DCT
3:22-cv-07830
Parus Holdings Inc v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Parus Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Google, LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.; Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00571, W.D. Tex., 06/04/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Google maintains a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas, including multiple offices and over 800 employees in the Austin area, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Google Assistant service and the hardware products that use it (such as Pixel phones and Nest devices) infringe three patents related to voice-based internet browsing and remote device control.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue covers systems and methods for using voice commands to retrieve information from ranked or pre-selected websites and to control networked devices, a core functionality of modern digital assistants.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Google had actual knowledge of the asserted patents since at least 2009 for the ’705 and ’455 patents, and since 2011 for the ’941 patent, which may form the basis for its willfulness claims. The patents-in-suit are related and share a common specification.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-02-04 | Earliest Priority Date for ’705, ’941, and ’455 Patents |
| 2004-04-13 | ’705 Patent Issued |
| 2008-06-10 | ’455 Patent Issued |
| 2009-01-01 | Alleged Actual Knowledge of ’705 and ’455 Patents Begins (approx.) |
| 2011-02-01 | ’941 Patent Issued |
| 2011-01-01 | Alleged Actual Knowledge of ’941 Patent Begins (approx.) |
| 2014-01-01 | Alleged Constructive Notice via Marking Begins (approx.) |
| 2016-01-01 | Google Assistant Released (approx.) |
| 2021-06-04 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705, "Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller," issued April 13, 2004.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of early 2000s internet access, noting that devices like desktops, laptops, and early PDAs were often inconvenient or limited in their ability to access a rapidly changing web. (’705 Patent, col. 1:25-52). It specifically identifies that voice-based systems must provide rapid responses, as users will not tolerate the latency common in other data applications. (’705 Patent, col. 2:40-54).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a voice browsing system that uses a database of web sites, where each site is assigned a rank. In response to a user's voice command, the system first accesses the highest-ranked site to retrieve information. (’705 Patent, Abstract). A key feature is a "polling and ranking agent" that automatically adjusts these ranks based on factors like site responsiveness and speed, aiming to ensure the system always uses the fastest and most reliable sources. (’705 Patent, col. 16:36-67).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a reliable method for voice-based web browsing from any telephone, overcoming the limitations of specialized devices and the dynamic, sometimes unreliable, nature of the internet. (’705 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶27).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A CPU-based media server for converting a user's speech command into a digital data message.
- A database storing a list of web sites on magnetic media.
- A rank number assigned to each web site and stored in the database.
- A CPU-based web browsing server that receives the digital data message and accesses the web site with the highest rank to retrieve information.
- The media server generating and transmitting an audio message of the retrieved information back to the user.
- A polling mechanism that periodically sends a message to the web sites and decreases a site's rank if (1) no response is received, (2) an unexpected response is received, or (3) the response time is too long.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,881,941
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,881,941, "Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller," issued February 1, 2011.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares a specification with the ’705 Patent, addresses the same general problem of providing reliable and convenient voice access to web-based information. (Compl. ¶17; ’941 Patent, col. 1:25-52).
- The Patented Solution: This invention describes a method where a user's speech command corresponds to a stored "instruction set." This instruction set contains a plurality of pre-selected website addresses for a specific query type. The system then accesses at least one of these pre-selected sites to retrieve the requested information, potentially trying them sequentially if the first one fails. (’941 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:3-31). This differs from the ’705 patent's focus on a single, dynamically ranked master list.
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for targeted voice queries to retrieve information from a curated or pre-defined group of sources, potentially improving the relevance and reliability of the answer. (’941 Patent, col. 4:36-50).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶55).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) are:
- Providing a computer connected to the internet, a speech recognition engine, and a speech synthesis engine.
- Providing a voice-enabled device to receive speech commands.
- Providing at least one "instruction set" in a database that includes a "plurality of pre-selected website addresses."
- Providing a speech command to the recognition engine that corresponds to the instruction set.
- The recognition engine selecting a corresponding "recognition grammar."
- The computer retrieving the instruction set and accessing at least one of the identified web sites to obtain information.
