Sonos Inc v. Google LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01592
• Patent #: Patent 11,024,311
• Filed: September 29, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Sonos, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Google LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 8-12, 14-18, and 20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Coordination Amongst Voice-Activated Devices
• Brief Description: The ’311 patent discloses methods and systems for coordinating multiple voice-activated electronic devices in a single environment. The technology aims to select a single "leader" device to respond to a user's voice input by having the devices compare quality scores associated with the detected input, thereby reducing user confusion from multiple simultaneous responses.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Rosenberger - Claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 are anticipated by Rosenberger.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rosenberger (Patent 8,340,975).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Rosenberger discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Rosenberger describes a system to solve the "duplicate response" problem where multiple "speech recognition control devices" hear the same command. In Rosenberger, each device that detects a voice input (e.g., a trigger phrase like "Hello Voice Control") calculates a numeric "weighted signal" (WS) that quantifies the quality of the recognized speech based on factors like signal strength and recognition confidence. Each device then broadcasts its WS to other devices on the network, receives their respective WS values, and compares its own value to the received values. Only the device with the highest WS proceeds to interact with the user and handle the command, while other devices forgo responding. This process directly maps to the limitations of independent claims 1, 10, and 16, which require detecting a voice input, determining a first value, receiving second values from other devices, and responding only if the first value is highest. Petitioner asserted that Rosenberger also discloses the additional limitations of the dependent claims, such as forgoing a response if the device's value is not the highest (claim 2) and providing audible/visual feedback (claim 8).

Ground 2: Obviousness over Rosenberger and Kim - Claim 11 is obvious over Rosenberger in view of Kim.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Rosenberger (Patent 8,340,975) and Kim (Application # 2013/0238326).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Rosenberger teaches the foundational system of arbitrating among multiple devices, as established in Ground 1. Dependent claim 11 adds limitations requiring the device to recognize a command in the voice input and respond based on a determination that the type of command is related to that specific device. Petitioner argued that Kim provides these missing elements. Kim addresses the same multi-device voice control problem and explicitly teaches a device identifying an attribute of a voice command to determine if the command was intended for it. For example, Kim describes that a voice command to adjust volume is relevant to devices with audio capabilities (like a TV or laptop) but not to a refrigerator. A device in Kim responds only if the command type corresponds to one of its functions.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Rosenberger and Kim to improve the device selection process. Rosenberger's goal is to select the single best device to interact with the user. Kim's technique of analyzing command type provides a more accurate and efficient way to determine user intent before resorting to Rosenberger's WS comparison. Incorporating Kim's teachings would add a layer of "smart processing" to Rosenberger's system, allowing a device to respond immediately if the command is uniquely relevant to it, thereby improving system accuracy and reducing network traffic from unnecessary WS broadcasts.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this combination. It involved applying a known technique (Kim's command-type analysis) to a known system (Rosenberger's multi-device arbitration) to achieve the predictable result of a more intelligent and efficient voice-command system.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §314(a) (Fintiv): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. It asserted that the grounds presented are compellingly strong, which alone favors institution under the Director's current guidance. Furthermore, Petitioner filed a request to stay the parallel district court litigation (NDCA Action), which it argued is mandatory under 28 U.S.C. §1659. This stay would prevent overlap and duplicative efforts between the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the district court. Finally, the petition was filed expeditiously, less than two months after service of the complaint.
• §325(d): Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the Examiner committed a material error by overlooking Rosenberger when allowing the ’311 patent. Petitioner provided evidence from the prosecution histories of related parent applications where the same Examiner repeatedly cited Rosenberger as teaching the core subject matter now claimed. Despite this, the Examiner did not issue a rejection based on Rosenberger during prosecution of the application leading to the ’311 patent. Petitioner also noted it was presenting new evidence not before the Examiner, namely the declaration of its expert, Dr. Michael T. Johnson.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 8-12, 14-18, and 20 of the ’311 patent as unpatentable.