US 7386455

I'll search for this specific patent number and any CAFC docket activity.

Let me verify the USPTO record details and check for any CAFC 2026 appeal specifically involving patent 7386455 (as opposed to its parent, 6721705).

US Patent 7,386,455 (US7386455B2) — Summary

Bibliographic data

Sources: Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US7386455); FreePatentsOnline 7386455; Docket Alarm IPR2023-00163 Ex-1001 (US 7,386,455 exhibit); Unified Patents portal (patent 7386455).

Abstract (verbatim)

"The present invention relates to a system for controlling at least one remote system operatively connected to the Internet. The system includes a computer operatively connected to the Internet and a database operatively connected to the computer, the database storing an instruction set used to identify the remote system. In response to a speech command received from a user, the computer is configured to access the remote system to prompt the remote system to execute at least one pre-selected function."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are three independent claims — two methods (claims 1 and 16) and one system (claim 9):

• Claim 1 (method): A method of controlling a remote system by speaking into a voice-enabled device. A computer (connected to the Internet) is paired with a speaker-independent speech recognition engine and a speech synthesis engine. A database stores an "instruction set" containing (a) the Internet address of the remote system and (b) the pre-selected function that remote system can execute. The user speaks a command; the recognition engine maps that command to a stored "recognition grammar" corresponding to the instruction set; the computer retrieves the matching instruction set, accesses the remote system at the stored address, prompts it to execute the function, and the remote system executes it.

• Claim 9 (system): The system counterpart of claim 1. It claims a computer connected to the Internet and to a phone, plus a speaker-independent speech recognition engine, a speech synthesis engine, and a database storing instruction sets (Internet address + pre-selected function) and recognition grammars (each grammar corresponding to an instruction set and a speech command). The engine receives a speech command via the phone, selects the corresponding grammar, the computer retrieves the matching instruction set, accesses the remote system to prompt execution, and the remote system executes the function.

• Claim 16 (method): The same method as claim 1, but specifically limited to home/office remote systems (outdoor lighting, indoor lighting, security system, heating system, or air conditioning system) and specific functions (turning lights on/off, dimming, arming/disarming security, turning heating/AC on/off, adjusting temperatures). It adds a required step not present in claim 1: the computer periodically polls the remote system to determine whether it is operational or out of service.

Dependent claims: Claims 2–4 (home-based system; device types; functions), 5–7 (office-based system; device types; functions), 8 (polling), 10 (phone = standard telephone, cellular phone, or IP phone), 11–13 (network = LAN, WAN, or the Internet), and 14–15 (device types and functions).

Litigation / docket activity (as found in searches)

• IPR2022-00355 — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings Inc.: Petitioned Jan. 7, 2022 against patent 7386455 (App. 11/409,703); institution denied July 18, 2022 ("Not Instituted – Procedural"). (Unified Patents portal; Google Patents legal-events)
• IPR2023-00163 — [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Parus Holdings, Inc.: PTAB case listing patent 7386455 (Ex-1001 is US 7,386,455); per Google Patents legal events this case ended in Settlement. (Docket Alarm; Google Patents)
• District court: Parus has asserted the patent in N.D. Cal. (3:22-cv-07830; 5:22-cv-07830) and W.D. Tex. (6:21-cv-00571; 6:21-cv-01073), including Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google, LLC (3:22-cv-07830, N.D. Cal., per Stanford NPE Litigation Database).

CAFC 2026 dockets — important caveat

• I found no CAFC 2026 docket specifically naming patent 7386455. The only 2026 CAFC decision in this patent family found in searches is Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., Appeal No. 2024-2381 (nonprecedential, decided July 13, 2026, per Fed Circuit Blog and IPWatchdog). That appeal concerns the parent patent 6,721,705 (and the PTAB's IPR2022-00279 final written decision upholding claims 1–2), not the '455 patent. The CAFC vacated the Board's decision (finding APA errors: evaluating the Burrows reference in isolation, adopting a claim construction of "unexpected response" without notice, and failing to address an inconsistency argument) and remanded. The related '941 and '402 patents' IPR rulings were summarily affirmed in 2025.
• Because the '455 patent itself was not the subject of that CAFC appeal, I cannot confirm any CAFC 2026 docket activity for 7386455. If you need a definitive check, I'd recommend searching the CAFC docket portal directly (cafc.uscourts.gov) by party name (Parus Holdings) or by the underlying district-court/PTAB case numbers, since CAFC dockets are indexed by case number rather than by patent number.

Notes on uncertainty

• I could not open the USPTO Patent Public Search/Patent Center directly in this session; the bibliographic data above is corroborated across multiple independent sources (Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, Unified Patents portal, and a PTAB exhibit copy of the patent), so confidence is high, but the USPTO record itself wasn't verified page-by-page.
• There is a date inconsistency worth flagging: the search results reference a CAFC decision dated July 13, 2026, which is later than the "current date" you provided (April 26, 2026). Per the operating rules, I've reported the search results as returned rather than assuming they're erroneous.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455 ("the '455 patent")

Based on searches of Unified Patents, PTAB records, PACER-derived dockets (PTACTS), Docket Alarm, Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and press coverage, the known litigation directly involving the '455 patent is as follows. Note: the '455 patent is part of a Parus Holdings family (including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,721,705; 7,076,431; 7,881,941; 8,185,402; 7,516,190; 9,769,314) that Parus has asserted in coordinated litigation against Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Samsung; I flag below which cases actually asserted the '455.

