Google wins patent infringement decision in Federal Court

The Federal Court of Canada dismissed a motion for summary judgment brought by Sonos Inc. against Alphabet Inc.’s Google. The case revolves around allegations of patent infringement by Sonos. Both companies manufacture devices for reconfiguring noise suppression and echo cancellation. Google holds Canadian patent 2,545,150–known as 150 patent–for one device. The same device has been granted US patent 7,065,206, known as the 206 patent. In August 2020 Google filed a claim against Sonos, alleging infringement of the 150 patent by a number of Sonos products. That same month it filed a similar lawsuit in California for breaching the 206 patent. In June of last year, both parties moved to dismiss the American action. Google dismissed with prejudice the claims of infringement on the 206 patent while Sonos dismissed without prejudice its defence. Both sides have exchanged productions in the Federal Court but have not yet conducted examinations for discovery. The trial is scheduled for June 13, 2022. In September 2021, Sonos filed a motion seeking summary judgment. Each party used an outside expert to bolster the American case. Annette Hurst submitted on behalf of Sonos while Google used Paul Molino. Sonos argued in Canadian court that Molino exceeded his duty to opine on law and added opinions of fact into the mix. “To the extent it is Sonos’ position that the admissibility of expert evidence on foreign law does not extend to an expert’s opinion on the application of that law to relevant facts (where the circumstances dictate that it is foreign law that applies to those facts), I find no jurisprudential or logical support for that contention,” Justice Richard Southcott wrote in his decision. “Therefore, to the extent Mr. Molino’s evidence extends beyond generic opinions as to how voluntary dismissals operate under US law, and assists the court in understanding the effect of the stipulation in particular, I consider the evidence admissible. Indeed, it would be difficult for the court to arrive at an informed interpretation of the stipulation without the benefit of such evidence. Southcott added he found no reasons to strike any of Molino’s report as irrelevant. ‘In summary, whether relying on Mr. Molino’s expert opinion evidence or my own independent review of the factual evidence, I arrive at the same conclusion: that Sonos has not established that Google admitted the facts upon which Sonos relies in support of its summary judgment motion,” the justice stated. Sonos was ordered to pay $20,000 in costs.

Google wins patent infringement decision in Federal Court

Brief | March 7, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Google wins patent infringement decision in Federal Court

Brief | March 7, 2022

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

Related Stories

Canadian Journalism Collective announces estimated amounts it expects to pay out

Competition Bureau suing Google for alleged anti-competitive ad practices

Google granted exemption from requirements of Online News Act

UPDATED: Competition Bureau expands probe into Google’s advertising practices in Canada

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us