Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Background

Sonos filed two motions under Patent Local Rule 3-6 for permission to amend its infringement contentions. The proposed amendments added backup infringement theories that depended on claim constructions—proposed interpretations of patent terms—advanced by Google.

The Parties’ Arguments

Sonos argued that both amendments were justified because they responded to new claim constructions from Google. Google opposed the motions, arguing that the proposed amendments were not actually backup contentions and that Sonos had not explained why it could not have raised them earlier.

Court’s Analysis

Patent Local Rule 3-6 allows amendment of infringement or invalidity contentions only when the court finds good cause. The court explained that diligence is the primary consideration, including whether the party could have discovered the new information earlier by acting diligently.

The court found that Sonos filed its first motion within twenty-eight days after Google proposed constructions for “resource locators” and “local playback queue on the particular playback device.” Sonos filed its second motion within twenty-six days after Google withdrew one construction and proposed a new construction for “playback queue.” The court also noted that Sonos had said it was investigating the later change but did not yet have enough time to determine whether another amendment would be necessary.

Although Sonos had amended its contentions several times, including in a related lawsuit that had been pending in Texas, the court found that the earlier January 20 amendment addressed similar issues but was not directed to Google’s specific claim constructions. The court concluded that both proposed amendments were backup infringement contentions contingent on Google’s proposed constructions and that Sonos had shown good cause.

Ruling

Judge William Alsup granted both of Sonos’s motions for leave to amend its infringement contentions. The order addressed only whether Sonos could amend its contentions; it did not decide the parties’ underlying patent-infringement claims.