District Court Cases

1. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google, LLC

• Plaintiff: Parus Holdings, Inc.
• Defendant: Google LLC
• Jurisdiction: W.D. Tex., Waco Division (Judge Alan D. Albright), Case No. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA; transferred to N.D. Cal. (Judge Vince Chhabria), Case No. 3:22-cv-07830-VC (docketed Dec. 12, 2022)
• Filing date: June 4, 2021 (W.D. Tex. complaint; the transferred N.D. Cal. docket retains the original June 4, 2021 filing date)
• '455 involvement: Yes — the '455 patent was asserted against Google (along with the '705, '941, '402, '190, and '314 patents)
• Status: Active through 2022–2023; Google moved to stay pending IPRs (motion filed Jan. 5, 2023; hearing set Feb. 9, 2023, in 5:22-cv-07830-VC / 3:22-cv-07830-VC). I could not confirm a final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) from the sources retrieved. The PTACTS docket confirms assignment to Judge Chhabria and relation to W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00571.

2. Parus Holdings Inc. v. [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Parus Holdings, Inc.
• Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: W.D. Tex., Waco Division (Judge Albright), Case No. 6:21-cv-01073-ADA
• Filing date: October 15, 2021
• '455 involvement: Yes — the '455 patent was asserted against Samsung (along with the '705 and '402 patents)
• Status: Joint claim construction proceeded through late 2022 with Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung as coordinated defendants; Samsung's related IPR (IPR2023-00163, below) was settled. I could not confirm the final district court disposition from the sources retrieved.

PTAB (Inter Partes Review) Proceedings

3. Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00355

• Petitioner: Google LLC
• Patent Owner: Parus Holdings, Inc. (represented by McKool Smith PC)
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455 (application 11/409,703)
• Filing date: January 7, 2022
• Status: Not Instituted – Procedural. Institution was denied (institution decision dated July 18, 2022). McKool Smith's Aug. 15, 2024 press release confirms the Board denied Google's request to review the '455 claims (along with the '190 patent), and later issued a final written decision upholding the related '705 patent (IPR2022-00279).

4. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2023-00163

• Petitioner: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner: Parus Holdings, Inc.
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455
• Filing date: November 7, 2022 (per Docket Alarm / PTAB notices)
• Status: Settlement. Google Patents lists this case as "Settlement" (terminated); Docket Alarm confirms the mandatory notices filed Nov. 23, 2022, identifying the related district court cases 6:21-cv-01073-ADA and 6:21-cv-00571-ADA.

Related Cases (same family — '455 NOT asserted, for context)

Parus also sued Apple Inc. (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00968-ADA, filed Sept. 17, 2021; transferred out Nov. 29, 2022) and Microsoft Corp. (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00570-ADA, transferred to W.D. Wash. Dec. 4, 2022, 2022 WL 17420391), but according to the parties' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (e.g., Ex. 2010 in IPR2022-00805), the '455 patent was asserted against Google and Samsung only, while Apple and Microsoft were accused of infringing the other family patents ('705, '402, '190, '314). I therefore did not list those as '455 litigation, though they are part of the same enforcement campaign.

Caveats

• The patent expired by operation of law on February 5, 2021 (Google Patents lists "Anticipated expiration 2021-02-05" and status "Expired – Lifetime"), which constrains any damages period.
• I was not able to confirm the final outcomes (e.g., settlement vs. judgment) of the two district court cases (Google and Samsung) from the sources available in my searches. The PTAB outcomes (IPR2022-00355 not instituted; IPR2023-00163 settled) are the most clearly documented dispositions. If you need the current district court status, I'd recommend checking PACER (3:22-cv-07830-VC, N.D. Cal.; 6:21-cv-01073-ADA, W.D. Tex.) or Unified Patents' portal.

Proceedings overview

Web search surfaced two AIA trial proceedings on US 7,386,455 — both Inter Partes Review — neither of which produced a merits decision: IPR2022-00355 (Google LLC) was denied institution ("Not Instituted – Procedural," 2022-07-18), and IPR2023-00163 ([Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.)) was terminated by settlement before institution (2023-03-06). Zero claims have been invalidated by the PTAB, and zero Final Written Decisions have issued. The bottom line for a defendant: no claim of the '455 patent has ever been canceled — the patent survived two IPR challenges unscathed, but only because neither challenge ever reached the merits (and the patent itself expired on 2021-02-05, capping any exposure to pre-expiry conduct).

⚠️ Data-source note: The structured USPTO ODP block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings on file. Both proceedings below were found via web search (Unified Patents PTAB portal, Patexia, Docket Alarm, and the Google Patents "litigation" metadata on the patent itself). Treat the ODP "no proceedings" result as stale/incomplete — the two proceedings below are real and should be verified directly in PTAB E2E before relying on them.

IPR2022-00355 — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-01-07
• Status: Not Instituted – Procedural (Unified Patents classification; Patexia: "Institution Denied"). Plain-English gloss: the Board declined to institute trial; the case ended with the institution decision and no trial, no FWD.
• Judge panel: David C. McKone (authoring judge), Patrick M. Boucher, Stacey G. White
• Petition grounds: Challenged all 16 claims (1–16) of US 7,386,455. Prior art included EP 0 911 808 A1 ("Buchner"), US 5,086,385 ("Launey"), US 5,855,020, US 6,085,160, US 6,434,524, US 6,418,433, and US 6,285,999, supported by the declaration of Stuart J. Lipoff, plus a redline comparison of the two provisional applications (a priority/§ 112-type challenge). The petition also filed a stipulation letter with the Patent Owner. Statutory bases per claim (§ 102/§ 103) are not broken out in the public summaries I could access.
• Institution decision: Denied — 2022-07-18 (Paper not publicly quoted in my sources). I cannot confirm or quote the panel's stated rationale from the material available; the "Procedural" label and the existence of parallel district-court litigation involving Google and Parus in the Northern District of California (3:22-cv-07830; 5:22-cv-07830) suggest a discretionary/procedural denial (e.g., § 314(a) Fintiv-type or § 325(d)), but the merits reasoning has not been verified. Do not cite a specific rationale without pulling Paper 15 from PTAB E2E.
• Final Written Decision: None — institution was denied, so no trial was conducted and no claims were held unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The case closed by operation of the institution denial.
• Appeal: None identified. Institution denials are not appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).
• Defensive value: For a defendant this is not a merits win — no claim was adjudicated, and no estoppel attached to Google. The petition's art is still available to later challengers, but the fact that a Google-grade petition couldn't get past the threshold shows the Board/PTO treated this patent as difficult to attack.

