Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Case Overview: Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Parties and accused technology. Plaintiff Parus Holdings, Inc. is a privately held, Delaware-chartered voice-technology company founded in 1997 and headquartered in Bannockburn, Illinois; it sells voice-driven unified-communications and speech-search products (ParusSpeak IVR, ParusOne UC, ParusOffice Cloud PBX, ParusMobile) and is the assignee of the asserted patents, whose pioneering voice-browser technology was developed by Parus chief scientist Alex Kurganov (Complaint ¶¶ 1–3, Ex. 1026 to IPR2023-00163; McKool Smith/PRNewswire release, Aug. 15, 2024). Parus is a small operating company, but its monetization of this early-voice-search portfolio against the largest tech firms gives its conduct a distinctly NPE-style assertion profile. Defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (the Korean parent that designs and manufactures the accused devices) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (its U.S. subsidiary, headquartered in Ridgefield Park, NJ, with offices in Austin, Richardson, and Plano, TX). The accused instrumentalities are Samsung smartphones, wearables, and SmartThings smart-home devices implementing the Bixby and/or Google Assistant voice-assistant functionality; the complaint expressly alleges Parus's voice-search technology "is in competition with Samsung Products implementing Google Assistant and/or Samsung Bixby" and names the Galaxy Note 9 and SmartThings devices as examples (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9, 24–25; RPX Insight lists 10 accused products).

Patents and procedural posture. Parus asserts three related patents that share a common specification: U.S. Patent No. 6,721,705 ("Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller," claims 1–4), directed to an Internet voice-browsing system in which a database of websites is ranked and a polling mechanism demotes sites that fail to respond, return unexpected responses, or respond slowly; U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455 (claims 1–16), and U.S. Patent No. 8,185,402 (claims 1–15), both descended from the '705 disclosure and covering related voice-enabled search and browsing systems (priority: conception Oct. 13, 1998; reduction to practice Feb. 4, 2000, per the joint invalidity contentions). The case was filed October 15, 2021 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright (6:21-cv-01073-ADA), with venue premised on Samsung America's regular and established Austin-area places of business (12100 Samsung Blvd. and 2800 Wells Branch Pkwy., Austin) and Samsung Korea's status as a foreign corporation amenable to suit in any district (Compl. ¶¶ 6–14). This venue choice matters because Judge Albright's Waco docket was, at the time, the most patentee-friendly and fastest-moving patent forum in the country; notably, this was Parus's second Waco campaign — its 2019 suits against LG, Google, Apple, Samsung, and Amazon (lead case 6:19-cv-00432) were transferred out after the Federal Circuit's 2020 In re Samsung venue mandamus, and the LG transfer became the first post-mandamus inter-district transfer granted (WacoWatch/Lexology, Sept. 2, 2020). Parus refiled in 2021 carefully pleading physical Samsung offices in-district. Claim construction was coordinated across the related Parus cases (joint invalidity contentions filed jointly by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung; Markman set for October 2022 under the Aug. 22, 2022 amended scheduling order, Dkt. 75). The district court case was ultimately closed by settlement on February 22, 2023 (RPX Insight, 496 days in litigation), confirmed by the parties' joint motion to terminate Samsung's IPR2023-00163 on the '455 patent, which states they "entered into a written, confidential binding release fully resolving this matter, including both this proceeding and Patent Owner's assertion of the '455 patent in the related district court litigation" (IPR2023-00163, Paper 6, Mar. 1, 2023; terminated Mar. 6, 2023).

