Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-06754
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sonos v. Google, Judge William Alsup kept design-around infringement for the jury, removed the ’615 patent, and referred the case to mediation.
Sonos, Inc. and Google LLC, whose consolidated patent litigation was affected by the court’s rulings about the jury trial, the ’615 patent, and mediation.
What happened
In Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, the court addressed how the consolidated case would proceed after a hearing. The order concerned whether a purported design-around infringed and whether claims involving the ’615 patent remained in the case.
The court said the jury would decide whether the design-around infringed unless the evidence was clear enough for the court to resolve the issue under Rule 50. It also said there would be no separate trial before the judge. The court stated that the ’615 patent was out of the case because neither side included its claims among the claims to be tried, and Google’s challenge to certain claims had been abandoned long ago.
Judge William Alsup also referred the action to Judge Thomas Hixson for mediation. The order did not decide whether the design-around infringed; it set how that issue would be handled and addressed which patent claims remained in the case.
The detailed version
- Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06754
- William Alsup
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
The order followed a hearing in consolidated actions between Sonos, Inc. and Google LLC. The court addressed the treatment of a purported design-around and the status of claims involving the ’615 patent.
Design-around infringement
The court stated that the jury would decide whether the purported design-around infringed, unless the evidence was sufficiently clear for the court to resolve that issue under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 50 permits a court to resolve an issue when the evidence does not legally support a reasonable jury’s decision. The court also stated that there would be no separate bench trial, meaning no separate trial before the judge on that issue.
’615 patent
The court stated that the ’615 patent was out of the case. It explained that both sides had submitted charts listing the claims to be tried, and neither side included claims related to the ’615 patent. The court further stated that Google had asserted that a live dispute remained concerning the invalidity of claims 18, 19, and 25 of that patent, but Google had not included those invalidity issues in its list of remaining claims. The court said that invalidity of those claims had been abandoned long ago and that it was too late to change that position.
Mediation and disposition
In a companion order, the action was referred to Judge Thomas Hixson for mediation. Judge William Alsup ordered that the jury would decide the design-around infringement issue unless Rule 50 permitted the court to resolve it, stated that the ’615 patent was out of the case, and referred the action for mediation. This order did not decide whether the design-around infringed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.