Parus Holdings Inc v. LG Electronics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Parus Holdings Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc. (South Korea) and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC; Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC
• Case Identification: 6:19-cv-00437, W.D. Tex., 12/05/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for LG Electronics, Inc. as a foreign corporation and for LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. based on its regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, where it has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone products incorporating the Google Assistant feature infringe patents related to systems for retrieving information from the internet using voice commands.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of voice-controlled digital assistants, a central feature in the modern smartphone and consumer electronics market for hands-free information access.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had constructive notice of the patents-in-suit based on Plaintiff's product marking activities. It further alleges Defendant received actual notice of the patents and its alleged infringement upon service of the original complaint in this matter, dated on or around August 2, 2019.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2000-02-04	Earliest Priority Date for ’431 and ’084 Patents
2006-07-11	’431 Patent Issued
2007-06-18	Alleged Constructive Notice of ’431 Patent Begins
2016-09-20	’084 Patent Issued
2018-02-21	Alleged Constructive Notice of ’084 Patent Begins
2019-08-02	Alleged Actual Notice via Service of Original Complaint
2019-12-05	First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

An Inter Partes Review (IPR) Certificate for U.S. Patent 7,076,431, issued December 4, 2023, indicates that asserted independent claim 1 has been cancelled (IPR2020-00686). Similarly, an IPR Certificate for U.S. Patent 9,451,084, issued December 1, 2023, indicates that asserted independent claim 1 has been cancelled (IPR2020-00687). The following analysis is based on the claims as asserted in the complaint, which was filed prior to the issuance of these certificates.

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 describes the difficulty for users to access information from websites without a traditional desktop or laptop computer. At the time, alternative devices like PDAs and early web-phones were expensive, had limited functionality, and often required websites to be specially designed for them, while the dynamic nature of the web could easily render browsing applications obsolete ('431 Patent, col. 1:28-42, 2:30-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based system that allows a user to browse the internet using natural, conversational voice commands spoken into any standard telephone. The system architecture involves media servers to handle voice recognition and synthesis, and web browsing servers to query websites based on the user's request. The retrieved information is then converted back into an audio message and relayed to the user ('431 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:41-4:9).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to make internet information accessible through the ubiquitous telephone network, removing the need for a visual interface or specialized hardware for the end-user ('431 Patent, col. 2:43-57).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system with a computer connected to the internet and a voice-enabled device for user input.
  • A speaker-independent speech recognition device and a speech synthesis device connected to the computer.
  • An instruction set containing a "plurality of pre-selected web site addresses."
  • A recognition grammar corresponding to the instruction set and a user-selectable speech command.
  • The computer is configured to retrieve the correct instruction set based on the user's speech command.
  • The computer is configured to access a first website from the plurality and, if the information is not found, to "sequentially access said plurality of web sites" until it is found or the list is exhausted.
  • The speech synthesis device is configured to produce and transmit an audio message containing the retrieved information.

U.S. Patent No. 9,451,084 - "Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller," Issued September 20, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation in the same patent family, the ’084 Patent addresses the same fundamental problem of providing convenient, voice-based access to internet information from any location via standard voice-enabled devices (’084 Patent, col. 1:45-2:44).
• The Patented Solution: The system described is architecturally similar to that of the ’431 Patent, involving a computing device, speech recognition/synthesis components, and a memory containing instruction sets with website addresses. A key distinction in the claimed solution is the added capability for the computing device to "periodically search... to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites," introducing a dynamic updating mechanism (’084 Patent, col. 24:34-38).
• Technical Importance: By claiming a system that actively and periodically updates its own list of information sources, the invention aimed to create a more robust and adaptable solution capable of keeping pace with the rapidly changing web (’084 Patent, col. 2:45-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A system with at least one computing device coupled to one or more networks.
  • A speaker-independent speech-recognition device and a speech-synthesis device connected to the computing device.
  • A memory associated with the computing device containing an instruction set with a "plurality of web site addresses."
  • A recognition grammar corresponding to the instruction set.
  • The computing device is configured to retrieve the instruction set based on a user's speech command.
  • The computing device is configured to access the websites, and is further configured to "periodically search... to identify new web sites and to add the new web sites to the plurality of web sites."
  • The computer is configured to access the websites "in an order defined" until the information is retrieved or the list is exhausted.
  • The speech synthesis device is configured to produce and transmit an audio message with the retrieved information.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are LG's smartphone products that incorporate the Google Android operating system and Google Assistant, with the LG G8 ThinQ identified as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶18, ¶21, ¶61).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused LG products function as voice-enabled devices equipped with microphones and speakers (Compl. ¶24, ¶66). Through the integrated Google Assistant feature, users can utter speech commands to request information. The system allegedly processes these commands, retrieves information from websites previously crawled and indexed by Google's "Googlebot," and provides the retrieved information back to the user in an audio format (Compl. ¶22, ¶26, ¶27, ¶64, ¶68-69). The complaint notes that this functionality can be handled either on the device itself or with assistance from cloud-based processing (Compl. ¶37, ¶73).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’431 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a computer, said computer operatively connected to the internet	The LG G8 ThinQ contains an Octa-Core processor and connects to the internet during normal use (Compl. ¶28-29).	¶29	col. 10:59-64
a voice enabled device operatively connected to said computer... configured to receive speech commands from users	The LG G8 ThinQ includes a microphone and speaker and uses Google Assistant to react to spoken commands (Compl. ¶30-31).	¶31	col. 10:46-49
at least one speaker-independent speech recognition device... operatively connected to said computer	The system allows a user to speak to the device to send commands to the cloud for processing using a microphone connected to the device's processor (Compl. ¶32-33).	¶33	col. 10:49-52
an instruction set comprising a plurality of pre-selected web site addresses, each said web site address identifying a web site containing said information to be retrieved	Google Assistant retrieves information from websites that have already been crawled by the Googlebot and are part of the Google Search index, which comprises a plurality of website addresses (Compl. ¶38-39).	¶39	col. 5:1-15
said computer configured to... first access said first web site... and, if said information... is not found..., said computer configured to sequentially access said plurality of web sites until said information to be retrieved is found...	Google's search algorithms are alleged to access a plurality of websites in a "sequential" order based on ranking until the pertinent information is found or all considered sources have been accessed (Compl. ¶49, ¶53).	¶53	col. 16:30-44
said speech synthesis device configured to produce an audio message containing any retrieved information... and... to transmit said audio message to said users via said voice enabled device	Retrieved information is provided in audio form; for example, a user can "hear about weather, your commute, important things to do" (Compl. ¶54-55). A screenshot illustrates the "My Day" feature providing an audible summary (Compl. p. 7).	¶55	col. 10:60-64

