanted to hear the music
`
`recorded on them.
`
`D. 1990s: Portable digital audio players and file downloads
`
`39. Starting in the mid-1990s, digital audio data compression techniques such as mp3
`
`(officially spelled all lowercase) reduced the amount of data per minute of digitally-stored
`
`music by a factor of five, ten, or more (though with more and more audible degradation of the
`
`sound quality as the compression ratio increases), permitting a large amount of music to be
`
`stored on consumer-practical data storage devices, initially “hard” magnetic disc drives, more
`
`recently “flash” memory chips which over time have gotten inexpensive, reliable, small, and
`
`capacious enough to be found in portable players (e.g., the iPod Nano of 2005 and successors)
`
`and mobile phones.
`
`40. This evolution of media players was fed by the advent of businesses (notably the
`
`iTunes Store from 2000) selling individual songs in mp3 or other compressed formats to
`
`consumers who put those mp3 files on their PCs, portable players, or phones, then listened to
`
`whichever of the stored songs they chose wherever they were or went.
`
`E. 2000s: The Internet and streaming audio
`
`41. Meanwhile, during the 1990s the Internet exploded as a consumer phenomenon,
`
`motivating Internet service providers to find ways of increasing the data rate available to a
`
`consumer. Current “broadband” service (download data rates measured in millions of bits per
`
`second) began to become available to consumers in the late 1990s and permitted rapid
`
`downloading of mp3-compressed music as purchases from stores such as that of iTunes and
`
`from other people (“file sharing”), typically without payment.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`15
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 12
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`42. One practical address to the issue of unauthorized file sharing was the advent of
`
`“streaming” of audio programs, in which the content is provided to users purely on a transient
`
`basis, without transferring the entire file. This doesn’t enable the user to keep a copy of a song,
`
`but does permit streaming services to operate like radio stations but with some interactivity,
`
`sending a continuing sequence of songs over the Internet to users who are often asked to sign up
`
`for such a service, and to pay if they want no ads or commercials to interrupt the flow of music.
`
`43. All these historical evolutions put users by the early 2000s in the position of being
`
`able to listen to large numbers of songs either stored on their PCs, portable players, or phones,
`
`and also being able to listen to streaming audio services on their PCs or (at the risk of spending
`
`a lot for mobile data service) on their phones.
`
`F. 2000s: Connecting audio files and streaming audio to home stereos
`
`44. The next step was permitting these voluminous and convenient audio sources to
`
`be played through something like the high-fidelity sound systems that were already widespread
`
`but limited to playing physical mediums such as tapes or tuning into conventional radio stations.
`
`45. This was fairly easily done when the PC, portable player, or phone could be
`
`directly connected by wire or dock to a conventional stereo system, but that still required the
`
`PC, portable player, or phone to be placed in the room with the stereo system and used only
`
`there.
`
`G. 2000s: Distributing audio over Wi-Fi networks
`
`46. The next step was letting a local area data network in the home carry digital audio
`
`from one or more storage devices on the network to one or more special receivers on that
`
`network, with each receiver connected to a stereo system.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`16
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 13
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`47. As home data networking moved quickly from mostly wire-based to mostly
`
`wireless (“Wi-Fi”), this approach of distributing audio content over the home network ran into
`
`several significant problems including the following:
`
`48. Setting up and using such a system typically required significant computer skills
`
`to connect receivers to the network, make content available, and just take the steps needed to
`
`play or stream any particular content. This led to networked digital audio being awkward and
`
`inconvenient.
`
`49. Also, home Wi-Fi networks have limited bandwidth, imperfect reliability, and
`
`competition for scarce network bandwidth by other typical domestic uses (e.g., intensive Web
`
`browsing, video chats, etc.). Thus streaming audio content over such a network, particularly
`
`with multiple systems in multiple rooms all trying to get their content over that network, can
`
`give variable and often unsatisfactory results.
