US 9769314

Summary — U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314 (US9769314B2)

I searched for the literal patent number 9769314 (and its printed form 9,769,314) only. Results confirm the patent and its associated PTAB/CAFC proceedings; no similar-number results are included.

Bibliographic data

Prosecution lineage: Continuation of US 12/787,801 (issued as 9,377,992), which is a continuation of US 11/771,773 (published 2007/0255806), which is a continuation of US 09/777,406 (issued as 7,516,190). ⚠️ Uncertainty note: the patent's own cross-reference section recites "Ser. No. 11/711,773," while the Google Patents family data lists "US11/771,773." I did not auto-correct; the authoritative family data shows 11/771,773.

Abstract

"The present invention relates to a system for retrieving information from a network such as the Internet. A user creates a user-defined record in a database that identifies an information source, such as a web site, containing information of interest to the user. This record identifies the location of the information source and also contains a recognition grammar based upon a speech command assigned by the user. Upon receiving the speech command from the user that is described within the recognition grammar, a network interface system accesses the information source and retrieves the information requested by the user."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims (26 total; independents: 1, 6, 11, 19)

• Claim 1 (method): A method for retrieving periodically-updated information from a network-accessible source via speech commands from any of multiple users, each on their own device. A speech-recognition engine on a media server (a) receives the spoken commands and selects recognition grammar assigned to a desired search; (b) the media server looks up a stored information-source-retrieval instruction matching that grammar; (c) a web-browsing server accesses the source using a processor that requests an identified webpage and uses a content extractor driven by a content-descriptor file (which describes and locates the desired portion of the page) to separate only the user's portion of interest; (d) the web-browsing server retrieves only that portion; (e) a speech-synthesis engine converts it to an audio message; and (f) the audio is transmitted to the requesting user's device.

• Claim 6 (system): The system counterpart of claim 1 — a speech-recognition engine (with processor) coupled to a media server; the media server selecting the stored retrieval instruction; a web-browsing server that requests the webpage and uses the content extractor/content-descriptor file to retrieve only the portion of interest; and a speech-synthesis engine that converts the retrieved information to audio and transmits it to the user's device.

• Claim 11 (method with graphical display): A method substantially like claim 1, but directed to retrieving desired information from one of a plurality of information sources, with the added step (g) of providing a graphical display on the user's device showing the retrieved desired information.

• Claim 19 (system with graphical display interface): The system counterpart of claim 11 — same speech-recognition/media-server/web-browsing-server/speech-synthesis architecture, plus a graphical display interface coupled to the media server adapted to display the retrieved desired information to certain other of the plurality of users.

Litigation / docket status (including CAFC 2026 check)

• PTAB IPR2022-00805 (Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.): Petitioned against claims 1–26 of the '314 patent; instituted; Final Written Decision issued Nov. 6, 2023 (Judges Boucher, McKone, Mayberry). The Board's analysis (e.g., obviousness over Wise + Dasan, and Wise + Woods, with claim 26 additionally over Uppaluru) found the challenged claims unpatentable; the proceedings also involved an unusual show-cause order regarding the patent owner's broken provisional-priority-chain argument.
• CAFC appeal 24-1329 (Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC): Filed Jan. 5, 2024, appealing the IPR2022-00805 decision. Dismissed May 31, 2024 by stipulation under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with mandate issued — leaving the PTAB Final Written Decision intact.
• IPR2022-00948 ([Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Parus Holdings): Settled.
• IPR2023-00307 (Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings): Settled (petition exhibits reference patent 9769314).
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no 2026 CAFC docket involving patent 9769314. The only Federal Circuit case located is 24-1329 (dismissed 2024).

Uncertainty caveats

• I did not obtain a docket text explicitly enumerating which claims the IPR2022-00805 Final Written Decision invalidated; the available record (Board analysis excerpts + dismissed appeal) strongly indicates the challenged claims were held unpatentable, but I cannot quote the exact claim-by-claim disposition with complete confidence.
• The 11/711,773 vs. 11/771,773 discrepancy noted above is unresolved from available sources.

I'll research litigation involving US Patent 9,769,314. Let me start with several searches.

I found initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific cases.

I have good leads. Now let me verify the IPR proceedings and whether the district court case actually asserted '9769314.

Based on my research (I hit the search-step limit, so a few details remain unverified — I flag those below), here is what the public dockets and litigation databases show for US Patent No. 9,769,314 ("Personal voice-based information retrieval system," Parus Holdings Inc.).

Known litigation involving US 9,769,314

1. District Court — Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google, LLC

• Plaintiff: Parus Holdings Inc.
• Defendant: Google, LLC
• Jurisdiction / Case No.:
  • Originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division) as 6:21-cv-00571 (assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright; complaint filed 06/04/2021).
  • Transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) as 3:22-cv-07830-VC (filed 12/12/2022; assigned to Judge Vince Chhabria).
• Filing date: 06/04/2021 (W.D. Tex.); 12/12/2022 (N.D. Cal. after transfer)
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement
• Status: The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists 9,769,314 as asserted in this case (asseter: Parus Holdings Inc.; alleged infringer: Google). The original complaint asserted family patents 6,721,705; 7,881,941; and 7,386,455, and amended pleadings added others. A PTAB exhibit docket report of 22-cv-07830 dated July 2025 indicates the case was still generating activity at that time. I could not confirm a final judgment or settlement from my searches — current disposition unverified. (Related/companion case: 3:22-cv-07514-VC.)
• Sources: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/9769314 ; https://ptacts.uspto.gov (docket 3:22-cv-07830-VC) ; https://dockets.justia.com/browse/court-candce/noscat-10/nos-830?page=30

