1. “Whether the district court erred in applying prosecution laches to declare the ’885 and ’966 patents unenforceable, based on nothing but standard continuation practice that did not extend the patents’ terms.”
2. “Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on the written description and priority date of the ’885 and ’966 patents, where the limited evidence that the court considered established a priority date no later than 2007, Google forfeited the issues, and Sonos had no opportunity to present relevant evidence on these factual questions.”
3. “Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment of invalidity for the ’615 and ’033 patents where Sonos raised genuine disputes of material fact about whether the prior art rendered the patents obvious.”
