District Judge Alan D. Albright has just transferred a case out of the Western District of Texas for convenience. In July 2019, Parus Holdings, Inc. filed separate lawsuits against Alphabet (Google), Apple, LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung, adding a suit against Amazon the next month. Each of the July defendants moved to transfer the case against it to the Northern District of California. Last Thursday, in response to LGE’s contested motion, Judge Albright ruled that “[h]aving found that (1) access to proof, cost of attendance of witnesses, and local interests slightly or very slightly in favor of transfer; (2) court congestion weighs against transfer; and (3) all other factors being neutral”, LGE met its burden to show that the California forum is “clearly more convenient”.
Amazon (6:19-cv-00454)has been added as a defendant in the campaign thatParus Holdings, Inc. began in late July with suits against Alphabet (Google), Apple, LG Electronics (LGE), and Samsung. The two asserted patents generally pertain to using voice recognition to browse the Internet on a device, with infringement allegations targeting the defendants over the provision of products that feature virtual assistants, now adding Alexa products to those outfitted with Bixby, Google Assistant, and Siri.
Parus Holdings, Inc. has launched its second litigation campaign, filing suit against Alphabet (Google) (6:19-cv-00433), Apple (6:19-cv-00432), LG Electronics (LGE) (6:19-cv-00437), and Samsung (6:19-cv-00438) over the provision of products that feature virtual assistants, including Bixby (as to Samsung), Google Assistant (as to Google, LGE, and Samsung) and Siri (as to Apple). The two asserted patents are homegrown and generally relate to using voice recognition to browse the Internet on a device. The first litigation campaign of Parus Holdings ran into an Alice buzz saw when District Judge Sue Robinson in the District of Delaware invalidated the patents asserted there, against banks, under Alice, a decision affirmed per curiam by the Federal Circuit in April 2017, roughly one year before the appellate court’s Berkheimer and Aatrix decisions raised questions about the propriety of early patent eligibility determinations.