- The speech synthesis engine producing and transmitting an audio message with the retrieved information.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455, "Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller," issued June 10, 2008.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to a system for remotely controlling at least one system (e.g., a household device) connected to a network like the Internet. (Compl. ¶22, ¶86; ’455 Patent, Abstract). A user speaks a command, which causes the computer to access the remote system and prompt it to execute a pre-selected function, with polling mechanisms used to determine the remote system's operational status. (Compl. ¶22; ’455 Patent, col. 19:40-42).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶83).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Google Assistant, when used to control remote systems like Nest smart home products, infringes the ’455 patent. (Compl. ¶24, ¶86, ¶89).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Google Accused Products," which collectively refers to Google's hardware devices operating on the Android operating system in conjunction with the Google Assistant service. (Compl. ¶24). This includes, but is not limited to, Pixel phones, Nest smart home devices (thermostats, cameras, etc.), Chromecast devices, Pixelbook computers, and Fitbit devices. (Compl. ¶24).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The core accused functionality is Google Assistant, a voice-activated digital assistant. (Compl. ¶30). The service is configured to receive spoken commands from a user, process them using speech recognition, and perform an action. (Compl. ¶32, ¶33). These actions include retrieving information from websites to answer questions and controlling remote smart home devices. (Compl. ¶35, ¶86). The complaint alleges that for information retrieval, the system relies on Google's web index, which is built by its "Googlebot" web crawler, and its ranking algorithms to determine which web pages to use for answers. (Compl. ¶37, ¶39, ¶40). A diagram in the complaint illustrates the flow from incoming sound through an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) system to a Text-to-Speech (TTS) system for the response. (Compl. p. 11, Figure).
- The complaint positions Google Assistant as a central feature of Google's product ecosystem, intended to "help you find answers and control your phone and compatible smart home devices." (Compl. ¶36).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’705 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a CPU-based media server... configured to receive a speech command from a user and to convert said speech command into a digital data message; | The Accused Products contain processors and software (Google Assistant) that include speech recognition to receive voice commands and convert them to digital data. | ¶32 | col. 20:3-6 |
| a database containing a list of web sites stored on magnetic media, | Google maintains a database of crawled web sites (the Google Index) stored on magnetic media in its data centers. A visual in the complaint describes "Googlebot" as the web crawling bot that discovers pages to be added to the Google index. | ¶37, ¶39 | col. 8:59-64 |
| a rank number assigned to each one of said web sites and stored in said database; | Google's search algorithms assign a rank to each web site in its index, which is stored in its database, to determine relevance for user queries. | ¶40 | col. 20:11-13 |
| a CPU-based web browsing server... configured to... access one of said web sites having the highest said rank number and to retrieve information...; | Google's servers receive the processed voice command and access the highest-ranked, most relevant web site from its index to extract information for an answer. | ¶41 | col. 20:1-3 |
| a polling mechanism configured to periodically send a polling digital data message to each one of the web sites and to receive a response... and configured to decrease the rank of the polled web site if no response is received... if an unexpected response is received... or if a response time... is longer... | Google uses polling mechanisms (e.g., its Googlebot crawler) to determine webpage quality and allegedly changes the rank of a site based on factors including whether a response is received and the quality of the content. | ¶44, ¶45 | col. 20:18-31 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual dispute may be whether Google's web crawling and indexing system functions as the specific "polling mechanism" required by the claim. Does Google's system decrease a website's rank for the specific reasons listed in the claim (no response, unexpected response, slow response time), or are its ranking factors fundamentally different? The complaint provides a visual describing how "Googlebot discovers new and updated pages," which may support the polling allegation. (Compl. p. 9, Figure).
- Scope Questions: The analysis may question whether Google's general-purpose PageRank or a similar relevance score qualifies as the claimed "rank number," which is explicitly tied to the functioning of the claimed polling mechanism.
’941 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing at least one instruction set stored in a database... said instruction set including a plurality of pre-selected website addresses... | Google's systems store instruction sets that, for a given query type (e.g., weather), identify a plurality of potential web sources from its index to retrieve information. | ¶67 | col. 19:15-18 |
| providing a speech command to said... speech recognition engine, said speech command corresponding to said instruction set; | When a user asks a question like "What's the weather?," the command corresponds to a pre-defined instruction set for retrieving weather information. | ¶68 | col. 19:20-22 |
| said... speech recognition engine receiving said speech command and selecting the corresponding recognition grammar...; | The speech recognition engine selects a recognition grammar to understand the user's command, such as recognizing a request for weather information from a specific source like "The Weather Channel." | ¶69 | col. 19:23-25 |
| said computer accessing at least one of the plurality of web sites identified by the instruction set to obtain the information...; | After identifying the query type, Google's computers access one or more of the web sites from its index (the "plurality") to find the answer. The complaint alleges sequential access if the first site does not contain the information. | ¶71 | col. 20:25-28 |
| said speech synthesis engine producing an audio message containing any retrieved information from the pre-selected Web sites. | The TTS system in Google Assistant produces an audible response containing the information retrieved from the web, such as reading a featured snippet from Wikipedia. | ¶72 | col. 20:32-35 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely be over the term "instruction set." The question is whether Google's dynamic, algorithmic process for identifying relevant information sources for a query can be characterized as retrieving a "plurality of pre-selected website addresses" as claimed, or if the claim requires a more static, predetermined list.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the system "sequentially accesses the plurality of web sites until the information to be retrieved is found," as alleged? (Compl. ¶71). The infringement theory may depend on demonstrating this specific fallback behavior in the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term 1: "rank number" (’705 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the central mechanism of the '705 patent's invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis for this patent will depend heavily on whether Google's proprietary search ranking (e.g., PageRank or a successor) is legally equivalent to the claimed "rank number." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition is directly tied to a "polling mechanism" with three specific negative outcomes that cause the rank to decrease, which may be a narrower function than a general relevance ranking.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract and Summary of the Invention refer more generally to a "ranking order" and a system that "accesses web sites based upon their speed of operation," which could support construing "rank number" as any metric that prioritizes faster, more reliable sites. (’705 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-54).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself explicitly links the "rank number" to a "polling mechanism" that is "configured to decrease said rank number" upon three specific, enumerated failure conditions. This language may support a narrower construction where the "rank number" must be directly and automatically modified by these specific polling results, not just influenced by general quality signals. (’705 Patent, col. 20:18-31).
Term 2: "instruction set" (’941 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the infringement theory for the '941 patent. Plaintiff's case requires showing that when Google Assistant answers a question, it retrieves a stored "instruction set" containing multiple "pre-selected website addresses." The viability of this theory depends on how broadly "instruction set" is construed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a specific, limiting definition of "instruction set." Plaintiff may argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any data structure that maps a user's command to a set of potential information sources.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "plurality of pre-selected website addresses" suggests a static, curated list rather than a dynamic, algorithmic selection from a vast index. The patent's discussion of using the invention to control remote devices with defined functions may also support a narrower, more structured interpretation of the term. (’941 Patent, col. 19:15-25).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. It alleges inducement by claiming Google actively encourages and instructs customers to use Google Assistant in an infringing manner through advertising ("Hey Google"), user manuals, and online support materials. (Compl. ¶47-48, ¶75-76, ¶100-101). It alleges contributory infringement by asserting that the Google Accused Products are especially made and adapted for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶49, ¶77, ¶102).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google's infringement was and is willful. This allegation is based on claims that Google had actual, pre-suit knowledge of the patents since at least 2009 (’705, ’455) and 2011 (’941), and has continued to infringe despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶46, ¶74, ¶99).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of technical equivalence: Does Google's complex, dynamic, and large-scale web indexing and ranking infrastructure perform the specific functions recited in the patent claims? For the '705 patent, this raises the question of whether Google's ranking algorithms operate as the claimed "polling mechanism" that decreases a "rank number" based on the three specific failure conditions recited in the claim, or if there is a fundamental operational mismatch.
- The case will also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "instruction set," as used in the '941 patent to mean a stored list of "pre-selected website addresses," be construed to read on the algorithmic and context-aware method Google Assistant uses to select from billions of indexed pages to find an answer, or does the claim require a more static, pre-defined set of sources?
- Finally, a key evidentiary question will be one of knowledge and intent: What evidence will be presented to support the allegation that Google had pre-suit knowledge of the patents, and can Plaintiff demonstrate that Google's alleged infringement was deliberate, thereby supporting the claim for willfulness?