The world of patent litigation is notably dynamic and interconnected, where different cases, stakeholders and technologies often converge in unusual and intriguing ways. This was recently exemplified when a Federal Circuit brief was filed in a high-profile case, coinciding with the release of an unrelated Federal Circuit opinion. The common denominator between these two events is one of America’s boldest Intellectual Property (IP) judges – the Northern District of California’s Senior Judge, William Alsup.
Known for his definitive positions on patent and other IP issues, particularly in cases involving large tech companies based in Northern California, Alsup is perhaps best remembered for the Uber/Waymo trade secret/patent dispute of 2018. While those two tech giants are currently working together, Google is still involved in another high-profile patent dispute with Sonos.
Following up on the Sonos vs Google case, this has been a primary focus in my previous analyses including Google’s attempts to move the case from Texas to California and Alsup’s issuance of a significant pretrial order. Recently, Sonos’ victory was overturned on post-trial motion due to a decision finding the winning patents unenforceable and invalid due to prosecution laches. Alsup criticized Sonos’ use of typical patentee continuation practice leading to the invalidation of their patents.
Alsup’s decision stimulated swift criticism from the pro-patentee camp, for instance, IPWatchdog and Patently-O referred to it as one of the “most shocking patent decisions of 2023.” To challenge this verdict, Sonos’ recently filed CAFC appeal brief stands defiantly against Judge Alsup.
In an interesting turn of events, the appeal brief was lodged just days before a CAFC decision involving Alsup and another tech behemoth, Meta. In this case, Meta succeeded in obtaining a transfer of the plaintiff’s case to Alsup, who then granted a summary judgment of non-infringement based on prior construction of a related patent in an earlier Google case. This judgment was later reversed on appeal.
For Sonos, this presents a potentially hopeful situation as they see Alsup’s handling of another patent case overturned by the CAFC in the same week that they lodged their own criticisms of the judge to the same appellate court. Nonetheless, the arduousness of the appellate process, even if successful for Sonos, will inevitably further prolong their hopes of a significant recovery from Google.
The treatment of one of 2023’s most “shocking” patent decisions by the CAFC is eagerly anticipated by many as the appeal unfolds over the course of 2024 and possibly into 2025. Despite the challenges, Sonos appreciates the opportunity to voice its concerns at the CAFC, even as they would have preferred that the underlying jury verdict remained intact.
For further comments or queries, feel free to contact me at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or via Twitter: @gkroub.