Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC

Case Overview & Background — Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 3:22-cv-07830-VC (N.D. Cal.)

Parties & accused technology. Parus Holdings, Inc. is a privately held Delaware operating company (founded 1997, Bannockburn, Illinois) that develops and sells voice-driven communications products — ParusSpeak™ IVR, ParusOne™ unified communications, ParusOffice™ cloud PBX, and ParusMobile™ — and describes itself as a pioneer in voice-search/speech technology whose products compete with Google Assistant (First Amended Compl., Parus Holdings v. Google, 6:19-cv-00433-ADA, W.D. Tex.). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database categorizes Parus as a "product company" rather than a pure NPE/PAE, though its portfolio is heavily litigated. Google LLC is the accused infringer — a product/operating company whose Mountain View, California headquarters lies in the N.D. Cal. The accused products are Google's voice-enabled ecosystem built around Google Assistant (including Android/Pixel devices, Google Home, and the underlying voice search/browsing backend): Parus alleges Google's stack combines speech-recognition and speech-synthesis engines, a database of ranked websites built via Googlebot crawling, retrieval of top-ranked content (e.g., featured snippets), and polling/quality mechanisms that demote site rankings for non-response, "unexpected" responses, or slow response times (Complaint analysis, Ex Parte; N.D. Cal. docket, Dkt. 23). In short, Parus alleges Google Assistant's voice-browsing pipeline infringes its early-2000s "voice browser" patents.

Patents & procedural posture. The operative complaint (as amended in the W.D. Tex. and transferred to N.D. Cal.) asserted six patents from the same family: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,721,705 ("Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller"), 7,881,941, 7,386,455, 8,185,402, 7,516,190, and 9,769,314 (Google's Motion to Stay, Dkt. 94-1, Jan. 5, 2023). The case metadata reflects U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 as the patent now at issue — consistent with the IPR attrition described below. The '705 patent (filed Feb. 4, 2000, originally assigned to Webley Systems) claims a voice-operated web-browsing system: a media server with speech recognition/synthesis engines lets a user retrieve ranked website content by voice, while a polling mechanism periodically re-ranks sites based on non-response, unexpected responses, or comparative response times (Fed. Cir. slip op., Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381, July 13, 2026). Procedurally, Parus filed suit June 4, 2021 in W.D. Tex., Waco Division (6:21-cv-00571-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright); Google won a § 1404(a) transfer to N.D. Cal. (granted late 2022; N.D. Cal. docket opened Dec. 12, 2022), where the case was assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria (3:22-cv-07830-VC, San Francisco Division) and related to Parus's parallel suit against Apple, No. 22-cv-07514-VC (referral order, Dkt. 88, Dec. 16, 2022). On Feb. 7, 2023, Judge Chhabria granted Google's motion to stay the case pending final resolution — including appeals — of three instituted IPRs (Order, Dkt. 101). Venue matters here because Google's principal place of business and virtually all relevant Google Assistant engineers are in Northern California, not Texas — the transfer is a textbook example of Google escaping Judge Albright's Waco patent docket for its home forum (W.D. Tex. transfer opinion; Rope declaration).

Why the case is notable. This is a high-stakes, IPR-linked enforcement campaign over foundational voice-assistant technology. Google petitioned for IPRs of the '705 and related patents; the PTAB held all challenged claims of the related '941 and '402 patents unpatentable (Aug. 2023), summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2025, while denying institution on the '455 and '190 patents (McKool Smith press release, Aug. 15, 2024; Fed Circuit Blog, July 13, 2026). The '705 IPR (IPR2022-00279) was the outlier: the Board's Aug. 1, 2024 final written decision upheld claims 1–2 — a notable PTAB win for Parus — but on July 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding the Board (i) analyzed the Burrows reference in isolation rather than in the Kovatch/Wise combinations Google actually argued, (ii) sua sponte construed the claim term "unexpected response" without giving Google APA notice and an opportunity to respond, and (iii) ignored the inconsistency between its '705 decision and its earlier '941/'402 unpatentability rulings on overlapping prior art (Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381 (Fed. Cir. 2026); IPWatchdog, July 14, 2026). Because the stay extends through appeals, the district case remains stayed as of today (Aug. 2026) pending the PTAB remand — though I could not verify any post-remand docket activity, and the exact set of patents that would proceed if the stay lifts is not fully clear from public sources (the '941/'402 claims are gone; '705 remains contested). The case is significant both doctrinally (APA notice for Board claim construction; the duty to reconcile inconsistent IPR outcomes; obviousness combinations read "together, not in isolation") and commercially (validity of a 2000-vintage voice-browser patent asserted against Google Assistant, Apple's Siri ecosystem, and other platform voice assistants in a broader Parus campaign that has also reached Samsung, LG, and Microsoft).