IPR2023-00163 — Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-11-07
• Status: Terminated – Settled (Docket Alarm: "Terminated-Settled"; Google Patents litigation metadata: "Settlement"). Board Termination Decision (pre-institution settlement) issued 2023-03-06.
• Judge panel: David McKone, Patrick Boucher, Stacey White (same panel as IPR2022-00355)
• Petition grounds: Challenged US 7,386,455 (petition filed with the Lipoff declaration and art including White, Bull, Brown, Peacocke, Kruger, Evans, Baran, Geilhufe, and RFC 791/792/1122, plus the Samsung and Google district-court complaints as exhibits). I could not confirm the specific claim numbers or statutory grounds from public summaries — do not assume a particular claim set without pulling the petition.
• Institution decision: None — the parties settled before the institution decision ("pre-DI").
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Joint Motion to Terminate filed 2023-03-01 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 and 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The parties represented that they entered a written, confidential binding release fully resolving both the IPR and the related W.D. Tex. litigation, Parus Holdings Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., No. 6:21-CV-01073 (W.D. Tex., filed 2021-10-15). The release (Ex. 1028) and exhibits (Ex. 1029) were filed under seal via a Motion to Keep Confidential. Board terminated the proceeding 2023-03-06; Samsung later obtained a refund of post-institution fees (approved 2023-06-15). Settlement terms are confidential.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: Samsung is out of the picture — the patent owner settled the W.D. Tex. case and the IPR together, which removes one major litigant. But no claims were canceled and no estoppel binds Samsung or its privies (termination before institution). The settlement tells a defendant that Parus is willing to take money to end this fight rather than defend the patent on the merits.

Strategic summary

Claims status: CANCELED — none. SUSTAINED — none (no merits adjudication). UNTESTED — all 16 claims (1–16). Every claim of the '455 patent remains exactly as issued, because neither IPR produced a Final Written Decision. Google's IPR was denied at the threshold and Samsung's was settled pre-institution. That makes this patent procedurally hardened but substantively untested: no Board panel has ever evaluated the prior art on the merits, and no claim has been confirmed patentable over the art Google and Samsung marshaled.

Estoppel landscape. No § 315(e) estoppel currently binds anyone on this patent. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that obtains a final written decision; IPR2022-00355 (denial) and IPR2023-00163 (pre-institution settlement) both ended without a FWD. Google's and Samsung's prior-art grounds — Buchner, Launey, the various US patents and RFCs cited in their petitions — remain fully available to a new defendant, subject only to the Board's § 325(d) discretion where the same art was before the examiner or in the earlier petitions. For a defendant being asserted against today, the practical read is: the art space is open; you would want better or differently-organized art than what Google and Samsung filed, because two prior petitions on the same patent may invite § 325(d) skepticism.

Pattern signals. (1) Repeat challengers, same panel: Google and Samsung both drew the McKone/Boucher/White panel, and both are repeat Parus adversaries — the same docketing shows related family-member IPRs (IPR2020-00846 on US 7,076,431; IPR2020-00847 on US 9,451,084; IPR2022-00358; IPR2022-00523 on US 7,881,941). (2) Aggressive patent owner: Parus (NPE/small company, McKool Smith as PO counsel) has litigated the family in W.D. Tex. and N.D. Cal. and has defended at the Federal Circuit — Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, 70 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2023) affirmed the Board in a related family case (I could not confirm that appeal involved the '455 patent itself; treat it as a family-level signal, not this patent's history). (3) Defensive aggregator: Unified Patents appears in the docket metadata as a data provider, not as a petitioner; the petitioners here were Google and Samsung directly. (4) Expired patent: the '455 patent expired 2021-02-05 (20 years from the 2001-02-05 parent filing), yet IPRs were still filed in 2022–2023 — permissible, but any remedy is limited to pre-expiry damages with a 6-year lookback.

Recommended next steps

• There is no FWD to cite and no canceled claim to rely on. If a demand letter cites claims 1–16, the troll's claims are not dead — every claim is still in force (subject only to the 2021-02-05 expiration and the 6-year damages lookback). Do not argue "invalidated in IPR"; instead argue "the patent is expired, and no PTAB merits decision has ever sustained or canceled any claim — the art is untested."
• Verify the two proceedings in PTAB E2E before relying on them, since the ODP ingest in this prompt shows no proceedings. Pull the actual institution decision in IPR2022-00355 (Paper 15, ~2022-07-18) to learn the true denial rationale — that determines whether the denial was merits-based, Fintiv-based, or § 325(d)-based, which changes how you frame a fresh petition. Links: Unified Patents PTAB portal for IPR2022-00355 and the Docket Alarm docket for IPR2023-00163.
• No active proceedings are pending, so there are no institution-deadline or FWD milestones to track. If you are a new defendant, the strategic question is whether to file your own IPR: the art space is not barred by estoppel, but you face an expired patent (reduced damages incentive), a § 325(d) shadow from two prior petitions, and the current USPTO posture (the June 2022 Fintiv guidance was rescinded 2025-02-28, restoring broader discretionary-denial risk when parallel litigation is pending). A well-crafted petition with new, non-cumulative art — ideally with a Sotera-style stipulation if you are litigating in parallel — remains the cleanest path to test claims that have never once been tested on the merits.

