A trade court ruled on Thursday that products that violate the intellectual property of a company cannot be imported into the US.
The United States International Trade Commission, a quasi-judicial body that decides trade cases and can block the import of goods that violate patents, gave the final ruling in the intellectual-property dispute.
The trade commission was asked to block imports of products that the speaker company said were in violation of its patents. They include the Chromecast streaming video device and the Google Home smart speakers. The items are shipped to the US from China.
The import ban will take effect in 60 days. The matter will be subject to a presidential review during that time. The final ruling upheld the commission judge's finding that the import ban should be imposed on the internet company. The full commission met after the initial ruling to consider whether to accept or overturn the decision.
The commission determined that the import of products that violate U.S. patents, trademarks or copyrighted works was a violation of the Tariff Act of 1930. The commission issued a cease-and-desist order against the company.
Eddie Lazarus, the chief legal officer at Sonos, said in a statement that the I.T.C. has confirmed the validity of five of the company's patents. That is an across-the-board win that is rare in patent cases.
José Castaeda, a spokesman for the company, said that the company disagreed with the ruling, but that it would work to make sure there was no interruption in the products used by customers or its ability to sell or import devices. The commission did not challenge the preliminary ruling that approved alternative product designs that work around the patents, according to the company.
Mr. Castaeda said that they would seek further review and defend themselves against the claims made by Sonos.
There are two lawsuits pending against Google in federal court. The first case was stayed in the US District Court in Los Angeles due to the overlap of the patents. The second patent is being heard in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco.
Mr. Lazarus said that the alternative designs proposed by the search giant might be able to circumvent the ban on imports, but that their products still violate dozens of other patents. He urged the company to pay a fair royalty.
The import ban is likely to have little impact on newer products that use different technologies. It does not affect online advertising.
Sales of hardware products are lumped in with other businesses, including sales of apps and digital media. This category accounted for 18 percent of the revenue in the third quarter.
When the two companies began working together, Sonos claimed to have shared details of its technology with them. In 2015, the first year of its existence, the company began to move into the space of Sonos, first with a small device to stream music, and then with its Home speaker.
A licensing deal was proposed to Google by Sonos, which said it was violating more than 100 of its patents. The two companies couldn't come to an agreement.
The lawsuits are a result of the businesses of the tech giants. More than two decades ago, the search engine started as a search engine. It makes a wide range of hardware products. It sells high-speed internet to ordinary consumers.
Smaller companies that did not expect to tangle with a giant with seemingly unlimited resources were helped by each extension of its business by Google.
A pioneer in home speakers that play music from a phone and can be played in different rooms is the Sonos. In the last several years, many companies have entered the market, including Apple, Facebook, and Amazon.
Smaller rivals are challenging the business practices of the industry's biggest companies in court. The creator of the popular game, Epic Games, sued Apple and Google over app store commission. The photo-sharing app Phhhoto sued Facebook in November, accusing it of violating antitrust laws.
