DCT
2:20-cv-00169
Sonos Inc v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Sonos, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
- Case Identification: 2:20-cv-00169, C.D. Cal., 01/07/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Google has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless multi-room audio products, including its Google Home and Chromecast lines, infringe five patents related to multi-zone audio system control, synchronization, device setup, and multi-channel pairing.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technology underlying wireless multi-room audio systems, a significant and competitive segment of the consumer electronics market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Sonos provided Google with notice of infringement on at least four separate occasions, beginning in August 2016. It also notes that two of the patents-in-suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,588,949 and 9,195,258) were previously asserted in litigation against D&M Holdings, resulting in a jury verdict of willful infringement in favor of Sonos. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,588,949 and 9,219,959 have undergone reexamination proceedings at the USPTO.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-07-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’949, ’258, and ’953 Patents |
| 2004-06-05 | Earliest Priority Date for ’896 Patent |
| 2005-01-01 | Sonos launches its first commercial products |
| 2006-09-12 | Earliest Priority Date for ’959 Patent |
| 2013-01-01 | Sonos and Google begin partnership |
| 2013-11-19 | ’949 Patent Issued |
| 2014-01-01 | Sonos initiates litigation against D&M Holdings |
| 2015-01-01 | Google launches Chromecast Audio |
| 2015-11-05 | ’949 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2015-11-24 | ’258 Patent Issued |
| 2015-12-22 | ’959 Patent Issued |
| 2016-08-01 | Sonos provides first notice of infringement to Google |
| 2016-11-01 | Google launches Google Home product |
| 2017-04-05 | ’959 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2017-01-01 | Google launches Google Home Max and Mini |
| 2019-02-19 | ’953 Patent Issued |
| 2019-10-08 | ’896 Patent Issued |
| 2020-01-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,588,949 - "Method and Apparatus for Adjusting Volume Levels in a Multi-Zone System"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes conventional multi-zone audio systems as being based on a "centralized" device hard-wired to passive speakers, which made it difficult to dynamically create and control groups of players on an ad hoc basis (’949 Patent, col. 1:41-2:12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a system architecture comprising a "controller" and multiple "independent playback devices" (or "zone players") communicating over a local area network (’949 Patent, FIG. 1; Compl. ¶61). This controller provides a user interface that allows a user to dynamically group these independent players and then adjust their volume levels either individually for a specific player or collectively for the entire group (’949 Patent, col. 6:43-60).
- Technical Importance: This technology enabled flexible, software-defined control over multi-room audio, moving away from the rigid, physically wired configurations of earlier systems (Compl. ¶62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. p. 42, ¶139).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A multimedia controller with a processor.
- The controller is configured to provide a user interface for a player group that includes multiple players on a local area network.
- The controller is configured to accept a user input to facilitate the formation of the player group for synchronized playback.
- The controller is configured to accept a player-specific input to adjust the volume of an individual player.
- The controller is configured to accept a group-level input to adjust the volume of all players in the group.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶138).
U.S. Patent No. 9,195,258 - "System and Method for Synchronizing Operations Among a Plurality of Independently Clocked Digital Data Processing Devices"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In a networked audio system, individual playback devices operate with independent clocks. Discrepancies in clock rates or network delays can cause playback to become unsynchronized, resulting in an audible and "very annoying" echo effect (’258 Patent, col. 2:20-36).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method where networked devices form a "synchrony group." One device acts as a "master" and distributes audio information, its own clock time information, and playback timing information to the other "slave" devices (’258 Patent, col. 31:34-41). The slave devices use this information to adjust their local playback timing, ensuring synchronized audio output across the group despite having independent clocks (’258 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This invention provided a robust technical solution for maintaining precise audio synchronization over standard, non-specialized data networks, a foundational requirement for modern wireless multi-room speaker systems (Compl. ¶85).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 17 (Compl. p. 59, ¶153).
- Claim 17 requires:
- A first zone player comprising a network interface, a device clock, one or more processors, and memory.
- The player is configured to receive a direction from a controller to enter into a synchrony group with a second zone player.
- In response, it enters the synchrony group.
- The players in the group are configured to playback audio in synchrony based on: (i) audio content, (ii) playback timing information, and (iii) clock time information generated by one of the players.
- The players remain independently clocked while playing back in synchrony.
- The first zone player is configured to transmit status information about the synchrony group to a controller.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶152).
U.S. Patent No. 9,219,959 - "Multi Channel Pairing in a Media System"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of creating multi-channel audio configurations (like stereo pairs) from physically separate, discrete speakers, which was difficult in conventional hard-wired systems (Compl. ¶91). The invention provides a flexible platform where networked playback devices can be dynamically "paired" via a controller to simulate a multi-channel listening environment, with each device handling different audio processing based on the pairing type (Compl. ¶92, ¶95).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint provides a claim chart for independent claim 10 (Compl. p. 65, ¶165).
- Accused Features: The functionality of Google’s audio products, specifically the Google Home Max, that allows two devices to be wirelessly paired for "room-filling stereo separation" (Compl. ¶102).