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Case numbers: W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA (filed) → N.D. Cal. 3:22-cv-07830-VC (transferred); Fed. Cir. No. 24-2381 (IPR appeal); PTAB IPR2022-00279 ('705 patent) and related IPRs.

A threshold note on the docket-number discrepancy flagged in the existing summary: Google's stay motion and some filings bear a "5:22-cv-07830-VC" caption, but the official N.D. Cal. docket is 3:22-cv-07830-VC (Judge Vince Chhabria). The 5: variant appears to be a scrivener's/ECF artifact rather than a separate case.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (W.D. Tex.)

• 2021-06-04 — Parus filed its original complaint in the W.D. Tex. Waco Division (6:21-cv-00571-ADA), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,721,705, 7,881,941, and 7,386,455 (Dkt. 1; jury demand, Dkt. 4). The asserted patent family ultimately expanded to six patents: '705, '941, '455, 8,185,402, 7,516,190, and 9,769,314 (per Google's stay motion, Dkt. 94).
• 2021-08-11 — First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 23); Google answered on 2021-08-25 (Dkt. 24).
• 2021-10-04 — Parus moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26); Google answered the SAC on 2021-11-15 with a jury demand (Dkt. 30). The available docket summaries do not reflect counterclaims by Google, though I could not fully verify the operative answer's contents.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to transfer venue: On 2022-05-20 Google filed an opposed motion to transfer to the N.D. Cal. under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. 45, sealed; redacted public version Dkt. 48, 2022-05-31). Parus noticed venue-related discovery on 2022-05-23 (Dkt. 47), and the parties extended deadlines for venue discovery and transfer briefing (Dkts. 56, 58, 60–61). Judge Albright granted transfer, and the case was opened in the N.D. Cal. on 2022-12-12 as 3:22-cv-07830-VC. On 2022-12-16 the case was referred to Judge Chhabria for relation to Parus v. Apple, 3:22-cv-07514-VC (Dkt. 88). No motion to dismiss appears in the record I could verify.
• Motion to stay pending IPR (the pivotal event): On 2023-01-05 Google moved to stay the entire action pending resolution of all instituted and pending IPRs on the six asserted patents (Dkt. 94; hearing set for 2023-02-09). On 2023-02-07 Judge Chhabria granted the stay (Dkt. 101), ordering the case stayed "pending final resolution (including any appeals) of the three instituted inter partes reviews." The case has remained stayed since.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• In W.D. Tex., the scheduling order (Dkt. 38, 2022-02-11) set a Markman hearing for 2022-09-01 before Judge Albright, with the case referred to Magistrate Judge Derek Gilliland (Dkt. 49). Opening briefs were filed (Google Dkt. 50, 2022-06-23; Parus Dkt. 51, 2022-07-14; Google reply Dkt. 57, 2022-08-04), and the parties filed a joint claim-construction statement covering terms such as "web site," "rank number," and "interactive voice response application."
• No Markman order was ever entered: the case was transferred (and then stayed) before the scheduled hearing. I found no evidence of a claim-construction ruling in N.D. Cal.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Venue discovery (May–Aug 2022): Limited, targeted discovery on Google's transfer motion preceded the § 1404(a) ruling.
• IPR stipulations (2022): Google sent stipulation letters (e.g., 2022-02-01 re IPR2022-00523/'402 patent; 2022-04-04 re IPR2022-00805/'314 patent) promising not to pursue in district court the obviousness grounds based on the primary references (Kovatch and/or Wise) if the PTAB instituted — the standard "Sotera-style" stipulations that materially narrowed the district-court invalidity issues. Broader merits discovery was truncated by the transfer and the 2023 stay.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (and their effect on the litigation)

