[fbdab103]

>A California federal judge has thrown out a $32.5 million verdict for wireless-audio company Sonos (SONO.O) against rival Google (GOOGL.O) after finding that the Sonos patents at the heart of the case were unenforceable.

I am used to seeing statements that these legal cases cost $$$$ in legal fees, so I am curious what is likely to have been the spend on either side of the case. A $32.5 million verdict is likely significantly lower than Sonos had hoped. What was that likely to have been as a ratio of legal fees? Would Google have hired outside consul to help defend or is the in house staff sufficient to handle the case?

[dmazzoni]

In case it wasn't clear - a jury awarded Sonos $32.5 million, but the judge just threw that out. Sonos gets nothing.

It's quite possible that both sides spent far more than $32.5 million on lawyers, but it made sense to fight.

Sonos, because they wanted to sue others and not just Google.

Google, because they didn't want to set a precedent that they'd give in when they hadn't actually infringed on anything.

[havnagiggle]

It also materially changed the experience of Google's products for the worse. I am curious how that might have impacted their bottom line (as small as home devices are to their business).

[askvictor]

The 32 million is pocket change. What's important is whether the import ban on infringing Google devices is related to this judgement, or if that was a separate case.