A federal jury in Waco, Texas, US, on Friday, ruled that Alphabet's Google violated a software developer's patent rights with its remote-streaming technology and must pay $338.7 million in damages. The jury found that Google's Chromecast and other devices infringed on patents owned by Touchstream Technologies, specifically related to streaming videos from one screen to another.


In response to the verdict, a Google spokesperson, Jose Castaneda, stated on Monday that the company intends to appeal the decision, emphasizing that they have always developed technology independently and competed based on the merits of their ideas.


Touchstream attorney Ryan Dykal expressed satisfaction with the verdict, indicating that the New York-based company, also known as Shodogg, was pleased with the outcome.


ALSO READ: Apple Faces $1-Billion Lawsuit From UK App Developers: All You Need To Know


Touchstream's lawsuit, filed in 2021, claimed that founder David Strober invented the technology in 2010, allowing for the seamless transfer of videos from small devices like smartphones to larger devices like televisions. According to the complaint, Google had discussions with Touchstream about their technology in December 2011 but later expressed disinterest.


Subsequently, Google introduced its Chromecast media-streaming devices in 2013, which Touchstream alleged copied their innovations and infringed on three of their patents. The lawsuit also asserted that Google's Home and Nest smart speakers, as well as third-party televisions and speakers with Chromecast capabilities, also infringed on Touchstream's patents.


Google refuted the claims, denying any infringement on Touchstream's rights and arguing that the patents in question are invalid.


Touchstream filed similar complaints against cable providers Comcast, Charter, and Altice in Texas earlier this year, but those cases are still pending resolution. The recent jury decision in favour of Touchstream adds to the ongoing legal challenges that Google is facing over patent infringement allegations, and the company's appeal will likely lead to further developments in the case.