3 ms·
They didn't start enforcing a patent 13 years later, because they didn't even have a patent to enforce. Basically Sonos took a patent application that had been
by jsnell 3y ago
They didn't start enforcing a patent 13 years later, because they didn't even have a patent to enforce.
Basically Sonos took a patent application that had been filed 13 years earlier but not granted (due to prior art), modified it to add a feature Google was already shipping but Sonos wasn't, and resubmitted it for a new evaluation. The patent was granted but backdated to the time of the original filing in 2006.
- lucb1e 3y agoWait, if Sonos tried to patent a feature that Google was already shipping (in their products, I assume you mean) at the time of filing, why was that not also rejected for prior art?
- jsnell 3y agoMy reading of the ruling[0] is that Sonos lied to the patent examiner, and claimed that all of the new material had been in the application since 2006 rather than having been just inserted. > On Sonos’s representation that its amendment to the specification and figures contained no new matter, the patent examiner allowed the amendments to the applications for the patents in suit (They then proceeded to lie about this to the judge in the original trial as well.) [0] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/GOOGLE%20SONOS%20TRIAL%20ruling.pdf https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/znpnznkjgpl/...