Plaintiff
14 cases as plaintiff.
Parus Holdings, Inc. is a privately held, venture-backed company founded in 1997 and headquartered in Bannockburn, Illinois (a Chicago suburb). It has no public ticker and no disclosed parent. Public sources do not give confirmed size figures; third-party trackers estimate roughly 8–20 employees and revenue in the low-to-mid single-digit millions, but these are unverified estimates. Chairman and CEO Taj Reneau has led the company through its recent litigation campaigns.
Parus describes itself as a provider of voice-enabled unified communications and voice-assistant solutions, marketing brands including Webley, WebleyMD, ScreenSight, Parus Interactive, and CommuniKate, and claimed over 50,000 business customers in 2021 press materials. Its asserted patents center on voice browsing and voice-activated device control — e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 6,721,705; 7,386,455; 7,881,941; 8,185,402; 7,516,190; and 9,769,314.
Litigation posture. Of the nine tracked appearances, five are as plaintiff and four are as defendant — but the "defendant" matters are Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews and a Federal Circuit appeal in which Parus defends its own patents as patent owner. The practical posture is that of an assertion-focused entity: Parus has serially sued Apple, Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Amazon, and LG over virtual-assistant features (Siri, Google Assistant, Bixby, Cortana, Alexa), and previously sued banks (Bank of America, Capital One, Charles Schwab, Fidelity). Cases clustered heavily in the Western District of Texas (Waco, before Judge Albright), plus the Northern District of California and Delaware. RPX tracks its campaigns, and Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists Parus as a patent asserter.
Notable context. The defendants collectively filed 16 IPR petitions between 2021 and 2022. PTAB and Federal Circuit rulings went against Parus in several matters: claims of the '431 and '084 patents were cancelled (affirmed on appeal in 2023), and the '402 patent was found invalid under § 101 (affirmed in 2025). The most recent tracked case is Parus v. Amazon.com (D. Del., 2023). In October 2025, Parus separately sued its former counsel Mintz Levin for legal malpractice over the handling of its patent cases against Apple, Google, and Amazon.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Parus Holdings, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
Parus appealed the PTAB's final written decision in IPR2022-00805, which challenged U.S. Patent 9,769,314. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 05/31/2024, with each side bearing its own costs.
Parus sued Amazon in the District of Delaware in a matter appearing in the patent-6721705 docket search. The exact asserted patent set and status were not fully confirmed in the narrative.
District of Delaware case filed by Parus against Amazon, asserting the '190 patent and related patent 9,377,992. The complaint analysis notes the asserted patents had expired; current status not confirmed.
Parus sued Samsung asserting the '705, '455, and '402 patents. The case closed on February 22, 2023, consistent with settlement or dismissal.
Parus asserted the '455, '705, and '402 patents against Samsung in the Western District of Texas. Joint claim construction proceeded through late 2022 with coordinated defendants, but the final disposition was not confirmed.
Parus accused Apple's Siri-enabled devices and Applebot of infringing the '705 and '402 patents. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California as No. 3:22-cv-07514 and later dismissed with prejudice, with no invalidity finding entered against the '705 patent.
Parus sued Microsoft in W.D. Tex. asserting the '705 patent, seeking willfulness and treble damages. The case was transferred, with the transferee case apparently docketed as No. 2:22-cv-01700 in the Western District of Washington.
Parus filed an infringement action asserting U.S. Patent 7,076,431 and U.S. Patent 9,451,084. The case was consolidated into 6:19-cv-00432-ADA on Dec. 20, 2019. Some sources list this docket as 6:19-cv-0484-ADA.
Parus filed an infringement action asserting U.S. Patent 7,076,431 and U.S. Patent 9,451,084. This LG dispute was consolidated into 6:19-cv-00432-ADA and later moved out of the Texas consolidation to a refiled N.D. Cal. action.
Parus filed an infringement action asserting U.S. Patent 7,076,431 and U.S. Patent 9,451,084. The case was consolidated into 6:19-cv-00432-ADA on Dec. 20, 2019.
Parus filed an infringement action asserting U.S. Patent 7,076,431 and U.S. Patent 9,451,084. The case was designated the lead case when five W.D. Tex. actions were consolidated on Dec. 20, 2019. The '431 claims were later held unpatentable in IPR2020-00846, affirmed on appeal.
Parus filed an infringement action asserting U.S. Patent 7,076,431 and U.S. Patent 9,451,084. The case was consolidated into 6:19-cv-00432-ADA on Dec. 20, 2019.
Parus's suit against Google was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California and remained active as of mid-2025. The narrative notes a 5:22-cv-07830 docket listing appears to be a duplicate/typographical variant of this case.
Parus sued its former IP litigation counsel Mintz (including attorneys Renaud and McNamara) for professional negligence. The complaint alleges counsel's failure to properly present and cite antedating evidence in the '431 IPR caused invalidation of the '431 patent claims and reduced Parus's settlement/licensing values.