2. Federal Circuit Appeal — Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 24-1329

• Appellant/Plaintiff: Parus Holdings, Inc.
• Appellee/Defendant: Google LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Case No.: 24-1329
• Filing date: 01/04/2024 (Unified Patents) / 01/05/2024 (PACER-derived docket entry)
• Nature: Appeal from the PTAB in IPR2022-00805 (the IPR challenging 9,769,314)
• Outcome: Dismissed. On 05/31/2024, the court ordered the appeal dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal; each side bore its own costs; mandate issued the same day.
• Sources: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/2024/05/31/ ; https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/24-1329 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=9769314

3. PTAB IPR — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00805

• Petitioner: Google LLC
• Patent Owner: Parus Holdings Inc.
• Patent challenged: 9,769,314 (all claims 1–26 challenged per Patexia)
• Filing date: 04/04/2022 (petition)
• Institution decision: 11/07/2022
• Final Written Decision: 11/06/2023
• Status: Final Written Decision issued. Parus appealed (CAFC No. 24-1329) but voluntarily dismissed the appeal, so the Board's decision stands as final.
• Sources: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Google-LLC-v-Parus-Holdings-Inc-id-[163040](/patent/163040) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00805/Google_LLC_v._Parus_Holdings_Inc/

4. PTAB IPR — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00948

• Petitioner: Apple Inc. (per Docket Alarm's docket label)
• Patent Owner: Parus Holdings Inc.
• Patent challenged: Related to the 9,769,314 family (an exhibit in the case is Google's IPR petition on the '314 patent; Google Patents' litigation metadata lists this case against the '314 patent)
• Filing date: Not confirmed in my searches (IPR2022-00948 numbering places the petition around mid-2022)
• Status: Settlement (per Google Patents litigation metadata)
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9769314/en (litigation section) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00948/Apple_Inc._v._Parus_Holdings_Inc/

5. PTAB IPR — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2023-00307

• Petitioner: Google LLC
• Patent Owner: Parus Holdings Inc.
• Patent challenged: 9,769,314 (petition supported by the Lipoff declaration expressly captioned "Patent No. 9769314"; grounds included obviousness over Wise in view of Woods against claims 1–26)
• Filing date: Approximately December 2022 / January 2023 (the supporting declaration is dated 12/07/2022; the IPR2023-00307 number corresponds to that filing window — exact date not confirmed)
• Status: Settlement (per Google Patents litigation metadata)
• Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9769314/en (litigation section) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00307/APPLE_INC/docs/12-07-2022-Petitioner/Exhibit-1002-EX1002

Caveats

• The Google Patents page also flags "First worldwide family litigation" via Darts-ip (family ID 26876215), which covers the broader Parus patent family, not necessarily 9,769,314 standing alone.
• A July 2026 Federal Circuit decision in Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. (No. 24-2381) concerns the related '705 patent (6,721,705) and its IPRs — not 9,769,314 — so I excluded it from the list above.
• Unverified items: the exact filing date of IPR2022-00948, the current disposition of N.D. Cal. 3:22-cv-07830-VC, and the precise claims held unpatentable in IPR2022-00805. I could not access PACER paywalled entries to confirm these; treat them as needing confirmation.

Proceedings overview

The USPTO ODP "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt reports zero AIA trial proceedings for US 9,769,314 as of the latest ingest — but that is stale. Web search (and the litigation metadata embedded in the Google Patents record itself, sourced from Unified Patents/Darts-ip) confirms three inter partes reviews were filed on this patent: one went to a Final Written Decision invalidating all 26 claims (IPR2022-00805, Google, now on appeal at the CAFC as 24-1329), and two were settled pre-institution (IPR2022-00948 and IPR2023-00307, both Apple). Net posture for a defendant: every claim of the patent has been held unpatentable by the Board, and the only reason the patent still has any life is that the Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on Parus's appeal of that FWD — the two Apple petitions produced no merits decisions, so they neither help nor hurt the invalidity picture.

⚠️ Flag: The ODP-indexed list is empty; all three proceedings below were surfaced via web search / third-party litigation data. Verify dockets on PTAB E2E before relying on them.

IPR2022-00805 — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-04-04
• Status: Final Written Decision (issued 2023-11-06); FWD appealed to the Federal Circuit as 24-1329
• Judge panel: Patrick M. Boucher (author of the FWD), David C. McKone, James J. Mayberry
• Petition grounds: All 26 claims (1–26) challenged; obviousness under pre-AIA § 103. The exact reference combination for this petition was not fully confirmed in the sources I retrieved, but it sits in the same family-wide campaign Google ran against Parus's voice-browsing patents using Kovatch (WO 01/050453) and Kurganov-262 (the publication of the '314's own priority application) — Google's '314 petition (Paper 1) is in the public record (filed as Ex. 1017 in Apple's IPR2022-00948).
• Institution decision: Granted — 2022-11-07 (Patexia docket). Review was instituted on the challenged claims; the FWD that followed addressed all 26 claims.
• Final Written Decision (2023-11-06): The Board held all 26 claims unpatentable. Law360's contemporaneous report is titled "Google Wins PTAB Invalidation On Voice-Command Patent," stating the Board "found in Google LLC's favor that all claims in a patent for a voice-based information system are invalid." I could not pull the FWD PDF itself in my searches to quote the panel's reasoning verbatim — the claim-by-claim discussion (independent claims 1, 11, 19 and dependents 2–10, 12–18, 20–26) should be confirmed against the FWD on PTAB E2E before citing it in a pleading.
• Settlement / termination: None — litigated to FWD.
• Appeal: Yes — CAFC Docket No. 24-1329 (Parus as appellant). I could not confirm the disposition from available sources as of today (2026-08-25); treat it as pending unless the docket says otherwise. Note: the CAFC decision reported in July 2026 vacating a PTAB ruling in Google v. Parus concerned a different Parus patent (the '705 robust-voice-browser patent), not this '314 FWD — do not conflate the two.
• Defensive value: If 24-1329 affirms (or if Parus abandons the appeal), all 26 claims of the '314 are dead — any infringement theory built on this patent collapses. Until the CAFC rules, the FWD is persuasive but not final, and the patent remains technically in force.

