Sonos is “pleased” the International Trade Commission “confirmed it will initiate a formal investigation into all of our claims asserting Google blatantly infringed our intellectual property,” emailed a spokesperson Friday. “We’ll fully cooperate throughout the duration of the investigation and feel confident about the merit of our case.” The ITC voted 4-0 to open a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into Sonos allegations that Google smart speakers and other devices infringe its multiroom audio patents (see 2002060070). The agency declined comment Friday on Commissioner Rhonda Schmidtlein’s recusal from the vote. The investigation was assigned to Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles Bullock, said a notice to the parties.

The International Trade Commission voted to open a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation into Sonos allegations that Google smart speakers and other devices infringe its multiroom audio patents (see 2001230001), said an investigation notice Thursday (login required) in docket 337-TA-1191. Sonos seeks a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders against the allegedly infringing products. Google has 20 days to respond. The vote Wednesday was 4-0 to open the investigation, with Commissioner Rhonda Schmidtlein, a Democrat, recusing herself. “Sonos has made misleading statements about our history of working together," emailed Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda Thursday. "Our technology and devices were designed independently. We deny their claims vigorously, and will be defending against them.” Sonos didn't comment.

The Senate Intellectual Property Subcommittee set a Tuesday hearing on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for 2:30 p.m. in 226 Dirksen.

The “sweeping remedial orders” that Sonos asked the International Trade Commission to impose against Google (see 2001230001) “would remove from the stream of commerce products and functionalities that far exceed the scope” of the multiroom audio patents Sonos alleges were infringed, commented Google (login required) in ITC docket 337-3428. The products on which Sonos seeks an import ban “contain thousands of features beyond playing music on multiroom audio systems,” it said. Google smart speakers “allow users to control over 30,000 smart home devices, including in-home security systems, cameras, lights, switches, plugs, thermostats, and many other devices, using voice commands,” it said. They provide “significant benefits to users, particularly those with disabilities,” none of which “implicates any claimed invention” of the patents Sonos alleges were infringed, it said. Sonos also gave no evidence to back its “bare assertion” that smart speaker prices would rise only slightly from an import ban, said Google. Low price is “the most important factor for US consumers in purchasing a voice-controlled smart speaker,” and an import ban would harm the public interest if prices increased significantly, it said. Sonos didn't file a response.

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to review three patent eligibility cases challenging the high court’s Alice decision (see 1406200031). The high court denied certiorari for Chargepoint v. Semaconnect and two separate cases titled Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG.

The International Trade Commission voted to open a Tariff Act Section 337 investigation (337-TA-1190) into allegations Fitbit and Garmin fitness trackers infringe Philips patents (see 1912120031), said the agency Friday. Philips alleges the trackers, manufactured by Ingram Micro, Maintek Computer and Iventec Appliances in China, copy the patented designs of Philips’ GoSafe and HomeSafe motion biosensor and sleep diagnostics products. The ITC will consider a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders banning import and sale of infringing merchandise. The claims "are without merit and a result of Philips’s failure to succeed in the wearables market," emailed a Fitbit representative Monday. "Fitbit plans to defend itself vigorously against all allegations made in the complaint." It’s Garmin's "long-standing policy not to comment on on-going litigation," a spokesperson emailed.

Licensees with 5,000 or more unique sound recordings during the relevant annual calculation period are subject to an annual minimum fee of $60,000, the Copyright Royalty Board said Wednesday in final regulations for the Music Modernization Act’s mechanical licensing collective (see 1907080032).

Google began “willfully infringing” five Sonos patents for wireless multiroom audio technology when it introduced Chromecast Audio in 2015, alleged a Sonos complaint Tuesday (in Pacer) in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. “Google’s misappropriation of Sonos’s patented technology has only proliferated, as Google has expanded its wireless multi-room audio system to more than a dozen different infringing products,” it said. “Google has persisted despite the fact that Sonos has warned Google of its infringement on at least four separate occasions dating back to 2016.” Google has “profoundly compounded” the harm by using its multiroom audio products to “vacuum up invaluable consumer data” and “further entrench the Google platform” to “ultimately fuel its dominant advertising and search platforms,” alleged Sonos. Its actions “have caused significant damage to Sonos.” “Over the years, we have had numerous ongoing conversations with Sonos about both companies' IP rights," emailed Google Tuesday. "We are disappointed" that Sonos brought legal action "instead of continuing negotiations in good faith," it said. "We dispute these claims and will defend them vigorously.”

The Chinese government will offer legal services through "an intellectual property service station" at CES, to respond to intellectual property rights infringement injunctions, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said, according to an unofficial translation. "The service station employs American practicing lawyers from well-known American law firms to provide exhibitors with free legal advisory services on intellectual property rights and assist enterprises in resolving intellectual property infringement disputes," said MOFCOM. American companies in recent years have used emergency temporary injunctions to force seizures during past conferences, said MOFCOM. "Chinese companies as defendants should have sufficient time to refute infringement lawsuits to the court, but during the CES, American companies will declare that CES has only four days, and Chinese companies will leave after the end, so they can go to the court." The ministry provided the phrase in English that Chinese exhibitors should use for "police" who attempt to seal up a booth: "We will cooperate with you. We have lawyers who represent us. So before you seize our products, we would like to speak with our lawyer." Upon contact, one of the lawyers will rush to the scene, said MOFCOM. The Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco, MOFCOM and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade established the service station.

A Long Island cardiologist accused Apple of stealing his atrial fibrillation-detection invention and building it into the Apple Watch. Joseph Wiesel, a board-certified cardiologist on the faculty of the New York University School of Medicine, landed a March 2006 patent for an “innovative approach” that “allowed patients to properly monitor atrial fibrillation in a non-hospital setting,” said his complaint (in Pacer) Friday in U.S. District Court in Central Islip, New York. “Prior to this, patients could only use manual palpation of the pulse to detect atrial fibrillation,” it said. Apple had “indisputable actual knowledge” of the patent since “at least as early” as September 2017 when it introduced the Series 4 Apple Watch with embedded atrial fibrillation-detection technology, said the complaint. That’s also when Wiesel first “engaged” Apple, “through numerous letters and claim charts,” with notice of its infringing practices, the complaint said. Apple since has compounded its bad behavior by introducing the technology into the Series 5, “but also updating the software on the existing legacy Series 1, 2, and 3 Apple Watches to enable the infringing features,” it alleged. Apple has “refused to negotiate in good faith to avoid this lawsuit,” it said. Apple’s actions, “despite continued warnings,” are evidence of a “willful disregard” of Wiesel’s rights “and a desire to profit irrespective of U.S. patent laws,” it said. Wiesel seeks “recovery of past damages” through payment of a “reasonable royalty” and is "entitled" to license fees on Apple Watch shipments on “a going-forward basis,” it said. Apple didn’t comment Tuesday.