Google LLC v. Sonos Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00021
• Patent #: 7,571,014
• Filed: October 15, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Sonos, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 16, 19, 23, 25, 32, 35, 38, 42, and 43

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Method and Apparatus for Controlling a Plurality of Players
• Brief Description: The ’014 patent discloses techniques for controlling a network of audio players. The system allows a user to dynamically group players into "zone groups" and manipulate audio characteristics, such as volume, for individual players or for the group synchronously via a controller with a graphical user interface.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 25, 32, and 35 are obvious over Geiwitz in view of Van Hulle.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Geiwitz (WO 03/040839 and U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/339,511) and Van Hulle (Patent 5,313,524).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Geiwitz taught all elements of independent claim 25 except for the "zone group head" limitation. Geiwitz disclosed a control system with a touchscreen user interface for configuring and controlling audio devices ("players") in different zones. This included creating programmable "scenes" (the claimed "zone group") where a user could select multiple audio zones from a list of available players to be controlled together. To supply the missing element, Petitioner asserted that Van Hulle disclosed an audio system where any sound reproducer could operate in a "master" mode (the claimed "zone group head") to synchronize playback across other "slave" reproducers in an interconnected chain.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA, seeking to implement the details of synchronized audio playback for the groups in Geiwitz's system, would have been motivated to look to solutions like Van Hulle. Petitioner contended that Van Hulle provided a known and suitable method for audio signal routing and synchronization that would improve the functionality of Geiwitz's system.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Geiwitz’s audio devices already included the necessary communication interfaces (wired or wireless) to receive and transmit audio and control signals, making them readily adaptable to Van Hulle's master/slave synchronization method with only ordinary skill.

Ground 2: Claims 16, 19, 23, 38, 42, and 43 are obvious over Geiwitz in view of Aiso.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Geiwitz and Aiso (Patent 7,403,626).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that this combination rendered independent claim 38 obvious. Geiwitz was asserted to teach an apparatus for manipulating players, but it did not expressly disclose displaying a list showing both individual player volume meters and a group volume meter on the same screen. Geiwitz disclosed separate interfaces for individual volume and "ALL ZONES" group volume. Aiso was cited for disclosing a digital audio mixer with a console interface that explicitly provided both individual channel controls and group controls on the same screen to collectively change levels for all channels in a group.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Geiwitz with Aiso's teachings as a simple design choice to improve the user experience. Petitioner argued that Aiso's teaching of a consolidated display was a well-known, conventional layout in the audio control field. Adopting this layout for Geiwitz's interface would provide a more streamlined and intuitive experience, allowing immediate visual feedback of how group adjustments affect individual player volumes.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because the modification only required ordinary software programming skills to adjust the UI layout on Geiwitz’s programmable system. This was presented as a predictable combination of known UI elements to achieve a more efficient user interface.

Ground 3: Claims 25, 32, and 35 are obvious over Allen, Geiwitz, and Van Hulle.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Allen (Patent 6,703,940), Geiwitz, and Van Hulle.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted this combination rendered independent claim 25 obvious. Allen was presented as the base system, disclosing a remote controller for an audio system with sound reproducers in different rooms. However, Allen’s UI was described as relatively basic. Geiwitz was used to supply its more familiar, flexible, and expandable icon-based user interface as a replacement for Allen's UI. As in Ground 1, Van Hulle was then added to provide its master/slave method for synchronizing the players in a group, a detail not fully described in Allen.
  • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was to improve Allen's system. A POSITA would first modify Allen's remote controller with Geiwitz's superior icon-based UI to create a more user-friendly and functionally expandable device, furthering Allen's own stated objective of an "improved remotely controllable audio system." Subsequently, a POSITA would incorporate Van Hulle's teachings to implement the specifics of synchronized play, a known technique to improve multi-zone audio systems.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success because replacing Allen's fixed-segment LCD with a graphic LCD and updating the software to implement Geiwitz's UI was a known technique. Similarly, integrating Van Hulle’s synchronization method into Allen's system, which already had the necessary communication interfaces, was argued to be a straightforward application of known technology.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) against claims 16, 19, 23, 38, 42, and 43 based on the combination of Allen, Geiwitz, and Aiso, relying on similar UI modification and improvement theories.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §325(d) would be inappropriate because none of the asserted prior art references or combinations were previously presented to or considered by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Petitioner further argued against discretionary denial under §314(a) and the Fintiv factors, stating that it has filed a Sotera stipulation to not pursue the same grounds in parallel district court litigation if the IPR is instituted. This stipulation, along with uncertainty in the trial date for the co-pending litigation, was argued to weigh in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 16, 19, 23, 25, 32, 35, 38, 42, and 43 of the ’014 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.