Federal Judge Throws Out $32.5 Million Win For Sonos Against Google; Google Star...
source link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/23/10/11/0035226/federal-judge-throws-out-325-million-win-for-sonos-against-google-google-starts-reintroducing-software-features-it-had-removed
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Federal Judge Throws Out $32.5 Million Win For Sonos Against Google; Google Starts Reintroducing Software Features It had Removed
Do you have a GitHub project? Now you can sync your releases automatically with SourceForge and take advantage of both platforms. Do you have a GitHub project? Now you can automatically sync your releases to SourceForge & take advantage of both platforms. The GitHub Import Tool allows you to quickly & easily import your GitHub project repos, releases, issues, & wiki to SourceForge with a few clicks. Then your future releases will be synced to SourceForge automatically. Your project will reach over 35 million more people per month and you’ll get detailed download statistics. Sync Now
›
by dfghjk ( 711126 ) on Wednesday October 11, 2023 @09:37AM (#63918091)
"What’s more, in 2019, during the prosecution of the applications for the patents in suit, Sonos amended the specification to insert new matter, despite telling the patent examiner the inserted matter was not new. Under black letter patent law, that new matter necessarily sunk any claim of priority."
If that is true, the patents are clearly invalid since the allegedly infringing Google products turn out to be prior art.
Don't know what the point is to huff and puff about the patent system working precisely as designed, the entire purpose of a provisional application is to establish an early date for an invention to be claimed later. You cannot add new matter to a specification to support those claims, though, as should be obvious.
"Even if the provisional application Sonos filed in 2006 or the corresponding non- provisional application Sonos filed in 2007 had actually disclosed the invention, that would be all the more reason to hold Sonos waited too long to claim it, to the prejudice of Google, not to mention other companies and consumers."
"Too long"? If Sonos had disclosed the invention in 2006, then Google integrating the invention later would be known as "infringement", not "innovation". Patents are for a limited time, that time is not in "how long" it takes to ask for them. Of course, that turns out not to be the argument, it just turns out to be the judge being prejudicial against Sonos in his decision.
This is precisely how companies use the patent system. They analyze their competitor's products and tailor claims to maximize their chances in court. If the judge feels entitled to rule against a company for doing that, he shouldn't be a judge. Literally legislating from the bench.
-
-
For as much as Sonos charges, their hardware could have been future-proofed for decades without a lot of effort. If you're talking about the S1 / S2 split, it's ridiculous that they decided that they couldn't have basic functionality maintained on a new system. Just disable new functionality any time old generation equipment is in a group. Honestly, most users aren't doing anything terribly complex with their Sonos system - it's expensive enough that a lot of people take years to buy enough to cover thei
-
a question that a prick would ask. SuperKendall, is that you?
-
If Slim Jim the little boy diddler sues Sister Mary the kindly old lady for breaking his car window their respective pasts are irrelevant to the case. The question at hand is whether Sister Mary broke the car window. That MUST be the question at hand, or the entire legal system falls apart. Rule of law is paramount, and if it doesn't apply to sinner and saint equally there will soon be no justice and no law.
-
-
Its rare these days for the patent system to work as intended. The whole eHarmony patenting a pre-existing math formula really got me disillusioned about the us patent office. Turned into a cesspool of patent Trolls.
-
So that's why the patent was granted and Sonos was able to insert that material without being challenged until after a court case was already ruled in their favor? The intent isn't broken, but the system obviously is. I almost wonder if the patent office isn't intentionally underfunded just to help out big companies.
-
"So that's why the patent was granted and Sonos was able to insert that material without being challenged until after a court case was already ruled in their favor?"
Nice straw men there.Sonos allegedly inserted new material. The Examiner is responsible for reviewing that. Perhaps it was reviewed, perhaps it wasn't. Perhaps the judge is right, perhaps he isn't. I haven't seen the inserts yet, I don't have an opinion.
