Google fends off $15m audio patents jury verdict
Tech company accused of infringing patents in Google Play Music software | Judge grants motion for new trial in dispute over audio player that automatically plays a predetermined schedule of songs.
Google will avoid paying $15.1 million for infringing a pair of audio-playback patents, after a US judge reversed a jury verdict that ruled against the tech giant.
Judge Colm Connolly handed down a decision at the US District Court for the District of Delaware on Tuesday, September 5, holding that there was no direct infringement of the US patent numbers 6,199,076 and 7,509,178.
In doing so, he opined that there was insufficient evidence to support the June ruling that favoured Personal Audio, a Texas-based company that enforces and earns licensing revenue from five patents.
No direct infringement
Without a ruling direct infringement, Personal Audio isn’t entitled to damages,
The dispute emerged when the firm sued Google for the infringement of claims 3, 6, and 13 of ‘076 patent and claims 7 and 12 of the ‘178 patent.
The asserted patents cover an audio program player that automatically plays a predetermined schedule of songs, for example, from a program library.
The player also allows listeners to use commands to alter the sequence and content of the audio program segments.
Personal Audio alleges that Google's ‘Google Play Music’ (GPM) software, which has been installed on Google devices including its Pixel C tablet as well as third-party devices such as unlicensed third-party cell phones with GPM, infringes the asserted patents.
After a six-day trial, the jury found Google liable for direct and induced infringement of the asserted claims.
It also found that Google willfully infringed or willfully induced users of unlicensed Android phones with GPM installed to infringe those claims and that all the asserted claims are not invalid.
‘Crystal clear’ evidence needed
The jury awarded Personal Audio $15 .1 million in damages.
But yesterday Judge Connolly opined that it was “crystal clear in order to prove direct infringement”, Personal Audio had to establish that “an individual file was received by the player, stored, and used by the processor to control playback of each song in the ordered sequence and respond to control commands”.
“Evidence that only a copy of the received and stored file (or a part of that file) was used to control playback would not satisfy the ‘sequencing file’ limitation,” he added.
After stating that he had viewed all the recorded evidence in the light most favourable to Personal Audio, he concluded that “there is insufficient evidence from which a jury could reasonably find direct infringement of the asserted claims' ‘sequencing file’ limitation”.
Accordingly, he granted Google's motion requesting a new trial.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
