Google LLC v. Sonos Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2021-01563
• Patent #: 9,967,615
• Filed: September 28, 2021
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Sonos, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-2, 6-14, 18-25, 27-29

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Networked Media Playback System
• Brief Description: The ’615 patent describes a networked media playback system where a control device (e.g., a smartphone) can transfer media playback to a separate playback device (e.g., a speaker) on a local area network. After transfer, the playback device directly retrieves multimedia content from a remote cloud server for playback, and the control device's user interface is modified to control the new playback device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Al-Shaykh and Qureshey - Claims 1, 6-13, 18-25, 27-29 are obvious over Al-Shaykh in view of Qureshey.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Al-Shaykh (Application # 2011/0131520) and Qureshey (Patent 8,050,652).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Al-Shaykh discloses the foundational system: a mobile control device with a graphical user interface (GUI) for selecting and transferring media playback to a rendering device on a home network. The rendering device can then retrieve content from a remote source. However, Al-Shaykh allegedly does not detail the server-side mechanics. Petitioner asserted that Qureshey supplies the missing elements by teaching a system where an "IPAN server" (the claimed "first cloud server") adds a playlist containing Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) to a playback device's local queue. The playback device then uses these URLs to retrieve audio content directly from remote web audio sources (the claimed "second cloud servers").
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references because they are in the same field of endeavor and solve the same problem of transferring media playback. A POSITA would integrate Qureshey’s back-end server functionality into Al-Shaykh’s user-facing system to improve reliability. This combination would allow the playback device to function independently of the control device after the transfer, preventing playback interruptions if the control device disconnects from the network or is used for other tasks.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because implementing Qureshey’s known method of using a server to manage playlists and content URLs was a straightforward way to enable the direct-streaming functionality broadly described in Al-Shaykh.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Al-Shaykh, Qureshey, and Phillips - Claims 1, 6-13, 18-25, 27-29 are obvious over Al-Shaykh and Qureshey, further in view of Phillips.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Al-Shaykh (Application # 2011/0131520), Qureshey (Patent 8,050,652), and Phillips (Patent 8,799,496).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative to Ground 1, primarily to provide explicit evidence for the limitation of stopping playback on the control device after transfer. While Petitioner argued Al-Shaykh inherently teaches this, Phillips was introduced as an explicit disclosure. Phillips described a system for transferring video display between devices and stated that once the transfer is complete, the display of video content on the original mobile device is "terminated."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate the teaching from Phillips into the Al-Shaykh/Qureshey system for the predictable benefit of improving the user experience. Terminating playback on the control device after a successful transfer is a logical step that frees up the device’s resources and avoids user confusion, which would have been a well-understood design goal.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would have been successful as it involved applying a known, simple concept (stopping playback on the source device) to an existing playback transfer system to achieve a predictable improvement.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that adding Ramsay (Patent 8,724,600) to the primary combinations renders dependent claims 2 and 14 obvious. Ramsay taught controlling playback across zones of speakers, including creating "stereo pairs." A POSITA would have been motivated to replace Al-Shaykh's generic rendering devices with Ramsay's stereo speaker configurations to provide a more immersive audio experience, a common objective in the art.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• Petitioner did not propose new constructions but instead adopted those from the parallel district court litigation to ensure consistency.
• "one or more transport controls to control playback": Adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction of "one or more user input elements, each enabling control of a respective playback-related function."
• "wireless communication interface": Adopted Sonos's proposed construction of "physical component of a device that provides a wireless interconnection with a local area network."
• "first cloud servers," "second cloud servers," "playback queue": For these and other terms, Petitioner adopted the plain and ordinary meaning asserted by Sonos in the litigation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Cumulative Art: Petitioner argued against denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), asserting that the primary prior art combination of Al-Shaykh and Qureshey was never applied by the Examiner during prosecution. The petition contended this combination is materially different because it teaches the specific two-step cloud server architecture claimed, a limitation the Examiner's cited art allegedly lacked.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating that the relevant factors weighed heavily in favor of institution. The key arguments were that (1) the parallel district court proceeding was transferred, vacating the trial date and making a final written decision (FWD) likely to issue well before any new trial date, and (2) Petitioner agreed to a Sotera stipulation, promising not to pursue in district court any invalidity ground raised or that reasonably could have been raised in the inter partes review (IPR).

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-2, 6-14, 18-25, and 27-29 of the ’615 patent as unpatentable.