The patent was granted because the Examiner decided to grant it. Sonos was able to insert
-
Obviously you do. You wrote this whole post on the conjecture that maybe this whole thing is made up because the USPTO worked as designed.
Here you go:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.... [thomsonreuters.com]From Sonos' own lawyers:
I need to apologize for a clarification. You and I had a discussion
yesterday about the specification in this case and whether it’s the
same, and I said it was the same, and that’s true insofar as there’s
Case 3:20-cv-06754-WHA Document 868 Filed 10/06/23 Page 44 of 55
United States Distri-
"t also says that the important amendments to the patent, "TX0004 at 821; TX0006 at 4101", were added in August 2019 after the patent was filed AND after the lawsuit with Google was already underway. And when they did this, they lied to the patent examiner and said there was nothing materially new. And when challenged, they claimed it was OK because it "just a reference" to information that could be found in the design documents."
That's what was said. As I said earlier, and you for some reason could not ac
-
-
There is no need to insult anyone, since these two statements are in agreement. The patent office should not be a self-funded profit center. When this changed it was criticized for causing the exact behavior that we are discussing here. The patent examiners have a profit-driven motive rather than objective analysis of facts.
-
"There is no need to insult anyone, since these two statements are in agreement. "
They are not. First, the OP is ignorant, it is not an insult but a fact. Second, the USPTO is self-funded so there is no one to "intentionally underfund" them."When this changed it was criticized for causing the exact behavior that we are discussing here."
When was the USPTO "changed" to for-profit?"The patent examiners have a profit-driven motive rather than objective analysis of facts."
Not really, patent examiners do not pr
-
-
-
-
There are two real reasons Judge Alsup ruled against Sonos.
(1) Prosecution latches. This essentially rules that Sonos waited too long to claim their invention. IIRC, there's a presumption that changes at seven years, after that, Sonos has to show good reason they didn't file on the inventions sooner. Leaving inventions unclaimed for too long and hoping the industry steps on your patent disclosure is unlawful because it's against public policy.
(2) Added matter. To claim priority, you must show every patent in the priority chain individually support the claimed invention. Alsup found a patent in the chain that didn't include the critical support for the claimed invention, and support only was added later in the priority chain. If the patent claim falls due to lack of support in a prior patent of the priority chain, Google's prior art invalidates the claim.
This is all long-standing established patent law. I see no reason to assert that Alsup was "legislating from the bench." It's legal to tailor claims for validity and infringement with respect to a competitor's product, you just can't wait too long to do so.
-
"I see no reason to assert that Alsup was "legislating from the bench.""
Because you're not looking.
You are correct about the two reasons, but the "legislating from the bench" comment regards the first reason. The judge admits throughout that there is no objective standard for determining (1) so it is the judge's subjective opinions that eventually rule, and the judge dismisses criticism of his opinion because "in the end, it makes no difference here." (p. 29)
The decision states on p. 31:
"At all relevant ti
-
-
"Too long"? If Sonos had disclosed the invention in 2006, then Google integrating the invention later would be known as "infringement", not "innovation". Patents are for a limited time, that time is not in "how long" it takes to ask for them.
The key word which is missing from the/. summary but was front and centre in the reporting I read about this earlier today is laches. If a patent holder knows that someone else is infringing the patent, they have to sue them right away rather than delaying. In this cas
-
"If a patent holder knows that someone else is infringing the patent, they have to sue them right away rather than delaying."
False, and irrelevant.Sonos did NOT have a patent that Google infringed in 2015. The issue raised is NOT that Sonos didn't sue right away but that they didn't file for the patent years earlier. The problem there is that Sonos DID file for patents continuously and in a sequence, which is totally customary, and it is only that the judge, based on personal values that he declares are r
-
-
I seem to recall that in signing the latest patent treaty -- maybe 10 years ago? -- the US agreed that prior art is less important than who filed first. Can someone confirm or refute?
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK