DCT
6:19-cv-00432
Parus Holding
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Parus Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC; Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
- Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00432, W.D. Tex., 10/21/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including corporate offices and retail stores in Austin, Texas, and derives substantial revenue from infringing activities within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Siri voice-assistant functionality, as integrated into a wide range of Apple products, infringes patents related to systems for retrieving information from web sources using voice commands.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns voice-activated digital assistants that can understand natural language queries and retrieve information from networked sources like the internet, a central feature in the modern smart device ecosystem.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a policy at Apple of willful ignorance of third-party patents. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patents were the subject of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Those proceedings resulted in the cancellation of independent claim 1 of both the '431 and '084 patents—the specific claims asserted in this complaint. The cancellation of the asserted claims presents a significant and likely dispositive obstacle for the Plaintiff's case as currently pleaded.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-02-04 | Earliest Priority Date for '431 and '084 Patents |
| 2006-07-11 | U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431 Issues |
| 2007-06-18 | Alleged Constructive Notice of '431 Patent |
| 2016-09-20 | U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084 Issues |
| 2018-02-21 | Alleged Constructive Notice of '084 Patent |
| 2019-10-21 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,076,431 - Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller (Issued July 11, 2006)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty and inconvenience of accessing internet information remotely, noting that desktop computers are not portable and that early mobile solutions like PDAs and web-phones are expensive and have limited functionality ('431 Patent, col. 1:28-41). It further notes that web browsing applications can fail when websites change their design, creating a need for a system that can adapt to such modifications ('431 Patent, col. 2:30-41).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system allowing a user to browse web sites using conversational voice commands spoken into a common device like a telephone. The system comprises a user interface (media server) with speech recognition and synthesis engines, and a network interface (web browsing server) connected to the internet ('431 Patent, Fig. 1). The system maintains a database of web sites, ranks them, and upon receiving a voice command, accesses the highest-ranked site to retrieve information and deliver it to the user as an audio message ('431 Patent, col. 3:30-48).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to make vast online information accessible through the most ubiquitous communication device of the era—the telephone—by overcoming the limitations of text- and screen-based interfaces. ('431 Patent, col. 2:50-55).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('431 Patent, col. 19:53-20:41; Compl. ¶17). The right to assert other claims is not explicitly reserved.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A system with a computer connected to the internet and a voice-enabled device.
- Speaker-independent speech recognition and speech synthesis devices.
- An instruction set for identifying information, which includes:
- A plurality of pre-selected web site addresses.
- A recognition grammar corresponding to the instruction set and a speech command.
- A computer configured to retrieve the instruction set and access the web sites.
- The computer is configured to first access a first web site and, if the information is not found, sequentially access other web sites in the plurality.
- A speech synthesis device configured to produce an audio message with the retrieved information.
U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084 - Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller (Issued Sep. 20, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '431 patent, the '084 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem: providing a robust, voice-activated system for retrieving information from the internet that can overcome the limitations of portable devices and adapt to the dynamic nature of web content ('084 Patent, col. 2:45-3:1).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system centered on a computing device operatively coupled to one or more networks. The system uses speaker-independent speech recognition to process user commands and speech synthesis to deliver results ('084 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect is the system's ability to not only access a list of web sites but also to "periodically search" for new web sites to add to its list, ensuring the information sources remain current ('084 Patent, col. 23:40-46).
- Technical Importance: This patent extends the earlier concepts by focusing on the system's autonomous ability to maintain and expand its database of information sources, a crucial feature for any information retrieval system operating on the evolving internet. ('084 Patent, col. 21:8-13).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ('084 Patent, col. 23:1-24:39; Compl. ¶50). The right to assert other claims is not explicitly reserved.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A system with at least one computing device coupled to one or more networks.
- Speaker-independent speech recognition and speech synthesis devices.
- Memory with an instruction set, which includes:
- A plurality of web site addresses.
- A recognition grammar corresponding to a speech command.
- The computing device is configured to retrieve the instruction set.
- The computing device is further configured to periodically search the networks to identify new web sites and add them to the plurality of web sites.
- The computing device is configured to access the web sites in a defined order until the information is found.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names "Apple Accused Products" as Apple devices that incorporate Siri functionality. This includes, but is not limited to, the Apple iPhone (6s or later), iPad Pro, Apple Watch, HomePod, CarPlay, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and iMac Pro (Compl. ¶21).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused functionality is the Siri digital assistant, which the complaint describes as a system for retrieving information from web sites by voice and providing it to users in an audio form (Compl. ¶22). The system architecture involves both on-device processing and communication with remote cloud servers (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 28, 33). A screenshot in the complaint shows the Siri user interface prompting a user with "What can I help you with?" (Compl. p. 5).
