Opinion

Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Court
District Court, N.D. California
Filed
Mar 17, 2022
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9

10 GOOGLE LLC,

11 Plaintiff, No. C 20-06754 WHA

12 v.

13 SONOS, INC., ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND

14 Defendant.

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

15

16

17 Sonos has filed two motions for leave to amend its infringement contentions pursuant to

18 Patent Local Rule 3-6 (Dkt. Nos. 128, 150). Sonos argues there is good cause for both

19 amendments because they advance backup infringement theories contingent upon new claim

20 constructions tendered by Google. Google opposes, and argues that Sonos’s amendments are

21 not backup contentions at all and that Sonos has provided no justification for why these

22 contentions could not have been brought earlier. These motions are suitable for resolution on

23 the papers. Civ. L.R. 7-6.1

24 Patent Local Rule 3-6 states: “Amendment of the Infringement Contentions or the

25 Invalidity Contentions may be made only by order of the Court upon a timely showing of good

26 cause.” “[T]he primary question of good cause is a party’s diligence, and ‘in considering the

27

1 party’s diligence, the critical question is whether the party could have discovered the new

2 information earlier had it acted with the requisite diligence.’” Fluidigm Corp. v. IONpath, Inc.,

3 2020 WL 5073938, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (citation omitted). Fluidigm held:

4 “Where a party may wish to advance backup infringement or invalidity theories contingent

5 upon the opposition’s claim construction, the clock starts ticking when the parties exchange

6 those formal claim constructions. And, in this Court’s view, twenty eight days will generally

7 be the outside limit of a reasonable and adequate amount of time for a party to move for leave

8 to amend its contentions.” Ibid.

9 Upon review, Sonos has properly advanced backup infringement theories contingent

10 upon Google’s claim constructions.

11 First, on January 10, Google advanced constructions of the terms “resource locators” and

12 “local playback queue on the particular playback device.” Sonos filed its first motion for leave

13 to include backup infringement theories in light of those constructions on February 7.

14 Second, on February 3, the day prior to the parties’ deadline for exchanging expert

15 reports on claim construction, Google withdrew its construction of the term “local playback

16 queue on the particular playback device” and advanced a new construction of the term

17 “playback queue.” Sonos filed its second motion for leave to include backup infringement

18 theories in light of this new construction on March 1. This order pauses to note that Sonos

19 stated in its initial February 7 motion that it was investigating this further change but had not

20 yet had adequate time to determine whether it would need to amend again to address this new

21 construction (Dkt. No. 128 at 2 n.1).

22 Yes, Sonos has revised its contentions several times both in this district and in the related

23 lawsuit when it was pending in Texas. Moreover, Sonos’s January 20 amendment dealt with

24 related issues and proceeded in parallel with the first of Sonos’s motions at issue here (Hrg. Tr.

25 13, Dkt. No. 112). Google says Sonos should have proffered the contentions in the proposed

26 amendments here earlier, at the latest in the January 20 amendment.

27 Sonos, however, brought both of its motions for leave to amend within twenty-eight

1 constructions. Google had not previously advanced those specific constructions. This order

2 finds both proposed amendments add backup infringement contentions contingent upon

3 Google’s proposed constructions. The January 20 amendment did address similar issues, but it

4 was not directed to Google’s claim constructions. It is inapposite, moreover, that the timeline

5 for the January 20 amendment overlapped to some extent with the timeline for the February 7

6 motion. In sum, Sonos has good cause to amend, and both motions are GRANTED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

9

10 Dated: March 17, 2022.

Pee

{as _ I ere

TLLIAM ALSUP

= UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

©

15

16

= 17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.