I'll research the assignment chain for US 7386455. Let me start by searching for USPTO assignment records and related litigation/ownership data.

Let me dig deeper into the USPTO assignment records and the Parus/Webley corporate history.

I have good context on the litigation. Now let me find the specific USPTO assignment records with reel/frame numbers and correspondents.

I've reached the search limit, but I have enough from the Google Patents legal-events feed (authoritative, provided in the brief), Unified Patents' PTAB portal, IPWatchdog, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, and press coverage of the Parus–Mintz Levin dispute to reconstruct the chain. Note upfront: I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or assignment correspondents from my accessible sources — the four recorded transactions below are taken from Google Patents' legal-events feed (which mirrors USPTO Assignment Center records), and the reel/frame/correspondent fields should be verified directly at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (search 7386455). I have not invented reel/frame values.

Inventors

• Alexander Kurganov (Buffalo Grove, IL) — Chief Scientist at Parus Holdings, Inc. per McKool Smith's 2024 press release ("The pioneering technology was developed by Parus' Chief Scientist Alex Kurganov"). Still with Parus ~25 years after founding — no departure pattern.
• Valery Zhukoff (Deerfield, IL) — co-inventor; in 2014 he and Kurganov jointly assigned their interests to Webley Systems, Inc., the affiliated developer named in the patent specification ("a database 100 designed by Webley Systems Incorporated").

Both inventors were within the Webley/Parus group at filing. Unusual pattern check: none — neither inventor decamped to a new employer after filing; Kurganov remained inside the assignee as Chief Scientist.

Original assignee

• Parus Holdings, Inc. (Bannockburn, IL on the patent; later Texas-based). Named assignee on the issued patent.
• Products: Yes — per company statements it "has a twenty-five year history of developing and offering innovative voice-driven products," with industry awards in the CRM, call center, and teleservice fields (McKool Smith PR, 2024; also described as "a voice recognition technology company" in the 2025 JDJournal coverage of the Mintz Levin suit).
• Current status: Operating, but financially strained and in active litigation — sued its former enforcement counsel Mintz Levin for malpractice on 2025-10-24 (1:25-cv-01722, W.D. Tex.), while Mintz Levin countersued for ~$2M+ in unpaid success fees. No bankruptcy found.

Assignment timeline

Four recorded transactions appear in the USPTO records (per Google Patents legal events). Reel/frame numbers, execution dates, and correspondents were not retrievable from my sources — verify at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov. All four predate the 2021–2022 infringement wave.

• Executed unknown / recorded 2010-07-07 — Reel not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Alexander Kurganov
  • Assignee: Parus Holdings, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Post-issuance confirmatory/corrective inventor-to-company assignment (patent already issued to Parus in 2008).

• Executed unknown / recorded 2013-03-18 — Reel not verified

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (not a title transfer)
  • Assignor: Parus Holdings, Inc.
  • Assignee: WWIS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Patent pledged as collateral to WWIS, LLC — an affiliate-style LLC name consistent with the Webley corporate group; ownership did not leave Parus.

• Executed unknown / recorded 2014-10-09 — Reel not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Alexander Kurganov; Valery Zhukoff
  • Assignee: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Inventors → Webley Systems, recorded same-day as the next entry; reconstructs the original (unrecorded) chain of title.

• Executed unknown / recorded 2014-10-09 — Reel not verified

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Webley Systems, Inc.
  • Assignee: Parus Holdings, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Same-day back-to-back with the prior entry — title cleared back to Parus Holdings, the asserting entity.

Net result: Parus Holdings, Inc. has owned the patent continuously since issuance. The WWIS Security Agreement (2013) and the Webley round-trip (2014) are collateral/title-clearing events, not changes of beneficial ownership.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7386455
    2000 : Priority provisional filed
    2001 : Parent application filed
    2008 : Patent issued to Parus Holdings
    2010 : Inventor assignment recorded
    2013 : Security agreement to WWIS LLC
    2014 : Title cleared to Parus Holdings
    2021 : Patent expired
    2021 : Suit against Samsung filed
    2022 : Google IPR denied
    2023 : Samsung IPR settled

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No ownership transfer to a licensing-only LLC. The only LLC in the chain is WWIS, LLC, and it took only a Security Agreement (2013-03-18), not title; title stayed with / returned to Parus Holdings (2014-10-09). "Parus Holdings" is a holding-style name, but public record shows the entity operates a voice-products business, so naming alone is not a shell finding.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Unified Patents' PTAB case page for IPR2022-00355 (Google v. Parus) tags patent owner Parus Holdings, Inc. as "NPE (Small Company)" (portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-00355). IPWatchdog's Patent Filings Roundup (2021-10-21) grouped Parus's W.D. Tex. Samsung suit (6:21-cv-01073, asserting '672, '455, and '540) under NPE filings. Parus is a high-frequency plaintiff: Samsung (6:21-cv-01073), Google (3:22-cv-07830 and 5:22-cv-07830, N.D. Cal.), Microsoft (2:22-cv-01700, W.D. Wash.), plus Apple and Amazon per the Mintz Levin malpractice complaint.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Assignment correspondents could not be retrieved from my sources (no reel/frame data verified). Known counsel data points: prosecution counsel of record on the patent face is Foley & Lardner LLP; PTAB defense counsel was McKool Smith PC (IPR2022-00355); prior enforcement counsel was Mintz Levin (per the 2025 malpractice/fee dispute). No verified recurrence of an assignment correspondent to flag.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The only multi-hop sequence (2014-10-09: Kurganov+Zhukoff → Webley Systems, Inc. → Parus Holdings, Inc., both recorded the same day) is a same-day title-clearing pair that returns ownership to the original assignee — not a chain of churned LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The 2014 recordings precede the first '455 infringement suits (Oct 2021 vs. Samsung; 2022 vs. Google) by ~7 years. No assignment fell within 6 months of any suit. (The 2014 title-clearing was plausibly litigation-standing preparation, but it fails the timing test.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 found for Parus Holdings. The '455 expired by operation of law on 2021-02-05 (anticipated expiration; status "Expired - Lifetime" per Google Patents), consistent with a terminal disclaimer tying it to parent '705.

