DCT

2:23-cv-00007

HyperQuery LLC v. LG Electronics USA Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00007, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain functionalities within Defendant's end-user products, related to searching for and accessing applications and web content, infringe patents directed to determining user search intent to provide optimized results.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for improving a user's experience when searching for mobile applications or web content by discerning the user's underlying intent and device characteristics to deliver more relevant and suitably formatted results.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit. Plaintiff asserts it is the assignee of all rights to the patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2010-06-11 ’611 Patent Earliest Priority Date (U.S. Prov. App. 61/354,022)
2011-03-28 ’918 Patent Earliest Priority Date (U.S. Prov. App. 61/468,095)
2013-12-11 ’918 Patent Application Filed
2014-08-26 ’611 Patent Application Filed
2016-12-27 ’918 Patent Issued
2017-05-02 ’611 Patent Issued
2023-01-09 Complaint Filed

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 Dec. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the process of searching for applications in mobile app stores as "very time consuming," noting that search results are often based on simple keyword matches that are not relevant to the user's true intent and may be skewed by promoted content ('918 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that goes beyond keywords to "determine the search intent" of a user ('918 Patent, Abstract). This intent can be derived explicitly from the query or implicitly from contextual data like the user's location and the time of day ('918 Patent, col. 4:7-16). Based on this intent, the system selects a relevant application and presents its icon in a dedicated "display segment" on the user's device, from which the user can initiate a direct download ('918 Patent, col. 2:20-33).
  • Technical Importance: The technology sought to improve the efficiency and relevance of application discovery by focusing on a user's underlying goal rather than just the search terms they entered.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including exemplary claims identified in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶12). The lead independent claims of the patent are method claim 1 and system claim 11.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • receiving an input search query from a user device;
    • determining the search intent based on the query;
    • selecting an application from a central repository based on the intent;
    • causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed;
    • receiving an input from the user indicating the selected application;
    • causing establishment of a direct communication link to the application's host; and
    • causing initiation of the application download over that link.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more 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 that a web address (URL) returned by a search engine may not be optimal for the user's specific device, such as a mobile device receiving a URL for a desktop-optimized website, leading to a "sub-optimal" user experience ('611 Patent, col. 1:56-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a system receives a query, identifies "configuration parameter(s)" of the user's device (e.g., device type, OS, display size), determines the user's "search intent," and then "modifies" a web address to generate a "suitable" one that accounts for both the intent and the device's characteristics, thereby allowing for "optimal display" of the content ('611 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to create a more seamless user experience by ensuring that search results direct users to the version of a web resource best suited for their particular device.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including exemplary claims identified in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶21). The lead independent claims are method claim 1 and system claim 12.
  • 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 an information resource to serve the intent;
    • identifying a web address for the selected resource; and
    • modifying the identified web address to generate a "suitable web address" based on the original address, the intent, and the configuration parameter to allow for "optimal display."
  • The complaint refers generally to "one or more claims" of the '611 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" made, used, sold, or imported by LG (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). The specific products are identified in claim chart Exhibits B and D, which are incorporated by reference but were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶18, 27).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. Based on the allegations, the accused products appear to be software or devices that include features for searching for and accessing applications or web content. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include the claim chart exhibits (Exhibits B and D) that detail the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). In the absence of these exhibits, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the patent claims and the general allegations in the complaint.

  • '918 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that LG's products practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The narrative infringement theory suggests that when a user performs a search on an LG product, the product determines the user's intent, selects a relevant application, and presents a direct path to download that application, thereby meeting the elements of claims such as claim 1.

  • '611 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that LG's products practice the technology claimed by the '611 Patent (Compl. ¶26). The narrative infringement theory suggests that when a user on an LG product conducts a search, the product identifies the device's characteristics (e.g., that it is a smartphone with a specific OS), determines the user's intent, and provides a web address that is specifically tailored for that device, thereby meeting the elements of claims such as claim 1.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Technical Questions: A primary factual question will be whether discovery shows that LG's products perform the specific steps recited in the claims. For the '918 Patent, this includes whether the products "determine the search intent" in a manner that is distinct from standard keyword searching and whether they create a special "display segment" as described. For the '611 Patent, a key question is what evidence exists that the products actively "identify" device "configuration parameters" and subsequently "modify" web addresses to generate a device-specific result.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the interpretation of claim scope. For instance, regarding the '918 Patent, a question is whether a standard search results list that includes a link to an app store could be considered a "display segment with an icon." For the '611 Patent, a question is whether selecting a pre-existing mobile-optimized URL from a database, rather than altering a base URL, constitutes "modifying" a web address as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’918 Patent:

  • The Term: "determining the search intent"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '918 Patent. Its construction will be critical to distinguishing the claimed invention from conventional keyword-based search systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the claim reads on a wide range of modern search technologies or is limited to the specific analytical methods disclosed in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process for determining intent, including tokenizing a query, processing it through a "plurality of engines" that handle different topics (e.g., locations, people, music), and computing "certainty scores" ('918 Patent, col. 6:8-65; col. 7:1-17). This suggests "determining the search intent" is a specific, multi-step analytical process.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent also describes determining intent more generally as representing the "type of content...that currently may be of an interest to the user" ('918 Patent, col. 4:4-6). This language could be argued to support a broader meaning covering any process that infers a user's goal beyond a literal interpretation of search terms.

For the ’611 Patent:

  • The Term: "modifying at least one identified web address"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core functional step of claim 1 of the '611 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether LG's accused systems perform an act that falls within the court's construction of "modifying."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary format for a "suitable URL" that is constructed by combining multiple components, including the query, intent, and device parameters ('611 Patent, col. 7:8-24). This implies an active generation or alteration of a URL string.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that "modifying" does not strictly require rewriting a URL string, but could encompass a process of starting with a generic resource and selecting a specific, "modified" URL from a set of available device-specific URLs, effectively transforming the pointer to the resource.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that LG induces infringement, at least from the time of the complaint's filing, by selling the accused products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 24-25).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provides LG with "actual knowledge" of infringement and that LG's continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶14-15, 23-24). The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is consistent with an allegation of willful or egregious conduct (Compl. p. 7).

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the answers to two central questions for the court:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Will the claim terms "determining the search intent" ('918 Patent) and "modifying [a] web address" ('611 Patent) be construed narrowly to cover only the specific, complex analytical systems detailed in the patent specifications, or will they be interpreted more broadly to encompass a wider range of functionalities common in modern smart devices that infer user goals and select device-appropriate content?

  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint lacks specific details about the accused products' operations, the case will turn on what discovery reveals. Can the plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that LG's products perform the precise sequence of steps required by the claims, such as identifying specific "configuration parameters" and using them to "modify" a URL, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?