Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

Case Overview: Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties and their roles

Google LLC (appellant below, petitioner at the PTAB) is the operating company behind Google Assistant, Google Search, and the broader Android/voice ecosystem; Parus accused Google's voice-activated products and services—chiefly the Google Assistant and its underlying speech recognition/synthesis, web-crawling (Googlebot), ranking, and "featured snippet" retrieval pipeline—of infringement. Parus Holdings, Inc. (appellee, patent owner) is a Texas-based (Austin) voice-technology company founded in 1997 that historically sold voice-driven enterprise products and describes itself as a pioneer in voice browsing; it has in recent years pivoted to an aggressive patent-monetization program, asserting its voice-browser family against Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Samsung, LG, Fidelity, Capital One, and Charles Schwab, among others (see Stanford NPE Litigation Database, which classifies Parus as a "Product company" for this patent, npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/6721705). The asserted technology was developed by Parus Chief Scientist Alex Kurganov; the '705 patent originally issued to Webley Systems, Inc. and is part of a family that includes U.S. Patents 7,881,941, 8,185,402, 7,386,455, 7,516,190, 7,076,431, and 9,451,084.

Patent, accused technology, and procedural posture

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705, "Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller" (issued Apr. 13, 2004; priority Feb. 4, 2000). In one line: it claims a voice-operated internet browsing system in which a speech-recognition/synthesis media server, a database of ranked websites, and a web-browsing server retrieve content from the highest-ranked site and read it aloud, with a polling mechanism that demotes a site's rank if it fails to respond, returns an "unexpected response," or responds slower than another polled site (claims 1H–1J; see Fed. Cir. op. at 3–4). The procedural history is an IPR saga, not a district-court trial. Google petitioned for IPR of all claims (1–4) of the '705 patent in IPR2022-00279 (petition filed Dec. 6, 2021); the Board initially denied institution (July 2022), granted rehearing (Sept. 18, 2023), and then issued a Final Written Decision on Aug. 1, 2024 (APJ Patrick M. Boucher, with APJs McKone and White) upholding claims 1 and 2 as not shown obvious over the Kovatch-Burrows or Wise-Burrows combinations. Google appealed to the Federal Circuit (docketed Sept. 30, 2024; oral argument June 5, 2026; nonprecedential decision issued July 13, 2026, vacating and remanding). The parallel district case, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google, LLC (3:22-cv-07830, N.D. Cal.), began in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright, was transferred to the Northern District of California, and was stayed by Judge Vince Chhabria on Feb. 7, 2023 pending resolution of the three instituted IPRs (govinfo order, Dkt. 101). Venue matters here because the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over PTAB final written decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A), and the stayed district case will be affected by the IPR outcome.

Why the case is notable

This appeal is notable for three reasons. First, it is an IPR-linkage case: Google ran near-identical obviousness challenges (Kovatch-Burrows, Wise-Burrows) against the sibling '941 and '402 patents, the Board found all challenged claims unpatentable in August 2023, and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed those decisions in 2025—yet the Board upheld the '705 claims on overlapping art and reasoning, an intra-family inconsistency Google pressed and the Federal Circuit faulted the Board for failing to address. Second, the Federal Circuit's opinion (citing Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal Networks, 122 F.4th 1378, and Google v. EcoFactor, 92 F.4th 1049, and Axonics v. Medtronic, 75 F.4th 1374) adds to the APA-administration line of cases: the court held (a) the Board erred by analyzing the Burrows reference in isolation instead of reading references together as the petitioner's combination required; (b) the Board effectively construed "unexpected response" using intrinsic and extrinsic evidence but denied Google the APA-required notice and opportunity to respond to that new construction; and (c) the Board's silence on the squarely raised inconsistency with the '941/'402 IPR decisions precluded adequate appellate review. Third, the market context: this is a classic "2000-era voice-browser patent asserted against modern voice assistants" monetization pattern, and the same portfolio has generated satellite litigation, including Parus's October 2025 legal-malpractice suit against Mintz Levin (W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-01722) over allegedly botched PTAB filings that Parus claims cost it hundreds of millions in enforcement value. One caveat: the panel's composition is not fully verified in my sources—the oral-argument audio references Judges Taranto and Johnson—and the exact IPR numbers for the '941/'402 proceedings are not confirmed in the materials I retrieved; the remaining facts above are drawn from the Federal Circuit opinion (Justia, July 13, 2026), IPWatchdog (July 14, 2026), the Fed Circuit Blog, McKool Smith's press release, and the N.D. Cal. docket via govinfo.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (Patent-Infringement Litigation & Parallel IPRs)