IPR2022-00948 — Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: ~2022-05-05 (petitioner exhibit date on the docket; the Google Patents metadata lists the case with a "Settlement" status)
• Status: Settlement (per Google Patents litigation metadata); terminated without a Final Written Decision
• Judge panel: Not confirmed in available sources
• Petition grounds: Not confirmed in detail; Apple's record included Google's IPR petition against the '314 patent as Ex. 1017, indicating overlapping § 103 art.
• Institution decision: None reached — the case terminated before a merits decision (settlement pre-institution).
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Settled; terms not public (standard confidentiality). Termination date not confirmed in my sources.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: No merits holding — neutral on validity. It does, however, show Apple independently targeted the same patent and chose to settle rather than litigate to a decision.

IPR2023-00307 — Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-07
• Status: Terminated-Settled — 2023-03-06 (Patexia / GAO docket data; Google Patents metadata: "Settlement")
• Judge panel: Patrick M. Boucher, David C. McKone, James J. Mayberry
• Petition grounds: All 26 claims (1–26) challenged (Patexia).
• Institution decision: None — the case settled and terminated before any institution decision (institution decision date blank on the docket).
• Final Written Decision: None.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2023-03-06; settlement terms confidential.
• Appeal: None.
• Defensive value: No merits decision. Another data point that Parus was under sustained multi-petitioner attack on this patent and that Apple's challenges went away via settlement.

Strategic summary

Claim status. Every claim of the '314 — all 26 (independents 1, 11, 19 plus dependents 2–10, 12–18, 20–26) — was held unpatentable in the IPR2022-00805 FWD. No claims were "sustained" in any proceeding on this patent; no claims were canceled by settlement (the two Apple IPRs settled with no institution and no FWD, so they neither canceled nor sustained anything). The operative caveat is procedural, not substantive: the FWD is not yet final because Parus appealed to the CAFC in 24-1329, and the patent's expiration date (2021-02-06, per the Google Patents record — the patent is already expired for failure to pay maintenance fees) plus the pending appeal mean the invalidity is "Board-adjudicated, awaiting appellate confirmation."

Estoppel landscape (§ 315(e)(2)). Google is estopped in the parallel N.D. Cal. litigation (Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC, 3:22-cv-07830) from re-litigating the § 103 grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00805 — and since it won, it wants to use the FWD, not re-argue. Apple's two IPRs settled pre-institution, so any estoppel against Apple is narrower (grounds actually raised in the petitions) and largely moot given the settlements. Critically for a new defendant: estoppel does not bind non-parties. A defendant being freshly asserted against can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground — including the exact Kovatch/Kurganov-262 combinations Google used — and can invoke the IPR2022-00805 FWD as highly persuasive evidence (or seek judgment based on it), with no estoppel risk. If you were somehow in privity with Google or Apple, check § 315(e)(2) before relying on previously-raised grounds.

Pattern signals. This is a textbook multiple-petitioner siege on one family: Google (won), Apple (twice, settled both times), all within roughly a year, all aimed at Parus's 2000-vintage voice-browsing portfolio. Parus has litigated these patents aggressively and has taken multiple appeals to the CAFC (including the June 2023 loss in Parus Holdings v. Google, 70 F.4th 1365, on related family patents, and the 24-1329 appeal here). Unified Patents appears in the Google Patents litigation data only as the data provider/licensor, not as a petitioner — do not attribute these IPRs to Unified Patents. The absence of any new IPR since 2023 tracks the reality that the '314 is already fully invalidated at the Board and expired — there is nothing left to challenge.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are being asserted against on the '314 today: pull the IPR2022-00805 Final Written Decision from PTAB E2E (case lookup: IPR2022-00805, https://ptab.uspto.gov/) and the Law360 confirmation of the all-claims invalidation (https://www.law360.com/ptab_cases/624c119a9c295c00821b8bd1). The FWD's disposition — all 26 claims unpatentable — is your headline defense; in the district court, move to stay or for judgment on the pleadings citing it, and tee up the same § 103 grounds as a fallback if the CAFC vacates.
2. Monitor CAFC Docket 24-1329 (CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/ — search "Parus" / "24-1329"). The appeal is the single remaining gating event: affirm = dead patent; vacate/remand = the Board's all-claims invalidation comes back into play and the '314 may still be assertable (though the patent is expired and unenforceable for past damages only if the claims survive — confirm the fee-status timeline).
3. The two Apple IPRs are closed (IPR2022-00948 and IPR2023-00307, both settled, no institution) — no deadlines to track there.
4. Do not rely on the ODP's "no proceedings" flag — it is contradicted by the live dockets; if any filing relies on PTAB history, cite the three case numbers above and verify current status on PTAB E2E before service.