The IPRs have effectively driven this case:

• '705 patent — IPR2022-00279 (Google v. Parus): Petition filed December 2021 (claims 1–4; claims 3–4 later dropped). Institution denied July 2022; Google's rehearing request was granted in September 2023. Final Written Decision on 2024-08-01 (2024 WL 3625783) upheld claims 1–2 as not shown unpatentable. McKool Smith (Parus's counsel) publicly touted this as a PTAB victory on 2024-08-15.
• '941 and '402 patents — related IPRs: Instituted in 2022; Final Written Decisions in August 2023 held all challenged claims unpatentable on the Wise-based obviousness grounds. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed those decisions in 2025 (per the Fed. Cir. blog summary of 24-2381).
• '455 and '190 patents: PTAB denied institution of Google's petitions (per McKool Smith's 2024 release).
• '314 patent — IPR2022-00805: Google petitioned and stipulated re the Wise ground; I could not verify the institution/outcome from my sources.

Federal Circuit appeal — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381 (decided 2026-07-13, nonprecedential)

Google appealed the '705 FWD. The Federal Circuit vacated the Board's decision and remanded, finding three APA problems: (1) the Board analyzed the Burrows reference in isolation rather than considering the Kovatch-Burrows and Wise-Burrows combinations as argued; (2) the Board construed "unexpected response" (limitation 1I) without giving Google notice/opportunity to respond; and (3) the Board failed to address Google's squarely raised inconsistency argument — that upholding the '705 claims conflicted with the Board's own 2023 rulings invalidating the related '941/'402 claims over overlapping art. (IPWatchdog, 2026-07-14; Justia/Vitallaw opinion text.)

6. Trial, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• None occurred. No Markman, no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, and no fee motions. The case was stayed at the pleading/discovery stage on 2023-02-07.

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

No final judgment or settlement has been entered. As of today (2026-08-25), the case remains active but stayed under the 2023-02-07 order pending final resolution (including appeals) of the instituted IPRs. The current posture is heavily IPR-driven:

• The '941 and '402 patents are dead for this litigation (unpatentable, summarily affirmed 2025) — those asserted claims are gone.
• The '705 patent survived the Board but the 2026-07-13 Federal Circuit vacatur/remand reopened its IPR; the Board must reconsider the obviousness combinations, the "unexpected response" construction, and the inconsistency with the '941/'402 decisions.
• The practical effect is that the district-court case (and the related Parus v. Apple case, 3:22-cv-07514-VC, to which it was related) will likely remain stayed until the '705 IPR remand is resolved and any further appeals (potentially back to the Federal Circuit) conclude — consistent with the stay order's "including any appeals" language.

---

Sourcing Notes / Caveats

• Well-sourced: W.D. Tex. docket entries (Dkts. 1–61) via Justia/Patexia/Unified Patents; N.D. Cal. Dkts. 88, 94, 101 (govinfo); PTAB decisions and stipulation letters (DocketAlarm); Federal Circuit opinion 24-2381 (Justia, Fed Circuit Blog, IPWatchdog); McKool Smith press release.
• Less certain: (a) the identity of the "three instituted IPRs" referenced in the stay order (as of Feb 2023 the '705 IPR was not yet instituted — institution came Sept 2023 after rehearing — so the three were likely the '941, '402, and '314 IPRs, but I could not confirm the '314 institution/outcome); (b) whether Google asserted any counterclaims; (c) any post-Feb-2023 N.D. Cal. docket activity (e.g., status conferences) beyond the stay — I found none, but PACER would be the definitive source.