Scope note

The case metadata for No. 24-2381 (Fed. Cir.) is the appeal of the PTAB's IPR final written decision, not a district-court merits appeal. The underlying patent-infringement litigation is Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex. → N.D. Cal.), and the substantive outcome was driven by the parallel IPR2022-00279 proceeding on U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 (the "'705 patent"), which is the patent at issue in this matter. I cover both tracks below in chronological order.

---

A. District-court infringement action (W.D. Tex. → N.D. Cal.)

1. Complaint filed — 2021-06-04
Parus Holdings sued Google in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (Case No. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright), alleging infringement of the '705 patent plus U.S. Patent Nos. 7,881,941 ('941) and 7,386,455 ('455). Parus demanded a jury; the asserted products were Google voice/assistant products (e.g., Google Assistant, Pixel 3). (Complaint PDF, Ex. 1015 in Apple's IPR2022-00948; NDCA transfer docket at ptacts.uspto.gov; Patexia docket listing.) The asserted patent list later expanded to include the '402 ('8,185,402), '190 ('7,516,190), and '314 ('9,769,314) patents against Google.

2. Answer / counterclaims — due ~2021-06-28
Google was served 2021-06-07, answer due 2021-06-28. Google also demanded a jury ("Jury Demand: Both" on the NDCA transfer docket). I could not independently verify the docket text of Google's answer or any counterclaims from the sources retrieved; the underlying W.D. Tex. docket entries beyond mid-June 2021 were not in the available record. (NDCA transfer docket; Docket No. 9, 2021-06-08.)

3. Parallel IPR blitz — November 2021 – December 2022
The four defendants (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) filed sixteen IPR petitions between 2021-11-09 and 2022-12-07 across the related Parus cases, including Google's '705 petition (December 2021), Google's '941/'402 petitions (January–February 2022), and Apple's IPR2022-00948. (Declaration of John Campbell, Ex. 2007 in IPR2022-00805, ¶¶ 3, 5; Fed. Cir. 24-2381 slip op. § B.)

4. Venue transfer motion — filed 2022-05-20; granted late 2022
Google filed an opposed § 1404(a) motion to transfer to the Northern District of California (W.D. Tex. Dkt. 45, with declarations of Andrew Rope and Bill Trac); Parus took limited discovery on the motion (2022-05-23). Judge Albright granted transfer, and the case was re-filed in N.D. Cal. as 3:22-cv-07830-VC (Judge Vince Chhabria) on 2022-12-12 (related case 3:22-cv-07514-VC). The transfer opinion analyzed witness convenience and Google's Austin presence under the "100-mile rule" and Federal Circuit venue-transfer precedent. (Govinfo W.D. Tex. transfer opinion; NDCA civil docket report; Patexia docket.)

5. Stay pending IPR — granted 2023-02-07
Google moved to stay (N.D. Cal. Dkt. 94, filed 2023-01-05) pending all instituted and pending IPRs on the six asserted patents. Judge Chhabria granted the stay (Dkt. 101, 2023-02-07): "The case is stayed pending final resolution (including any appeals) of the three instituted inter partes review proceedings," with a joint status report due within 30 days of their conclusion. (Govinfo/Justia Dkt. 101.)

Effect: Because of the stay, the district case never reached Markman claim construction, summary judgment, discovery on the merits, trial, verdict, or post-trial motions. Those stages were all deferred; the litigation's substantive fate was decided through the IPR/PTAB track described below.

