HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sony Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00023, E.D. Tex., 01/13/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified Sony products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for searching and downloading software applications based on a user's determined search intent.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses perceived inefficiencies in mobile application stores by providing a method to more accurately identify and present relevant applications to a user based on the inferred intent of their search query, rather than simple keyword matching.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention prior litigation or administrative proceedings. The patent-in-suit claims priority to a chain of applications, with the earliest dating to 2011, suggesting a developed technology portfolio.

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's background section describes the conventional process of searching for mobile applications in repositories as "very time consuming" and often yielding irrelevant results, as applications are frequently promoted by the repository owner rather than being ranked by relevance to the user's specific needs (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method and system that receives a search query from a user, determines the user's "search intent," selects one or more applications from a central repository based on that intent, and then displays an icon for the selected application, from which a user can initiate a direct download (’918 Patent, Abstract). The system determines intent by analyzing the query, potentially in conjunction with "environmental variables" like the user's location or the time of day, to better understand the user's goal (’918 Patent, col. 4:8-16).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to improve the application discovery process by shifting from simple keyword filtering to a more nuanced, intent-based selection mechanism designed to provide more accurate and useful results (’918 Patent, col. 2:13-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" identified in an unprovided exhibit, but does not specify claim numbers in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s independent claims are method claim 1 and system claim 11.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • receiving 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 an applications central repository;
  • causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed;
  • receiving an input from the user indicating a particular selected application;
  • causing establishment of a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application; and
  • causing initiation of the application download over that link.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent," but provides no specific description of their features or functions, instead incorporating the unprovided Exhibit 2 by reference (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶17). As such, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint's narrative infringement theory is limited to the assertion that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the claimed technology and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• 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 for determining intent, involving tokenizing queries, using multiple "engines" to analyze topics, and calculating "certainty scores" (’918 Patent, col. 6:18-65; Fig. 3). A key question is whether the accused products perform such a specific function or a more conventional search that Plaintiff will argue falls within a broader interpretation of the claim.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's lack of detail raises the fundamental evidentiary question of what proof Plaintiff will offer to show that the accused products actually perform each claimed step. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the accused systems establish a "direct communication link" between a user device and an application's hosting location, as opposed to using standard app store protocols?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "determining the search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central innovative concept recited in the claims. Its construction will likely be determinative of infringement, as it distinguishes the patented method from conventional keyword searching. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate whether the accused system's search algorithm falls within the scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1 requires only "determining the search intent based on the input search query," which a party could argue encompasses any process that infers a user's goal beyond literal keyword matching (’918 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of a particular method for determining intent, which involves an "intent detection unit (IDU)" using a tokenizer, multiple engines for different topics (e.g., locations, people), and an analyzer that computes "certainty scores" to identify a "coherent query" (’918 Patent, Figs. 3-4; col. 7:1-16). A party could argue this detailed disclosure limits the claim term to this specific implementation or ones substantially similar to it.

• The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism for downloading the application and could be critical for distinguishing the invention from prior art systems that might route users back through a generic app store interface.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term simply means a link that allows a download to begin responsive to a user's selection of an icon, without requiring further navigation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that a server "is configured to establish a direct communication link between the user device and the location that stores the selected application" (’918 Patent, col. 4:58-63). A party could contend this requires a specific, server-mediated connection architecture that directly connects the user to the application's source, potentially bypassing a standard app store's download manager.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Sony provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The allegation also rests on Sony selling the products to customers for infringing use (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness appears to be based on post-suit conduct. The complaint alleges that "at least since being served by this Complaint," Sony has had "actual knowledge" of the '918 Patent and its infringement, yet has continued its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶¶13, 15).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "determining the search intent," which is described in the patent with a specific multi-engine analytical framework, be construed broadly enough to read on the search-and-recommendation functionalities of the accused Sony products? The outcome may depend on whether the court views the detailed disclosure as merely an example or as a limitation on the claim's scope.
• The case will also present a key evidentiary question: given the absence of technical specifics in the complaint, what evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that the accused products perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the establishment of a "direct communication link" and the specific steps involved in intent determination? The dispute will likely focus heavily on the technical evidence presented in discovery.