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Google's vast and dynamically generated search index constitutes a "plurality of pre-selected web site addresses" as used in the patent. The defense may argue the patent contemplates a more limited, curated list rather than a comprehensive web index.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges Google's search algorithms perform a "sequential access" of websites. A technical question arises as to whether the complex ranking and retrieval process of a modern search engine matches the specific, linear search process described in the patent's specification (col. 16:30-44).

’084 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
at least one computing device, the computing device operatively coupled to one or more networks	The LG G8 ThinQ includes an Octa-Core processor and connects to at least one network in normal operation (Compl. ¶70-71).	¶71	col. 10:29-33
a memory... with at least one instruction set for identifying the information to be retrieved... comprising a plurality of web site addresses for the listing of web sites	The LG G8 ThinQ includes memory for the Google Assistant to run. Google uses technology to crawl and index websites, which are identified by web site addresses, to respond to search requests (Compl. ¶76-78, ¶80).	¶78, ¶80	col. 5:1-15
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	Google's "crawling" technology is alleged to discover "new web sites" periodically, either on its own or through submissions, to constantly provide updated data for its index (Compl. ¶85, ¶89).	¶89	col. 16:56-17:3
the computing device configured to access a first web site... and, if the information... is not found..., the computer configured to access the plurality of web sites remaining in an order defined... until the information to be retrieved is found...	Google's operations are alleged to access websites in a "defined order (as ranked)" until the information to respond to a search request is found or the list of sources has been considered (Compl. ¶85, ¶89).	¶89	col. 16:30-44
the speech synthesis device configured to produce an audio message containing any retrieved information	The system provides retrieved information in an audio form. An included diagram illustrates how incoming sound is processed by an Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) system to produce text that is used to generate a response read aloud by a Text-to-Speech (TTS) system (Compl. p. 10).	¶90-91	col. 10:60-64

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Does Google's continuous, algorithmic "crawling" of the web meet the claim limitation of a computing device configured to "periodically search... to identify new web sites and add the new web sites to the plurality"? The defense may argue its continuous indexing process is technically distinct from the periodic updating of a discrete list as described in the patent.
• Technical Questions: As with the ’431 Patent, it raises the question of whether accessing websites based on a complex, real-time search ranking algorithm is equivalent to accessing them "in an order defined" as that phrase is used in the context of the patent's disclosure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "pre-selected web site addresses" (from '431 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical to determining whether the accused Google Search index falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's disclosure suggests a managed list of sources, whereas the accused system indexes a significant portion of the public internet.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly limit the number of "pre-selected" sites. Language describing the system's ability to poll and rank sites could be argued to apply to any set of sites chosen for indexing prior to a user's query ('431 Patent, col. 16:45-67).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract describes the system as maintaining "a database containing a list of information sources," and the specification refers to this database containing a "separate set of records for each web site accessible by the system," which may support a narrower construction of a defined, curated list ('431 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-5).

The Term: "sequentially access" ('431 Patent, Claim 1) / "access... in an order defined" ('084 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the method of searching. Its construction will be central to whether the complex operation of Google's search algorithm can be mapped onto the claim language, which appears to describe a more linear process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint argues that any ranked list of results constitutes an "order defined" or a "sequential" order (Compl. ¶53). One could argue that as long as there is a ranking (first, second, third), the access is sequential and in a defined order, regardless of how that order was determined.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a system that "accesses the information source with the highest rank number" and, if information is not found, proceeds to the next-ranked site ('431 Patent, Abstract; col. 16:30-44). This suggests a step-by-step, one-at-a-time process of querying individual websites, which may differ from how a search engine retrieves results from a pre-compiled index.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that LG instructs and encourages customers and developers, through user manuals and advertising, to use the accused smartphones in a manner that performs the steps of the claimed methods. Knowledge is alleged based on the service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶56-58, ¶94-96).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continued acts of alleged infringement after receiving actual notice of the patents and the infringement allegations through the filing and service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶20, ¶63).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A threshold procedural question will be the viability of the action itself: what is the legal effect of the post-filing cancellation of the asserted independent claims of both patents-in-suit, as evidenced by the IPR Certificates, on the continuation of these infringement counts?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "pre-selected web site addresses," which in the patent's context suggests a managed database, be construed broadly enough to read on Google's comprehensive and dynamically expanding index of the public web?
• A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the accused system's use of a complex algorithm to retrieve and rank results from a massive, pre-compiled index constitute the "sequential access" of individual websites in a "defined order" as required by the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technical process?