DCT
3:22-cv-07514
Parus Holdings Inc v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Parus Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00968, W.D. Tex., 09/17/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Apple maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including multiple retail stores and corporate offices, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Siri-enabled products infringe patents related to voice-based internet browsing systems that rank and access web sources to provide audio responses to user queries.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns voice-activated digital assistants capable of searching the internet, a central feature in the modern smartphone, smart speaker, and consumer electronics markets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had constructive notice of the patents-in-suit as of September 17, 2015, due to patent marking. The asserted '402 Patent is a continuation of a patent family that includes the '705 Patent, indicating they share a common technical disclosure.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-02-04 | Earliest Priority Date for '705 and '402 Patents |
| 2004-04-13 | '705 Patent Issued |
| 2012-05-22 | '402 Patent Issued |
| 2015-09-17 | Alleged Constructive Notice via Patent Marking |
| 2021-09-17 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 - “Robust voice browser system and voice activated device controller,” Issued Apr. 13, 2004
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a technical landscape where accessing web information via voice was unreliable and slow. Challenges included the frequent changes in website design and content, which could break automated systems, and the high user expectation for immediate, telephone-like responsiveness, which conventional computer-based browsing did not provide (’705 Patent, col. 2:25-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture to overcome these issues. It features a database of web sources, each assigned a rank. When a user issues a voice command, a media server converts it to a data message, and a web browsing server retrieves information by accessing the highest-ranked source first (’705 Patent, col. 8:25-34). To maintain reliability and speed, a "polling and ranking agent" periodically checks the web sources, and their ranks are adjusted based on responsiveness and whether an expected response is received (’705 Patent, col. 16:50-65; Fig. 4).
- Technical Importance: This system was designed to create a more robust and efficient voice-browsing experience by dynamically adapting to the ever-changing state of the internet and prioritizing sources that provide fast, reliable responses (’705 Patent, col. 2:44-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶25).
- Essential elements of independent claim 2 (a method) include:
- Providing a database storing a list of web sites and assigning a rank number to each.
- Receiving a user's voice command and converting it into a digital data message.
- Providing a CPU-based web browsing system to receive the message and access the web site with the highest rank number.
- Receiving response data from the web site and converting it into an audio message for the user.
- Periodically polling the web sites.
- Decreasing the rank number of a polled web site if (1) no response is received, (2) an unexpected response is received, or (3) its response time is longer than that of another polled web site.
U.S. Patent No. 8,185,402 - “Robust voice browser system and voice activated device controller,” Issued May 22, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Stemming from the same disclosure as the ’705 Patent, this patent addresses the same challenges of providing reliable and timely voice-based access to dynamic internet content (’402 Patent, col. 2:35-61; Compl. ¶17, fn. 1).
- The Patented Solution: This patent claims a method centered on a sequential search process. After receiving a voice command, a computer system accesses a first web site from a plurality of associated sites. If the needed information is not found on the first site, the computer "sequentially access[es] the plurality of web sites" until the information is found or the list is exhausted (’402 Patent, Claim 1). The retrieved information is then converted to an audio message and transmitted to the user (’402 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a systematic approach for a voice system to query multiple potential sources, increasing the probability of successfully retrieving the user's requested information (’402 Patent, col. 2:45-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method) include:
- Providing a computer connected to the internet, a speaker-independent speech recognition engine, and a speech synthesis engine.
- Providing a voice-enabled device connected to the computer to receive speech commands.
- Providing a speech command to the recognition engine.
- The computer accessing a first web site from a plurality of associated sites to obtain information.
- If the information is not found, the computer "sequentially accessing the plurality of web sites until the information...is found or until the plurality of web sites has been accessed."
- The speech synthesis engine producing and transmitting an audio message containing the retrieved information.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Apple Accused Products" as Apple devices featuring Siri functionality. This includes, but is not limited to, the iPhone 6s and later models, various iPad models, all Apple Watches, all HomePods, CarPlay, and certain MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and iMac Pro models (Compl. ¶¶27, 53).
Functionality and Market Context
- Siri is a voice-activated "personal assistant" integrated into Apple's operating systems (Compl. ¶28). A user speaks a command, and the system processes it using on-device and cloud-based resources, including voice recognition and natural language processing, to determine the user's intent (Compl. ¶31). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the "Hey Siri" architecture, showing a "Siri Client" on the device communicating with a "Siri Server" in the cloud (Compl. p. 8).