Press coverage of Parus v. Google (3:22-cv-07830)

Mainstream coverage of the district-court case itself is thin — no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, The Verge, or Ars Technica article specifically about Parus Holdings v. Google surfaced in my searches, and there are no press reports of damages figures, a verdict, or a settlement in the N.D. Cal. action. The most substantive reporting centers on the parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit track that has controlled the case: Judge Vince Chhabria stayed the district case in February 2023 pending final resolution of the three instituted IPRs, including appeals (per the stay order on Justia). IPWatchdog reported on 2026-07-14 that the Federal Circuit, in Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (No. 24-2381), vacated the PTAB's August 2024 final written decision that had upheld claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 — the patent at issue here — and remanded, finding three APA errors: the Board analyzed the Burrows prior-art reference in isolation instead of in combination with Kovatch/Wise; it construed the claim term "unexpected response" without giving Google notice or an opportunity to respond; and it failed to address Google's argument that upholding the '705 claims conflicted with the Board's 2023 invalidation of the related '941 and '402 patents. The Fed Circuit Blog flagged the July 13, 2026 decision as nonprecedential and noted the Federal Circuit had summarily affirmed the Board's invalidation of the two related Parus patents in 2025.

Before that reversal, the only press attention to the '705 patent's fate was favorable to Parus: McKool Smith issued a PRNewswire release on 2024-08-15 touting the PTAB's August 1, 2024 final written decision as a "significant victory" for Parus, rejecting Google's obviousness challenge to the '705 claims. Earlier Law360 PTAB coverage of the broader Parus–Google voice-patent fight — headlined "Google, Samsung Get PTAB To Ax Voice System Patent Claims" (2021-10-20), "PTAB Wary Of Google Foe's Prior Art Argument In IP Dispute" (2021-07-27), and "Google, Samsung Get PTAB To Eye Voice-Command Patents" (2020-10-22) — concerned the related '431/'084 IPRs, and the Federal Circuit affirmed those invalidations in June 2023, summarized by Alston & Bird, IP Update, and Paterson Sheridan, which reported the court's holdings that a patent owner cannot meet its antedating burden by "throwing mountains of evidence" at the Board and that § 311(b) does not cabin the Board's written-description analysis.

Where the coverage goes beyond the court record, the differences are mostly in framing and color. PatSnap, in analyst content updated 2025-12-09 on the related '402-patent appeal (23-2297), treats the Parus–Google fight as a precedent for § 101/Alice eligibility of voice-enabled and AI technology, arguing it "provides a clear precedent for patent litigation in the voice-enabled technology and AI sector" and advising defendants to file early eligibility motions — an industry take not present in the court decisions themselves. JD Journal reported on 2025-10-18 that Mintz Levin sued Parus for more than $2 million in unpaid "success fees" tied to Parus's patent enforcement recoveries against Google, Samsung, Apple, and LG, and quoted criticism that Parus's "aggressive enforcement strategy" amounts to "patent monetization" rather than product innovation — a characterization Parus disputes. Separately, Parus's own malpractice complaint against prior counsel (hosted on Thomson Reuters' legal-document platform, fingfx.thomsonreuters.com, not a Reuters news article) alleges that the '431 patent's invalidation "cost Parus hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from its Monetization Program." No press outlet has reported a dollar value for the '705 damages claim or any settlement in 3:22-cv-07830, and the case remains stayed while the '705 IPR proceeds on remand from the Federal Circuit.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• GOOGLE LLC, Appellant v. PARUS HOLDINGS, INC., Appellee
• GOOGLE LLC v. PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. , No. 24-2381 (Fed. Cir. 2026) - GOOGLE LLC v. PARUS HOLDINGS, INC. , No. 24-2381 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• Parus v. Google: Federal Circuit Affirms Voice Patent Invalidity - Your Agentic AI Partner
• CAFC Vacates PTAB Ruling for Patent Owner in Google IPR - CAFC Vacates PTAB Ruling for Patent Owner in Google IPR
• Cases
• https://www
• Parus Holdings v. Google & Samsung — Voice Browser Patent Appeal | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Patents Archives - IP UPDATE
• Federal Circuit Archives | Page 24 of 97 | IP UPDATE
• 6721705 | NPE Litigation Database
• Service order mechanism for telephone subscriber - US20080189113A1 (en) * | 2000-02-04 | 2008-08-07 | Parus Holdings, Inc

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Parus Holdings, Inc. — Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 3:22-cv-07830-VC (N.D. Cal.)