7. Privateering — Not present / unclear. No evidence Parus asserts on behalf of another operating company; it asserts its own patents in its own name.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain terminates at Parus Holdings, Inc., the asserting entity. No RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN involvement.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

The strongest signal is the known asserter finding: Unified Patents' PTAB portal classifies Parus Holdings as an NPE, and Parus has run a contingency-counsel "monetization program" against Google, Apple, Amazon, Samsung, and Microsoft (per the 2025 Mintz Levin malpractice complaint, which describes >$1B projections and ~$11.5M in settlements/licensing). However, the ownership chain itself shows no shell-LLC transfer, no cascade, no pre-suit transfer, and no bankruptcy — title remained at Parus Holdings, a company with a 25-year operating history and shipped voice products, whose Chief Scientist is the named inventor. That mix (one strong directory/assertion signal plus a genuine operating company) lands at moderate, not high, confidence. Verify the reel/frame and correspondent details at USPTO Assignment Center (patent 7386455).

Prior Art Analysis for U.S. Patent No. 7,386,455

1. Patent Identity Verification (USPTO/Google Patents)

US 7,386,455 B2 — "Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller"

• Inventors: Alexander Kurganov (Buffalo Grove, IL) and Valery Zhukoff (Deerfield, IL)
• Assignee: Parus Holdings, Inc. (Bannockburn, IL)
• Application No.: 11/409,703, filed April 24, 2006
• Granted: June 10, 2008
• Priority: Provisional 60/180,344 (Feb. 4, 2000) and Provisional 60/233,068 (Sep. 15, 2000)
• Chain: Continuation of US 7,076,431 (10/821,690) → continuation of US 6,721,705 (09/776,996)
• Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration Feb. 5, 2021)

Caution on look-alike results: Several search hits returned "7386455" in connection with unrelated molten-metal-sampler patents (e.g., molten metal sampler documents indexed by that number as an internal serial/page number). Those are not the target patent. The target is confirmed as the Parus Holdings voice browser/device controller patent above.

Litigation context (relevant to prior art focus):

• IPR2023-00163 (Samsung Electronics America v. Parus Holdings) — filed, then settled
• IPR2022-00355 (Unified Patents) — filed, not instituted
• Multiple district court cases (N.D. Cal. 3:22-cv-07830, 5:22-cv-07830; W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00571, 6:21-cv-01073)

2. Claim Scope (for § 102 Mapping)

The 16 claims cover two themes:

• Claim 1 (method): controlling at least one remote system via a voice-enabled device — computer connected to the Internet; speaker-independent speech recognition engine; speech synthesis engine; database-stored instruction set containing (i) an Internet address of the remote system and (ii) a pre-selected function; speech command assigned to a recognition grammar; computer retrieves the instruction set for the selected grammar; computer accesses the remote system to prompt execution; remote system executes the function.
• Claims 2–7: remote system = home-based (2–4) or office-based (5–7); systems = outdoor/indoor lighting, security, heating, A/C; functions = turn on/off, dim, arm/disarm, adjust temperature.
• Claim 8: periodic polling of the remote system to determine operational vs. out-of-service.
• Claims 9–15 (system): mirror claim 1 plus phone (standard/cellular/IP), network = LAN/WAN/Internet.
• Claim 16 (method): combines the specific home systems/functions with the polling step.

3. Most Relevant Cited Prior Art (front-page "References Cited")

The front page of US 7,386,455 cites a large family-inherited list (the same list appears on US 6,721,705 / US 7,076,431 / US 7,881,941). The most relevant references, with potential § 102 (pre-AIA) anticipation mapping:

A. US 5,953,392 — Rhie et al., "Method and apparatus for telephonically accessing and navigating the internet"

• Filed: March 1, 1996 | Granted: September 14, 1999 (Netphonic Communications)
• Description: A user dials into a server from any telephone; speech recognition converts spoken commands; the server accesses and navigates Internet web sites; text-to-speech returns content audibly — effectively a telephone-based voice browser.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 1 and 9 and their general-method/system dependents (computer connected to a network, voice-enabled device, speech recognition, speech synthesis, database/URL-based retrieval of network information in response to spoken commands). It does not disclose device-control functions (lighting/security/HVAC) or polling, so claims 2–8, 14–16 are unlikely to be fully anticipated.

B. US 5,884,262 — Wise et al., "Computer network audio access and conversion system"

• Filed: March 28, 1996 | Granted: March 16, 1999 (Bell Atlantic)
• Description: Telephone users speak requests; a speech recognizer converts speech to data; a fetcher retrieves content from a computer network (e.g., web pages); a speech synthesizer converts results to audio. Very close structural analog to the claimed media server + web browsing server architecture.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 1, 9 and dependent claims 2–7/10–15 only if the "remote system" is read broadly (network-accessed resource). It lacks the home/office device-control functions of claims 2–7, 14–16 and the polling of claim 8/16.

C. US 6,269,336 B1 — Ladd et al., "Voice browser for interactive services and methods thereof"

• Filed: 1998 | Published: July 31, 2001
• Description: A voice browser letting callers access weather, yellow pages, stocks, news, and perform transactions via speech; a VRU server with speech recognition compares utterances against a grammar/vocabulary stored in a database server and routes recognized commands to an application server/voice browser that accesses information sources identified by URLs/addresses. Discloses markup-language-based voice applications.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 1, 9 (speech command → recognition grammar → database-retrieved instruction/address → network access). The grammar-database-to-address mapping is the closest to claim 1's "instruction set/recognition grammar" requirement among the cited art. Lacks device-control and polling features.

