DCT

3:21-cv-07559

Sonos Inc v. Google LLC

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:21-cv-07559, N.D. Cal., 07/08/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the Northern District of California because Google has committed acts of infringement and maintains regular and established places of business within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s wireless multi-room audio products and associated software infringe four patents related to transferring audio playback between devices and managing groups of speakers.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves networked audio systems that allow users to stream music from cloud-based services and control playback across multiple speakers in different rooms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a long history of interactions, including Sonos providing Google with notice of its patent portfolio on numerous occasions beginning in 2016. The complaint also references a separate U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation filed by Sonos against Google in January 2020 involving a different set of patents. Finally, it notes that Google filed a declaratory judgment action concerning several of the patents-in-suit just prior to the commencement of this case, a fact Sonos leverages in its willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-01-01 Sonos launches its first commercial products
2006-09-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’966 and ’885 Patents
2011-12-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’615 and ’033 Patents
2014-01-01 Google Play Music launches on the Sonos platform
2015-01-01 Google launches Chromecast Audio
2016-01-01 Google launches the Google Home multi-room audio player
2016-08-01 Sonos first alleges infringement to Google
2017-01-01 Google launches Google Home Max and Home Mini
2018-05-08 U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615 issues
2019-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 10,469,966 issues
2020-01-06 Sonos files ITC complaint against Google on different patents
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,779,033 issues
2020-09-28 Google files declaratory judgment action against Sonos
2020-11-24 U.S. Patent No. 10,848,885 issues
2022-07-08 Sonos files Third Amended Complaint

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615 - "Networked Music Playback"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615, titled "Networked Music Playback", issued May 8, 2018 (Compl. ¶74).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of seamlessly transitioning the playback of streaming media, such as music from a cloud-based service, from a personal user device (e.g., a smartphone) to a dedicated household media playback system (Compl. ¶¶ 43, 77; ’615 Patent, col. 1:19-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention enables a user's device to pass information about the media content (such as a Uniform Resource Locator or URI) to a local playback device. The local playback device then "run[s] on its own to fetch the content" directly from the network source, such as a cloud server. After this handoff, the user's device can be transitioned into a mode where it functions as a remote control for the playback now occurring on the local system (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 81; ’615 Patent, col. 12:53-63, 17:5-20).
  • Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a continuous and intuitive listening experience, allowing a user to start listening on a mobile device and seamlessly transfer that same stream to a higher-fidelity home audio system without interruption (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims including independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶81).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 13 (a non-transitory computer readable storage medium) include instructions that cause a control device to:
    • Cause a graphical interface to display a control interface with transport controls for playback by the control device.
    • Identify playback devices connected to a local area network.
    • Cause the graphical interface to display a selectable option for transferring playback.
    • Detect inputs to transfer playback to a particular playback device.
    • After detecting the inputs, cause playback to be transferred by: (a) causing first cloud servers to add multimedia content (via resource locators pointing to second cloud servers) to a local playback queue on the playback device; (b) causing playback at the control device to be stopped; and (c) modifying the transport controls to control playback by the playback device.
    • Cause the particular playback device to play back the multimedia content.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶99).

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,033 - "Systems And Methods For Networked Music Playback"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,779,033, titled "Systems And Methods For Networked Music Playback", issued September 15, 2020 (Compl. ¶82).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same application as the ’615 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical problem of transferring playback responsibility for cloud-based media from a user's device to a media playback system (Compl. ¶¶ 83-84).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention, as described in asserted claim 1, involves a computing device that operates in a "first mode" where it is configured for playback of a remote queue. Upon user selection of a networked playback device, the computing device transmits an instruction for the playback device to take over responsibility for the queue. The computing device then detects that the transfer was successful and transitions to a "second mode" where it is configured to control the playback device and is no longer configured for playback itself (Compl. ¶85). The specification, shared with the ’615 patent, describes this as enabling a user to "pick[] up from the same spot on the selected channel that was on her phone" on the household playback system (’033 Patent, col. 12:44-53).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a formal, two-state operational model for a user's device, cleanly separating its function as a primary player from its subsequent function as a dedicated controller post-handoff, enhancing the seamlessness of the user experience (Compl. ¶44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts claims including independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶85).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a computing device) include instructions that cause the device to:
    • Operate in a first mode configured for playback of a remote playback queue.
    • In the first mode: (i) display a representation of one or more available playback devices, and (ii) receive user input selecting a given playback device.
    • Based on the input, transmit an instruction for the given playback device to take over responsibility for playback from the remote queue.
    • Detect an indication that playback responsibility has been successfully transferred.
    • After detecting the indication, transition from the first mode to a second mode, where the computing device is configured to control the given playback device and is no longer configured for playback of the remote queue.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶135).