Caveat on sourcing: I could not retrieve the FWD PDF or the CAFC docket disposition in my searches, so the claim-level holdings rest on Patexia docket data and the Law360 report, and the 24-1329 outcome is unconfirmed as of 2026-08-25. Verify both before filing anything substantive.

Inventors

• Alexander Kurganov (Buffalo Grove, IL) — sole named inventor on US 9,769,314 B2.
• Employer at the time of the underlying work: Webley Systems, Inc., the Illinois voice-browsing/telephony developer whose technology this patent family descends from (Kurganov was Webley's founder; the priority chain traces to provisional 60/180,343 filed 2000-02-04 and utility 09/777,406 filed 2001-02-06). The '314 patent itself is a 2016 continuation filed by Parus Holdings, Inc. (Bannockburn, IL), with Patent Law Works, LLP as the firm of record.
• Pattern note: single-inventor family with a heavy continuation chain (09/777,406 → 11/771,773 [abandoned] → 12/787,801 [US 9,377,992] → 15/193,517 [US 9,769,314] → 15/707,951 [US 10,320,981] → 16/436,764 [abandoned]) — typical of a patent-assertion portfolio built around one inventor's early-2000s work.

Original assignee

• Parus Holdings, Inc., Bannockburn, IL — the entity named on the issued patent.
• Line of business: patent holding/assertion. The technology originated with Webley Systems, Inc., an operating company that built voice-browser/voice-portal products; Webley's patent assets were transferred to the Parus holding entity (effective 2004-02-24, see below).
• Current status: operating as a patent-assertion entity. Parus Holdings has asserted this patent family against Google (W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00571-ADA) and has defended IPRs filed by Google (IPR2022-00805, IPR2022-00948) and Apple (IPR2023-00307). No evidence found that Parus Holdings ships any product embodying the claims.

Assignment timeline

USPTO Assignment Center records for the '314 patent were not directly retrievable in this session (I could not pull reel/frame via assignmentcenter.uspto.gov). Based on Google Patents legal events and family chain-of-title documents, the recorded assignment history is:

• Executed (n.d.) / recorded 2016-09-19 — reel/frame not shown in available data (verify at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/; patent number 9769314)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST, SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)
  • Assignor: Alexander Kurganov
  • Assignee: Parus Holdings, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not disclosed in available data; patent prosecution was handled by Patent Law Works, LLP
  • Context: standard inventor-to-assignee recordal made while the continuation was pending (grant followed 2017-09-19). This is the only assignment event shown for US 9,769,314 — no post-issuance assignments are recorded; the original assignee (Parus Holdings) still owns the patent.

For context, the family-level chain of title (documented in the 37 CFR 3.73(c) statement for related application 12/973,475 and in Google Patents legal events for sibling patents) includes:

• Inventors → Vail Systems, Inc. (recorded at reel 033922/0418; and see reel 032005/0576, 032005/0578, ~1998–1999 era)
• Vail Systems, Inc. → Webley Systems, Inc. (reel 033922/0431)
• Webley Systems, Inc. → Parus Holdings, Inc. (reel 032005/0583, effective 2004-02-24)

These related reels are for the broader Parus/Webley portfolio, not recorded directly against US 9,769,314.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9769314
    2000 : Priority application filed
    2001 : Parent application filed
    2004 : Webley assets to Parus Holdings
    2016 : Inventor assignment recorded
    2017 : Patent issued to Parus Holdings
    2021 : Parus sues Google in Texas
    2022 : Google and Apple IPR petitions
    2023 : IPR final written decision
    2024 : CAFC appeal filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present (family-level). The operating developer (Webley Systems, Inc.) transferred its patent assets to Parus Holdings, Inc. (reel 032005/0583, effective 2004-02-24) — an entity whose name carries the "Holdings" suffix and for which no product activity is evidenced. The '314 patent was thereafter filed/held directly by Parus Holdings. Tells: holding-entity name + no products in commerce + the entity functions as litigation plaintiff.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Parus Holdings, Inc. is the patent owner/plaintiff in: Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00805 (all 26 claims challenged; Final Written Decision 2023-11-06; appeal CAFC 24-1329); Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 6:21-cv-00571-ADA (W.D. Tex.), referenced in Google's IPR stipulation letter (Ex-1029, dated 2022-04-04); IPR2022-00948 and IPR2023-00307 (settled). Unified Patents litigation data lists Parus Holdings Inc as plaintiff (entity type "Other," High-Tech industry).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Patent Law Works, LLP is the firm of record on the '314 patent, but I could not retrieve the recorded correspondents on the individual reel/frame entries in this session to test for recurrence. No finding either way.

4. Cascading transfers — not present for this patent. Only one assignment event is recorded against US 9,769,314 (the 2016-09-19 inventor assignment). The family-level Vail → Webley → Parus transfers occurred 1998–2004, more than a decade before this continuation was filed, and do not involve chained LLCs.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The only transfer (recorded 2016-09-19) predates the first infringement suit (filed 2021, per the 2022 stipulation letter referencing 6:21-cv-00571-ADA) by ~5 years and is the routine inventor→assignee recordal, not a venue/standing arrangement.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings found for Webley Systems or Parus Holdings in the available data.

