HyperQuery LLC v. Nintendo Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Nintendo Co., Ltd. (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00613, E.D. Tex., 07/31/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant having an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas and allegedly committing acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products and services of the Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for searching and downloading software applications based on user search intent.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for improving the discovery and retrieval of mobile applications from digital repositories, a fundamental component of modern smart device operating systems and online marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff HyperQuery LLC is the assignee of the patent-in-suit. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, are mentioned.

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 a problem with conventional application repositories where searching for a specific application can be "very time consuming" and requires users to "review a list of irrelevant applications" that may be promoted by the repository's owner rather than being directly responsive to the user's needs (’918 Patent, col. 2:3-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that receives a search query from a user, determines the user's "search intent," and then selects a relevant application from a repository (’918 Patent, Abstract). The system then causes an icon for the selected application to be presented in a "dynamic display segment" on the user's device, and upon receiving user input on that icon, establishes a "direct communication link" to download the application, streamlining the discovery and installation process (’918 Patent, col. 4:55-63; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to reduce the friction in application discovery by making suggestions more context-aware and immediate, potentially bypassing the need to manually navigate a full application storefront.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s foundational independent claims are Claim 1 (a method) and Claim 11 (a system).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
  • Determining a "search intent" based on the query.
  • Selecting at least one application from a central repository based on that intent.
  • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
  • Receiving a user input indicating selection of the application.
  • Causing the establishment of a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application.
  • Causing the initiation of the application's download.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in an "Exhibit 2" which is referenced but not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include claim charts from a purported "Exhibit 2" that would compare the patent claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). In the absence of these charts or any specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint, the infringement theory is not detailed. The complaint’s narrative theory states that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be the identification of the accused instrumentalities. Without this information, which the complaint defers to an unprovided exhibit, it is not possible to assess the substance of the infringement allegations.
• Technical Questions: Once products are identified, a central question will likely be whether their search functionality performs the specific steps recited in the claims. For example, does the accused system "determin[e] the search intent" in the manner taught by the patent, and does it present results by "caus[ing] an icon... to be displayed" in a "display segment," or does it utilize a conventional search results list within a self-contained application?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of the claimed invention, which distinguishes itself from simple keyword matching. The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether a conventional search function infringes or if a more sophisticated, context-aware analysis is required by the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not impose specific limitations, reciting only "determining the search intent based on the input search query" (’918 Patent, col. 9:61-62). Plaintiff may argue this covers any process that programmatically associates a query with an application.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed system for determining intent, involving tokenizing a query and processing it through a "plurality of engines" that handle different topics like locations, people, or products and compute "certainty scores" (’918 Patent, col. 6:8-40; col. 10:21-49). Defendant may argue the term should be limited to this more complex, multi-faceted process.

The Term: "display segment"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the "display segment" is key to the user interface portion of the invention. Whether this term reads on a standard page of search results within an app store, or requires a distinct interface element like an overlay or pop-up, could be dispositive for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The independent system claim (Claim 11) more broadly requires the system to "cause an icon... to be displayed on a display of the user device" without using the "display segment" term, which could suggest a broader meaning (’918 Patent, col. 11:20-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract describes "creating a display segment over a display of the user device," and a dependent claim adds the limitation of "instigating a display segment to be created" (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 12:39-42). This language suggests the "display segment" is a newly created, separate visual element, potentially distinct from a standard results screen.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use its products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element is pleaded based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement and that Defendant’s continued conduct thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14). This allegation appears to be based on post-suit conduct only.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The most immediate question is one of pleading sufficiency. The complaint's complete reliance on an unprovided external exhibit to identify the accused products and articulate its infringement theory raises a fundamental question of whether it provides Defendant with adequate notice of the claims against it.

2. Definitional Scope: A core substantive issue will be the construction of the term "search intent." The case may turn on whether the court construes this term to require the complex, multi-engine, probability-based analysis detailed in the patent’s specification, or if it can be interpreted more broadly to encompass the keyword-to-application matching common in standard digital storefronts.

3. Functional Operation: A key technical dispute will likely center on the claimed user interface method. The court will need to resolve whether the accused functionality, once identified, operates by creating a "display segment" as a distinct interface element (such as an overlay), or if it functions as a conventional, self-contained application store, which may create a mismatch with the patent’s teachings.