Strategy in TECH...
In a decision announced last week, U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna has granted a motion for reconsideration by Outlaw Audio that included a restraining order preventing OSD Audio “from falsely representing” a certain feature of one of its products. This decision is a result of legal action taking place between direct-to-consumer (D2C) brands Santos Elecs. Inc. dba OSD Audio and Outlaw Audio LLC.
In yet another sign of patent success for Sonos, major industry player Legrand has agreed to a multi-year licensing deal to cover the technology used in their Nuvo line of wireless multi-room products. This is yet another sign that tends to add to the growing power of the Sonos patent portfolio covering these technologies.
A hearing before a California federal judge brought an ugly exchange between attorneys for both Sonos and Google – with each side pointing their finger at the other and accusing them of bad faith. That attorneys got ugly against their counterparts is not in itself surprising. However, the speed with which this dispute devolved to that point was a surprise.
It must be really interesting in those Sonos and Google joint product development meetings, where the parties meet to discuss their partnership on the Google assistant technology built into Sonos products. You see, in addition to this product partnership, both companies are ensnarled in a nasty round of lawsuits accusing each other of various patent violations – with tactics and rhetoric heating up as each fired new salvos at the other just this week. On Monday, Google sued Sonos. On Tuesday, Sonos sued Google. This is getting serious…
After receiving a stipulation allowing them more time to respond, Lenbrook Industries Ltd, and Lenbrook America, last week filed their response to the Sonos patent litigation they were hit with in June. It was a robust and smart response that clearly communicated that Lenbrook planned to give no ground in this dispute.
While perhaps not quite as audacious as the D&M response when they were first dealt the blow of litigation…Lenbrook offered a smart and savvy response that not only pushed back but seemingly undercuts many of Sonos’ core allegations..and patents.
As Strata-gee recently reported, there are currently seven active lawsuits that have been filed against Control4 and their Board of Directors in the wake of their acquisition by SnapAV. In a new DEFA14A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last Friday, the company addresses the issue of these lawsuits – saying that they are going to fight them. But then they do something very curious – they file an amendment to their original Schedule 14A filing, their Proxy Statement, with added information that appears to add missing material in response to allegations in the lawsuits filed against them.
The Control4 Corporation has been hit with another class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all shareholders of their stock in connection with their acquisition by Wirepath Home Systems, LLC – better known as SnapAV. Filed by the law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., the lawsuit alleges certain violations of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and names both Control4 and its Board of Directors as defendants.
When we last visited this legal clash of the titans, a jury had just found that Monster must pay Beats nearly $8 million to reimburse them for the legal expenses in fighting the lawsuit that Monster had brought against them in 2015. Now, we have learned that the judge in that case has increased the judgment with an additional “directed” verdict. And in the matter of a separate case, Beats vs. Monster filed late last year, Monster has filed a countersuit and won a key ruling.
Ever since Sonos filed their patent infringement case against D&M Holdings – in reference to its then new HEOS line – things started out like the opening salvo in a boxing match. That was over three years ago in October 2014 and after an initial flurry, including the filing of a countersuit by D&M Holdings, the event went on to settle down into more of a wrestling match, as opposed to boxing. Each side jockeyed for leverage on the other, with our judgment giving a slight advantage to Sonos, whose legal team seemed just slightly better in their approach perhaps even winning over the judge in a series of mostly favorable rulings.
Now, on the eve of trial and in front of a new judge, things are really moving from its long, low simmer to a boil – in fact, boiling over in the days leading up to trial next week starting December 11.
The battle for patent supremacy between Sonos and D&M Holdings is picking up significant steam. In one 30-day period of this year alone (June), we counted no less than 110 docket items. That’s more than four filings a day if you take out weekends. The vast majority of these items were heavy legal motions and other multi-dozen page document filings.
The lawsuit, originally brought by Sonos against D&M Holdings and their HEOS line, and ultimately reciprocated with a D&M counter-suit, has been raging on since October 2014. Yet as the matter is plunging headlong towards a trial by the end of this year, D&M is handed another loss, as Judge Richard G. Andrews denies two key D&M Motions for Summary Judgment in his last ruling before turning the matter over to a new judge.
