Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

D&M Holdings, Inc., v. Sonos, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

February 20, 2018

D&M HOLDINGS INC. d/b/a THE D GROUP, D&M HOLDINGS U.S. INC., Plaintiffs,
v.
SONOS, INC., Defendant.

          Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, DE; John M. Jackson, Matthew C. Acosta, Blake T. Dietrich, Christopher J. Rourk, Robert P. Latham, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Dallas, TX, David Folsom, JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Texarkana, TX; Wasif Qureshi (argued), JACKSON WALKER L.L.P., Houston, TX. Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

          Philip A. Rovner, Jonathan A. Choa, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP, Wilmington, DE; George I. Lee, Sean M. Sullivan, Rory P. Shea, J. Dan Smith, Michael P. Boyea, Cole B. Richter (argued), Jae Y. Park, LEE SULLIVAN SHEA & SMITH LLP, Chicago, IL. Attorneys for Defendant.

          AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS U.S. JUDGE

         Presently before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7, 995, 899 (D.I. 186) and related briefing (D.I. 190, 222, 243). The Court held oral argument on all motions for summary judgment (D.I. 177, 186, 191, 193) on January 30, 2018. (D.I. 278) ("Tr."). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7, 995, 899. (D.I. 186).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs filed a patent infringement action on March 7, 2016 against Defendant, alleging infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7, 734, 850 ("the '850 patent"), 7, 995, 899 ("the '899 patent"), and 7, 987, 294 ("the '294 patent"). (D.I. 1). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2017. (D.I. 65).

         Plaintiffs allege infringement of claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 26 of the '899 patent. (D.I. 190 at 2; D.I. 222 at 1). Claim 5, 7, 8, and 10 depend from claim 1. They read as follows:

1. A method of playing back a recorded signal, comprising:
obtaining a recording identifier corresponding to the recorded signal;
comparing the recording identifier with previously stored identifiers in a playback preference database; and
reproducing the recorded signal using previously stored preferences if the recording identifier is found in the playback preference database and using default preferences if the recording identifier is not found in the playback preference database.
2. A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: obtaining playback preferences during said reproducing; and storing the playback preferences in the playback preference database.
3. A method as recited in claim 2, wherein the playback preferences include audio control settings.
4. A method as recited in claim 3, wherein the audio control settings include programmable effects.
5. A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising obtaining the recorded signal from a compact disc.
6. A method as recited in claim 4, further comprising obtaining the recorded signal from a file of digitally encoded audio on a computer readable medium.
7. A method as recited in claim 6, wherein the file is digitally encoded using ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.