Why the case is notable. This suit is one spoke of a coordinated, multi-defendant assertion campaign over a family of late-1990s voice-browsing patents that Parus aimed at the modern voice-assistant ecosystem: in 2021–22 Parus sued Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung in Waco, and the defendants responded with a coordinated sixteen-petition IPR barrage filed between November 9, 2021 and December 7, 2022 (Campbell declaration, Ex. 2007 in IPR2022-00805). The IPR linkage is intense and ongoing: the Board denied institution of Microsoft's '705 IPR (IPR2022-00137) and Google's '705 petition was instituted only after rehearing, with the Board ultimately upholding claims 1–2 of the '705 patent in August 2024 — a victory McKool Smith touted for Parus — only for the Federal Circuit to vacate and remand on July 13, 2026 for APA violations (improper isolated reading of the prior-art combination, undisclosed claim construction of "unexpected response," and failure to address inconsistency with the related rulings) (Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 24-2381, nonprecedential; Fed Circuit Blog and IPWatchdog, July 13–14, 2026). Meanwhile, the Board held all challenged claims of the related '941 and '402 patents unpatentable in August 2023, affirmed summarily by the Federal Circuit in 2025, and Samsung's '455 IPR ended in settlement. In market terms, the case put a spotlight on whether early voice-search patents cover modern digital assistants (Bixby, Assistant, Siri, Cortana), and its trajectory — transfer fights, coordinated IPRs, and a confidential global settlement after roughly 16 months — typifies the Waco-era dynamic of assertion campaigns against Big Tech. One caution: the case metadata lists status as "active," but docket-based sources (RPX, Docket Alarm, and the IPR termination papers) consistently indicate the district court action was resolved by settlement as of February 2023; the underlying patent family's validity litigation, however, remains active at the PTAB and Federal Circuit.

Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

No. 6:21-cv-01073-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div. — Judge Alan D. Albright)

Below is the chronological development of the case based on available public sources (RPX Insight, DocketAlarm/PTAB filings, Justia, IPWatchdog, Unified Patents portal). Where a fact is not confirmed by a reliable source, I flag it as unverified. The docket itself (PACER) was not directly retrievable in full, so some entries (answer, specific motions) remain unconfirmed.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2021-10-15 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Parus asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,455 ("'455"), 6,721,705 ("'705"), and 8,185,402 ("'402") — a related family sharing a common specification covering voice-browser systems that rank and access web sources in response to spoken commands. Accused products/features included the Galaxy Note 9, SmartThings devices, Bixby, Samsung Pay, and Galaxy Store services. Parus alleged willful infringement and demanded a jury. (RPX Insight; complaint reproduced as Ex. 1026 in IPR2023-00163; IPWatchdog 2021-10-21 filing roundup.)
• 2021-10-19 — Text order granting Parus's motion to substitute a corrected complaint (Dkt. 8 motion; text order entered 10/19/2021). (Justia docket.)
• The case was one of four coordinated Parus cases in Waco against Google (6:21-cv-00571-ADA), Microsoft (6:21-cv-00570-ADA), Apple (6:21-cv-00968-ADA), and Samsung (6:21-cv-01073-ADA). The defendants coordinated invalidity contentions: initial preliminary invalidity contentions dated 2022-05-05, and amended preliminary invalidity contentions dated 2022-10-07 (jointly filed; Samsung's asserted claims: '705 claims 1–4, '455 claims 1–16, '402 claims 1–15). (Ex. 2010/2011 in IPR2022-00805; Campbell declaration Ex. 2007.)
• Samsung's answer, affirmative defenses, and any counterclaims: I could not verify the answer date or whether counterclaims were asserted. The RPX docket shows no counterclaim-driven activity, but this is unconfirmed — PACER review is needed for Dkt. entries in the 10–40 range.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to transfer: No transfer motion or order has surfaced in the sources reviewed. Note that in Parus's earlier 2019 Waco campaign against Samsung et al. (6:19-cv-00438, consolidated lead 6:19-cv-00432), Judge Albright granted LG's § 1404(a) transfer to N.D. Cal. (2020-08-20) and the Federal Circuit later granted mandamus — but that involved the '431/'084 patents, not the three patents here. No equivalent transfer motion is confirmed in 6:21-cv-01073.
• Stay pending IPR: No stay motion is confirmed. Instead, the case proceeded in parallel with Samsung's three IPR petitions (below) and was resolved by settlement before any stay ruling.
• Summary judgment / 12(c) motions: None confirmed. The amended scheduling order (Dkt. 75) contemplated amendment deadlines and a 12(c) motion deadline, but no such motion appears in the sources reviewed.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2022-03-31 — Initial Scheduling Order (per Dkt. 75 reference).
• 2022-08-22 — Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 75) entered, setting a consolidated claim-construction schedule with the other coordinated Parus cases (Google/Apple/Microsoft), including: defendants' consolidated opening brief (≤40 pages), plaintiff's response, defendants' reply, plaintiff's sur-reply, a joint claim-construction statement, optional technical tutorials, and a Markman hearing rescheduled to 2022-10-03. (Dkt. 75, reproduced as Ex. 1024 in IPR2023-00163.)
• Outcome: The parties exchanged invalidity contentions through October 2022, and claim-construction briefing proceeded into late 2022. However, no claim-construction order was confirmed in the public record before the case settled. The case closed 2023-02-22 (RPX), and the IPRs were terminated as settled in March 2023 — so the case was disposed of without a published Markman ruling. (The existing case summary's note that "final disposition was not confirmed" is consistent; the docket should be checked for a Dkt. in the 90–130 range to confirm whether a Markman order issued.)

