In 2020, Sonos sued Google in the N.D. of California, asserting two “zone scenes” wireless speaker patents (US 10,848,885 and 10,469,966) that allow for overlapping groups of speakers. A jury found Google liable and awarded $30 million in damages. In an unusual move, District Judge William Alsup threw out the verdict in a 55-page post-trial order. He held the patents unenforceable for prosecution laches and invalid for lack of written description support. Judge Alsup found Sonos had engaged in a “daisy chain” continuation strategy to keep the patent family alive for over 13 years. Although longer than average, this timeline is not long for a patent family recognized as valuable. But, one quirk is that the particular “overlapping zone scene” claims were not presented in claim form until 2019. And, they were added after Google began selling products with that feature. Judge Alsup also concluded that Sonos’s 2019 amendments were directed to new matter not supported by the original 2006–2007 applications -- i.e., lacking written description suport. Without that priority claim, those earlier filings became anticipatory prior art to the later would-be continuation.
The appeal is now pending, and the Federal Circuit held oral arguments on July 10, 2025. The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of the "sparingly applied" doctrine of prosecution laches and also about the proper procedure for raising written description/anticipation issues during trial.
- Listen to Oral Args; Rough Transcript.
- Dennis Crouch, Prosecution Laches from Woodbridge to Sonos: A 170-Year Journey, Patently-O (June 21, 2025),
- Dennis Crouch, Google v. Sonos: Oral Arguments, Patently-O (July 11, 2025),
- Dennis Crouch, Preview: Federal Circuit Oral Argument in Google v. Sonos (July 10, 2025), Patently-O (June 30, 2025),
- Dennis Crouch, Redefining Patent Continuation Strategy: Sonos v. Google Appeal, Patently-O (Feb. 13, 2024),
- Dennis Crouch, Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Divided Opinion in Sonos v. ITC, Patently-O (Apr. 9, 2024),
- Dennis Crouch, Sonos v. Google: Late Claiming Estoppel, Patently-O (Dec. 8, 2023).
I believe that a typical Federal Circuit panel would side with the appellant Sonos. But, the panel in this case is somewhat unique. The combination of Judges Prost and Lourie creates an interesting dynamic given their opposing positions in the 2010 prosecution laches case of Cancer Research. Judge Prost's dissent in that case shows her willingness to apply prosecution laches. Although Judge Lourie did not find laches in Cancer Research, he is Judge Lourie authorship of Symbol v. Lemelson—the decision that revived prosecution laches in 2005.
In ratings of "patent friendliness" (including one by Google's attorney Dan Bagatel), Judges Prost and Lourie are among the three least patent-friendly judges on the Federal Circuit. Judge Bumb, sitting by designation from the District of New Jersey, adds unpredictability as she lacks the extensive patent law track record of her colleagues. All three are Republican appointees who generally embrace textualist approaches, but that judicial philosophy matters less here since prosecution laches is an entirely judge-made equitable doctrine with minimal congressional guidance beyond Section 282's broad authorization of equitable defenses.
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.