U.S. Patent No. 10,209,953 - "Playback Device"
- Technology Synopsis: This patent, which is related to the ’258 Patent, further details the synchronization method from the perspective of a "slave" device joining a "synchrony group" (Compl. ¶108, ¶112). The invention describes the slave device receiving clock timing information from the "master" device, determining the time differential between their clocks, and using this differential to adjust its playback of received audio information to achieve synchrony (Compl. ¶114, ¶115).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint provides a claim chart for independent claim 7 (Compl. p. 72, ¶177).
- Accused Features: The methods used by Google's audio players to achieve synchronized audio playback when operating as part of a multi-room group (Compl. ¶176).
U.S. Patent No. 10,439,896 - "Playback Device Connection"
- Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the complicated and technical process of connecting consumer electronic devices to a secure wireless network, which often required knowledge of IP networking and security settings (Compl. ¶122, ¶123). The invention provides a simplified method where a computing device (like a smartphone) establishes a temporary, direct "initial communication path" with a new playback device to securely transmit the main network's configuration parameters (e.g., Wi-Fi password), after which the new device transitions to the secure network (Compl. ¶129, ¶130).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint provides a claim chart for independent claim 1 (Compl. p. 80, ¶189).
- Accused Features: The setup process for Google’s audio players, which is facilitated by the Google Home app on a user’s smartphone or tablet (Compl. ¶135, ¶188).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint collectively refers to the accused products as the "Google Wireless Audio System" (Compl. ¶31). This system is alleged to comprise three categories of instrumentalities:
- Google Audio Players: Including but not limited to the Chromecast, Chromecast Ultra, Chromecast Audio, Home Mini, Nest Mini, Home, Home Max, Home Hub, Nest Hub, Nest Hub Max, and Nest Wifi Point (Compl. ¶28).
- Google Pixel Devices: Hardware controller devices including Google’s "Pixel" phones, tablets, and laptops (Compl. ¶30).
- Google Apps: Software controllers including the Google Home app, Google Play Music app, and YouTube Music app (Compl. ¶28).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that these products, when used together, form a wireless multi-room audio system that allows users to perform functions patented by Sonos (Compl. ¶18). The core accused functionalities include: (1) creating groups of speakers for synchronized multi-room music playback, a process illustrated in a series of screenshots from the Google Home app (Compl. p. 44); (2) adjusting the volume of individual speakers or an entire group, also depicted in screenshots (Compl. p. 49); (3) wirelessly pairing two Google Home Max speakers for stereo sound, as marketed by Google in a product image (Compl. p. 32, ¶102); and (4) using a smartphone app to simplify the setup of new speakers on a wireless network (Compl. ¶135). The complaint positions these products as direct competitors to Sonos, alleging they were developed by copying Sonos's technology and are sold at subsidized prices as "loss leaders" to expand Google's data collection and advertising platforms (Compl. ¶3, ¶27, ¶33).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’949 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A multimedia controller including a processor, the controller configured to: | Smartphones, tablets, and computers installed with Google Apps (e.g., Google Home app) act as multimedia controllers. | ¶p. 42 | col. 1:15-18 |
| provide a user interface for a player group, wherein the player group includes a plurality of players in a local area network, and wherein each player is an independent playback device configured to playback a multimedia output from a multimedia source; | The Google Home app provides a user interface that allows for the creation and control of groups of Google Audio Players on a user's local Wi-Fi network. | ¶p. 42 | col. 2:13-15 |
| accept via the user interface an input to facilitate formation of the player group, ... for synchronized playback of a multimedia output from the same multimedia source; | The Google Home app accepts user input, via on-screen controls, to form a group of at least two Google Audio Players for synchronized music playback. The complaint provides a visual walkthrough of this process (Compl. p. 44). | ¶p. 43 | col. 2:13-18 |
| for any individual player in the player group, accept via the user interface a player-specific input to adjust a volume of that individual player, wherein the player-specific input to adjust the volume of that individual player causes that individual player to adjust its volume; and | The Google Home app provides individual volume sliders for each speaker within a group, allowing a user to adjust the volume of a single speaker. The complaint provides screenshots of this interface (Compl. p. 49). | ¶p. 48 | col. 2:19-22 |
| accept via the user interface a group-level input to adjust a volume associated with the player group, wherein the group-level input to adjust the volume associated with the player group causes each of the players in the player group to adjust its respective volume. | The Google Home app provides a "Group volume" slider that, when adjusted, simultaneously changes the volume of all speakers within the group. | ¶p. 52 | col. 2:22-26 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory relies on a general-purpose smartphone or tablet running a Google App qualifying as the claimed "multimedia controller." A potential point of contention may be whether the term "multimedia controller," as understood in the context of the patent's specification and figures which depict dedicated hardware controllers, should be construed so broadly (Compl. ¶p. 42; ’949 Patent, FIG. 1).
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused "player-specific input" and "group-level input" are distinct inputs as required by the claim, versus different modes of a single input mechanism? The user interface screenshots may be central to this factual determination (Compl. pp. 48-55).
