Case: 24-1097 Document: 90 Page: 1 Filed: 04/10/2025
`
`FORM 32. Response to Notice to Advise of Scheduling Conflicts
`
`Form 32
`March 2023
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`RESPONSE TO NOTICE TO ADVISE OF SCHEDULING CONFLICTS
`
`Case Number:
`
`Short Case Caption:
`
`Party Name(s):
`
`24-1097
`Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.
`Sonos, Inc.
`INFORMATION: The court uses this form to determine whether and when to
`schedule cases for oral argument. Arguing counsel may be changed later, but a
`motion to reschedule is required once the court schedules argument. Please plan in
`advance to adhere to the limit on the number of arguing counsel in Fed. Cir. R. 34(e).
`
`Argument Waiver (cid:1798)(cid:3)My party intends to waive oral argument.
`NOTE: Filers checking this box must still complete the below sections. The court
`may still schedule this case for oral argument even if any party intends to
`waive argument. If scheduled, parties may still elect to waive argument using
`the response to notice of oral argument form.
`Other Parties Representing Interests(cid:3)
`(cid:1798) Counsel for another party will represent my party’s interests at oral argument
`NOTE: If this box is checked, skip the remaining sections. Any argument date will
`be selected based on conflict dates for counsel arguing on behalf of your party.
`E. Joshua Rosenkranz
`Name of Expected Arguing Counsel
`Dates Unavailable
`Do you have dates of unavailability within the specific sessions identified by the
`court’s Notice to Advise of Scheduling Conflicts in your case?
`(cid:1798) Yes
`(cid:1798) No
`If yes, attach a separate sheet listing up to ten dates of unavailability and
`include a statement showing good cause for each date. Dates without good
`cause or that do not pertain to arguing counsel (e.g., client conflicts) will not be
`accepted. The court will only accept dates for one counsel and only if that counsel
`has filed an entry of appearance. The Clerk’s Office will evaluate and note accepted
`or rejected conflict dates; counsel may contact the Clerk’s Office about re-filing if
`dates are rejected. See Fed. Cir. R. 34(d); Practice Notes to Rule 34.
`
`✔
`
`

`

`Case: 24-1097 Document: 90 Page: 2 Filed: 04/10/2025
`
`FORM 32. Response to Notice to Advise of Scheduling Conflicts
`
`Form 32
`March 2023
`
`
`Potential Case Conflicts
`Are there other pending cases before this court (regardless of case status) in which
`expected arguing counsel in this case also expects to argue?
`(cid:1798)(cid:3)Yes
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:1798)(cid:3)No
`If yes, attach a separate sheet listing those cases.
`I certify the above information and any attached statement is complete and
`accurate. I further certify that I will update my notice should new conflicts arise
`or existing conflicts change.
`
`04/10/2025
`Date: _________________
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`Name:
`
`/s/ E. Joshua Rosenkranz
`
`
`
`
`E. Joshua Rosenkranz
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`✔
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 24-1097 Document: 90 Page: 3 Filed: 04/10/2025
`
`Attachment
`
`Do you have dates of unavailability within the specific sessions
`identified by the court’s Notice to Advise of Scheduling
`Conflicts in your case?
` June 9, 2025
`
`Are there other pending cases before this court (regardless of
`case status) in which expected arguing counsel in this case also
`expects to argue?
` Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington (No. 24-1129)
`
`
`
`

`

`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SONOS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant-Appellant.
`
`Case: 24-1097 Document: 90 Page: 4 Filed: 04/10/2025
`
`
`
`No. 24-1097
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE
`
`Counsel for Sonos, Inc. hereby provides the following statement of
`
`good cause to support each listed day on Appellant’s Response to Notice
`
`to Advise of Scheduling Conflicts. Good cause exists not to schedule
`
`oral argument on June 9, 2025.
`
`1.
`
`I am arguing counsel for Appellant Sonos in the above-
`
`captioned matter.
`
`2.
`
`The Court previously asked arguing counsel to advise of
`
`scheduling conflicts for its sessions from October 2024 through May
`
`

`

`Case: 24-1097 Document: 90 Page: 5 Filed: 04/10/2025
`
`2025. Because the Court will soon set the calendar for its June 2025
`
`argument session, I am writing to advise of a conflict for that session.
`
`3.
`
`I have pre-planned travel to San Francisco, California
`
`scheduled for June 9, 2025. I am traveling to San Francisco to
`
`participate in the oral argument in Hunt v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
`
`LLP, No. 24-3568 (9th Cir.).
`
`4.
`
`I therefore submit that good cause exists not to schedule
`
`argument in this case for June 9, 2025.
`
`
`
`Date: April 10, 2025
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ E. Joshua Rosenkranz
`E. Joshua Rosenkranz
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
` SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`(212) 506-5000
`
`Counsel for Appellant
`
`