Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03845-EMC

GOOGLE LLC, Plaintiff, v. SONOS, INC., Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-03845-EMC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

June 7, 2021

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Docket No. 66

I. INTRODUCTION

This case involves three patents that Plaintiff Google accuses Defendant Sonos of infringing. On May 11, 2021, the parties appeared before the Court for a claim construction hearing. Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3, the parties asked the Court to construe nine (9) terms that appear in various claims of the patents-in-suit. See Joint Claim Construction Brief, Appendix A (Docket No. 66). The parties stipulated to a dismissal of the one of the patents-in-suit (the '206 patent), and eight (8) terms remain for the Court's construction. Docket No. 107. The Court adopts the following constructions.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Patents-in-Suit

The following three patents contain the claim terms which the parties dispute for this claim construction hearing. The Court has granted the parties' stipulation of dismissal for the claims of infringement for the '206 patent. Docket No. 107.

1. '187 Patent

Google is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,899,187, titled "Domain-Based Digital-Rights Management System with Easy and Secure Device Enrollment," ("the '187 patent"), which was issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on March 1, 2011. Id. ¶ 21. At the claim construction tutorial, the parties explained that the '187 patent is directed to a digital rights management system ("DRM system") that oversees a domain of devices (as opposed to individual devices standing alone). The parties explained that a domain is a group of devices that share rights associated with a common account for use in accessing protected content.

The '187 patent addresses the problem of confidentiality and security of protected digital content. The background states that "[t]he ease at which valuable digital content (e.g., music, games, video, pictures, and books) can be copied and shared is worrisome to content owners." '187 patent, 1:13-15 (Docket No. 1-2, Ex. 2). There are two problems with conventional DRM systems. First, "a user faces the potentially cumbersome task of registering all of his devices into a domain." '187 Patent, 1:40-42. Second, "the security of content in a domain is potentially threatened if users can remotely register devices into a domain over a long distance." '187 Patent, 1:42-45. Thus, the patent states that "a need exists for domain-based digital-rights management with easy and secure device enrollment that increases the security of content." '187 Patent, 1:45-48. In sum, the DRM system in the '187 patent is meant to address the ease and security of the new-device registration process within a domain of devices.

2. '375 Patent

Google is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,140,375, titled "Personalized Network Searching," ("the '375 patent"), which was issued by the USPTO on November 27, 2018. Compl. ¶ 54. This patent is directed to methods and systems for personalized network searching, synchronizing bookmarks between a client device and a server. The background of the patent states the problem it wishes to solve:

"An Internet user often has difficulty propagating bookmarks between the various machines on which the user depends. For example, many users have a computer at work and at home. Often, the bookmarks relied on in the work setting are useful at home as well. In most cases, however, the user must manually synchronize the bookmark lists of the two machines. In addition, conventional methods of organizing bookmarks tend to be limited at best, making it difficult for the user to find a favorite site."

'375 Patent, 1:51-60 (Docket No. 1-12). The specifications state that the search engine may perform two different functions: "[t]he search engine 120 may generate the search result by combining the general results and the personalized results. The search engine may instead provide separate lists: one containing the general search result and a second containing the personalized search result." '375 Patent, 6:9-13 (emphasis added).

3. '586 Patent

Google is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,229,586, titled "Relaying Communications in a Wireless Sensor System" ("the '586 patent") which was issued by the USPTO on March 12, 2019. Compl. ¶ 91. The '596 patent is directed at using devices within a wireless mesh network. The patent describes a "wireless sensor unit system providing bi-directional communication between a sensor (e.g., smoke sensor, fire sensor, temperature sensor, water, etc.) and a repeater or base unit in a building protection system." '586 Patent, 1:38-42 (Docket No. 1-22, Ex. 22). At the claim construction tutorial, counsel for Google explained that mesh networks are networks that include at least two pathways to each node.

The specifications describe the process as follows:

"When the sensor unit 102 detects an anomalous condition (e.g., smoke, fire, water, etc.) the sensor unit communicates with the appropriate repeater unit 110 and provides data regarding the anomalous condition. The repeater unit 110 forwards the data to the base unit 112, and the base unit 112 forwards the information to the computer 113. The computer 113 evaluates the data and takes appropriate action. If the computer 113 determines that the condition is an emergency (e.g., fire, smoke, large quantities of water), then the computer 113 contacts the appropriate personnel 120. If the computer 113 determines that the situation warrants reporting, but is not an emergency, then the computer 113 logs the data for later reporting. In this way, the sensor system 100 can monitor the conditions in and around the building 101.

'586 Patent, 5:26-39.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Ordinary Meaning and Claim Construction

Claim construction is a question of law, although it may contain factual underpinnings. Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "The purpose of claim construction is to 'determin[e] the meaning and scope of thepatent claims asserted to be infringed.'" O2 Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996)).

It is a bedrock principle of patent law that "the claims of a patent define the invention." Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The words of a claim are generally given their "ordinary and custom meaning," which is "the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[i]t is the person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention through whose eyes the claims are construed"). The inquiry into how a person of ordinary skill in the art interprets the claim term "provides an objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. A person of ordinary skill reads the claim term "not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." Id.

In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language, as understood by a person of skill in the art, may be "readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1314. But other times the parties may use claim language idiosyncratically, and the Court must look to "those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean," such as "the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art." Id. (quoting Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116).

Courts first look to intrinsic evidence because "the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms." Id. The context in which a claim term is used can be highly instructive, as can "[o]ther claims of the patent in question, both asserted and unasserted." Id. "Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in understanding themeaning of particular claim terms." Id. But claims must also be read "in view of the specification," which is always "highly relevant to the claim construction analysis" and is often "dispositive." Id. at 1315 (internal quotations omitted); see also Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("the specification 'is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis ... [and] it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term'") (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315).

In addition to consulting the specification, courts should consider "the patent's prosecution history," which is "of primary significance in understanding the claims." Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. However, the Federal Circuit has cautioned that "because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.

Finally, courts may consider extrinsic evidence, which consists of "all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Id. at 1317-18. However, extrinsic evidence is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language." Id. at 1317 (internal quotation...