DCT

3:23-cv-04725

HyperQuery, LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00007, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain Defendant products infringe two patents related to methods for searching for mobile applications based on user intent and for providing device-optimized web addresses.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue address challenges in mobile computing: improving the relevance of application search results beyond simple keywords and optimizing web content delivery for a wide variety of device types and screen sizes.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-06-11 ’611 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2011-03-28 ’918 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-12-27 ’918 Patent - Issue Date
2017-05-02 ’611 Patent - Issue Date
2023-01-09 Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 - "System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network," issued December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes conventional application store searches as "very time consuming," requiring users to navigate through numerous irrelevant applications that may be promoted by the repository's owner rather than being directly relevant to the user's actual needs or intent (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a system receives a search query from a user, determines the user's "search intent," and then selects a corresponding application from a central repository. Instead of just a list of results, the system creates a "display segment" (e.g., an overlay) on the user's screen showing an icon for the selected application, which, when activated, establishes a "direct communication link" to download the application (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:54-62).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the efficiency and relevance of mobile application discovery by analyzing user intent, rather than relying solely on keyword matching within an app store (’918 Patent, col. 2:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring to "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" detailed in a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
    • Determining the "search intent" based on the query.
    • Selecting, based on the search intent, at least one application from a repository.
    • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed on the user device.
    • Receiving an input from the user device indicating the particular selected application.
    • Causing establishment of a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application.
    • Causing initiation of a download of the application.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

U.S. Patent No. 9,639,611 - "System and method for providing suitable web addresses to a user device," issued May 2, 2017

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem where search engines provide users with URLs that are not optimized for their specific device, such as sending a desktop-optimized webpage to a mobile phone, resulting in a "sub-optimal" user experience (’611 Patent, col. 1:56-64).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that receives a user's query, determines the user's search intent, and crucially, identifies "at least one configuration parameter of the user device" (e.g., device type, OS, display size). It then "modif[ies]" a web address based on the intent and device parameters to generate a "suitable web address" that ensures "optimal display" of the content on that specific device (’611 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology sought to address the fragmentation of web experiences across different device form factors by intelligently tailoring the delivered URL to the specific context of the user's device (’611 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring to "Exemplary '611 Patent Claims" detailed in a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • Receiving a query from a user device.
    • Identifying at least one "configuration parameter" of the user device.
    • Determining a "search intent" based on the query.
    • Selecting at least one information resource to serve the search intent.
    • Identifying a web address for the selected information resource.
    • "Modifying" the identified web address to generate a "suitable web address" based on the identified web address, the search intent, and the configuration parameter, to allow for "optimal display."
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not name any specific LG products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in external exhibits (Exhibits B and D) which were not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶12, 21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products are made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by LG (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). Based on the nature of the asserted patents, the accused functionality would involve software on LG devices (such as smartphones or smart TVs) that facilitates application discovery and/or web searching. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' specific functionality or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations for both the ’918 and ’611 Patents are contained within "claim charts" in Exhibits B and D, respectively, which are incorporated by reference but were not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). The narrative infringement theory alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the patents-in-suit and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). Without the specific product details and claim charts, a direct comparison of claim elements to accused functionality is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • ’918 Patent: A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused LG products perform the specific step of "determining the search intent" as described in the patent, beyond conventional keyword matching. A further question is whether the products create a "display segment" and "direct communication link" in the manner required by the claims.
    • ’611 Patent: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the steps of "identifying at least one configuration parameter of the user device" and, critically, "modifying" a web address to generate a "suitable" one. A key question is whether the accused products perform an active modification or construction of a URL, as opposed to simply selecting a pre-existing, device-specific URL from a list of results.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’918 Patent

  • The Term: "search intent"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the conceptual core of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine the scope of the invention, specifically whether it is limited to a sophisticated, multi-factor analysis of user intent or if it can read on simpler forms of query interpretation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art keyword-based search systems.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that intent can be either "implicit," derived from "environmental variables and/or personal variables," or "explicit," derived from the query itself, suggesting the term is not confined to a single method of determination (’918 Patent, col. 4:9-16).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific architecture for determining intent, involving tokenization, processing by multiple "engines" for different topics (e.g., dates, music, basketball), and analyzing "certainty scores," which could be used to argue for a narrower, more structured definition (’918 Patent, col. 7:1 - col. 8:43).

For the ’611 Patent

  • The Term: "modifying at least one identified web address"
  • Context and Importance: This active verb is central to the claimed method of generating a "suitable" URL. The dispute will likely center on what actions constitute "modifying." This is critical because it defines the boundary between merely presenting a search result and actively tailoring that result for a specific device.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the mechanism of modification, potentially allowing it to cover a range of actions, including selecting an appropriate URL from several alternatives.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary format for a "suitable URL" that includes discrete components for the query, intent, and device parameters: http://<information resource address>/<input query><intent><device parameters><app parameters> (’611 Patent, col. 7:8-12). A defendant may argue that "modifying" requires a similar act of constructing a new, parameterized URL.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that LG distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end-users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶15, 24).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that LG has had knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement "[a]t least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts" (Compl. ¶¶16, 25). This forms a basis for post-suit willful infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

Given the complaint’s reliance on unprovided exhibits, the initial phase of this litigation will likely focus on establishing a more detailed factual record. The case appears to turn on two central issues:

  1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating how specific, identified LG products perform the functions claimed in the patents. The case will depend on whether discovery reveals that LG's products in fact "determine search intent" and "modify" web addresses in a manner that maps onto the patent claims.

  2. Definitional Scope: The dispute will likely involve a significant claim construction battle over the meaning of core technical terms. A key question for the court will be one of functional interpretation: does "determining search intent" (’918 Patent) require a complex semantic analysis, and does "modifying" a web address (’611 Patent) require active URL construction, or can these terms be construed more broadly to cover functionalities present in more conventional mobile search systems?