HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Electronic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sony Electronic Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00611, E.D. Tex., 07/31/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for searching for and downloading software applications based on a user's determined search intent.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving the relevance and efficiency of discovering applications in crowded digital marketplaces, moving beyond simple keyword matching to infer user intent.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself, suggesting a focus on post-filing conduct.

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 identifies the process of finding relevant applications in central repositories (e.g., app stores) as "very time consuming." It notes that search results are often not based on relevance to the user's specific need but are instead "promoted by the repository's owner." (col. 2:4-9).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the system receives a user's search query and, instead of just matching keywords, determines the user's "search intent." (’918 Patent, Abstract). Based on this inferred intent, the system selects a relevant application, creates a "display segment" containing an icon for that application, and then, upon user interaction with the icon, establishes a "direct communication link" to download the application. (’918 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:20-33). The determination of intent can involve analyzing the query with multiple specialized engines, tokenizing the query, and statistically analyzing the results. (’918 Patent, Fig. 3-4).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide an application search solution that overcomes the limitations of then-current search tools by focusing on the user's underlying intent rather than simple keyword presence. (’918 Patent, col. 2:9-13).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’918 Patent, and references "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent method claim 1 is foundational to the patent.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
    • receiving, via the communication network, an input search query from a user device;
    • determining the search intent based on the input search query;
    • selecting, based on the search intent, at least one application from at least one applications central repository;
    • causing an icon corresponding to the at least one selected application to be displayed on a display of the user device;
    • receiving via the communication network an input from the user device indicating a particular one of the at least one selected application;
    • causing establishment of a direct communication link between the user device and a location hosting the particular one of the at least one selected application; and
    • causing initiation of a download of the particular one of the at least one selected application to the user device.
  • The complaint does not specify which dependent claims may be asserted. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name any specific accused products, services, or methods. It refers generally to "Defendant products identified in the charts" and "Exemplary Defendant Products." (Compl. ¶11, 16). These charts are allegedly contained in an Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). Without identification of the products or the referenced claim charts, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused functionality or its market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the ’918 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to substantiate this claim. (Compl. ¶11-12). Instead, it incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: The primary threshold issue will be identifying the specific accused products and functionalities, which the complaint fails to do. The infringement theory appears to rest entirely on the contents of the unprovided Exhibit 2.
  • Technical Question: Once products are identified, a central question will be whether they perform the specific step of "determining the search intent" as detailed in the patent. This involves a potentially complex process of tokenizing queries, using multiple engines, and performing statistical analysis, as opposed to a more conventional keyword-based search or recommendation algorithm. (’918 Patent, col. 7:1-17; col. 8:1-16).
  • Scope Question: A dispute may arise over the meaning of "direct communication link." The infringement analysis will need to show that the accused system establishes a link directly between the user device and the application's host, bypassing intermediate steps in a manner consistent with the patent's teachings. (’918 Patent, col. 4:59-65).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "determining the search intent" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent. Its definition will be critical to the infringement analysis, as it distinguishes the claimed method from conventional search techniques. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a detailed, multi-step process for determining intent, and the viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this detailed process is a required limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the search intent more generally as simply indicating a "topic of interest of a user." (’918 Patent, col. 2:24-25). This could support an argument that any method of discerning a user's interest beyond literal keywords meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures disclose a specific, complex process for determining intent. This includes tokenizing a query, processing it with a "plurality of engines" corresponding to different topics, computing "certainty scores," and performing statistical and semantic analysis. (’918 Patent, col. 9:20-40; Fig. 3-4). This language could support a narrower construction requiring these specific sub-steps.

• The Term: "display segment" (from claim 19)

• Context and Importance: This term appears in dependent claim 19, which requires "instigating a display segment to be created in which the icon...is to be displayed." The scope of this term is important for determining what type of user interface infringes. Claim 1 only requires causing an icon "to be displayed," but the broader inventive concept described in the patent repeatedly references this "segment."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be construed broadly to mean any designated area of a user interface where a resulting application icon is shown.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and summary repeatedly describe creating a display segment "over a display of the user device." (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:27-28, 49-50). This suggests the "segment" may be a specific type of overlay or dynamic element, not merely a standard results list, potentially narrowing the scope of claims that include it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '918 Patent." (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge acquired upon service of the complaint. (Compl. ¶13, 15). This frames the allegation as concerning post-filing conduct, where continued alleged infringement would occur despite having received notice of the patent.

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

1. An evidentiary question of specificity: The complaint's failure to identify accused products or provide its referenced claim-chart exhibit creates a fundamental deficiency. A primary issue will be whether the plaintiff can substantiate its claims with specific, plausible facts linking an actual Sony product to the patent's claims, as required under modern pleading standards.
2. A claim construction question of intent: The case will likely hinge on the construction of "determining the search intent." The core legal and technical battle will be whether this term covers any modern semantic search or recommendation engine, or if it is limited to the specific multi-engine, tokenizing, and scoring architecture detailed in the patent's specification.
3. A functional question of infringement: Assuming a product is identified, a key factual dispute will be whether its functionality matches the patent's claims. For example, does the accused system merely present a list of recommended apps based on user data, or does it perform the claimed sequence of determining intent, selecting a single app, creating a distinct "display segment" for it, and establishing a "direct" download link upon user interaction?