Important context on the docket: This action originated as Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright), and was transferred to the Northern District of California on 12/12/2022, where it was docketed as 3:22-cv-07830-VC (Judge Vince Chhabria) and related to Parus v. Apple, 3:22-cv-07514-VC (the "5:22-cv-07830" designation was the San Jose-division transfer docket before relation/reassignment). The case has been stayed since February 7, 2023, pending final resolution of Google's IPRs (N.D. Cal. Doc. 101, 2/7/2023). Counsel of record carried over from the W.D. Tex. action; I found no separately docketed N.D. Cal. pro hac vice entries for plaintiff's team in the public sources retrieved (the case was stayed within weeks of transfer, and PACER entries after that point are sparse/limited).

Lead / trial counsel

John B. Campbell, Jr. — Lead counsel

• McKool Smith, P.C., 303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100, Austin, TX 78701
• Appeared for Parus in the district court (W.D. Tex. Doc. 31, 12/7/2021), was designated lead counsel in the parallel PTAB IPRs, and argued Parus's appeal in Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Has driven Parus's successful defense of the '705 patent (and related '455/'190 patents) against Google's IPR challenges.

Scott W. Hejny — Lead/co-counsel

• McKool Smith, P.C., 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500, Dallas, TX 75201
• Notice of appearance for Parus (W.D. Tex. Doc. 34, 12/20/2021); back-up counsel in the PTAB IPRs on the '705 family. Veteran McKool Smith IP trial lawyer.

Michael J. McNamara — Co-counsel (appeared early; PTAB back-up)

• Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, Boston, MA
• First wave of appearances for Parus (W.D. Tex. Doc. 11, 6/16/2021); back-up counsel in the IPRs (e.g., IPR2020-00846 mandatory notices). Experienced patent litigator at Mintz.

Michael Renaud — Co-counsel (appeared early)

• Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo, Boston, MA
• Notice of appearance for Parus (W.D. Tex. Doc. 12, 6/16/2021). Longtime IP litigator (previously led Mintz's IP practice); well known in patent litigation.

Local counsel

Andrea L. Fair — Local counsel (Texas, pre-transfer)

• Waco, TX (firm affiliation not verified in the sources retrieved — she is the Waco local counsel who filed the original complaint and summons on 6/4/2021 and moved the W.D. Tex. PHV admission for Sean Casey, Docs. 1, 6, 10)
• Routinely serves as W.D. Tex./Waco local counsel in Judge Albright patent cases.

N.D. Cal. local counsel: None identified in public docket sources. If any California-local appearance was filed after transfer, it is not reflected in the publicly indexed docket entries I retrieved (the stay order at Doc. 101 was entered before much post-transfer activity).

Other counsel of record / of counsel (district court docket)

Alan P. Block — McKool Smith, P.C. (Austin/Dallas)

• Pro hac vice admission granted in the W.D. Tex. action (Doc. 33, 12/13/2021; motion Doc. 32).

Casey L. Shomaker — McKool Smith, P.C. (Dallas, TX)

• Notice of appearance for Parus (W.D. Tex. Doc. 42, 4/11/2022); filed declarations supporting Parus's claim-construction briefing (Doc. 51).

Kathryn E. Yukevich — McKool Smith, P.C.

• PHV motion filed on her behalf by Campbell (W.D. Tex. Doc. 64, 9/1/2022).

Sean M. Casey — Mintz Levin (Boston)

• PHV admission granted in W.D. Tex. (Doc. 10 motion; granted 6/23/2021). Firm affiliation is consistent with the Mintz group but not independently confirmed in the retrieved sources.

