San Fransisco, 6 May 2023 (GNP): On Monday, a San Francisco court trial will pit Alphabet’s Google LLC and Sonos Inc. against one another over accusations that Google stole Sonos’ patented smart-speaker technology in wireless audio products including Google Home and Chromecast Audio.
One significant phase of a longstanding international conflict between the two tech titans will be presented to jurors in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
If Sonos wins the case, royalties granted may affect its capacity to demand comparable sums from other businesses that supposedly use the same technology.
Previously, both worked together to include Google Play Music in Sonos devices. However, Sonos sued Google in 2020, claiming that it had incorporated the technology into its own Home and Chromecast systems.
Lawsuits have been brought in San Francisco, Texas, Canada, France, Germany, and the Netherlands after each party accused the other of acting improperly. At the US International Trade Commission, which has the authority to bar the import of infringing goods, similar objections have been made.
Following a case-narrowing decision by district judge William Alsup, Sonos has reduced its demand for damages from Google in the San Francisco lawsuit from $3 billion to $90 million
Read More: White House Convenes Meeting on AI Issues
In the lawsuit, which was filed in January 2020, Sonos claimed that Google had stolen technology that was made available to them as a result of their business agreement.
According to the complaint, it employed the technology in its own devices, undercutting Sonos. Sonos requested a sales prohibition on other pieces of Google gear as part of its lawsuit, including Pixel phones, Nest Hubs, and Chromecasts.
The two businesses are now engaged in a legal war after Google filed a countersuit and Sonos launched a new action, alleging that it had also violated five more patents.
The commission determined that Google had violated each of the five patents that the original lawsuit’s claimants had asserted. However, this is not the final decision.
On December 13, the International Trade Commission will have the opportunity to weigh in on the situation and provide its own decision. The ruling only applies to one case; the two firms are still involved in a tangle of other disputes.