---

4. Discovery milestones

• 2022-05-05 — Defendants' initial preliminary invalidity contentions served (coordinated across the four cases).
• 2022-10-07 — Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions served, jointly covering Samsung's three patents; the amendments were certified as based on material identified after the initial contentions, per the W.D. Tex. standing order. (Ex. 2011 in IPR2022-00805.)
• The amended scheduling order (Dkt. 75, 2022-08-22) set: final infringement/invalidity contentions, close of fact discovery, expert reports, and close of expert discovery across late 2022 into early 2023 (dates including 11/14/2022, 12/21/2022, 12/22/2022, 1/26/2023). The case settled before trial, so fact/expert discovery was never completed.
• Strategically, the coordinated defense (four defendants, 16 IPR petitions filed 2021-11-09 through 2022-12-07) was the pivotal discovery-phase development — it set up both the joint invalidity contentions and the PTAB pressure that preceded settlement. (Campbell Decl., Ex. 2007 in IPR2022-00805.)

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• No trial occurred. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion is confirmed. The case was dismissed/closed by settlement on 2023-02-22 (RPX lists "Closed: 02/22/2023"; 496 days in litigation).

---

6. Final disposition / present posture

• 2023-02-22 — District court case closed (RPX Insight). The closure follows a confidential settlement; the joint PTAB motion states the parties "entered into a written, confidential binding release fully resolving this matter, including both this proceeding and Patent Owner's assertion of the '455 patent in the related district court litigation." (Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR2023-00163, Paper 6, filed 2023-03-01.) The specific dismissal instrument (stipulation of dismissal with prejudice vs. judgment) is not confirmed from public sources — the docket's final entries (likely a stipulation of dismissal, Dkt. ~130+) should be verified on PACER.
• Present posture: Closed/settled. The underlying patents remain subject to other defendants' IPRs (e.g., Google's IPR2022-00805 on the '314 patent), but Samsung's district-court exposure on the '705/'455/'402 patents ended with the global release.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings (Samsung IPRs) and effect on the litigation

Samsung filed three IPRs against the three asserted patents; all were terminated as settled after the February 2023 global release, before any final written decision (and, for the two November 2022 petitions, before institution decisions):

Key details from the IPR2023-00163 termination record:

• 2023-02-24 — Parties informed the PTAB of settlement by e-mail and requested authorization to file the joint motion.
• 2023-02-27 — Board authorized the filing.
• 2023-03-01 — Joint Motion to Terminate filed under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, with a confidential settlement/release (Ex. 1028) and a motion to keep it confidential. The motion expressly confirms the release resolved both the IPR and the W.D. Tex. action.
• Because the Board had not decided the merits, termination was granted without a final written decision — leaving the '455 (and by extension '705/'402) claims unadjudicated on validity.

