Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Background

Sonos alleged that Google’s products infringed, among other patents, U.S. Patent No. 9,967,615, referred to as the ’615 patent. Claim 13 concerns transferring playback of media from a “control device,” such as a smartphone or tablet, to a “playback device,” such as a smart speaker or television. The claim requires, among other things, adding multimedia content to a local playback queue on the playback device.

Google moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that its accused products did not infringe claim 13 and that claim 13 was invalid. Google argued that its Google Play Music and YouTube apps used a remote cloud queue rather than a local playback queue. Google also argued that its 2010 YouTube Remote app anticipated claim 13 or, alternatively, that the claim would have been obvious in light of the YouTube Remote app and other prior art.

Claim construction and non-infringement

The court construed “playback queue” as “a list of multimedia content selected for playback.” The court held that the list must contain at least one item, but need not contain multiple items, and that the content need not have been selected directly by the user.

The court found that Google’s accused apps received information from a cloud queue about the previous, current, and next media items and stored that information on the playback device. But the court concluded that this information was not a local playback queue. It was only a subset or mirror of the cloud queue, and the locally stored information could not be populated with additional or different items. The court therefore held that Sonos had not raised a genuine dispute of material fact showing that Google’s products used a local playback queue required by claim 13. The court ruled that Google’s products did not infringe the claim and did not reach Google’s additional non-infringement arguments.

Invalidity

The court separately considered anticipation and obviousness. Anticipation requires one prior-art reference to disclose every limitation of the claim. The court found that the 2010 YouTube Remote system disclosed several limitations, including the requirement involving devices connected to a local network and the requirements concerning stopping playback and playing media on the playback device.

The court nevertheless concluded that Google had not shown anticipation because the YouTube Remote system did not disclose limitation 13.4: allowing the user to select a particular playback device from the identified devices. The court also refused to consider December 1, 2011 source code for Google’s anticipation argument because Google had presented that material in its reply in a way that did not fairly place the argument before Sonos in the opening motion.

Obviousness asks whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field when the invention was made. The court found that U.S. Patent No. 9,490,998 disclosed selecting one or more particular paired devices and that the YouTube Remote system disclosed transferring playback. The court concluded that the two teachings could be combined to achieve the claimed invention and that the evidence showed a person skilled in the field would have been motivated to make the modification. It therefore granted Google’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to claim 13.

Disposition

The court granted Google’s motion for partial summary judgment as to claim 13 of the ’615 patent. The ruling determined that Google’s accused products did not infringe claim 13 and that claim 13 was invalid because the claimed invention would have been obvious. Judge William Alsup entered the order on August 2, 2022.