My 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 th

My 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/...