Smart-speaker firm Sonos won a legal victory against Google Thursday after a years-long battle over intellectual property. The U.S. International Trade Commission found that Google has been illegally using five Sonos patents in some of its devices and ordered the company to stop importing infringing technology from overseas manufacturing sites.

“Google has been blatantly and knowingly copying our patented technology,” Sonos CEO and former BlackBerry executive Patrick Spence said upon suing Google two years ago. He argued he couldn’t “sit idly by” as Google stole the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based company’s technology. “That’s not the way it should work in America for a small innovative company,” he said. “I owe it to everybody at Sonos to stand up for our innovation and protect what we invented.”

It’s one of several ongoing legal disputes between the companies and the first in which there’s been a final ruling. Google appears to be rolling out workarounds to avoid having products pulled. “While we disagree with today’s decision, we appreciate that the International Trade Commission has approved our modified designs and we do not expect any impact to our ability to import or sell our products,” said Google spokesperson José Castañeda.

Sonos chief legal officer Eddie Lazarus spoke with The Logic after the decision.

Which Google products are affected by this ruling?

It’s an inclusive list. We’re talking about everything from its Pixel phones to its speakers. And this particular case involves just five patents—Google infringes over 150 patents. So this is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Do you expect Google to consider licensing agreements with Sonos rather than trying to redesign its products to avoid penalties? 

We would hope so. That’s what we’ve been asking for: to do what other companies do and license the patented technologies that they’re using, instead of messing up their customer experience.

What do you think this ruling means for Big Tech’s market dominance more generally, and challenges to that dominance by smaller rivals?

The case is important in the sense that we are a moderate-sized, highly innovative company, whose patented inventions have been misappropriated by one of the big tech players and standing up not only for ourselves, but for the community of companies similarly situated. And we think it’s important to show that if you stay at it, you can win. But this is just one case. I think the more important battles are going on in [the U.S.] Congress, where Congress is considering some very significant changes to the antitrust laws, and also around the world in front of regulators—and Sonos is involved in those battles as well.

Google—and its parent company Alphabet—has tried to be the leader in smart home and building technology. What does this ruling mean for that ambition?

This ruling shows that in this area, specifically, Google is an imitator, not an innovator. And that’s OK, but when you do that, you should be rewarding the innovator by licensing the patented technologies of theirs that you’re using.