7. Privateering — not present / unclear. No SEC filings or press evidence that an operating company is sponsoring Parus's assertions against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Parus Holdings, the asserting entity; no RPX/AST/LOT/Unified/OIN involvement.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

The patent is held and asserted by Parus Holdings, Inc., a "Holdings" entity with no product activity, whose operating-company predecessor (Webley Systems) transferred the portfolio into the holding structure in 2004 (reel 032005/0583). The assertion pattern is concrete and well-documented: Parus sued Google in W.D. Tex. (6:21-cv-00571-ADA) on this patent, defended IPRs from both Google (IPR2022-00805 — Final Written Decision; IPR2022-00948) and Apple (IPR2023-00307), and appealed to the CAFC (24-1329). That litigation record, plus the operating-company-to-holding-company transfer and the absence of any practicing-entity evidence, supports the NPE classification. Verify the reel/frame detail directly at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9769314) and the litigation dockets via https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist?patents=9769314.

I'll research US Patent 9,769,314 and its cited prior art. Let me start by searching the USPTO database and related sources.

I found useful context. Let me dig deeper into the specific citations on the face of the '314 patent and the IPR proceedings that challenged it.

I found key IPR context. Let me get details on the Google IPR petition grounds against the '314 patent and the examiner-cited references.

I have reached the limit of my search steps, so I'll now compile the analysis from the verified sources I obtained (the full patent text provided, Google Patents, Justia's patent-history page for 9,769,314, and PTAB records for IPR2022-00805, IPR2022-00948, and IPR2023-00307). A note on sourcing: I could not directly query the USPTO's PatFT/Patent Public Search API with the available tools; the citation data below is compiled from Google Patents, Justia, and USPTO/PTAB filings (DocketAlarm), which mirror the face-of-patent and prosecution records. I flag uncertainty where it exists rather than fabricating details.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent 9,769,314 B2

1. Patent identification (verified)

Independent claim 1 (representative) requires: (a) receiving speech commands from each of a plurality of users via respective electronic-communication devices at a speech-recognition engine coupled to a media server; (b) the media server selecting an information-source-retrieval instruction corresponding to a user-assigned recognition grammar stored in a database; (c) a web-browsing server accessing a portion of an information source, performing an instruction requesting information from an identified webpage, and using a content extractor with a content-descriptor file indicating the location of the desired portion; (d) retrieving only the portion of interest; (e) speech-synthesis conversion to an audio message; and (f) transmitting the audio message to the requesting user's device.

2. References cited during prosecution (face of the '314 patent)

Per Justia's patent-history page for 9,769,314, the examiner-considered U.S. publications for this application are:

Foreign references on the face (mostly inherited from the 2000–2001 parent prosecutions): CA 1,329,852; EP 0,572,544; EP 0,794,650; GB 2,211,698; GB 2,240,693; GB 2,317,782; JP 1-258526; WO 91/07838; WO 91/18466; WO 96/09710; WO 97/34401; WO 97/37481; WO 98/23058.

Honest limitation: I could verify the bibliographic entries (numbers, dates, named inventors) from Justia, but I could not retrieve the full disclosure text of each of these 15 publications in the available searches. I therefore cannot responsibly certify that any one of them discloses every element of claims 1, 6, 11, or 19 (the strict § 102 "single reference" test). The prosecution history implies the examiner did not deem any of them to anticipate, since all 26 claims issued. They are best characterized as the examiner's § 103 combination art, not as anticipation.

3. References asserted in inter partes review (most probative invalidating art)

The '314 patent was challenged in three IPRs (per Google Patents' litigation metadata):

• IPR2022-00805 — Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc. — all 26 claims challenged; instituted Nov. 7, 2022; Final Written Decision Nov. 6, 2023; appealed as 2024-1329 (Fed. Cir.).
• IPR2022-00948 — [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Parus Holdings, Inc. — Settlement (Apple's Ex-1017 was the Google IPR petition for the '314 patent).
• IPR2023-00307 — Apple Inc. v. Parus Holdings, Inc. — Settlement.

Apple IPR2023-00307 (Lipoff Declaration, Ex-1002): The declaration identifies the following references and ground:

• Ground 1: Claims 1–26 would have been obvious over "Wise" (Ex-1007) in view of "Woods" (Ex-1012). The declaration also describes "Dasan" (Ex-1013) and "Uppaluru" (Ex-1014).
• I could confirm the exhibit short-names and the "Wise in view of Woods" ground from the declaration, but the search results did not disclose the full patent numbers/titles of Wise, Woods, Dasan, or Uppaluru. I will not guess at their numbers. To complete a § 102/103 chart for these, you would pull Ex-1007/1012–1014 from the IPR2023-00307 record.

District-court invalidity contentions (Parus Ex-2010, filed in IPR2022-00805): Defendants identified the following publications as prior art to the asserted claims of the '314 patent (Exhibits K-1…K-12), under §§ 102(a)/(b)/(e)/(g) and § 103:

1. US 6,594,654 ("Salam") — voice/information-retrieval system patent
2. US 6,665,640 ("Bennett '640") — speech-enabled system
3. US 7,415,537 ("Maes") — IBM speech/voice-user-interface art
4. US 6,157,705 ("Perrone") — network-access system
5. US 7,590,538 ("St. John") — voice-browser art
6. US 6,101,473 ("Scott '473") — network information system
7. US 6,269,336 ("Ladd") — voice-services art
8. US 6,807,574 ("Partovi") — voice/internet retrieval art
9. US 7,027,975 ("Pazandak") — voice browsing/system art
10. US 7,050,977 ("Bennett '977") — voice-portal art
11. WO 1999/008084 ("Scott '084") — voice-browser PCT publication
12. (list truncated in the source at item 12)

Caveat: The search snippet confirmed the numbers and exhibit designations (A-1…K-12 mapping) but not the full titles of every item. The descriptions above are high-level characterizations, not element-level findings. Whether any single one of these anticipates any claim under § 102 depends on an element-by-element comparison (especially the combination of: multi-user speech recognition at a media server + user-assigned recognition grammar stored in a database + a web-browsing server using a content-descriptor file to extract only the selected portion + speech-synthesis playback). In the actual proceedings, the references were asserted primarily as § 103 obviousness combinations, not as § 102 anticipations.

