UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`CERTAIN AUDIO PLAYERS AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (I)
`
`
`
`
` Inv. No. 337-TA-1329
`
`
`ORDER NO. 20:
`
`GRANTING SONOS, INC.’S MOTION FOR RECEIPT OF
`EVIDENCE WITHOUT A SPONSORING WITNESS [DOC.
`ID NO. 798071]
`(June 30, 2023)
`
`Pursuant to Ground Rule 8.7.8, Respondent Sonos, Inc. (“Sonos”) filed a motion
`
`(“Motion”) to receive into evidence without a sponsoring witness two (2) decisions of the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituting inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. (Doc. ID
`
`No. 798071 (June 7, 2023); Mot. at 1.).
`
`Sonos seeks to admit
`
`• RX-1059, a decision granting institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,134,398 (“the ’398 patent”), IPR2023-00118, and
`
`• RX-1060, a decision granting institution of inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,593,330, (“the ’330 patent”) IPR2023-00119.
`
`(Id.). Complainant Google LLC (“Google”) opposes the Motion, but has not provided a reason
`
`to withhold support of the Motion. (Id. at 3.).
`
`Ground Rule 8.7.8 states that in the absence of objections and upon good cause being
`
`shown, exhibits may be admitted into evidence without a witness. (Order No. 2, Att. A at G.R.
`
`8.7.8.). Sonos submits that good cause exists to grant this Motion because these exhibits are
`
`“[r]elevant, material and reliable evidence,” and appropriate for admission into evidence without
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`

`

`a sponsoring witness. (Mot. at 2 (citing 19 C.R.F. § 210.37(b).). Sonos represents that the
`
`exhibits are relevant and material because the decisions cite prior art references that are also
`
`cited in Sonos’ Pre-Hearing Brief. (Mot. at 2 (citing Exs. A-C (RX-1059, RX-1060, Sonos’ Pre-
`
`Hearing Brief)).). Sonos submits that PTAB’s holding that “there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable” is relevant authority. (Mot. at 2 (citing Ex.
`
`A at 2, Ex. B at 2, Certain Wearable Elec. Devices with ECG Functionality, Inv. No. 337-TA-
`
`1266, Comm’n Op at 86-87 (Jan. 20, 2023) (suspending remedial orders pending appeal of
`
`PTAB’s final written decisions of unpatentability)).). Sonos represents that the decisions are
`
`reliable because they were issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and are publicly
`
`available. (See Attach. A (RX-1059, IPR2023-00118), Attach. B (RX-1060, IPR2023-00119).).
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, judicial notice may be taken for “a fact that is
`
`not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's
`
`territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
`
`accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (2011). PTAB decisions are
`
`appropriate for judicial notice. Certain Moveable Barrier Operator Sys., Inv. No. 337-TA-1118,
`
`Order No. 23 (Apr. 16, 2019) (taking judicial notice of a PTAB decision as generally known and
`
`“its existence and ultimate finding, though not necessarily its analysis, as beyond dispute as part
`
`of a self-authenticating public document”); see also Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation
`
`Materials, Inv. No. 337-TA-1003, Order No. 37 (Apr. 6, 2017) (reopening proceedings to
`
`receive two PTAB decisions into evidence and taking judicial notice of them).
`
`PTAB files that are a matter of public record and relevant to asserted patents are
`
`appropriate for receipt into evidence without a sponsoring witness. Certain Computer Network
`
`Security Equipment & Sys., Inv. No. 337-TA-1314, Order No. 26 at 3 (Jan. 20, 2023) (granting
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`

`

`motion for receipt into evidence of exhibits taken from the record of an inter partes review
`
`proceeding of asserted patents).
`
`The ’398 patent and the ’330 patent are asserted patents (“Asserted Patents”) in the
`
`Investigation. 87 Fed. Reg. 56703 (Sept. 15, 2022). Accordingly, their corresponding decisions,
`
`attached hereto as Attachments A and B, are relevant and material. The decisions are reliable
`
`because they are PTAB files that are a matter of public record.
`
`For good cause shown, Sonos’ Motion is hereby granted.
`
`
`
`This Order should not be interpreted as taking a position on the merits of the content of
`
`any of the admitted exhibits. All exhibits identified are available for use in cross-examination.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`