U.S. Patent No. 10,469,966 - "Zone Scene Management"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,469,966, titled "Zone Scene Management", issued November 5, 2019 (Compl. ¶86).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inconvenience of manually creating ad-hoc groups of speakers in a multi-zone audio system for different listening situations (e.g., morning news, party music) (Compl. ¶89; ’966 Patent, col. 1:65-2:17). The patented solution is a system for creating and storing predefined groupings of zone players as "zone scenes," which can be invoked later with a single command to configure the players for synchronous playback (Compl. ¶91).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is identified in the complaint (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The "speaker group" feature within Google's Google Home app, which allegedly allows users to create, save, and invoke groups of speakers for synchronous playback (Compl. ¶170).

U.S. Patent No. 10,848,885 - "Zone Scene Management"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,848,885, titled "Zone Scene Management", issued November 24, 2020 (Compl. ¶94).
  • Technology Synopsis: Sharing a specification with the ’966 Patent, this patent also relates to "zone scenes" (Compl. ¶95). The claims are directed from the perspective of a zone player itself, which operates in a standalone mode until it receives an instruction to join a predefined group ("zone scene") and transitions to operating in synchrony with other players in that group (Compl. ¶97).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is identified in the complaint (Compl. ¶97).
  • Accused Features: The "speaker group" feature as implemented in Google's Cast-enabled media players, which are allegedly provisioned with software to enable this functionality (Compl. ¶204).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Google Wireless Audio System," which is a collection of hardware and software including:
    • Google Audio Players: Chromecast, Chromecast Audio, Nest Mini, Nest Hub, Nest Audio, and other "Cast-enabled media player(s)" (Compl. ¶34).
    • Google Apps: YouTube Music app, Google Play Music app, YouTube app, and the Google Home app, referred to as "Cast-enabled apps" (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 34).
    • Google Pixel Devices: Pixel phones, tablets, and laptops that are pre-installed with or capable of running the accused Google Apps (Compl. ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Google’s system provides wireless multi-room audio functionality that allows users to stream music and other media throughout a home (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 34). The core accused software features are the "Cast" feature, the "Stream Transfer" sub-feature, and the "speaker group" feature (Compl. ¶¶ 100, 105, 170). The complaint alleges that when a user installs a "Cast-enabled app," the computing device is configured to perform the infringing functions (Compl. ¶100). The complaint includes a screenshot of Google's instructions on how to "Move media from one cast device to another," which it identifies as the "Stream Transfer" feature (Compl. p. 32, Ex. CQ; Compl. ¶105). It also includes a screenshot of instructions to "Create and manage speaker groups" using the Google Home app (Compl. p. 55, Ex. P; Compl. ¶174).
  • The complaint alleges that Google's products are commercially significant and that Google sells them as "loss leaders" to expand its dominance in search advertising and data collection (Compl. ¶¶ 47-49).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’615 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions... [to] cause a control device to perform... functions Google's "Cast-enabled apps" (e.g., YouTube Music) are installed on computing devices (e.g., Pixel phones), programming them to perform the claimed functions. ¶100 col. 21:9-12
cause a graphical interface to display a control interface including one or more transport controls to control playback by the control device The user interface of a Cast-enabled app displays transport controls (play, pause, etc.) for local playback on the device. ¶81 col. 21:12-15
cause the graphical interface to display a selectable option for transferring playback from the control device The Cast-enabled apps display a "Cast" icon that, when tapped, presents a list of available Cast-enabled displays and speakers to which playback can be transferred. ¶100, ¶104 col. 21:15-18
after detecting the set of inputs... cause playback to be transferred... by (a) causing one or more first cloud servers to add multimedia content to a local playback queue on the particular playback device Upon user selection of the Cast icon and a target device, Google's servers allegedly add the selected media (via resource locators) to the playback queue of the target Google Audio Player. ¶81 col. 21:21-26
(b) causing playback at the control device to be stopped Playback on the user's phone or tablet ceases after the transfer is initiated. ¶81 col. 21:26
and (c) modifying the one or more transport controls of the control interface to control playback by the playback device The app's user interface changes so that the transport controls now manage playback on the target Google Audio Player instead of the local device. ¶81 col. 21:26-28

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Google's system architecture maps onto the claim's distinction between "first cloud servers" (which add content to the queue) and "second cloud servers" (which host the content). The complaint's theory suggests Google's servers perform the first function for content hosted by a third-party streaming service (the second server). The nature of the "local playback queue" and how content is "added" to it by a cloud server, as opposed to by the control device itself, will likely be a key area of dispute.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence demonstrates that a "cloud server" is the actor that "add[s]" content to the queue on the playback device, as required by the claim? The defense may argue that the control device instructs the playback device, which then communicates with the cloud, potentially avoiding this limitation.

