A Federal Circuit panel heard oral argument today in the case of Google v. Sonos. You can listen to the oral argument here:
Joshua Rosenkranz, arguing for the patent owner, opened his argument with the statement:
“Your honors, the district court took a doctrine that this court has cautioned must be sparingly applied and stretched it to endanger standard continuation practice. If this court sustains this approach, it will fundamentally alter the norms of both patent prosecution and patent litigation.”
The Fed Circuit blog has copies of briefs for this appeal: [Link].
Update 10/8/25:
Google cannot be prejudiced by incorporating into its products a feature that was publicly disclosed in a patent application prior to its investment. Cf. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[I]t is not improper for an applicant to broaden his claims during prosecution in order to encompass a competitor’s products, as long as the disclosure supports the broadened claims.”); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Hospira, Inc., 933 F.3d 1320, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that, although subject matter disclosed but not claimed is generally dedicated to the public, there is an exception for subject matter “claimed in a continuation or other application”).
Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc., 2024-1097 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2025)(slip op. at 16-17).