---

B. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings on the '705 patent (IPR2022-00279)

1. Petition — December 2021
Google petitioned for IPR of all claims 1–4 of the '705 patent, asserting obviousness over Kovatch (WO 01/50453) + Burrows (U.S. 5,765,149) and Wise (U.S. 5,884,262) + Burrows. Google later dropped claims 3–4. (Fed. Cir. 24-2381 slip op. § B; DocketAlarm Paper 11.)

2. Institution denied — July 2022
The Board denied institution (Paper 7). Google sought panel rehearing (Paper 8) and Precedential Opinion Panel review (Paper 9); the POP declined, returning the matter to the panel (Paper 10). (DocketAlarm Paper 11, dated 2023-05-15.)

3. Related-patent IPRs instituted and decided (2022–2023)
The Board instituted Google's IPRs on the '941 and '402 patents and, in August 2023, issued final written decisions holding all challenged claims of both patents unpatentable for obviousness on the Wise-based grounds (without reaching Kovatch). (Fed. Cir. 24-2381 slip op. § B, citing J.A. 2308–45, 2346–83.) The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed those two decisions in 2025 (Fed Circuit Blog, "Opinions & Orders – July 13, 2026"). I could not confirm the exact IPR numbers for the '941/'402 proceedings from the retrieved sources; they are the "two non-'705 IPRs of relevance" referenced in the Federal Circuit's opinion.

4. Rehearing granted; IPR instituted — 2023-09-18
On Google's rehearing request — supplemented after the Federal Circuit affirmed the related-patent FWDs — the Board reversed its denial and instituted the '705 IPR, applying collateral estoppel based on the related-patent IPR finding that Burrows disclosed the relevant limitation. Parus filed a Patent Owner's Request for Rehearing by the Director (2023-10-02) arguing the collateral-estoppel elements were misapplied (issue not "actually litigated"; issues not identical across different claims/art). (Akin Gump client alert; DocketAlarm Parus Director-rehearing request.) The Director's disposition was not in my retrieved sources.

5. Final Written Decision — 2024-08-01
The Board (McKone, Boucher, White panel) issued its FWD, 2024 WL 3625783, upholding claims 1 and 2 as not proven unpatentable: it found Google failed to show limitations [1H]–[1J] (rank decreases for no response, unexpected response, or slower comparative response time) and, under Wise-Burrows, limitation [1C] (rank number assigned pre-search) would have been obvious. It also effectively construed "unexpected response" as limited to responses "incomplete or not in the format the server expects." (Fed. Cir. slip op.; IPWatchdog, 2026-07-14.)

6. Earlier related Federal Circuit precedent — 2023-06-12
In a separate, precedential appeal (Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 2022-1269, -1270 (Fed. Cir.)), the court affirmed PTAB obviousness FWDs in two other Parus-patent IPRs involving the same Kovatch reference, holding the Board permissibly disregarded incorporation-by-reference arguments and could decide § 112 written-description/priority issues (Kurganov-262) to determine prior-art status. (Alston & Bird case summary.) This context matters because the Board's collateral-estoppel institution in the '705 IPR drew on related-patent Kovatch/Burrows findings.

---

C. Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-2381) — the case in the metadata

1. Appeal filed — late 2024
Google appealed the 2024-08-01 FWD. (Case docket 24-2381; notice-of-appeal date not separately retrieved.)

2. Oral argument — ~2026-06-05
Heard before a panel (audio available on CourtListener, No. 105315). Parus argued the Board's fact findings (including credibility findings disfavoring Google's expert on limitation [1J]) were supported by substantial evidence; Google argued the Board failed to address conflicting related-IPR findings and improperly construed "unexpected response."

3. Decision — vacated and remanded, 2026-07-13 (nonprecedential)
The Federal Circuit vacated the Board's FWD and remanded, finding three APA errors (applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard):

• Improper isolation of prior art: The Board asked whether Burrows alone disclosed the [1H]–[1J] ranking adjustments and a pre-search ranking for [1C], instead of whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Kovatch or Wise using Burrows's teachings. Citing Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, 122 F.4th 1378, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2024): references "must be read together, not in isolation."
• Claim construction without APA notice: The Board's reliance on the patent's "preferred embodiment" and extrinsic evidence to define "unexpected response" was a claim construction that restricted claim scope, but Google was never given notice or an opportunity to address it — violating APA notice requirements (citing Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2024)).
• Unaddressed inconsistency argument: The Board silently ignored Google's squarely raised argument that its decision conflicted with the '941/'402 FWDs (same overlapping art and reasoning), depriving the court of meaningful appellate review.