’033 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a computing device... operable to... initially operate in a first mode in which it is configured for playback of a remote playback queue provided by a cloud-based computing system A computing device (e.g., a Pixel phone) running a Cast-enabled app (e.g., YouTube Music) plays media content from the app. ¶85, ¶136 col. 22:20-23
In that mode... display a representation of one or more playback devices in a media playback system that are... available to accept playback responsibility The app displays the "Cast" icon, which leads to a list of available Cast-enabled players (e.g., Nest Hub) on the local network. ¶85, ¶104 col. 22:23-26
receive user input indicating a selection of at least one given playback device The user taps the Cast icon and selects a target playback device from the list. ¶85 col. 22:26-28
based on receiving the user input... transmit an instruction for the at least one given playback device to take over responsibility for playback The app sends an instruction to the selected Google Audio Player to begin streaming the media content directly. ¶85 col. 23:1-4
detect an indication that playback responsibility for the remote playback queue has been successfully transferred The app receives confirmation that the Google Audio Player has begun playback. ¶85 col. 23:9-11
after detecting the indication, transition from... the first mode... to... a second mode in which the computing device is configured to control the... playback device's playback The app's UI and function change from playing the media itself to controlling the stream now playing on the Google Audio Player. The complaint provides an instruction guide for this "Stream Transfer" feature (Compl. p. 32, Ex. CQ). ¶85, ¶105 col. 23:11-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the definitions of "first mode" and "second mode" and what constitutes a "transition" between them. The defense could argue that a simple UI change within a single application does not constitute a fundamental shift in the device's operational "mode" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: What is the specific technical mechanism that constitutes the "transition"? Is it a change in software state, network routing, or merely the function of the on-screen buttons? The evidence regarding the app's internal operations will be crucial to determining if it practices this claimed two-mode operation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "local playback queue" (from ’615 Patent, claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement requires that "first cloud servers" add content to this specific entity on the playback device. The definition will determine whether Google's method of passing a URI to a playback device, which the device then uses to stream content, meets this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the distinction between a device pulling content versus a server pushing content (or a pointer to it) into a queue is a fundamental architectural difference.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a "shared queue" being provided between the local system and a third-party application, suggesting the queue is a data structure accessible by multiple entities, which could support the idea of a cloud server adding to it (’615 Patent, col. 20:27-28).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also discusses queue management in the context of a controller adding tracks to a queue, which might suggest the queue is primarily managed locally, not by external cloud servers (’615 Patent, col. 16:53-17:4).

Term: "transition from (a) the first mode... to (b) a second mode" (from ’033 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused computing device makes this claimed transition. The construction will determine if a UI update within an app is sufficient, or if a more fundamental change in the device's software or hardware state is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to claim a distinct change in the device's core function from a player to a controller.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the user device becoming a controller for the household system after the transfer, stating it "functions to control the playback" (’033 Patent, col. 17:5-20). This functional shift could support a broader view that a UI change that enables this new control is a "transition."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language distinguishes the modes by what the device is "configured for" (playback vs. control). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a change in the underlying software configuration or operational state, not just the user-facing interface. The description that the computing device is "no longer configured for playback" in the second mode suggests a more definitive change than a mere UI update (’033 Patent, col. 23:15-16).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by asserting that Google intentionally encourages users to infringe. It alleges Google provides the Cast-enabled apps and instructs customers, through product literature and online help pages, on how to use the accused "Cast," "Stream Transfer," and "speaker group" features (Compl. ¶¶ 102-105, 138-140, 172-174). The complaint includes a screenshot of a Google support page titled "Step 1. Cast from Chromecast-enabled apps to speaker or display," which provides explicit instructions (Compl. p. 31, Ex. CP).

Willful Infringement

  • Willfulness is alleged based on extensive pre-suit knowledge. The complaint details at least ten instances between 2016 and 2021 where Sonos allegedly put Google on notice of its patents, including providing claim charts (Compl. ¶¶ 19-30). It further alleges Google had actual knowledge of the asserted patents and infringement no later than September 2020, when Sonos provided a pre-filing copy of a complaint, and that Google's continuation of its accused conduct despite this knowledge was objectively reckless (Compl. ¶¶ 53-63, 127).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: Does Google's "Cast" system, which involves Google's own cloud infrastructure to manage streaming sessions, practice the specific method claimed in the ’615 Patent of "first cloud servers" adding content to a "local playback queue" that points to content on "second cloud servers"? The case may turn on whether this claim language can be construed to read on an architecture where a single entity (Google) facilitates the transfer, rather than a controller passing information for a third-party service.
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: For the ’033 Patent, what constitutes a "transition" from a "first mode" of playback to a "second mode" of control? The court will need to determine if a software application changing its user interface and network behavior is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if the patent requires a more fundamental shift in the device's operational state.
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: Given the extensive pre-suit notice alleged by Sonos, including the provision of draft complaints and claim charts, the case will likely examine whether Google's continued sales of the accused products constituted the type of egregious, reckless conduct required to support a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.