Effect on the litigation: The PTAB filings (and the coordinated 16-petition campaign across all four defendants) were the principal pressure lever on Parus. The IPRs were stayed/tracked in parallel with the district case, and the February 2023 settlement collapsed the litigation and the IPRs simultaneously — a classic global peace: confidential release, dismissal of the district case (2023-02-22), and termination of all three Samsung IPRs (March 2023).

---

Bottom line

The case was filed 2021-10-15, run on a consolidated claim-construction track with three sibling cases through late 2022, and settled globally in February 2023 — the district court case closed 2023-02-22 and all three Samsung IPRs were terminated as settled in March 2023, before any merits decision. There was no trial, no Markman ruling confirmed, no validity decision, and no appeal. The settlement terms (Ex. 1028 to IPR2023-00163) remain confidential.

Caveats: The answer/counterclaim date, any transfer/stay motions, and the exact dismissal document are unverified from open sources; PACER (W.D. Tex.) would confirm Dkt. entries in the 10–40 range and the final dismissal order. Also note the related-but-distinct 2019 Parus v. Samsung case (6:19-cv-00438) and the Google/Apple/Microsoft Waco cases involved different patent subsets and are not part of this disposition.

Press coverage of Parus v. Samsung (6:21-cv-01073-ADA)

What the coverage reports. The only direct reporting on the filing itself is Parus's own announcement, distributed by PRNewswire and republished by Business Insider Markets on 2021-10-18, which described the Waco suit as Parus's "second patent infringement lawsuit" against Samsung over its voice-browsing and device-control patents ('705, '402, '455), alleged the infringement was "willful," and said Parus was "seeking all available remedies, including damages against Samsung for all of its infringing sales," plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction. The release quoted Chairman and CEO Taj Reneau — "Parus has a responsibility to its customers and shareholders to protect the investments Parus has made in its innovative technologies... We look forward to presenting our case in court and prevailing in this matter" — a statement also picked up (in heavily auto-translated form) by the aggregator Intellect-Partners. Litigation-analytics outlet RPX Insight framed the case in its 2021-10-22 news item "PTAB Cancels All Challenged Claims in Two Parus Holdings Patents," noting that Parus sued Samsung in 6:21-cv-01073 "for a second time over patents from the same family" days after the PTAB cancelled all challenged claims in two other Parus patents in IPRs filed jointly by Google, LG, and Samsung — a sequencing the outlet implied was significant context for the new campaign. RPX's case page is the source for the quantitative markers: 10 accused products, three patents-in-suit, a willful-infringement cause of action, and closure after 496 days on 2023-02-22.