- The complaint alleges Siri uses multiple information sources, including a list of websites crawled by its own "Applebot," as well as delegating searches to third-party engines like Google and Bing (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 35, 42). A diagram provided in the complaint illustrates the data flow for a "Hey Siri" command, showing interactions between a "Siri Client" on the device and a "Siri Server" (Compl. p. 7, Fig. 1).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'431 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for retrieving information from pre-selected web sites by uttering speech commands into a voice enabled device... | The Apple Accused Products with Siri are a system for retrieving information from pre-selected web sites via speech commands and providing retrieved information in an audio form. | ¶22 | col. 3:30-34 |
| a computer, said computer operatively connected to the internet; | The Apple iPhone X contains a microprocessor (A11 circuit) and has access to cloud computing hardware, all operatively connected to the internet. | ¶¶27-28 | col. 10:65-11:2 |
| a voice enabled device operatively connected to said computer, said voice enabled device configured to receive speech commands from users; | The Apple iPhone X has a microphone and associated processing power configured to receive speech commands from users. | ¶30 | col. 10:43-48 |
| at least one speaker-independent speech recognition device... | The Apple iPhone X with Siri includes a speaker-independent speech recognition device, utilizing AI models in the cloud. | ¶31 | col. 10:49-52 |
| at least one speech synthesis device... | The Apple iPhone X with Siri includes a speech synthesis device. The complaint cites Apple's description that "Siri is a personal assistant that communicates using speech synthesis." | ¶¶23, 32 | col. 10:57-60 |
| a plurality of pre-selected web site addresses, each said web site address identifying a web site containing said information to be retrieved; | Siri uses a list of web sites previously crawled and pre-selected by Applebot. It also uses Google and Bing to find a plurality of pre-selected web site addresses. | ¶¶34-35 | col. 11:4-8 |
| said computer configured to first access said first web site... and, if said information... is not found... sequentially access said plurality of web sites... | Siri uses various sources like search engines (Bing or Google), other websites (Yelp), or applications to obtain information. | ¶40 | col. 20:31-39 |
'084 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system for acquiring information from one or more sources maintaining a listing of web sites... | The Apple Accused Products with Siri are a system for acquiring information from web sites by receiving speech commands and providing audio-form information. | ¶54 | col. 3:45-49 |
| at least one computing device, the computing device operatively coupled to one or more networks; | The Apple iPhone X contains a microprocessor (A11 circuit) and accesses cloud hardware, all operatively coupled to networks like the internet. | ¶¶55-57 | col. 23:4-5 |
| at least one speaker-independent speech-recognition device... | The Apple iPhone X with Siri is a speaker-independent speech-recognition device connected to the computing device. | ¶58 | col. 23:8-12 |
| memory operatively associated with the computing device... | The Apple iPhone X includes memory, and is offered in various capacities (e.g., 64GB, 256GB, 512GB). | ¶61; Compl. p. 27 | col. 23:16-18 |
| the computing device is further configured to periodically search via the one or more networks to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites... | Siri uses Applebot to crawl a plurality of web sites. The complaint cites documents describing Applebot as Apple's web crawler. | ¶¶68-69 | col. 24:10-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the '431 patent is whether Siri's use of dynamic, real-time search engines like Google and Bing meets the "plurality of pre-selected web site addresses" limitation. The analysis may turn on whether the pool of sources Siri can query is considered "pre-selected" at a system level, even if the results for a specific query are dynamic.
- Technical Questions: For the '084 patent, a key factual question is whether the operation of Applebot constitutes the computing device "periodically search[ing]... to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites" as required by the claim. The case may require evidence on how Applebot's general web crawling function is specifically integrated into the accused Siri system to meet this limitation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "pre-selected web site addresses" ('431 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement theory against a modern digital assistant like Siri hinges on this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a dynamic, search-engine-based system can infringe a claim seemingly directed at a system using a static or curated list of sources.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's objective is to provide a "robust" system that can adapt to changes on the internet, which could support an interpretation where "pre-selected" refers to the system's designated pool of information providers (e.g., Google, Bing, Yelp), not a static list of URLs ('431 Patent, col. 2:30-41).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "database containing a list of information sources" and provides examples of records with specific URLs tied to specific information categories ('431 Patent, col. 3:32-33; Table 1). This may support a narrower construction requiring a defined, stored list of addresses rather than a gateway to a general search engine.
Term: "periodically search... to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites" ('084 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from a system that merely queries a third-party index. Infringement depends on proving that the accused system itself performs this discovery and addition process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal of creating a system that adapts to the "rapidly changing area of Internet applications" could support a view where leveraging a continuously updated crawler like Applebot satisfies the claim's purpose, even if it's a distinct component ('084 Patent, col. 2:53-54).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the "computing device" of the system to be configured to perform this function. This language may support an argument that the system itself must execute the search and addition, rather than relying on a separate, general-purpose web crawler whose index is merely one of many sources the system can access. The patent's description of a "polling and ranking agent" appears to operate on an existing list, not discover new sites ('084 Patent, Fig. 4).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Apple induces infringement by instructing and encouraging customers and developers to use the accused Siri functionality through advertising, user manuals, and developer tools (Compl. ¶¶ 45-46, 74-75). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the accused products are especially adapted for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 76).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Apple's knowledge of the patents since at least the filing of the original complaint and on an alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," citing a prior, unrelated legal matter as evidence of this practice (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20, 51-53).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A threshold, and likely fatal, issue for the complaint as filed is one of claim viability: The specific independent claims asserted against Apple (Claim 1 of the '431 patent and Claim 1 of the '084 patent) were subsequently cancelled in Inter Partes Review proceedings. Can the Plaintiff amend its complaint to assert any of the surviving, narrower claims, and if so, can its infringement theory be adapted to meet their limitations?
- Assuming the case proceeds on surviving claims, a core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "pre-selected web site addresses," which originate from an era of more static web directories, be construed to cover a modern, dynamic system like Siri that leverages vast, real-time search indices and APIs?
- Finally, the case will present a key evidentiary question: What evidence can be presented to demonstrate that the internal architecture of Siri—a complex, distributed system—performs the specific sequential access and periodic site discovery functions recited in the patents, as opposed to functioning as a sophisticated user interface for separate, external information retrieval services?