[AlbertCory]

Pro tip #1: Just read Claim 1, to get the gist. That doesn't suffice for a serious analysis, of course, but it pretty well tells you what the patent is about.

Generally, these are about two or more output devices (speakers?) coordinating with each other. There might be dependent claims about waving your phone around, but I didn't read that far.

Pro tip #2: the priority date(s). These seem to be 2003, 2004, and 2006. Those were all well within the internet era. So if you think "everyone was doing that!" you have to prove it with prior art before those dates. You can be certain the tech advisors in Patent Litigation have been trying to do that.

[cosmotic]

These are pretty low-quality patents. I'm curious if Google tried to attack the non-obvious requirement. These seem like straight-forward naive UIs.

[AlbertCory]

On legal matters: those who know, don't talk, and those who talk, don't know.

That said: I don't know. The claims weren't about UIs, AFAICT -- they were mostly about network sync'ing of the speakers.

I also never dealt with ITC matters. Quite different from a "regular" infringement suit.