Why outlets consider it significant. Press treatment has centered less on the Samsung case in isolation than on the coordinated, multi-defendant voice-assistant campaign of which it was part. RPX's earlier news item on the 2019 campaign ("Virtual Assistants at Issue in New Western District of Texas Campaign," 2019-07-26) established the hook — a small company asserting late-1990s voice-browsing patents against Bixby, Google Assistant, and Siri — and the 2021 filings against Samsung, Apple, Google, and Microsoft extended it. The family's ongoing significance is covered by IPWatchdog, which on 2023-06-12 reported the Federal Circuit's precedential affirmance of PTAB invalidations of Parus's '431/'084 patents in IPRs brought by Google, Samsung, and LG ("CAFC Affirms Google's PTAB Invalidation of Voice Recognition Patent Claims"), and again on 2026-07-14 when IPWatchdog covered the Federal Circuit's vacatur of the PTAB ruling upholding claims 1–2 of the '705 patent — the same patent asserted against Samsung — on APA grounds, noting the Board's related 2023 unpatentability findings on the sibling '941/'402 patents. Bloomberg Law's IP Law Daily (via Vitallaw) likewise covered the 2023 affirmance as a voice-browser obviousness decision with Samsung among the IPR petitioners.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the record. No outlet reported any settlement amount, damages figure, or license terms — the February 2023 resolution was confidential, and even the PTAB termination papers (cited in the case summary) disclosed only the existence of a "written, confidential binding release." The one notable divergence between the press framing and the court record is Parus's own publicity: the 2021 release's pledge to "present our case in court and prevailing" (quoted by Business Insider Markets) never came to pass — the case closed by settlement 16 months later with no trial, no Markman ruling, and no merits decision. The most analytical post-mortem treatment comes from PatSnap's litigation blog, which, writing about the related Federal Circuit appeal, offers the industry-take that the PTAB/CAFC outcomes "recalibrat[e] patent risk" in the voice-UI and smart-assistant space and validate IPRs as a defense against voice-tech assertions — commentary that implicitly explains why Samsung's parallel IPRs (all terminated as settled in March 2023) mattered as leverage.

Caveat on coverage volume. Press coverage specifically about this Samsung case is thin: no Reuters, Bloomberg, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, or EFF article addressing it directly surfaced in searching, and what exists is dominated by Parus's own press releases (via PRNewswire/Business Insider), RPX analytics briefs, and low-quality aggregators. The settlement itself received no press coverage at all, and all reported numbers (10 accused products, 496 days in litigation, closure date) trace to RPX's case data rather than to any article; reporting beyond that is confined to the patent family's parallel IPR and Federal Circuit proceedings.

Sources

• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. > Summary
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. - Track Docket
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• IPR2023-00163, No. 1026 Exhibit - Ex 1026 Samsung Complaint (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2022) - Exhibits:
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• Michael N. McNamara | Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo | Ex Parte
• IPR2023-00163, No. 3 Notice Mandatory Notice - Notice Mandatory Notice (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2022) - Exhibits:
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2023-00162, No. 6 Motion Motion to dismiss due to settlement pre DI - Motion to Terminate (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2023) - Exhibits:
• Legal Library - Legal Library

I found strong leads from the Justia docket and PTAB records. Let me now verify the firms and roles of each identified attorney.

Good progress. Now let me verify the local counsel firm (Ward Smith & Hill), Alan Block's firm, and the McKool Smith trial team.

I have reached the tool-call limit, but the searches returned sufficient docket and PTAB record material to answer comprehensively. Here is the counsel-of-record analysis for Parus Holdings, Inc. in Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:21-cv-01073-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.).

---

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Parus Holdings, Inc.

Parus was represented by a two-firm national team plus Texas local counsel: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. (Boston) was the original lead enforcement counsel under a 2019 engagement (later the subject of fee and malpractice litigation), and McKool Smith, P.C. (Austin/Dallas/Los Angeles) came onto the docket in December 2021 and handled the PTAB defense and ultimately the trial-level work. Texas local counsel was Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview).

Lead / trial counsel

1. John B. Campbell, Jr. — Lead Counsel (McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, TX — 303 Colorado St., Suite 2100)

• Filed the Notice of Attorney Appearance for Parus on 12/7/2021 (Dkt. 18) and moved for Alan Block's pro hac vice admission (Dkt. 19).
• Identified as Lead Counsel for Patent Owner Parus in the PTAB mandatory notices across the family IPRs (e.g., IPR2020-00846, updated notices dated 12/7/2021; IPR2022-00805); USPTO Reg. No. 54,665.
• Experience: McKool Smith principal and lead patent litigator; he was the attorney of record identified as "plaintiff's agent" in the Parus v. Google/Samsung voice-browser campaign per PatSnap's litigation profile, and was counsel of record in the related Parus v. Google/Apple/Microsoft Waco cases.

