Infringement action filed 30 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 3 Feb 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
The present invention relates to a system for acquiring information from sources on a network, such as the Internet. A voice browsing system maintains a database containing a list of information sources, such as web sites, connected to a network. Each of the information sources is assigned a rank number which is listed in the database along with the record for the information source. In response to a speech command received from a user, a network interface system accesses the information source with the highest rank number in order to retrieve information requested by the user.
6 on recordIPR2022-00523 · Other · filed by Google LLCIPR2022-00804 · Patentability · filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATIONIPR2022-01502 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics America Inc.IPR2023-00303 · Patentability · filed by APPLE INCIPR2022-00949 · Patentability · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2022-00523 · Patentability · filed by PARUS HOLDINGS, INC
The present invention relates to a system for acquiring information from sources on a network, such as the Internet. A voice browsing system maintains a database containing a list of information sources, such as web sites, connected to a network. Each of the information sources is assigned a rank number which is listed in the database along with the record for the information source. In response to a speech command received from a user, a network interface system accesses the information source with the highest rank number in order to retrieve information requested by the user.
4 on recordIPR2022-00137 · filed by Microsoft Corp.IPR2022-00950 · Patentability · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2023-00162 · Patentability · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.IPR2022-00279 · Other · filed by Google LLC
Alan P. Block · Andrea L. Fair · Caroline Elyse Burks · Casey L. Shomaker · Charles Everingham IV · Claire Abernathy Henry · Jennifer L. Truelove · John B. Campbell Jr. · John Bruce Campbell Jr. · Kathryn Elizabeth Yukevich · Michael J. McNamara · Michael Renaud · Sam F. Baxter · Scott W. Hejny · Sean Michael Casey · T. John Ward Jr.
Firm
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Baker Botts LLP, McKool Smith PC, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC, Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Williams & Connolly LLP
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff"s claims for relief against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice and Defendant's claims and/or defenses against Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice .IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorney's fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party inncurring the same"
Case 3:22-cv-07514 · N.D. Cal. · closed 3 February 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
3:22-cv-07514 is a patent infringement action brought by Parus Holdings, Inc. against Apple, Inc., filed on 30 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 3 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 3:22-cv-07514?
US8185402B2 (“Robust voice browser system and voice activated device controller”), assigned to PARUS HOLDINGS, INC., currently inactive; US6721705B2 (“Robust voice browser system and voice activated device controller”), assigned to PARUS HOLDINGS, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Robust voice browser system and voice activated device controller.
How was case 3:22-cv-07514 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff"s claims for relief against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice and Defendant's claims and/or defenses against Plaintiff are dismissed with prejudice .IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorney's fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party inncurring the same"
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 3:22-cv-07514 take?
65 calendar days, from filing on 30 Nov 2022 to closure on 3 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-07514?
Chief Judge Vince Chhabria presided. Alan P. Block, Andrea L. Fair, Caroline Elyse Burks, Casey L. Shomaker, Charles Everingham IV, Claire Abernathy Henry, Jennifer L. Truelove, John B. Campbell Jr., John Bruce Campbell Jr., Kathryn Elizabeth Yukevich, Michael J. McNamara, Michael Renaud, Sam F. Baxter, Scott W. Hejny, Sean Michael Casey and T. John Ward Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Parus. Bita Rahebi, Fahd H. Patel, H. Christopher Han, Hector G. Gallegos, J. Stephen Ravel, Karina Noelle Pundeff and Rose S. Lee appear for defendant Apple.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:22-cv-07514 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-07514 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