`
`50. These congestion and unreliability issues arise partly because uses other than
`
`audio distribution are handled by the same network and because typical home Wi-Fi networks
`
`are based on a central “router” or “access point” to which all devices on the network must
`
`connect directly and through which all traffic across the network must flow. This network
`
`structure also requires every device to be within good radio reception range of the router or
`
`access point, or that device will not be able to access the network.
`
`51.
`
` Conventional network distribution of audio also did not allow for the same
`
`content to play on multiple systems at the same time. This is both because most conventional
`
`setups had no way to “press Play” in each room at the same time, and because the time it takes
`
`for information to move across a wireless network can be sharply different among various paths
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`17
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 14
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`within that network, and can vary with volume of traffic on that network. These barriers often
`
`led to echo-like annoyances for most listeners.
`
`IX. OVERVIEW OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`52. The patents in suit, with priority dates between 2000 and 2002, inventively and
`
`effectively addressed the problems listed above, providing a basis for consumer digital audio
`
`distribution and variously including some of the following functionality: the ability to draw
`
`content from stored and streaming sources, share music, rebroadcast music to other devices, the
`
`ability to play music synchronously in multiple rooms without echo-like annoyances, and the
`
`ability to play different songs in different rooms at the same time.
`
`A. US Patent 6,757,517 to Chang (“the ‘517 patent”)
`
`53. The ‘517 Patent relates to methods for enabling multiple playback devices to form
`
`an efficient “ad hoc” wireless network which can include “private channels” over which control
`
`information and audio content can travel over the devices’ own network without overburdening
`
`a general purpose LAN or WIFI network.
`
`54. The ‘517 patent also relates to methods for permitting multiple playback devices
`
`on such an efficient wireless network to reliably play the same music in synchrony on the
`
`devices.
`
`1.
`
`Ad-hoc network
`
`55. As mentioned above, conventional Wi-Fi networks rely on a router or access point
`
`to which all devices are directly connected, leading to congestion and range issues. The ‘517
`
`patent describes, among other things, the use of “ad hoc” wireless networking, in which each
`
`device is able to connect to whichever other device or devices are within its radio reception
`
`range.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`18
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 15
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`56.
`
`In an ad hoc network, the connections among the devices form a mesh, providing
`
`numerous possible paths for information to flow, avoiding congestion that would otherwise
`
`arise from routing all traffic through a single central device, and permitting devices that might
`
`be too far from a central location to join a conventional network to find and mesh with one or
`
`more devices that are within its radio reception range.
`
`1.
`
`Two listening apparatuses exchange messages
`
`57. The ‘517 Patent also describes exchanging messages between two apparatuses in
`
`implementing an ad hoc wireless network, and those two apparatuses then synchronously
`
`playing the same song at the same time.
`
`2.
`
`First apparatus sends message to public channel
`
`58. The ‘517 Patent also describes a “public channel” on an ad hoc wireless network
`
`on which an apparatus can send a message that may be seen and meaningfully received by any
`
`apparatus on that network, and the use of such a public channel to facilitate communication
`
`among apparatuses on, or capable of joining, the ad-hoc network. Such communications
`
`include but are not limited to those that let the network know of the apparatus’ presence and
`
`characteristics.
`
`3.
`
`Second apparatus directs first apparatus to private channel
`
`59. The ‘517 Patent also describes a “private channel” on an ad hoc wireless network
`
`on which an apparatus can send a message that is only intended for, and may only be
`
`meaningfully received by, specific apparatuses on that network, and the use of such a private
`
`channel to permit one apparatus on that network to send such a message to one or more specific
`
`other apparatuses on the network as part of a process of establishing apparatuses as functioning
`
`members of the ad-hoc network.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`19
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 16
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`4.
`
`Synchronize playing a song on two apparatuses
`
`60. The ‘517 Patent also describes two apparatuses on an ad hoc wireless network
`
`playing the same song at the same time, as will be useful at times in a large room or in two
`
`adjoining rooms to avoid echo-like annoyances.