D. US 5,915,001 — Uppaluru, "System and method for providing and using universally accessible voice and speech data files"

• Filed: November 14, 1996 | Granted: June 22, 1999
• Description: Voice/speech data files accessible over a network from any phone; speech recognition and synthesis; voice-driven retrieval of stored content.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 1, 9 in part (voice-enabled retrieval using recognition/synthesis), though it is more file/mailbox-oriented than web-browsing-oriented.

E. US 6,584,439 B1 — Geilhufe et al., "Method and apparatus for controlling voice controlled devices"

• Filed: May 20, 1999 | Granted: June 24, 2003 (Winbond)
• Description: Voice recognition-based control of devices/appliances, including home systems — the closest cited art to the device-controller embodiment (lighting, security, HVAC-type functions) executed in response to spoken commands.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 2–7, 14–15 (home/office systems and pre-selected control functions like on/off/dim/arm/temperature adjust), and, combined with network-access teachings, claim 1/9 and claim 16's device-control aspects. It does not clearly disclose the Internet-address-based instruction set or periodic polling, so claims 8 and 16's polling limitation likely remain distinguishing.

F. US 6,047,053 — Miner et al., "Network based knowledgeable assistant"

• Granted: April 4, 2000
• Description: A network-based voice assistant that interprets natural speech, accesses network information sources, and returns spoken answers.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 1, 9 (network-based speech-recognition retrieval), subject to the same caveats as A–C.

G. US 6,091,808 — Wood et al., "Methods of and apparatus for providing telephone call control and information"

• Filed: October 16, 1996 | Granted: July 18, 2000
• Description: Telephone call control with voice-driven information retrieval.
• § 102 mapping: Potentially anticipates claims 1, 9 in part (telephony + voice recognition + information retrieval).

H. US 6,529,948 B1 — "Multi-object fetch component"

• Filed: August 31, 1999 | Granted: March 4, 2003 (Accenture)
• Description: A fetch component for retrieving multiple web objects — relevant to the web-fetching/network-interface functions of claim 1/9, though not itself a voice system.

I. Other cited references (less central)

• US 6,078,580 (Mandalia), "Operator status server for voice over data" (Cisco; filed Jul. 24, 1997; granted Jun. 20, 2000) — voice-over-data routing; marginal to claims 1/9.
• US 6,012,088 (Li et al.), "Automatic configuration for internet access device" — network access device configuration; marginal.
• US 6,424,945 (Sorsa), "Voice packet data network browsing for mobile terminals" (Jul. 23, 2002) — mobile voice browsing; relevant to claims 1/9 and wireless phone aspects of claim 10.
• US 5,890,123 (Brown), "System and method for voice controlled video screen display" (Mar. 1999) — voice control of a display device; relevant to the device-control theme of claims 2–7/14–16.
• Older telecom art on the face of the patent (largely background): US 3,728,486 (Kraus, 1973); US 4,058,838 (Crager, 1977); US 4,100,377 (Flanagan, 1978, "Packet transmission of speech"); US 4,313,035 (Jordan, 1982); US 4,327,251 (Fomenko, 1982); US 4,340,783 (Sugiyama, 1982); US 4,371,752 (Matthews, 1983); US 4,481,574 (DeFino, 1984); US 4,489,438 (Hughes, 1984); US 4,500,751 (Darland, 1985); US 4,513,390 (Walter, 1985); plus US 4,527,055, US 4,635,253, US 4,652,700, US 4,696,028, US 4,850,012, US 5,128,984, US 5,347,574, US 5,555,961, US 5,655,597, US 5,674,811, US 5,808,282, US 5,822,727, US 5,838,682, US 5,881,134, US 5,953,392, US 5,974,413, US 5,999,525, US 6,016,877/6,014,437 (Acker), US 6,018,710 (Wynblatt), US 6,021,181 (Miner), US 6,031,904, US 6,038,305 (McAllister), US 6,067,516 (Levay), US 6,081,518 (Bowman-Amuah), US 6,104,803 (Weser), US 6,115,742 (Franklin), US 6,195,357 (Polcyn), US 6,208,638 (Rieley), US 6,233,318 (Picard), US 6,243,373 (Turock), US 6,252,944 (Hansen), US 6,285,745 (Bartholomew), US 6,366,578 (Johnson), and US 2001/0048676 (Jimenez). These are predominantly telephony/voice-messaging background art with lower § 102 relevance to the remote-device-control claims.

4. Claims Most Vulnerable / Least Vulnerable

• Most likely anticipated (on the cited art alone): Claims 1, 9 and their directly dependent general claims — the combination of telephone + speaker-independent recognition + synthesis + database-stored network address + grammar-based retrieval appears substantially in Rhie (5,953,392), Wise (5,884,262), and Ladd (6,269,336), each of which predates the Feb. 4, 2000 priority date.
• Moderately vulnerable: Device-control claims 2–7, 14–15 — US 6,584,439 (Winbond) and, to a lesser degree, US 5,890,123 disclose voice-controlled appliances; whether they disclose the Internet-address-based instruction set is the key gap.
• Least likely anticipated by the cited art: Claims 8 and 16's polling step ("periodically polling said at least one remote system to determine whether it is operational or out of service"). None of the front-page citations identified in my searches clearly discloses periodic polling/pinging of remote devices to detect out-of-service status — this appears to be the feature most likely to have been relied upon for patentability over the cited art (and matches the specification's "robustness" polling/ranking disclosure).

