PTAB

IPR2025-01590

Google LLC v. Sonos Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Synchronizing Audio Playback and Master Device Role Migration
  • Brief Description: The ’715 patent relates to a network audio system for synchronizing audio playback among multiple "zone players." The system establishes a "synchrony group" where a master device receives commands from a user interface and controls playback for one or more slave devices. The patent also discloses that the master device can initiate migration of its role to another zone player if it becomes overloaded.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are obvious over Janevski, Muchow, and Kawamura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Janevski (Patent 7,269,338), Muchow (Patent 7,421,478), and Kawamura (Application # 2004/0048569).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Janevski taught the foundational system: a "synchronized viewing session" (synchrony group) with a master PVR ("initiator") controlling slave PVRs ("participants"). Kawamura was cited for teaching a wireless remote (using Bluetooth) that sends playback commands to the master device via a network interface, satisfying the controller limitation. Muchow was asserted to supply the claimed migration functionality, teaching a fault-tolerant master-slave system where a "monitor task" evaluates operational performance metrics (e.g., CPU health) of the master. If this evaluation indicates degraded performance, the system determines a slave should take over and initiates a "failover."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Muchow’s fault tolerance with the Janevski/Kawamura system to enhance reliability and prevent playback interruptions. This combination directly addressed the known problem of "synchronization errors" by creating a robust system that could recover from an overloaded or failing master device.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success because Muchow’s methods for monitoring system health and migrating roles are standard techniques for general-purpose computer systems and are directly applicable to the processors and network interfaces described in Janevski's PVR-based system.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 7, and 13 are obvious over Janevski, Boyle, and Kawamura.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Janevski (Patent 7,269,338), Boyle (Application # 2001/0012757), and Kawamura (Application # 2004/0048569).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative theory, substituting Boyle for Muchow, specifically addressing Patent Owner's apparent interpretation of "operational performance metrics" to include wireless signal quality. Boyle disclosed an ad-hoc network where a master station evaluates its own "ranking" against those of slave stations. This ranking, based on metrics like antenna signal quality, constitutes the claimed "evaluation." If the master determines its ranking is lower than a slave's, it hands over the master role to that higher-ranked slave.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Boyle's teachings to improve the network communication efficiency and stability of the Janevski system. Selecting the device with the best wireless signal quality as the master would minimize data loss and latency, directly improving the quality of synchronous playback.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable because Boyle's method is explicitly applicable to any ad-hoc communication system, which describes Janevski’s network of PVRs. Implementing Boyle's ranking and handover mechanism was presented as a straightforward application of known network management principles to improve performance.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges against various claims, building on the Janevski/Kawamura/Muchow and Janevski/Kawamura/Boyle combinations by adding: Raman (for specifically determining processor overload), Roy (for using network latency as a performance metric), Goldberg (for transmitting network addresses and audio files for multicasting), and Lord (for adding a third player to a synchrony group).

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Petitioner asserted that no specific constructions were necessary to resolve unpatentability but noted that the parties in parallel litigation had agreed to several constructions, which the cited prior art disclosed.
  • "zone player": "data network device configured to process and output audio"
  • "synchrony group": "a set of two or more zone players that are to play the same audio program synchronously"
  • "playback timing information": "information indicating when the audio [information/content] is to be played back"

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §325(d), stating that the specific prior art combinations and arguments presented were not previously before the Patent Office, thereby satisfying the Advanced Bionics factors.
  • Petitioner also argued against discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a), contending that the Fintiv factors weighed in favor of institution. This was based on a Sotera stipulation to prevent duplicative efforts in parallel litigation, uncertainty of the district court trial date, and the strength of the petition's merits.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-18 of Patent 10,031,715 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.