The court found the errors not harmless as to both obviousness grounds and remanded for the Board to reanalyze the combinations as presented in Google's petition. (Justia opinion; Fed Circuit Blog, 2026-07-13; IPWatchdog, 2026-07-14.)

4. Present posture
The appeal is terminated (2026-07-13), with the case active on remand at the PTAB for reconsideration of the Kovatch-Burrows and Wise-Burrows grounds. The N.D. Cal. district case remains stayed under the 2023-02-07 stay order pending final resolution of the IPRs including appeals; the '941/'402 IPRs are final (affirmed 2025), while the '705 IPR is not yet final, so the stay continues at least as to the '705 claims. No trial, verdict, JMOL, fee award, or settlement has occurred.

---

D. Cautions on sourcing

• Google's answer/counterclaims in the W.D. Tex. action: due 2021-06-28, but I could not verify the docket text or counterclaim content — treat as unverified.
• Exact IPR numbers for the '941 and '402 IPRs and the dates of the Federal Circuit's 2025 summary affirmances: not confirmed from retrieved sources (the Federal Circuit's opinion cites the FWDs at J.A. 2308–45, 2346–83 and Fed Circuit Blog confirms summary affirmance in 2025).
• A separate § 101 appeal involving the '402 patent (reportedly Fed. Cir. No. 23-2297, affirmed 2025-03-06, per Patsnap's AI summary) is not corroborated by primary sources in my search results and may be garbled — I would not rely on it without PACER verification.
• Director-rehearing outcome on Parus's 2023-10-02 request in IPR2022-00279: not retrieved.

Bottom line: The district-court infringement case was filed in June 2021, transferred to N.D. Cal. in December 2022, and stayed in February 2023 before any claim construction or trial. The substantive fight moved to the PTAB, where Google won invalidation of the related '941/'402 patents (affirmed 2025) but lost on the '705 patent at the Board in August 2024; on 2026-07-13 the Federal Circuit vacated the '705 FWD for APA errors (isolated prior-art analysis, undisclosed claim construction, and failure to address the related-IPR inconsistency) and remanded — leaving the '705 claims alive and the litigation pending on remand and under stay.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

I found several key sources. Let me search for additional mainstream and trade coverage.

I have strong sources already. Let me search for additional coverage of the PTAB decision, the malpractice suit, and any mainstream coverage.

Press coverage of Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (No. 24-2381, Fed. Cir.)

Coverage is concentrated in the specialized IP press, with no mainstream tech or wire coverage of the July 2026 decision. The most detailed report is IPWatchdog (July 14, 2026, by Rose Esfandiari), which explains that the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's Final Written Decision upholding claims 1–2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 and identified three APA errors: the Board read the Burrows reference "in isolation" rather than as part of the Kovatch-Burrows and Wise-Burrows combinations; it effectively construed the claim term "unexpected response" — restricting it to responses "incomplete or not in the format the server expects" — without giving Google the notice and opportunity to respond that the APA requires; and it silently ignored Google's argument that the outcome conflicted with the Board's own unpatentability findings in the related '941 and '402 IPRs. The Fed Circuit Blog posted a same-day summary on July 13, 2026, emphasizing that the Board had found the related-paratus patents unpatentable and the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed in 2025, while the '705 IPR went the other way — the inconsistency at the heart of the appeal. IP Law Daily via VitalLaw (July 14, 2026) carried a brief trade-newswire summary of the same vacatur-and-remand. Earlier, McKool Smith's press release (Aug. 15, 2024, via TMCnet/PRNewswire) had celebrated the Board's August 2024 FWD as a "significant victory," touting that the '705 claims survived and that the Board had previously denied Google review of Parus's '455 and '190 patents — a framing the July 2026 vacatur has since undercut. Law360 has tracked the broader Parus–Google IPR fight since 2021, with articles on its case page — "Google, Samsung Get PTAB To Ax Voice System Patent Claims" (Oct. 20, 2021) and "PTAB Wary Of Google Foe's Prior Art Argument In IP Dispute" (July 27, 2021) — though those concern the earlier related-patent IPRs, not the '705 appeal (Law360 case page).

