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.”
1. “Google presents no evidence that it suffered prejudice attributable to Sonos’s delay in claiming, but not disclosing, overlapping zone scenes. The district court erred in concluding otherwise, and therefore abused its discretion in holding the Zone Scene patents unenforceable for prosecution laches.”
2. “[W]e hold that the district court erred in entering judgment that the asserted claims of the Zone Scene patents are invalid as lacking written description of overlapping zone scenes.”
3. “Sonos’s attempt to create a genuine dispute of material fact . . . is unpersuasive. Accordingly, we agree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of the [’033] patent.” “Sonos further appeals the district court’s judgment holding claim 13 of U.S. Patent 9,967,615 invalid. We have since affirmed the invalidity of that claim in a separate decision . . . so Sonos’s appeal as to that claim is moot.”