`
`B. US Patent 7,236,739 to Chang (“the ‘739 Patent”)
`
`61. The ‘739 Patent relates to methods and apparatuses for enabling multiple
`
`playback devices to form an efficient “ad hoc” wireless network over which control information
`
`and audio content can travel without overburdening the network.
`
`62. The ‘739 Patent also relates to methods for determining the sharing of music
`
`among devices on an ad hoc wireless network, and two or more playback devices on such an
`
`efficient wireless network reliably playing the same song in synchrony.
`
`63. The ‘739 Patent also relates to apparatuses which support the formation and
`
`operation of an ad hoc wireless network containing two or more audio players which can
`
`synchronously play songs at the same time.
`
`1.
`
`Ad-hoc network
`
`64. As mentioned above, conventional Wi-Fi networks rely on a router or access point
`
`to which all devices are directly connected, leading to congestion and range issues. The ‘739
`
`patent describes “ad hoc” wireless networking, in which each device may connect to whichever
`
`other device or devices are within its radio reception range.
`
`65. The connections among the devices form a mesh, providing numerous possible
`
`paths for information to flow, avoiding congestion that would otherwise arise from routing all
`
`traffic through a single central device, and permitting devices that might be too far from a
`
`central location to join a conventional network to find and mesh with one or more devices that
`
`are within its radio reception range.
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`20
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 17
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`1.
`
`Two music playback devices exchange messages
`
`66. The ‘739 Patent also describes an apparatus in which messages are exchanged
`
`between two music playback devices to support those devices forming an ad hoc wireless
`
`network.
`
`2.
`
` Determine whether music sharing is enabled
`
`67. The ‘739 Patent also describes a method by which at least two music playback
`
`devices on an ad hoc wireless network can share music content.
`
`3.
`
`Play back a music selection on at least two music playback devices in
`synchrony
`
`68.
`
` The ‘739 Patent also describes an apparatus and method by which at least two
`
`music playback devices synchronously play music at the same time.
`
`4.
`
`Random access controller communicates with the music playback
`device
`
`69. The ‘739 Patent also describes an apparatus that includes the capability of setting
`
`up and managing an ad hoc wireless network containing two or more music playback devices,
`
`and managing the synchronous playback through those devices of a music selection.
`
`5. Wireless transceiver
`
`70. The ‘739 Patent also describes an apparatus including a wireless “transceiver”
`
`(i.e., a device combining functions of wireless network reception and transmission) that
`
`connects the random access controller with the wireless network.
`
`C. US Patent 7,742,740 to Goldberg (“the ‘740 Patent”)
`
`71. The ‘740 Patent discloses a method by which audio content is sent from a
`
`“broadcasting media player device” over a first wireless channel and received by a first
`
`“receiving media player device” which then re-sends that content over a second wireless
`
`Expert Report of Ivan Zatkovich on Infringement - Final 9292014
`
`21
`
`SONOS 1013 - Page 18
`
`

`
`CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`channel to at least one more receiving media player device, after which all these media player
`
`devices synchronously play the same media at the same time.
`
`1.
`
`Broadcast of a select media content
`
`72.
`
` The ‘740 Patent describes several media player devices, at least one of which (the
`
`“broadcasting media player device”) sends content to other media player devices.
`
`2.
`
`Re-broadcasting the select media content
`
`73. The “first receiving media player device” then sends that same content on to one
`
`or more other receiving media player devices.
`
`3.
`
`Playback of the select media content…is substantially synchronized
`
`74. Media is synchronously played back at the same time on the broadcasting media
`
`player device and the receiving media player devices, including those receiving that content via
`
`“re-broadcast.”
`
`D. US Patent 6,826,283 to Wheeler (“the ‘283 Patent”)
`
`75. The ‘283 Patent discloses methods of d