2. Michael J. McNamara — Of counsel / co-lead (Mintz Levin, Boston, MA — One Financial Center)

• Appeared for Parus in the district court on 10/18/2021 (Dkt. 10); served as PTAB back-up counsel (Reg. No. 52,017) and argued the PTAB oral hearings for Parus (e.g., IPR2020-00686/00687 hearing transcript, June 22, 2021).
• Experience: Boston IP litigator who led Mintz's Parus monetization engagement; later named as a defendant in Parus's 2025 legal-malpractice suit (Parus Holdings Inc. v. Mintz Levin et al., No. 1:25-cv-01722, W.D. Tex., filed 10/24/2025) and Mintz's $2M success-fee suit against Parus (D. Mass.).

3. Michael T. Renaud — Of counsel (Mintz Levin, Boston, MA)

• Appeared for Parus in the district court on 10/18/2021 (Dkt. 9).
• Experience: Chair of Mintz's Intellectual Property Division and a member/director of the firm; the 2025 malpractice complaint confirms he appeared as counsel of record for Parus in nine W.D. Tex. patent cases, including this one, and was admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar (Bar No. 629783, admitted 12/9/2019). He, too, is named as a defendant in the 2025 malpractice action.

Additional of counsel / supporting trial and PTAB counsel

4. Sean M. Casey — Of counsel (Mintz Levin, Boston, MA)

• Pro hac vice admission granted 10/22/2021 (Dkt. 12) on motion filed by Andrea L. Fair (Dkt. 11); also appeared at PTAB hearings with McNamara (IPR2020-00846 Kurganov deposition, March 10, 2021; IPR2020-00686 hearing, June 22, 2021) and was the recipient of defendants' IPR stipulation letters in the related cases.
• Experience: Patent litigator; later appeared for Parus in Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google, LLC (N.D. Cal.) per Law360's attorney profile.

5. Alan Peter Block — Of counsel (McKool Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, CA — 300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2900)

• Pro hac vice admission granted 12/13/2021 (Dkt. 20) on motion by John B. Campbell Jr. (Dkt. 19, filed 12/7/2021).
• Experience: McKool Smith principal specializing in patent litigation and post-issuance PTAB proceedings; former partner at Oppenheimer, Wolff & Donnelly; UCLA Law 1989; CA Bar No. 143783.

6. Scott W. Hejny — Of counsel / PTAB back-up counsel (McKool Smith, P.C., Dallas, TX — 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500)

• Listed as back-up PTAB counsel for Parus in the 12/7/2021 mandatory notices (Reg. No. 45,882).
• Experience: Principal who "heads up the firm's PTAB efforts" per McKool Smith's February 2023 release touting the firm's #1 PTAB win rate, which specifically credited victories for Parus in Google v. Parus and Apple v. Parus.

Texas local counsel (Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX)

7. T. John Ward, Jr. — Local counsel

• Notice of Attorney Appearance for Parus filed 10/15/2021 (Dkt. 7).
• Experience: The Hon. T. John Ward Jr. is the former Chief Judge of the E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division) whose patent-friendly docket built the "rocket docket"; his Longview firm is a fixture as W.D. Tex./E.D. Tex. local counsel.

8. Andrea L. Fair — Local counsel

• Notice of Attorney Appearance filed 10/15/2021 (Dkt. 5); she filed the pro hac vice motion for Sean Casey (Dkt. 11).
• Experience: Ward, Smith & Hill litigator; long-time Texas patent local counsel. (Firm affiliation inferred from her association with Ward/Everingham and the Longview office; confirmed affiliation: Ward, Smith & Hill — I was unable to re-verify her current firm page before the search limit.)

9. Charles Everingham, IV — Local counsel

• Notice of Attorney Appearance filed 10/15/2021 (Dkt. 6).
• Experience: Ward, Smith & Hill litigator (Longview); regular local counsel in Judge Albright's Waco patent docket.

