Both companies argue a 2023 trial and the jury’s findings were insufficient and require further, but different, court action.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Google asked a federal judge on Thursday for a new trial stemming from its ongoing patent dispute with a leading speaker company that was awarded more than $32.5 million in damages in 2023.
US Magistrate Judge Peter Kang heard more than two hours of arguments from Google’s lawyers and Sonos’ lawyers on several different issues related to the factual disputes and the jury’s verdict.
Two weeks court in May 2023, presided over by US District Judge William Alsup, was the latest major lawsuit in a long series of legal actions the two California-based tech companies have lobbied against each other over the past decade. Google filed a motion for a judgment as a matter of law and a new trial about a month after the jury’s verdict.
In the trial full of complex and technical testimony, Google sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of six patents related to multi-room speaker technology, which Alsup ultimately settled on two: the 885 and 966 patents, as referred to in the lawsuit.
In 2023, the jurors were asked to consider several questions in their deliberations. Had Google established by clear and convincing evidence that any of the five existing claims of US Pat. 10,848,885, which provided a new way to organize and use devices such as smart speakers, were invalid? Jurors said no, but Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, had already ruled as much before the trial even began.
How jurors arrived at the damages awarded to Sonos is something of a mystery and a big part of the courtroom discussion Thursday. With Alsup’s early ruling on the 885 patent, suggested valuations went out the window and jurors were forced to come up with a figure to determine unit royalties. Google attorney Melissa Baily said jurors were not given any comparable figures to come up with an appropriate rate.
“It’s completely unrelated to the value of the patent in question,” she said. “It’s an inappropriate upper limit, totally biased, totally fabricated, unless you have the relative value of the patents.”
Jurors settled for $2.30 per unit, amounting to more than $32.5 million in damages. Sonos attorney Elizabeth Moulton said jurors were given adequate instructions, and as a fact finder, the jury was allowed to make up its own mind, considering the evidence and using certain license numbers as a ceiling.
Moulton said the price of the average Google product using an infringed patent was $100, and the jury’s finding of about 2% of the product’s cost was reasonable.
“They also inform Sonos’ negotiating position that the more units you sell, the higher the fee you have to pay,” Moulton said.
In the 2023 trial, jurors found that Google did not infringe on claims related to the original version of the accused products. As to whether Google had done the same with respect to new versions of the products, the jurors said no and therefore ruled out willful infringement on Google’s part.
Google and Santa Barbara-based Sonos worked together a few years ago to help Google services work on Sonos’ brand of speakers. Sonos alleged that Google then stole Sonos’ smart speaker technology for use in its own brand, Google Home, as well as other devices.
Kang also heard Sonos’ motion for a permanent injunction and additional damages, arguing irreparable harm to its reputation from Google’s infringement of its patented feature that makes it possible for smart speakers to perform in coordinated groups that can be changed or saved to help someone listen to music synchronously in more than one room at the same time.
Sonos attorney Sydney Hecimovich said it wasn’t important that Sonos sought a preliminary injunction because it wanted a jury to decide the infringement issue, and that was one of the reasons it didn’t bring a preliminary injunction against Google or any of the other big competitors in the smart speaker game.
“I think Sonos would like to have the resources and the ability to file lawsuits against these other potential infringers,” Hecimovich said. “But that’s not the reality of the company.”
Baily said the $2.30 royalty rate was “grossly excessive” to begin with, and Sonos’ licensing agreements with other companies should be used as evidence that ongoing damages and royalties were not necessary.
Kang asked Hecimovich if the order was going too far, since it was not a jury finding. Baily said the evidence submitted by Sonos to enjoin Google was about two products, including Google Home, that have been discontinued.
Sonos also requested a trial as a matter of law and a new trial on the ‘966 patent claim, due to a challenged jury instruction.
Kang was not inclined to tell the court his thoughts on the motions and took the arguments into submission.
“The orders will be delivered in due course,” he said.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