- To fulfill requests, Siri is alleged to retrieve information from a variety of sources, including websites crawled by Apple's "Applebot," third-party search engines such as Google and Bing, and on-device applications (Compl. ¶¶30, 34, 46). The system then provides a response to the user via synthesized speech (Compl. ¶29). The complaint alleges Siri is a key feature across Apple's ecosystem, as depicted in a graphic showing its availability on iPhones, Macs, and other devices (Compl. p. 14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'705 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a database storing a list of web sites on magnetic media; assigning a rank number to each one of said web sites and storing said rank number in said database | Siri allegedly uses a database of websites crawled by Applebot. These sites are ranked based on factors including user engagement, content relevancy, and quality of links. | ¶30, ¶33, ¶46 | col. 8:25-30 |
| receiving a voice command from a user and converting said command into a digital data message | Users speak commands to Siri. The device and cloud servers perform voice recognition and natural language processing to convert the speech into a digital message representing the user's request. | ¶29, ¶31 | col. 8:36-44 |
| providing a CPU-based web browsing system for receiving said digital data message and accessing one of said web sites having the highest said rank number | The combination of the CPU in the Apple device (e.g., A11 chip) and cloud-based server infrastructure allegedly forms a web browsing system that receives the digital message and accesses a top-ranked website to retrieve information. | ¶32, ¶35, ¶42 | col. 8:30-34 |
| converting said response data into an audio message that is transmitted to said user | Siri receives data from the accessed web source and uses a speech synthesis device to generate an audible response that is played back to the user. | ¶41, ¶43, ¶47 | col. 8:48-51 |
| periodically polling each of said web sites ... decreasing said rank number ... if no response is received, if an unexpected response is received, and if a response time ... is longer than a second response time ... | Applebot is alleged to periodically crawl (poll) websites. Siri's use of search engines like Google and Bing, which allegedly use polling and ranking mechanisms to determine quality, is alleged to meet the rank-decreasing limitations. | ¶45, ¶46 | col. 16:50-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary question is whether Siri's reliance on external search engines like Google for ranking and results (Compl. ¶46) constitutes the specific "periodically polling" and rank-decreasing method recited in the claim. The defense may argue that the claim requires a more self-contained system that directly controls the polling and ranking, rather than outsourcing these functions.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Apple's system decreases rank based on the three specific conditions in the claim, but the supporting evidence is a general description of how search engines determine "quality" (Compl. ¶46). A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused system specifically modifies ranks based on each of the three claimed criteria: no response, an unexpected response, and slower response time.
'402 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a computer operatively connected to the internet, said computer further being operatively connected to at least one speaker-independent speech recognition engine and to at least one speech synthesis engine | The accused products contain processors (e.g., A11 chip) and connect to cloud computing hardware that provides speaker-independent speech recognition and synthesis engines. | ¶55-56, ¶58 | col. 10:20-29 |
| providing a voice enabled device operatively connected to said computer, said voice enabled device configured to receive speech commands from users | The accused products (e.g., iPhone) themselves, including their microphones and associated hardware, serve as the voice-enabled device. | ¶54, ¶59 | col. 10:23-25 |
| said computer ... first accessing a first web site ... and, if the information ... is not found ... the computer sequentially accessing the plurality of web sites until the information ... is found or ... has been accessed | The complaint alleges that Siri accesses a plurality of websites (crawled by Applebot or indexed by Google/Bing) and sequentially accesses them to find the requested information. The complaint provides a screenshot describing how Applebot crawls sites for use by Siri (Compl. p. 9). | ¶61, ¶66 | col. 4:32-38 |
| said speech synthesis engine producing an audio message containing any retrieved information ... and ... transmitting said audio message to said users | Siri's speech synthesis functionality produces an audible response containing the retrieved information and plays it for the user. | ¶69, ¶70 | col. 10:26-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the meaning of "sequentially accessing." A central question for the court will be whether selecting a top-ranked result from a search engine's pre-compiled index constitutes a "sequential" search in the manner claimed. The defense may argue this term requires a literal, one-by-one check of websites, which is not how modern search assistants are described to operate (Compl. ¶46).
- Technical Questions: A related question for the court will be whether the patent’s written description, which is shared with the ’705 patent and focuses heavily on a system that accesses the single "highest rank number" site (’705 Patent, col. 8:32-34), provides adequate support for the "sequentially accessing" limitation recited in the ’402 patent's claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "periodically polling" (’705 Patent, Claim 2)
- Context and Importance: This term is crucial to the ’705 patent's claimed method for maintaining a robust and up-to-date ranking of web sources. The infringement case depends on whether the operations of Applebot and the third-party search engines used by Siri fall within this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification’s stated goal is to "detect modifications to web sites and adapt to such changes," which could support an interpretation covering any form of automated, periodic web crawling and analysis for the purpose of maintaining a search index (’705 Patent, col. 2:32-34).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts a "polling and ranking agent" (404) as a distinct component of the "web browsing server" (102), suggesting the polling is an integral function of the claimed system itself, not an outsourced task (’705 Patent, Fig. 4). This could support a narrower definition limited to a system that directly polls a defined list of URLs and adjusts its own database ranks accordingly.
The Term: "sequentially accessing the plurality of web sites until the information to be retrieved is found" (’402 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core search methodology of the asserted claim in the ’402 patent. Whether Siri's functionality infringes this patent will largely depend on the construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any process that considers multiple web sources in some order until an answer is located meets this definition, even if that "order" is simply the selection of the top-ranked result from a list generated by a search engine.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "sequentially" suggests a one-after-another process (i.e., check site A, then site B, then site C). This is reinforced by the specification's primary focus on a different method: accessing the single site with the "highest rank number" (’402 Patent, col. 8:32-34), which may be used to argue that "sequentially accessing" implies a distinct, linear process not otherwise described.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that by distributing and selling the Accused Products, Apple infringes by providing items that are used by consumers to practice the patented methods, and that these products constitute a material part of the invention (Compl. ¶¶48, 72). These allegations lay the groundwork for claims of induced and contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the patents at least as of the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶26, 71). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of functional equivalence and claim construction: Does Apple's use of a sophisticated, distributed architecture involving its own web crawler (Applebot) and third-party search engines (Google) perform the specific functions of "periodically polling" and rank adjustment as recited in the ’705 patent? Similarly, does this architecture perform the "sequentially accessing" method of the ’402 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed methods and the actual operation of the accused Siri system?
- A key legal and evidentiary question will be one of written description support: The asserted patents share a specification that heavily emphasizes a method of accessing the single "highest rank number" web source. The court may need to determine if this disclosure provides adequate support under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the "sequentially accessing" limitation introduced in the claims of the later-issued ’402 patent, a question that could impact both infringement and validity analyses.