US appeals court reverses key findings in Sonos-Google patent case
The CAFC ruled the district court was wrong to find Google harmed by Sonos’s patent filing delay, stating there was insufficient evidence of prejudice.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part a district court decision in the ongoing legal battle between Sonos and Google over smart speaker technologies. The court reversed the district court’s finding that Sonos’s ‘Zone Scene’ patents were unenforceable due to prosecution laches, a legal doctrine that can bar the enforcement of patents if the owner unreasonably delays in pursuing claims.
The district court had held that Sonos waited too long (13 years) to file specific claims following its 2006 provisional application, allegedly prejudicing Google, which had begun developing similar products by 2015.
However, the CAFC found that Google had failed to establish actual prejudice. It noted a lack of evidence that Google had meaningfully invested in the accused technology based on the assumption that Sonos had not already invented it. As a result, the court held that the lower court had abused its discretion in declaring the patents unenforceable.
The CAFC also reversed the district court’s invalidation of the Zone Scene patents for lack of written description, citing sufficient detail in Sonos’s 2019 patents. Google’s argument that the patents described only alternative embodiments was rejected, particularly as Google had presented no expert testimony to rebut Sonos’s claims.
Case background
Essentially, in 2020, Sonos filed a lawsuit against Google in the US, accusing it of infringing on key patents related to wireless multi-room speaker technology. Sonos claimed that after collaborating with Google years earlier, Google used its proprietary technology without permission in products like Google Home and Chromecast.
In 2022, the US International Trade Commission sided with Sonos, leading to a limited import ban on some Google products. In response, Google had to remove or change certain features, such as group volume control.
However, Google later challenged the validity of Sonos’s patents, and some were ruled invalid by a federal court. The legal battle has continued in various jurisdictions, reflecting broader conflicts over intellectual property rights and innovation in the tech world. Both companies have appealed different aspects of the rulings.
Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!