Joel Lance Thollander — McKool Smith, P.C. (Austin, TX)

• Appellate counsel for Parus on the Federal Circuit appeal of the related IPR decisions (70 F.4th 1365).

PTAB-only counsel (not confirmed as district-court counsel of record)

• Ari Rafilson, McKool Smith, P.C. (Dallas) — patent-owner counsel in Google's IPR depositions (IPR2022-00523 transcript).
• Matthew J. Dowd and Robert J. Scheffel, Dowd Scheffel PLLC (Washington, D.C.) — added as PTAB back-up counsel in IPR2022-00805 (Sept. 2023); no evidence they appeared in the district court action.

In-house counsel

None identified in the public docket; Parus Holdings is a small patent-holder/NPE and appears to be represented entirely by outside counsel.

Notable status notes

• The district court case is stayed (N.D. Cal. Doc. 101, 2/7/2023) pending the IPRs, including Google's IPR2022-00279 on the '705 patent, where the Board's August 1, 2024 final written decision upheld the claims (McKool Smith press release, 8/15/2024). Google appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-2381), which issued an opinion on July 13, 2026 (Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., No. 24-2381) agreeing with Google on an APA/claim-construction notice issue.
• Because the stay and appeal posture have limited post-transfer district-court filings, the definitive "current" N.D. Cal. counsel roster should be confirmed against PACER; the names above are the plaintiff's counsel of record as established on the operative docket.

Caveat: Docket-entry numbers for the W.D. Tex. action are cited from the transferred CM/ECF record reproduced in public sources (Justia, govinfo, PTACTS, Patexia). I did not find a complete, current PACER view of the N.D. Cal. case, so if any additional counsel (e.g., a California local attorney) entered an appearance after transfer, they would not appear in this list.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Google LLC — Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC (3:22-cv-07830-VC / orig. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA)

Google has been represented throughout by O'Melveny & Myers LLP (district-court team in San Francisco; IPR team in D.C./NY), with Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP serving as Texas local counsel during the W.D. Tex. phase. The confirmed attorneys of record (from the W.D. Tex. pro hac vice docket, Dkts. 15–21, and the N.D. Cal. stay motion, Dkt. 94) are below. No Google in-house counsel and no other outside firm appear on the docket I could verify.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP — District-court team (San Francisco)

Signature block on Google's stay motion (N.D. Cal. Dkt. 94, filed 2023-01-05) — "Attorneys for Defendant GOOGLE LLC," all at Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111:

O'Melveny & Myers LLP — IPR/related litigation team (driving the stay posture)

Texas local counsel (W.D. Tex. phase)

Sourcing notes and caveats

• Primary sources: W.D. Tex. docket entries 15–22 (pro hac vice motions/orders, Justia/UniCourt/Unified Patents); N.D. Cal. Dkt. 94 signature block and Dkt. 101 stay order (govinfo, Justia); PTAB records for IPR2022-00279 and IPR2022-00805 (DocketAlarm); O'Melveny attorney bio; Law360 item "Google Wins PTAB Invalidation On Voice-Command Patent" (Nov. 8, 2023).
• Role labels: The docket does not formally designate "lead trial counsel." I inferred lead status from signature ordering and ECF-filer roles (Snyder first; Simmons signed Dkt. 94). No separate N.D. Cal. local counsel was needed because the O'Melveny team is San Francisco-based (California bar numbers on file).
• Ben Haber is clearly on Google's litigation team (his stipulation letters reference this exact W.D. Tex. case number), but I could not confirm from public dockets whether he filed a formal appearance in the district-court case (his appearances are documented in the PTAB proceedings).
• No post-stay appearances found: because the case has been stayed since 2023-02-07 (Dkt. 101), I found no 2024–2026 district-court appearances or substitutions; PACER would be the definitive check for any later changes.
• Consistent with the existing summary, Google's filings bear the scrivener's caption "5:22-cv-07830-VC" (e.g., Dkt. 94) even though the official docket is 3:22-cv-07830-VC.