HyperQuery LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00334, D. Del., 03/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a Delaware corporation with an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to methods for searching and downloading software applications based on user intent.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses search and discovery within mobile application marketplaces, aiming to improve result relevancy by interpreting the user's underlying intent rather than relying solely on keywords.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a series of applications dating back to 2011, including multiple provisional and non-provisional filings, which may be relevant for defining the scope of prior art. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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 describes conventional application store search methods as "very time consuming." Users must either navigate through broad categories or use keyword searches that return lists of applications that are often irrelevant or "promoted by the repository's owner," forcing the user to review numerous applications to find a suitable one. (’918 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that attempts to understand the user's goal, or "search intent," from a query. It receives the query, determines this intent, selects one or more applications from a repository based on the inferred intent, and then creates a "display segment" with an icon for the selected application to facilitate a download. (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-33). This intent determination can be based not only on the query text but also on "environmental variables" like the user's location and the time of day. (’918 Patent, col. 4:9-15).
• Technical Importance: The described technology reflects an effort to move beyond simple string-matching in search to a more contextual, semantic understanding of user needs, aiming to reduce friction in application discovery. (’918 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 (a method claim) and 11 (a system claim) are representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1 includes these essential elements:
  • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
  • Determining the search intent based on the query.
  • Selecting at least one application from a repository based on the search intent.
  • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
  • Receiving an input from the user indicating a particular selected application.
  • Causing the establishment of a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application.
  • Causing the initiation of a download of the application.
• Independent Claim 11 recites a system comprising a processor and memory with instructions to perform steps analogous to those in claim 1.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused Apple product, service, or method. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶16). Without identification of the accused products, a detailed description of their functionality is not possible based on the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that it incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2" comparing the patent claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶16-17). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant’s products "practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent" and thereby "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the scope of "determining the search intent." The patent specification describes a complex process involving tokenization, multiple "engines" for different topics (e.g., location, music), and the calculation of "certainty scores." (’918 Patent, col. 10:27-52). A question for the court will be whether this detailed disclosure limits the claim term, or if the term can be read more broadly to cover any search algorithm that goes beyond simple keyword matching.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks the factual detail to assess the technical operation of any accused product. A foundational question will be what evidence Plaintiff provides to show that an Apple product performs the specific step of "determining the search intent" as distinct from conventional semantic search. Further, it raises the question of what constitutes a "direct communication link" under the claim, and whether a multi-step process within an application store (e.g., search -> tap result -> tap 'Get' button) meets that limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the patent's disclosure, the following terms appear central.

The Term: "determining the search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the primary point of novelty over prior art search systems. Its construction will likely determine the scope of the claim and the viability of the infringement case. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition distinguishes between a generic semantic search and the specific, multi-faceted process disclosed in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1, "determining the search intent based on the input search query," does not on its face require a specific method. (’918 Patent, col. 9:61-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description teaches a specific implementation where a query is tokenized and processed by a "plurality of engines," each computing a "certainty score," followed by statistical and semantic analysis to find a "coherent query." (’918 Patent, col. 10:27-66). A party could argue that this is the only process described for "determining the search intent" and the claim should be so limited.

The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the connection between the user's action and the download. The nature of this "direct" link is critical, as it may distinguish between a one-step action and a multi-step navigation process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean any unbroken chain of events within a single platform that results in a download, without redirecting the user to an external browser or service.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the system is configured to "establish a direct communication link between the user device and the location that stores the selected application." (’918 Patent, col. 4:60-63). This could be argued to require a link that bypasses intermediate product pages and connects the user's initial input directly to the download source.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use its products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint asserts willfulness based on Defendant's alleged continuation of infringing activities after receiving notice of infringement via the service of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A question of specificity and evidence: The complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations identifying an accused product or explaining how it infringes. The primary threshold question will be whether the Plaintiff can amend its pleading or otherwise produce evidence to show, with particularity, how a specific Apple service embodies the patented technology.

2. A core issue of definitional scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of the term "determining the search intent." The central legal and technical question will be whether this term is broad enough to read on the search and ranking algorithms used in a modern application marketplace, or if it is confined to the specific multi-engine, probability-based architecture detailed in the ’918 patent’s specification.

3. A question of technical operation: Assuming a claim construction is reached, a key evidentiary dispute will be whether the accused system’s functionality matches the claims. For example, does an accused product merely perform advanced keyword and semantic analysis, or does it execute the specific function of deriving a user's "topic of interest" and selecting an application based on that distinct, inferred intent as required by the claims?