10. Claire Abernathy Henry — Local counsel

• Listed under "Represented By" for Parus on the Justia docket for 6:21-cv-01073 (appearance date not captured in the retrieved docket entries, which were last retrieved 12/13/2021).
• Ward, Smith & Hill associate; Texas local counsel. (Appearance confirmed by Justia's docket party listing; exact appearance docket entry and firm affiliation not independently re-verified before the search limit.)

In-house counsel

• None identified. No Parus in-house attorney of record appears on the docket. Parus is a small private company; the PTAB hearing transcript identifies its CEO as Taj Reneau, but no general counsel is listed as appearing in the case.

---

Key source references

• Justia docket for 6:21-cv-01073 (entries 5–20: appearances by Fair, Everingham, Ward, Renaud, McNamara; PHV grants for Casey and Block; Campbell appearance): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2021cv01073/[1150254](/patent/1150254)
• PTAB Patent Owner Updated Mandatory Notices (IPR2020-00846, IPR2020-00686, dated 12/7/2021) naming Campbell (lead), McNamara and Hejny (back-up): DocketAlarm copies.
• McKool Smith profile for Alan P. Block: https://www.mckoolsmith.com/professionals-Alan_Block
• McKool Smith/PRNewswire PTAB win-rate release (Feb. 8, 2023) crediting Parus victories: PRNewswire.
• Parus v. Mintz malpractice complaint (W.D. Tex. 1:25-cv-01722, filed 10/24/2025) and Mintz fee suit coverage (JDJournal, Oct. 2025), confirming Mintz/Renaud/McNamara as Parus's counsel in the nine W.D. Tex. cases.

Caveats

• Firm affiliations for the four local counsel (Fair, Everingham, Ward, Henry) are based on their long-standing association with Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC and the docket pattern; I could not re-open their firm pages before the search limit. All four are confirmed as counsel of record for Parus by the Justia docket.
• The complaint's original signature block (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1026 to IPR2023-00163) likely also lists Mintz/Ward-Smith counsel, but the retrieved excerpt did not include the signature page.
• The docket's later 2022 entries (claim-construction briefing, settlement filings) may show additional McKool Smith attorneys (e.g., David Sochia or associates) added after the 12/13/2021 retrieval date; those were not verified — PACER review of Dkts. 21–140 would confirm.
• The case's own docket confirms no in-house counsel appearance; and per the case's procedural posture, all appearances ended with the 2/22/2023 settlement closure.

Defense Counsel of Record — Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:21-cv-01073-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front. The best-sourced identification of Samsung's counsel in this dispute comes from the three parallel PTAB IPRs Samsung filed on the same three patents, which were prosecuted in lockstep with the Waco case and terminated under a global settlement covering "Patent Owner's assertion of the '455 patent in the related district court litigation" (Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR2023-00163, Paper 6, Mar. 1, 2023). Those records confirm a Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP team for Samsung. I could not, from open sources, pull the formal W.D. Tex. docket entries (answer, notices of appearance, pro hac vice orders) that would list Samsung's district-court counsel of record — the Justia docket snapshot for 6:21-cv-01073-ADA stops at Dec. 13, 2021, and shows only Parus's appearances at that point. So the names below are confirmed as Samsung's PTAB counsel and are the same team that coordinated the district-court defense (joint invalidity contentions, consolidated Markman track); they should be verified on PACER as the district-court counsel of record.

---

Confirmed: Samsung's counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings (same dispute, same patents)

1. James M. Glass — Lead counsel for Samsung (Petitioner)

• Role: Lead counsel in IPR2023-00163 ('455 patent) and IPR2022-01502 ('402 patent); Reg. No. 46,729 (per IPR2023-00163, Papers 6–7, and Notice of Refund, IPR2022-01502, June 15, 2023).
• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — email jimglass@quinnemanuel.com; the firm's PTAB/IPR practice is headquartered out of its Washington, D.C. office, where Glass is a partner (office location per firm practice, not confirmed from the PTAB papers themselves).
• Experience note: A prominent IPR litigator (long track record of PTAB practice, including representing major tech defendants in coordinated validity challenges); here he signed the joint termination motion confirming the confidential global release of both the IPRs and the W.D. Tex. action.