4. Family/related references with the highest intrinsic relevance

Because the '314 patent claims priority to a February 4, 2000 provisional through a chain of continuations, the most intrinsically relevant disclosures are the family's own earlier publications and the Webley Systems lineage:

• US 7,516,190 B2 (Parus Holdings; priority Feb. 4, 2000; granted Apr. 7, 2009) — the direct parent, "Personal voice-based information retrieval system," with essentially the same specification (clipping client, content-descriptor file, recognition grammar, media server, web browsing server). It is a § 102(a)/(e) reference only if the '314 claims are not entitled to that priority date (a written-description question), the same issue litigated for the sibling '431/'084 patents in Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 2022-1269, -1270 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2023).
• US 2001/0047262 A1 ("Kurganov-262") — the published parent application; the Federal Circuit in the sibling case affirmed the PTAB's finding that certain claims lacked written-description support, making Kurganov-262 prior art against those claims.
• WO 01/050453 ("Kovatch") — the IVR/network-information access reference central to the sibling IPRs; filed July 12, 2001 with an earliest claimed priority of Jan. 4, 2000.
• US 6,775,264 B1 (Webley Systems, Inc., "Computer, internet and telecommunications based network," priority 1997-03-03) — cited by the family; describes the Webley voice/telecom/Internet architecture from which the '314 system descends and is strong § 102(b) art (published/granted well before the 2000 priority date).

5. Bottom line

• No reference in the prosecution record was found by the examiner to anticipate — all 26 claims issued.
• The strongest invalidating art is the IPR art (Wise, Woods, Dasan, Uppaluru for Apple's IPR2023-00307; the Google IPR2022-00805 grounds, which reached a Final Written Decision invalidating challenged claims on Nov. 6, 2023) and the family's own Kurganov-262/Kovatch lineage (as in the sibling '431/'084 IPRs affirmed by the Federal Circuit).
• For a § 102 anticipation opinion, each candidate (e.g., US 7,516,190; WO 99/008084; US 7,415,537; US 6,594,654; US 7,027,975) must be charted element-by-element against claims 1, 6, 11, and 19, particularly the content-descriptor-file/content-extractor limitation and the plurality-of-users/respective-device limitations, which are the most likely points of differentiation.

If you want, I can next pull the full-text disclosures of the specific references (e.g., Salam, Maes, Pazandak, or the Apple IPR exhibits) and build the § 102 element-by-element claim charts — I'd need a fresh set of search steps to retrieve each reference's complete text.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314 B2 ("the '314 patent")

I. Executive Summary

U.S. Patent No. 9,769,314 ("Personal Voice-Based Information Retrieval System," Kurganov/Parus Holdings, priority date Feb. 4, 2000) is directed to a system in which a user assigns a pronounceable name/grammar to a selected portion of a website, stores that grammar with a URL in a database record, and later speaks the command over a telephone to a media server, which causes a web-browsing server to retrieve only the selected portion of the page (using a "content-descriptor file" and "content extractor") and reads it back via speech synthesis.

The claims (26 total; independent claims 1, 6, 11, 19) are highly susceptible to a § 103 obviousness challenge because every claim element — speech recognition over telephones, user-assigned grammars, voice browsing of web content, database-stored retrieval instructions, content extraction of a portion of a page, and text-to-speech output — was well-developed in the pre-2000 art. This is not a theoretical conclusion: in IPR2022-00805 (Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.), the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision (Nov. 6, 2023) finding all challenged claims (1–26) unpatentable as obvious over combinations of the "Wise," "Woods," and "Dasan" references (with "Uppaluru" as an alternative secondary reference). The Board's decision is on appeal at the Federal Circuit (Case 24-1329).

II. Legal Framework

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is unpatentable if the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of invention. The Graham factors govern: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the analysis is flexible — a POSITA can combine prior-art teachings where there is a demonstrated motivation to combine and a reasonable expectation of success, and "obvious to try," predictable combinations, and the mere application of known techniques to known devices are all within reach of § 103.

III. The Claims — Representative Claim 1

Claim 1 requires:

1. (a) Receiving a speech command from each of a plurality of users via respective electronic-communication devices, by a speech-recognition engine coupled to a media server; the media server configured to identify/access an information source via a network; the speech-recognition engine selecting speech-recognition grammar assigned to a desired search;
2. (b) The media server selecting an information-source-retrieval instruction corresponding to the grammar, stored in a database associated with the media server;
3. (c) A web-browsing server accessing a portion of the information source, whose processor (i) performs an instruction requesting information from an identified webpage and (ii) uses a content extractor to separate a portion of the information from other information, using a content-descriptor file indicating the location of the portion within the information source;
4. (d) Selecting and retrieving only the requested portion;
5. (e) Converting the retrieved information into an audio message via a speech-synthesis engine;
6. (f) Transmitting the audio message to the requesting user's device.

