Google LLC v. Sonos Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00020
• Patent #: 11,080,001
• Filed: October 14, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Sonos, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-3, 6-14, 17-25, and 28-33

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently-clocked digital data processing devices
• Brief Description: The ’001 patent discloses a system for synchronizing audio playback among multiple networked devices, referred to as "zone players." These players form a "synchrony group" where one device can act as a master to control playback on other slave devices, ensuring they play the same audio content at the same time.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Janevski, Kawamura, and Okamura - Claims 1-2, 6-13, 17-24, and 28-33 are obvious over Janevski in view of Kawamura and Okamura.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Janevski (Patent 7,269,338), Kawamura (Application # 2004/0048569), and Okamura (Patent 6,751,228).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Janevski taught the core system of the challenged claims: a synchronized viewing session between multiple personal video recorders (PVRs) acting as zone players. In Janevski, one PVR acts as an "initiator" (master) to control other "participant" PVRs (slaves) over a network like the Internet. This system includes dynamically assigning master/slave roles based on which user executes a control function (e.g., play, pause). However, Janevski used a line-of-sight infrared remote. Petitioner asserted that Kawamura taught replacing this with a non-line-of-sight Bluetooth remote commander to send playback commands to a media player, an obvious improvement. Furthermore, Janevski’s method for maintaining synchronization was reactive, based on analyzing content landmarks. Petitioner argued that Okamura taught a superior, predictive method using a master reference clock to generate timestamps for future playback times, which slave devices use with their own local clocks and an offset to initiate playback precisely, even if their clocks differ.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kawamura with Janevski to replace an outdated, line-of-sight remote with a more robust and convenient Bluetooth solution that works through obstacles. A POSITA would then incorporate Okamura's predictive, timestamp-based synchronization to improve upon Janevski's reactive system, resulting in more accurate and scalable synchronous playback across devices with differing local clocks and unpredictable network delays.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because all three references operate in the same field of networked media playback and use standard components. Implementing a Bluetooth remote and a timestamp-based synchronization protocol were well-known techniques to achieve the predictable results of improved usability and timing accuracy.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Janevski, Kawamura, Okamura, and Kono - Claims 3, 14, and 25 are obvious over Janevski, Kawamura, and Okamura in further view of Kono.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Janevski (Patent 7,269,338), Kawamura (Application # 2004/0048569), Okamura (Patent 6,751,228), and Kono (JP Application # JP2003323186A).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the combination in Ground 1. Petitioner argued that while the primary combination taught a complete system for maintaining synchronous playback, it did not explicitly teach initiating playback from the beginning of the audio content. Kono was introduced to supply this limitation. Kono disclosed a master device that downloads a song and, upon a user pressing a play button, sends a "start notification packet" to slave devices, causing all devices to initiate playback together from the beginning of the song data.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was to add a fundamental and desirable feature to the synchronized playback system established by the primary combination. A POSITA seeking to build a complete, user-friendly system would naturally look to known methods for initiating playback, and Kono provided a straightforward technique for starting a synchronized session at the beginning of a media file.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because Kono's start-of-stream playback initiation is a compatible and logical function to integrate into the framework of the other references. All references operate in the distributed media playback domain, and combining them uses known techniques to achieve the predictable result of a system that can both initiate and maintain synchronized playback.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because the specific prior art references and combinations asserted were never considered by the USPTO during prosecution of the ’001 patent.
• Petitioner further argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. Petitioner contended that its inclusion of a Sotera stipulation (agreeing not to pursue the same grounds in district court if an inter partes review (IPR) is instituted) mitigates concerns of parallel proceedings, the trial date in the related litigation is uncertain, and the petition's arguments on the merits are strong.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6-14, 17-25, and 28-33 of the ’001 patent as unpatentable.