’258 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A first zone player comprising: a network interface ... a device clock ... one or more processors; and a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable memory... | Each Google Audio Player is alleged to be a "zone player" containing the requisite hardware components. | ¶p. 59 | col. 5:2-36 |
| receive control information from any one of a plurality of controllers over the LAN... wherein the received control information comprises a direction for the first zone player to enter into a synchrony group with at least a second zone player; | A Google Audio Player receives a command from a controller (e.g., a smartphone with the Google Home app) to join a speaker group with another Google Audio Player. | ¶p. 60 | col. 5:27-40 |
| in response to the direction, enter into the synchrony group with the second zone player; | The Google Audio Player, upon receiving the command, joins the designated group with the other player(s). | ¶p. 60 | col. 5:41-45 |
| wherein in the synchrony group, the first and second zone players are configured to playback audio in synchrony based at least in part on (i) audio content, (ii) playback timing information ... and (iii) clock time information for the one of the first or second zone players... | Once grouped, the Google Audio Players are configured to play audio in synchrony. This is allegedly based on one player acting as a "master" that provides audio content, playback timing, and its own clock time information to the other "slave" players. | ¶p. 61 | col. 6:29-54 |
| wherein the first and second zone players remain independently clocked while playing back audio in synchrony; and | The Google Audio Players in the group are alleged to remain independently clocked while achieving synchronized playback. | ¶p. 61 | col. 2:32-36 |
| transmit status information to at least one of the plurality of controllers over the LAN... wherein the status information comprises an indication of a status of the synchrony group. | A Google Audio Player in a group transmits status information (e.g., group name, members) to controllers on the network. | ¶p. 62 | col. 6:55-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: Does the general concept of "synchrony" as marketed by Google necessarily imply the specific three-part technical basis (audio content, playback timing information, and clock time information) required by the claim?
- Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what specific information is exchanged between grouped Google Audio Players to achieve synchronization. The infringement allegation requires that one player transmits its own "clock time information" to another. What evidence does the complaint provide that Google's system uses this specific master/slave clock-sharing architecture, as opposed to an alternative method, such as all devices synchronizing to a common network time protocol (NTP) server?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’949 Patent, Claim 1: "multimedia controller"
- Context and Importance: The complaint's infringement theory casts general-purpose devices like smartphones and tablets running Google's software as the "multimedia controller." The viability of this theory depends on a construction that is not limited to dedicated hardware. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope could be determinative of infringement for the entire accused system architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself requires only "a processor" and that the controller be "configured to" perform certain functions, which is consistent with a software-based implementation on general-purpose hardware (’949 Patent, col. 23:7-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's specification repeatedly references embodiments with physical controllers, such as "a handheld controller" (’949 Patent, col. 6:43-45). Figure 1 of the patent explicitly depicts "controllers" 140 and 142 as distinct hardware devices separate from other networked components like PCs (’949 Patent, FIG. 1).
’258 Patent, Claim 17: "clock time information for the one of the first or second zone players"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the specific synchronization mechanism claimed. Infringement requires proof that one player (the master) sends information about its own clock to another player (the slave) to serve as the timing reference. A dispute may arise over whether Google's system uses this specific device-to-device timing reference or an alternative method.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "clock time information" is not explicitly defined and could be argued to encompass any data packet that allows a receiving device to deduce the clock time of the sending device.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description explain a system where members of a synchrony group "periodically obtain[] from the task distribution device an indication of the current time indicated by its clock" and use it to determine a "time differential" (’258 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:12-24). This language may support a narrower construction requiring the transmission of a specific, absolute time value from the master device's clock.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges Google induces infringement by providing the Google Wireless Audio System and instructing customers and users on how to utilize the infringing features (e.g., creating speaker groups, pairing for stereo) through its website, product literature, and the user interface of the Google Apps (Compl. ¶140, ¶154, ¶166, ¶178, ¶190). It further alleges contributory infringement by supplying material components—specifically the Google Apps and software updates—that are not staple articles of commerce and are especially adapted for use in the infringing system (Compl. ¶142, ¶155, ¶167, ¶179, ¶191).
Willful Infringement
The complaint makes extensive allegations to support willfulness. It claims Google had pre-suit knowledge of the patents based on (1) a partnership beginning in 2013 where Sonos allegedly shared proprietary technology with Google; (2) direct written notice of infringement from Sonos on at least four occasions starting in August 2016; and (3) constructive knowledge from Sonos's prior successful litigation against D&M Holdings on two of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶36, ¶37, ¶144, ¶156, ¶168, ¶180, ¶192).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the court’s answers to several central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "multimedia controller," which the patent specification illustrates with dedicated hardware remote controls, be construed broadly enough to read on a general-purpose smartphone running Google's software application, as the complaint alleges?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: Does Google's system for synchronizing audio across multiple speakers operate in the specific manner required by the asserted claims—namely, a master/slave architecture where one speaker transmits its own "clock time information" as a reference—or does it achieve a similar result through a non-infringing technical alternative?
- A central issue shaping potential damages will be one of intent: Given the detailed allegations of a prior technology partnership, multiple direct infringement notices, and knowledge of previous litigation, the court will need to determine whether Google’s alleged infringement constituted willful conduct, which could lead to an award of enhanced damages.