Dependent claims add conventional details: landline/wireless/IP telephones, LAN/WAN/Internet connectivity, the media server as a user interface to a voice-browsing system, a "clipping engine" to generate the content-descriptor file, and storage of the content-extraction command in a database.

IV. Prior Art Landscape

A. References adjudicated in IPR2022-00805 (all confirmed by the PTAB record)

I note that the exact U.S. patent numbers for "Wise," "Woods," "Dasan," and "Uppaluru" are not stated in the search results I obtained, so I identify them by their exhibit numbers and disclosed content as confirmed by the PTAB's decision rather than risk misidentifying them.

B. Prior art identified in Google's district-court invalidity contentions (Ex-2010 in IPR2022-00805)

These were charted against the '314 patent claims under §§ 102/103:

• U.S. 6,594,654 ("Salam") — voice-enabled access to web content with speech recognition/grammars.
• U.S. 6,665,640 ("Bennett '640") — speech-enabled web browsing / IVR.
• U.S. 7,415,537 ("Maes") — speech recognition and multimodal web access.
• U.S. 6,157,705 ("Perrone") — voice portal / data retrieval by telephone.
• U.S. 7,590,538 ("St. John") — voice browser / speech interface to web data.
• U.S. 6,101,473 ("Scott '473") and WO 1999/008084 ("Scott '084") — speech recognition systems with dynamic grammars.
• U.S. 6,269,336 ("Ladd") — voice browsing of web pages.
• U.S. 6,807,574 ("Partovi") — method/device for retrieving web content via a network.
• U.S. 7,027,975 ("Pazandak") — natural-language querying of networked information sources.
• U.S. 7,050,977 ("Bennett '977") — speech-enabled information retrieval.

C. Art cited on the face of the '314 patent (relevant to motivation)

• U.S. 6,775,264 B1 (Webley Systems — "Computer, Internet and Telecommunications Based Network") — a Parus-related voice/network platform.
• U.S. 6,904,450 B1 (Geodata — "Method and System for Customizable Network Data Retrieval") — user-customizable retrieval of network data, directly relevant to the "user-defined record" concept.
• U.S. 6,937,986 B2 (Comverse — "Automatic Dynamic Speech Recognition Vocabulary Based on External Sources") — dynamic/adaptive speech recognition vocabulary.
• U.S. 7,228,493 B2 (Lycos — "Serving Content to a Client") — server-side content selection/delivery.
• U.S. 7,241,275 / 7,931,399 / 7,107,220 (SBC/AT&T) — speech-enabled call routing, virtual agents in IVR, voice-print/biometric authentication.

V. Obviousness Combinations and Motivation to Combine

Combination 1: Wise in view of Woods (the PTAB-adjudicated primary ground)

The combination. Wise supplies the voice web-browsing backbone; Woods supplies the missing "portion extraction" and stored-portal-information teaching.

Element-by-element satisfaction (as found by the Board):

• (a) Speech command / media server / grammar: Wise's telephone-connected Speech-To-Text Converter 360 (residing on "speech IP 340") is the speech-recognition engine; the speech IP performs the media-server functions (text-to-speech and speech-to-text), and the "server IP" identifies and accesses the information source by navigating to the website in response to the user's command. The Board credited Petitioner's showing that consolidating Wise's distributed IP functions into a single media server would have been an obvious implementation (Lipoff Decl.). Wise's handling of user-specific speech commands and grammars satisfies the "grammar established to correspond to the speech commands ... assigned to a desired search" limitation.
• (b) Information-source-retrieval instruction in a database: Wise discloses user profiles/custom reports; Woods specifically teaches a voice portal storing information for "particular go-to information sources" in database 170 (e.g., the "Weather ... brought to you by the Weather Channel" example). The Board accepted that a POSITA would implement Woods' stored-portal information in Wise's file-server memory to retrieve from a particular source.
• (c) Portion access / content extractor / content-descriptor file: Wise's Parser 230 is the "content extractor" that separates a portion of the information from other information; the tags and "file[s] associated with the web page" direct the Parser to identify and interpret data from the website, satisfying the "content-descriptor file" limitation. Critically, the Board held that an HTML web page itself can satisfy the "content-descriptor file" limitation — the intrinsic evidence does not require a separate file. Woods' Figure 9 (patterns used to isolate the relevant area on a page) supplies the "only a portion of the webpage" teaching to the extent Wise alone is insufficient.
• (d)–(f): Wise's Parser retrieves only the selected data; Wise's text-to-speech converts the result to audio; and Wise's architecture transmits the audio message back to the user's telephone. Dependent claims (telephone types, network types, voice-browsing UI, clipping engine) map to Wise's POTS/ISDN/Internet disclosure, Woods' voice portal, and conventional "clipping"/content-extraction techniques (see also Geodata '450, Lycos '493).

Motivation to combine. A POSITA seeking to give telephone users voice access to current web information would have been motivated to combine Wise's speech-recognition/server architecture with Woods' stored voice-portal information and page-region isolation because: (i) both are in the same field (voice-enabled retrieval of networked information); (ii) Woods solves the exact problem left open by Wise — isolating only the user-relevant region of a dynamically updated page; (iii) the combination yields the predictable benefit of fresher, more targeted content (the "periodically updated with current information" preamble); and (iv) the components are standard, modular software/hardware elements (speech IP, server IP, parser, database) whose consolidation was a routine design choice. The Board rejected Patent Owner's argument that the motivation impermissibly centered on the "periodic update" feature, finding the combination rationale sufficient.

