Back in January 2020, Sonos filed a lawsuit against Google in US federal court, claiming the Alphabet giant had infringed on five of its patents related to smart speaker technology, particularly pertaining to speaker group functionality. Sonos also filed a case with the US-based International Trade Commission (ITC) and was granted an import ban that led to Google yanking speaker group functionality from its products, including those already in users' homes (ouch!). The ensuing legal dispute has been long and complicated — but we’re here to help make sense of it. Here’s the story so far.
A years-long dispute
Ups and downs for consumers
After a lengthy legal battle, in May 2023, a San Franciscojury ruledin favor of Sonos and ordered Google to pay $32.5 million ($2.30 per infringing unit) in damages. However, in October 2023, a federal judgeoverturnedthe jury verdict and granted a new trial on the grounds that Sonos had failed to prove that its patents were “valid and essential.”
In short, according to the judge’s ruling, Sonos delayed getting the patents that it claims were infringed, and it attempted to attach those new patents to older patents to make the claims seem more legitimate. In a win for consumers, Google almostimmediately redeployedspeaker group functionality.
Court throws out $32.5 million Sonos win against Google
Your Google speakers may just get back some long-lost features
As for why the case was pursued with both the ITC and the federal court system, I asked Alex Moss, a noted patent attorney and executive director of thePublic Interest Patent Law Institute. She explains: “The ITC is an administrative tribunal … It has become a very attractive venue for patent litigation because, in 2006, the Supreme Court said that you don’t automatically get a preliminary injunction, like a ban on sales or imports, in intellectual property cases.”
Moss continued, “And so the ITC actually can’t award damages. It can only issue import bans, but it becomes very useful as leverage because, if you’re importing, it’s basically a nationwide sales ban. It gives you a ton of leverage for settlement.” She concluded, “When you’ve got a real competitor fight, you’re going to go to the ITC. The proceedings are very fast.”
The ITC … has become a very attractive venue for patent litigation.
Sonos, of course, has vowed to appeal the reversal, and according to Moss, the “federal circuit hears all appeals of patent cases, no matter where they’re from.” In other words, both the ITC and federal cases will be decided using the same processes. For now, consumers need not worry about additional disruptions to their smart speakers. She added, “It can take a while for those decisions to come out. And in the meantime, those patents have been ruled unenforceable.”
While Moss, an avowed consumer advocate, speaks highly of federal judge William Alsup, who reversed the ruling, she doesn’t offer the same praise for the ITC.
“I think the ITC is bad for consumers. It was not designed for American consumers,” Moss said. “It was designed for American manufacturers. It is being misused when it becomes an alternative venue for patent litigation, especially to get a remedy that’s not available for very good reasons in patent litigation.”
She added, “The ITC, in theory, is supposed to consider the public interest, but it really doesn’t.” As for how the case went before the federal jury in the first place, Moss says it’s possible that new information shedding doubt on the patents emerged only after the trial.
How did we get here?
Good times gone bad
The case’s origins date to a 2013 partnership that integrated Google Play Music into Sonos products and gave Google a “deep view” into Sonos' proprietary technology, according to the suit. Two years later, Google launched its own smart speakers, and Sonos claims Google ultimately deployed stolen technology in numerous products, spanning Google Home, Nest, and even Pixel offerings.
Despite the recent reversal, Sonos buyers are taking a bit of an “L” in the tit-for-tat deathmatch, with Sonos opting not to offer Google Assistant support in its otherwiseexcellent lineof updated smart speakers for 2024. It’s worth noting that Google also countersued Sonos, but that’s a deep dive for another day.
As with many issues in the American legal system, the case is fraught with complexity, and it’s the lawyers who often benefit the most from hefty legal fees. As things stand, anyone can basically file a patent for anything without providing evidence up front that the patent is valid. According to Moss, this leads to problematic “patent thickets,” because “you can file them on things you didn’t invent that you see in the market that your competitor is doing. The patent office has imposed no limits at all. Other countries don’t have this; Europe doesn’t have this.”
Rest assured that we’ll keep an eye on the cases and keep you abreast of any new developments.
Best smart speakers in 2025
Speakers from Google, Sonos, and more