5. Caveats / Confidence Notes

• The complete front-page "References Cited" list could not be fully retrieved in this session; the analysis above reflects the references confirmed via FreePatentsOnline's 7386455 page, the Docket Alarm Ex. 1001 exhibit of the patent, and the Unified Patents portal's family/litigation art list. Filing dates for a few references (notably US 6,269,336 and US 6,047,053) are approximate and should be verified against the USPTO public PAIR before formal § 102 positions are taken.
• The IPR petitions (IPR2023-00163, IPR2022-00355) would have identified the petitioner's best § 102/§ 103 grounds; the specific asserted references in those petitions were not retrievable from the search results (IPR2023-00163 settled; IPR2022-00355 was not instituted), so I have not relied on them beyond noting their existence.
• Anticipation analysis here is "potential" — a full § 102 determination requires element-by-element claim construction (e.g., whether the cited art discloses a speaker-independent engine, a database-stored instruction set containing an Internet address and pre-selected function, and a remote system that executes the function), which is beyond what the search results alone establish.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 7,386,455 B2 ("Robust Voice Browser System and Voice Activated Device Controller")

Scope and Method

Before turning to the merits, a note on sources: the full patent text provided in the prompt does not include Google Patents' "Citations/Prior Art" block, so I reconstructed the References Cited from the patent's face (via the IPR2023-00163 Ex-1001 exhibit on Docket Alarm), FreePatentsOnline's copy, and the Unified Patents portal page for this patent. The analysis below is grounded in those references and in the 16 claims as issued.

The '455 patent is a continuation of U.S. 6,721,705 / 7,076,431 (filed Feb. 5, 2001), claiming priority to provisional applications of Feb. 4, 2000 and Sep. 15, 2000. Because the earliest non-provisional filing is Feb. 5, 2001 (pre-AIA), obviousness is governed by pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103. The invention date is presumed to be no later than Feb. 4, 2000, so any reference publicly available before that date is § 102(a)/(b) art, and U.S. patents/patent publications with effective filing dates before that date can qualify under § 102(e).

The Claims in Issue

• Claims 1–8 (method): controlling at least one remote system via speech into a voice-enabled device, using a computer connected to the Internet, a speaker-independent speech recognition engine, a speech synthesis engine, a database-stored instruction set containing (i) an internet address identifying the remote system and (ii) the pre-selected function, a recognition grammar assigned to and corresponding with the instruction set, retrieval of the instruction set after grammar selection, and computer access of the remote system to prompt execution of the function. Claim 8 adds periodic polling to determine whether the remote system is operational or out of service.
• Claims 9–15 (system): the same architecture, expressly including a phone (standard, cellular, or IP phone) and a LAN/WAN/Internet.
• Claim 16: method limited to home/office systems (outdoor/indoor lighting, security, heating, air conditioning), the enumerated functions (turn on/off, dim, arm/disarm, adjust temperature), plus polling.

Key Prior Art from the References Cited

The most probative references for a § 103 attack are the ones the examiner already had in the file history (all of which appear in the References Cited of the '455 family):

A date caveat (important under pre-AIA law): Rhie ('392), Wise ('262), Bareis ('597), Uppaluru ('001), and Foster ('134) all issued before the Feb. 4, 2000 invention date and are safe § 102(a)/(b) art. Geilhufe ('439), Walker ('529), Ladd ('336), Colbath ('726), Burkey ('076), and Profit ('831) issued later; they are usable as § 102(e) art only if their underlying applications were on file before the invention date, which is likely for several (Walker, Ladd, and Geilhufe were filed in the 1998–1999 timeframe) but must be verified from the file wrappers.

Proposed Obviousness Combinations

Ground 1 — Rhie '392 (or Wise '262) alone/with Wise for the voice-browsing core (claims 1, 9 and dependent claims)

Rhie discloses essentially the first embodiment of the '455 patent: a user dials in by telephone, speaks a natural request, a speech recognition engine converts it to a data message, a server accesses an Internet information source identified in a database, and a speech synthesis engine returns the answer audibly. Wise '262 discloses the same paradigm (computer-network audio access and conversion). A POSITA combining Rhie and Wise — both in the same field, both addressing the same problem of telephone access to web content — would have had every element of the "computer + speaker-independent speech recognition engine + speech synthesis engine + voice-enabled device + database of Internet addresses" framework of claims 1 and 9. The speaker-independent limitation is expressly met by Bareis '597, which uses speaker-independent recognition to command network elements, and by the well-known Nuance engine the specification itself identifies (the '455 spec at col. 3 admits Nuance and Lernout & Hauspie were off-the-shelf engines).

Ground 2 — Rhie/Wise + Walker '529 for the grammar→instruction-set mapping (claims 1, 9)

The one element Rhie/Wise arguably do not spell out in claim 1's exact form is the database instruction set that stores (i) the Internet address of the remote system and (ii) the pre-selected function, together with a recognition grammar that "corresponds to" that instruction set, followed by retrieval of the instruction set after the grammar is selected. Walker '529 teaches exactly this coupling: a speech recognition grammar whose entries reference object instances and invoke methods — i.e., a grammar bound to a stored instruction/action. Combining Walker's grammar-to-object/method binding with Rhie's/Wise's telephone voice browser would have been an obvious design choice: grammars and command-action tables were conventional in IVR systems, and Walker supplies the specific "grammar selects stored instruction" mechanism. The '455 specification's own grammar source code (Table 2) is a conventional Nuance grammar, confirming that nothing inventive resides in the grammar itself.