What the coverage says is at stake, and the reported numbers, mostly come from the satellite fee/malpractice fight rather than this IPR appeal itself. Because 24-2381 is an APA review of an IPR FWD, no damages figure was sought or awarded in this docket, and no outlet reports any settlement; the stay of the underlying N.D. Cal. infringement case remains in effect. The financial figures in the press attach to Parus's separate dispute with its former counsel Mintz Levin: JDJournal reported (Oct. 17, 2025) that Mintz sued Parus for over $2 million in allegedly unpaid "success fees" tied to an $11.5 million recovery — Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly pegged the claim at $2.1 million — while Legal Era and JDJournal reported (Oct. 27, 2025) that Parus's malpractice suit alleges Mintz's "shoddy" PTAB filings cost it "potentially hundreds of millions of dollars" and that Mintz's damages model had projected more than $1 billion in recoveries; that suit (W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-01722, now transferred to Massachusetts per ScaleJuris and tracked on Law.com Radar) concerns the 2023 invalidation of the '431/'084 patents, a different line of the portfolio from the '705 appeal. IPWatchdog treats the decision's significance as doctrinal: it extends the APA-notice line of Federal Circuit cases (citing EcoFactor and Axonics) requiring the Board to give petitioners notice of new claim constructions and to explain intra-agency inconsistencies.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the court record: (1) Victory-framing vs. vacatur — McKool Smith's August 2024 release presented the FWD as a decisive win for the "pioneering technology developed by Parus' Chief Scientist Alex Kurganov," whereas the post-vacatur IP press frames the '705 patent as still vulnerable on remand. (2) The malpractice narrative — JDJournal reports critics accusing Parus of "patent monetization rather than product innovation" and quotes Parus's complaint calling Mintz's work "shoddy, substandard," while Legal Era notes Mintz's riposte that the invalidity stemmed from the patents' own weaknesses — assertions that go well beyond any court finding. (3) A garbled AI summary to flag — Patsnap's article describes companion appeal No. 23-2297 as a § 101/Alice affirmance of the '402 patent, but the Federal Circuit's own opinion in this very case (footnote 2) characterizes Nos. 23-2296/-2297 as summary affirmances of the PTAB's obviousness FWDs in the '941/'402 IPRs — the Patsnap account should not be relied on. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, or The Verge coverage of this specific appeal; coverage is limited to the outlets above. Finally, a correction to the prior case summary: the Justia opinion confirms the panel was Dyk and Taranto, Circuit Judges, with District Judge K. Michael Moore (S.D. Fla.) sitting by designation, Taranto writing, and that Charles E. Fowler Jr. (McKool Smith) argued for Parus and Benjamin Haber (O'Melveny) argued for Google — refining the earlier unverified references to "Judge Johnson" and to Campbell as the arguing attorney (Justia opinion).

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• GOOGLE LLC, Appellant v. PARUS HOLDINGS, INC., Appellee
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2022-00279, No. 11 Order on Motion - ORDER Conduct of the Proceeding 37 CFR sec 425 a (P.T.A.... - IPR2022-00279, No
• Petitioner cites no controlling authority for its position
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. > Documents
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. > Documents
• Search court records on patent:(6721705)
• IPR2022-00279, No. 20 Other other - Parties Stipulation to Modify Trial Due Dates 1, 2 and 3 (P.... - IPR2022-00279, No
• Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. > Summary
• CAFC Vacates PTAB Ruling for Patent Owner in Google IPR - CAFC Vacates PTAB Ruling for Patent Owner in Google IPR
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: PTAB failed to properly consider Google’s obviousness arguments in IPR, Federal Circuit holds

Preliminary clarification on procedural posture

Before listing names, an important correction: this is not a district court patent infringement case. Case No. 24-2381 is Google LLC's appeal to the Federal Circuit from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00279 (U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705), in which Google was the IPR petitioner and Parus Holdings, Inc. was the patent owner. In the appellate caption, Google is the Appellant (the functional "plaintiff-side" party seeking relief) and Parus is the Appellee. The appeal was docketed September 30, 2024, argued June 5, 2026, and decided July 13, 2026 (nonprecedential; vacated and remanded on APA/claim-construction grounds). The Federal Circuit docket page (Justia) confirms the parties' roles: Appellant Google LLC / Appellee Parus Holdings, Inc.

