Google infringed on five patents, a judge says, marking a legal win for Sonos

According to a preliminary ruling of a trade judge, Google violated five patents held by Sonos.
In January 2020, Sonos sued Big Tech giant Google.

Some products from Google could be prohibited from import if the ruling is upheld.

10 Things in Tech: Keep up-to-date with the latest tech trends and innovations. Loading... Click to sign up for Insider marketing emails. You also agree to receive partner offers.

Sonos won a patent battle against Google Friday when a US trade judge ruled that Google had infringed five of Sonos patents.

Google could be severely affected by the preliminary ruling of Charles Bullock, the US International Trade Commission. Google could ban import of some of its products like the Pixel smartphone and Nest speakers.

Sonos sued Google first in California federal court, and then with the commission in January 2020. The manufacturer of audio products claimed that Google had infringed its patents relating to home speaker technology.

Sonos sought financial damages in federal court. The commission is charged with investigating unfair trade practices that hurt US businesses. Sonos also asked for a ban on imports of Google products made in China.

Google denied the claims, but also filed a countersuit claiming that Sonos was infringing Google's patents. Sonos, which added five patents to the list, filed a second lawsuit against Google in September 2013.

Google and Sonos are locked in a patent dispute that is unfolding at a moment when lawmakers are looking into Big Tech companies for anti-competitive behavior.

Eddie Lazarus, Sonos chief legal officer, stated in a statement that "this decision reaffirms strength and breadth in our portfolio, marking an important milestone in our long term pursuit to defend innovation against misappropriation from Big Tech monopolies."

This case is not over. The final ruling will be made by Judge Bullock on December 13.

Jos Castaeda (a spokesperson for Google) stated in a statement that "We disagree with the preliminary ruling" and would continue to present our case in any upcoming review process.