2. Marissa Ducca — Back-up counsel for Samsung

• Role: Back-up counsel in IPR2023-00163 and IPR2022-01502 (per Notice of Refund, June 15, 2023, and the IPR2023-00163 termination record).
• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — marissaducca@quinnemanuel.com.
• Experience note: Quinn Emanuel associate on the Samsung/Parus IPR team; also appears on Quinn Emanuel's PTAB docket for other Samsung matters.

3. John McKee — Back-up counsel for Samsung

• Role: Back-up counsel in IPR2023-00163 (listed in the June 15, 2023 Notice of Refund as johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com).
• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.
• Experience note: Member of the same Quinn Emanuel IPR team; no notable separate public record retrieved in this search.

Note: IPR2023-00162 (Samsung's '705 patent IPR, filed Nov. 6, 2022, terminated-settled pre-institution) was not independently retrievable in my searches, but the same Quinn Emanuel team is the strong inference given the coordinated filing pattern and the shared settlement.

---

Likely district-court counsel of record (inferred, not docket-confirmed)

• The Quinn Emanuel team above (Glass, McKee, Ducca) is the most probable defense counsel of record in 6:21-cv-01073-ADA: the IPR petitions were filed by "Samsung Electronics America, Inc." as petitioner, the termination papers expressly covered the district-court case, and the petition exhibits include the Waco complaint and Judge Albright's amended scheduling order (Exs. 1024, 1026 to IPR2023-00163) — hallmarks of a single coordinated Samsung litigation team. I did not find any competing firm name attached to Samsung in this dispute.
• Local counsel: Not confirmed from open sources. Samsung's W.D. Tex. practice typically includes Texas-based local counsel, but I found no public filing identifying one for this case; PACER review of the answer and appearance entries (likely Dkt. in the 20–60 range, filed after the Dec. 13, 2021 Justia snapshot) is required.
• In-house counsel: No Samsung in-house attorney appears in the public record I retrieved; Samsung's in-house litigation group would have supervised the matter, but no names are confirmed.

---

For cross-reference — opposing and parallel-case counsel (not Samsung's)

• Parus's counsel (well documented): McKool Smith — John B. Campbell (Austin) and Scott W. Hejny (Dallas); Mintz Levin — Michael Renaud, Michael J. McNamara, Sean Casey, Alan P. Block (Boston); Texas local counsel Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC — T. John Ward Jr., Charles Everingham IV, Andrea L. Fair, Claire Abernathy Henry (Longview) (Justia docket entries 5–20; IPR mandatory notices).
• Parallel-case defense firms (different defendants — do not attribute to Samsung): O'Melveny & Myers (Ben Haber) for Google in 6:21-cv-00571-ADA (stipulation letter, Ex. 1029 to IPR2022-01502); Haynes Boone (Andrew S. Ehmke, Brian C. Kwok, Calmann J. Clements) for Apple in IPR2023-00303.

---

Verification steps (if docket access is available)

• Pull W.D. Tex. PACER for 6:21-cv-01073-ADA: Samsung's answer (due late Nov./Dec. 2021, likely extended for service on the Korean parent), its notices of appearance, and pro hac vice motions/orders would list the formal defense counsel of record and any local counsel.
• The consolidated Markman briefs (filed under Dkt. 75's schedule, late 2022) carry signature blocks that would confirm which attorneys signed for Samsung.

Caveat: The one-line bios on experience are based on the litigation record (Glass's lead role across multiple Samsung/Parus IPRs and his signing of the global-termination papers); specific past-case portfolios beyond this dispute were not independently verified in this search.