Counsel of record for Google LLC

The publicly available docket for 24-2381 (Justia's Federal Circuit docket listing) identifies the case as "Represented By: John Bruce Campbell, Benjamin Haber" — Benjamin Haber is Google's attorney of record (Campbell, of McKool Smith, is Parus's counsel). The IPR record for IPR2022-00279 (PTAB Paper 11, May 15, 2023) and the related Federal Circuit appeal Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 23-2296, -2297 (Fed. Cir., aff'd Mar. 6, 2025), confirm the broader Google team:

• Benjamin Haber — Lead/arguing counsel (of record)

  • Firm/office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA (400 S. Hope St.)
  • Note: Google's lead counsel in the underlying IPRs and the related Parus appeals; argued for Google (appellee) in Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 23-2296/-2297, and is the Google attorney listed on the 24-2381 docket. Extensive PTAB/appellate IP practice for Google.

• Caitlin P. Hogan — Back-up/appellate counsel

  • Firm/office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY (Times Square Tower)
  • Note: Back-up counsel of record for Google in IPR2022-00279 (PTAB Paper 11) and on the Google appellate team in the related Nos. 23-2296/-2297 appeal; handles PTAB and patent appellate litigation.

• William Fink — Appellate counsel

  • Firm/office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC
  • Note: Also represented Google in the related Parus Holdings v. Google Federal Circuit appeal (Nos. 23-2296/-2297, 2025), the companion matter to this IPR appeal; focuses on Federal Circuit/IPR appellate work.

• Elisabeth H. Hunt — Back-up counsel (PTAB stage)

  • Firm/office: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, MA (600 Atlantic Ave.)
  • Note: Back-up counsel of record for Google in IPR2022-00279 (PTAB Paper 11); IPR/PTAB specialist who supported the petition that produced the challenged Final Written Decision.

Caveats

• I could not access PACER directly to pull the individual entries of appearance filed in 24-2381 (the Justia docket snapshot is from Sept. 30, 2024 and lists Haber for Google). The identities of all attorneys who formally entered appearances in 24-2381 beyond Haber are therefore inferred from the IPR record and the companion appeal's published opinion, which is a reasonable but not PACER-verified inference.
• The oral argument audio for 24-2381 (posted by the CAFC June 5, 2026) contains a speaker referenced as "Mr. Abel," but I found no reliable source identifying that individual's firm or role, so I have not listed them; do not treat that name as confirmed.
• No in-house Google attorney or local counsel appears in the sourced IPR/appellate records; none is expected in a Federal Circuit IPR appeal.
• If you intended the underlying district court infringement litigation (Parus v. Google) rather than this appeal, the record here is from the IPR/appeal track only, and district court counsel would need to be pulled separately.

Important framing note

The case in the metadata — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381 (Fed. Cir.) — is not a district-court patent infringement action. It is Google's appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00279 (U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705), in which Google was the petitioner/appellant and Parus Holdings, Inc. was the patent owner/appellee. The underlying '705 patent has also been asserted by Parus in district court litigation, but that is separate from this docket. So the "defendant" side for purposes of this appeal is appellee Parus Holdings, Inc.

Counsel of record for Parus Holdings, Inc. (appellee) in No. 24-2381

Based on available public sources, the following counsel appeared for Parus. I want to flag at the outset that the complete Federal Circuit docket (entries of appearance, brief signature blocks) for 24-2381 is not fully retrievable from the open sources I could access in this session, so the list below reflects verified appearances in the closely related appeals and the underlying IPR, plus one direct docket confirmation for 24-2381.