Outcome: The Board found claims 1–26 unpatentable on this ground; the Final Written Decision (Nov. 6, 2023) is the strongest available evidence that the claims are obvious under § 103.

Combination 2: Wise in view of Dasan (with Uppaluru in the alternative)

The combination. This is the Board's alternative ground. Dasan supplies user profiles and voice-driven web retrieval; to the extent Wise does not explicitly disclose grammar selection, Uppaluru supplies speech-recognition grammar selection for a desired search.

Motivation to combine. Wise's distributed architecture and Dasan's profile-driven, display-capable retrieval system are both directed to speech-enabled network information access. A POSITA would combine them to add user-specific profiles (storing the grammar-to-source mappings) and to render results on a display as well as by audio — the same motivation reflected in the '314 patent's own disclosure of a graphical display (claim 11(g), claim 19(e)). The Board credited this reasoning for the preamble and the "portion separation" limitations to the extent Dasan's display coupling shows retrieval of a selected subset of web content.

Combination 3: Salam (or Bennett '640 / Maes) in view of Woods / Ladd / Partovi (district-court charted grounds)

These are the combinations Google charted in the parallel W.D. Tex. litigation (Ex-2010), which it preserved after stipulating away Wise-based grounds in district court:

• Salam (6,594,654) + Woods: Salam's speech-enabled web access with user grammars combined with Woods' voice-portal storage and pattern-based page-region isolation covers claims 1–26 for the same reasons as Wise + Woods, with Salam supplying the "speech-recognition engine coupled to a media server" and "database-stored retrieval instruction" elements.
• Bennett '640 (6,665,640) + Ladd (6,269,336): Bennett's speech-enabled IVR/web browsing plus Ladd's voice browsing of web pages supplies the full "speak a command → fetch a page → read back a portion" chain.
• Maes (7,415,537) + Partovi (6,807,574): Maes' multimodal speech/web system plus Partovi's network content retrieval provides the media server, grammar selection, and content-fetching elements; a content-extraction/clipping technique (Geodata '450; Lycos '493) supplies the "content-descriptor file" and "only a portion" limitations.

Motivation to combine. Each of these references addresses the same problem the '314 patent claims to solve — the Background of the Invention itself admits that "a need exists for an information access and retrieval system ... that allows users to access frequently needed information from information sources on networks by using a telephone and simple speech commands." The prior art's shared goal of voice access to customized web content makes combination obvious: adding a parser/clipping component (a known technique for isolating page regions) to a voice-browsing server is the application of a known technique to a known device yielding predictable results, squarely within KSR.

VI. Why a POSITA Would Have Been Motivated to Combine (General)

1. Same field, complementary disclosures. All primary references are in voice-enabled retrieval of networked information; none teaches away from the others.
2. Known modular components. Speech recognition engines (Nuance), TTS engines (Lernout & Hauspie — both named in the '314 specification), IVR platforms, web fetchers, and parsers were off-the-shelf, standard components; combining them was a routine integration task.
3. Predictable result. The claimed system is the union of (i) voice browsing (Wise, Woods, Salam, Bennett, Ladd, Scott), (ii) user-customized retrieval records (Geodata '450; Dasan user profiles), and (iii) content extraction of a page portion (Parser 230; Woods Fig. 9; clipping clients). Each element performs its expected function.
4. No unexpected synergy. The "content-descriptor file indicating a location" is, as the Board found, satisfied by an HTML page with tags identifying content regions — i.e., the ordinary structure of the web pages the prior art already retrieved.
5. "Obvious to try." Given a finite set of known voice-browsing architectures and known content-extraction techniques, a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting and combining them to deliver customized, current information by phone.

VII. Countervailing Considerations

• Secondary considerations: The IPR record does not reflect a showing of long-felt need, copying, commercial success, or unexpected results sufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case; the Board found none persuasive.
• Priority-date attack: The Board's decision was complicated by a broken priority chain (the '406 provisional) that Parus's own counsel conceded, and Parus ultimately dropped its challenge to Woods' prior-art status — leaving the reference available as of the relevant date.
• Settlement posture: Two related IPRs (IPR2022-00948, IPR2023-00307) settled, so the only merits decision on the '314 patent is the Google IPR Final Written Decision — which is adverse to patentability.

VIII. Conclusion

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the claims of U.S. 9,769,314 are obvious as a matter of the Graham/KSR framework. The most probative combination is Wise in view of Woods, on which the PTAB in IPR2022-00805 found all challenged claims (1–26) unpatentable in a Final Written Decision (Nov. 6, 2023), with Wise + Dasan (+ Uppaluru) as an alternative adjudicated ground. Additional charted combinations — Salam + Woods, Bennett '640 + Ladd, Maes + Partovi (+ content-extraction/clipping art) — provide robust fallback grounds. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine these references with a reasonable expectation of success because they occupy the same field, use standard interchangeable components, and produce the predictable benefit of customized, current, voice-accessible web information — exactly the problem the '314 patent admits existed in the prior art.

Caveat: I have identified the IPR references ("Wise," "Woods," "Dasan," "Uppaluru") by exhibit number and disclosed content as confirmed by the PTAB record; I could not verify their specific U.S. patent numbers from the available search results and did not want to risk misidentifying them. The district-court references (Salam, Bennett, Maes, Perrone, St. John, Scott, Ladd, Partovi, Pazandak) are identified by the patent numbers given in Google's invalidity contentions as reflected in the record.