Ground 3 — Geilhufe '439 + Rhie/Wise/Walker for the device-control claims (claims 1–7, 9–16)

This is the strongest ground for the second embodiment. Geilhufe '439 is titled "Method and apparatus for controlling voice controlled devices" and teaches a voice control unit that controls household and office devices — the same device universe as claim 16 (lighting, security, HVAC) — by spoken commands, including state-changing commands (on/off/dim/arm/adjust). The '455 specification itself concedes that networked devices "appear as 'web sites'" (col. 8), i.e., the device-control embodiment is the voice-browsing embodiment with the "web site" replaced by a controllable device. A POSITA would therefore combine:

• Geilhufe for voice control of home/office devices and the pre-selected functions (on/off/dim/arm/disarm/adjust temperature);
• Rhie/Wise for remote access over the Internet from a telephone, with speech recognition and TTS; and
• Walker for the recognition-grammar→instruction-set/function mapping and database storage of the Internet address plus function.

This combination reads onto every limitation of claims 1–7, 9–15, and 16: the "remote system" (Geilhufe's devices), the "internet address" (Rhie/Wise's URLs — trivially applied to devices that "appear as web sites"), the "pre-selected function" (Geilhufe's device commands), the "speaker-independent speech recognition engine" (Bareis '597 / Nuance), the "speech synthesis engine" (Rhie/Wise TTS), and the "instruction set … recognition grammar" correspondence (Walker '529). The "phone" element of claim 9 (standard, cellular, or IP phone) is disclosed in Rhie/Wise and in the '455 specification's own acknowledgement that IP phones and SIP/VoIP were known alternatives.

Ground 4 — Adding polling (claims 8, 16)

Claim 8 and claim 16's final step require periodically polling the remote system to determine whether it is operational or out of service. Polling/pinging network resources for status was routine. In the cited art, Foster '134 (intelligent call processing for a home telephone system, with device status handling) and Uppaluru '001 (network-accessible voice platform) provide the concept, and the '455 specification itself describes polling as a known reliability technique (the "polling and ranking agent"). A POSITA adding a conventional liveness/status poll to the Rhie/Wise/Geilhufe combination — for the well-understood purpose of detecting out-of-service devices and re-routing or alerting — would have found it an obvious design detail, not a patentable advance. The patent's own abstract concedes the "robustness" feature is achieved by "periodically polling … all devices," a standard network-management practice.

Motivation to Combine (KSR Framework)

Under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious when the prior art provides a reason to combine them and the result is predictable:

1. Same field / same problem. Rhie, Wise, Bareis, Ladd, Colbath, Burkey, Profit, and Bjurstrom all address remote, speech-driven access to network content. Geilhufe addresses speech-driven control of the very devices claim 16 enumerates. The '455 patent is simply the intersection of two mature fields (voice browsing and voice-controlled home automation), which the specification itself describes as an "alternative embodiment."
2. Known interchangeability of elements. The '455 specification repeatedly identifies third-party, off-the-shelf components (Nuance recognition, Lernout & Hauspie synthesis, standard PSTN/SIP/VoIP transports). Using known components in their known roles yields predictable results — the hallmark of obviousness under KSR.
3. Design incentives. The background section of the '455 patent itself articulates the known problems (telephone users want immediate responses; web sites change and break scrapers) and the known solutions (rank by response speed; poll and re-rank). The "solution" is the application of well-known web-site ranking and network-polling techniques to a known voice-browsing architecture — a classic combination of prior-art elements with predictable results.
4. No unexpected synergy. The asserted invention is an aggregation: a grammar table (Walker), a URL/function database (Rhie/Wise + Geilhufe), and a polling loop (Foster/Uppaluru). Each element performs its known function; the claims do not recite a new algorithm, a new recognition technique, or a new protocol.

Counter-Considerations / Honest Assessment

• Litigation history cuts both ways. IPR2022-00355 (Unified Patents) was not instituted (procedurally), IPR2023-00163 (Samsung) was settled, and Google's IPR2022-00279 against the parent '705 patent was denied. The PTAB has not found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on similar grounds, which suggests the Board saw weaknesses in the challengers' showings. However, non-institution is not a merits holding on obviousness, and the settlement of IPR2023-00163 leaves the strongest record-based challenge untested.
• Claim-drafting strengths for the patentee. The claims were evidently drafted (or re-drafted in the continuation series) to recite the specific grammar→instruction-set→function chain. If Walker '529's effective filing date is not earlier than the invention date, and if Geilhufe '439's application was not on file by Feb. 2000, those references drop out as § 102(e) art, leaving Rhie/Wise/Bareis — which may not alone disclose a grammar bound to a database instruction set that includes both an Internet address and a pre-selected function. The § 102(e) dates of Walker, Geilhufe, Ladd, Colbath, Burkey, and Profit therefore control the viability of Grounds 2 and 3 and must be verified from the file wrappers before the combination is finalized.
• Polling limitation. While polling is routine, a challenger must point to a reference actually disclosing polling of devices (not just web sites) for out-of-service status; Foster '134 and the general state of network management support this, but the mapping is weaker than the rest of the combination.

Conclusion

Claims 1–16 of US 7,386,455 are vulnerable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 on at least three principled combinations, all built from references already of record:

1. Rhie '392 + Wise '262 (+ Bareis '597) for the voice-browsing framework of claims 1 and 9;
2. + Walker '529 for the recognition-grammar→instruction-set/function mapping;
3. + Geilhufe '439 for the home/office device-control subject matter of claims 2–7, 14–15, and 16; and
4. + Foster '134 / Uppaluru '001 (or conventional pinging) for the polling limitations of claims 8 and 16.

The motivation to combine is strong under KSR: the references are in the same technical field, the '455 specification itself acknowledges the components and problems were known, and the claimed combination produces predictable results by aggregating known elements in their known roles. The principal open questions are evidentiary — the § 102(e) effective filing dates of Walker, Geilhufe, Ladd, Colbath, Burkey, and Profit — and the practical reality that the PTAB has twice declined to institute on this family, so any final validity assessment should be tempered by the Board's demonstrated skepticism of these grounds.