1. John Bruce Campbell — McKool Smith, P.C.

• Role: Counsel of record for Parus in this appeal (appellate lead on the related appeals; the Justia docket for 24-2381 lists him as counsel for appellee). Whether he argued this specific appeal is not confirmed from the sources retrieved.
• Firm/office: McKool Smith, P.C. (firm has offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Marshall, New York, and Washington, D.C.; Campbell's specific office location for this matter was not verified in my search).
• Experience: Represented Parus as appellant's counsel in the companion appeals Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 23-2296, -2297 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (entry of appearance filed Aug. 31, 2023), which the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed (2025 WL 720088). He also filed conflict notices and scheduling submissions in those appeals.
• Source: Justia docket for 24-2381 ("Represented By: John Bruce Campbell"); Patexia docket entries for No. 23-2296 (Doc. 4, Entry of Appearance for John B. Campbell).

2. Scott W. Hejny — McKool Smith, P.C.

• Role: Principal; appeared for Parus on the companion appeal 23-2296 and was on the McKool Smith team that won the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00279 that is the subject of this appeal.
• Firm/office: McKool Smith, P.C. (Dallas-based trial firm; principal).
• Experience: Named by McKool Smith in its Aug. 15, 2024 press release as part of the team securing the PTAB victory in Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00279 (finding claims of the '705 patent patentable); firm describes itself as a leading IP trial firm with multiple nine- and eight-figure verdicts.
• Source: McKool Smith press release ("The McKool Smith team includes firm Principals Scott Hejny, James Quigley, and Charles Fowler, and Patent Agent Mike Wustrau"); Patexia docket for 23-2296 (Doc. 4: "Entry of Appearance for John B. Campbell; Joel L. Thollander; Scott W. Hejny as counsel for Appellant Parus Holdings, Inc.").

3. Joel L. Thollander — McKool Smith, P.C.

• Role: Appellate counsel for Parus on the companion appeal 23-2296; likely also on the appellate team here (not independently confirmed on the 24-2381 docket).
• Firm/office: McKool Smith, P.C.
• Experience: Same entry of appearance as Campbell and Hejny in 23-2296; active in Parus's Federal Circuit IPR litigation against Google.
• Source: Patexia docket for 23-2296 (Doc. 4).

4. Trial-team attorneys from the IPR below (context, not necessarily of record on appeal)

• James Quigley and Charles Fowler (McKool Smith principals) and Mike Wustrau (patent agent) were the McKool Smith team that defended the '705 patent before the PTAB in IPR2022-00279 (per the firm's Aug. 15, 2024 press release). Whether any of them filed appearances in the Federal Circuit appeal is not confirmed from the sources I retrieved.

What I could not verify

• The complete 24-2381 Federal Circuit docket (entry-of-appearance filings, appellee brief signature page, and the attorney who argued for Parus at the June 5, 2026 oral argument). The CAFC posted oral-argument audio for this appeal, and the CourtListener audio record exists, but the transcript snippets I retrieved do not name Parus's arguing counsel.
• Specific office locations for each McKool Smith attorney on this matter (the firm's Parus engagement is not pinned to a specific office in the public releases I found).
• In-house counsel for Parus: I found no public docket indication that Parus's in-house counsel entered an appearance in this appeal; the publicly identified appearances are all McKool Smith outside counsel.

Bottom line

The attorney of record for appellee Parus Holdings, Inc. that is directly confirmed for No. 24-2381 is John Bruce Campbell (McKool Smith, P.C.), per the Justia docket. The broader McKool Smith team that handled Parus's side of this IPR and its related Federal Circuit appeals consists of Scott W. Hejny, Joel L. Thollander, James Quigley, Charles Fowler, and patent agent Mike Wustrau — with Campbell, Hejny, and Thollander confirmed by docket entry in the companion appeal No. 23-2296. For a definitive, complete list of counsel of record in 24-2381 (including the arguing attorney), you should pull the entry-of-appearance and brief docket entries from the Federal Circuit's PACER docket (case 24-2381), which I could not fully access in this session.