HyperQuery LLC v. Atlassian Pty Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Atlassian Pty Ltd (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00037, E.D. Tex., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods for searching for and downloading software applications based on user intent.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that attempt to discern a user's underlying goal from a a search query to provide more relevant application recommendations, moving beyond simple keyword matching in app stores.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history related to 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

• Patent Identification: 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 (e.g., app stores) where searching for applications is "very time consuming" and often yields irrelevant results that may be "promoted by the repository's owner" rather than being tailored to the user's specific needs ('918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that receives a user's search query and determines the underlying "search intent," which indicates the user's topic of interest ('918 Patent, Abstract). This intent can be "explicit" based on the query text or "implicit" based on contextual data like location or time of day ('918 Patent, col. 4:9-16). Based on this determined intent, the system selects a relevant application from a repository, displays an icon for it (potentially in a "dynamic display segment"), and, upon user input, establishes a "direct communication link" to download the application to the user's device ('918 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to improve the user experience of app discovery by replacing keyword-based lists with a more intelligent, context-aware recommendation system designed to reduce search friction and provide more accurate results ('918 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, 1 (method) and 11 (system).
• The essential elements of independent method claim 1 include:
  • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
  • Determining the "search intent" based on the query.
  • Selecting, based on the intent, an application from a "central repository."
  • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
  • Receiving an input from the user indicating the selection of that application.
  • Causing the establishment of a "direct communication link" to the application's hosting location.
  • Causing the initiation of the application download over that link.
• The complaint does not specify whether it intends to assert any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts referenced as "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context, as all such details are incorporated by reference from the non-provided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement theory is contained entirely within "Exhibit 2," which is referenced but not provided (Compl. ¶17). The complaint itself contains only conclusory allegations of infringement without pleading specific facts as to how any particular product meets the claim limitations (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's subject matter and the general nature of Defendant's products (enterprise software and collaboration tools), the infringement analysis may raise several technical and legal questions.

• Scope Questions:
  • A primary question may be whether Defendant's products, which are typically business-to-business enterprise tools, fall within the scope of the term "application" as used in the patent, which appears to describe consumer-facing mobile apps downloaded from a "central repository" like the App Store® ('918 Patent, col. 1:41-44, col. 3:44-46).
  • The case may explore whether providing a link to a marketplace or add-on library within an enterprise platform constitutes "selecting... at least one application from at least one applications central repository" as required by the claim.
• Technical Questions:
  • A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the specific step of "determining the search intent" using a process analogous to the multi-engine, token-based system described in the patent's detailed description ('918 Patent, Fig. 3-4, col. 6:9-52).
  • It may be contested whether the mechanism for installing add-ons or integrations in Defendant's products constitutes establishing a "direct communication link" for a "download" in the manner claimed, versus a standard API call or package installation within a closed platform.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's purported novelty. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as it defines the specific type of analysis the accused system must perform. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent provides a detailed, multi-step process for its determination, which could be used to argue for a narrow construction that goes beyond a generic "user's goal."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary states that "the search intent indicates a topic of interest of a user" ('918 Patent, col. 2:23-25), which could support a construction covering any system that discerns a user's general interest.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures describe a specific process for determining intent, involving tokenizing a query, processing it with a "plurality of engines" corresponding to different topics, and computing "certainty scores" to identify a "coherent query" ('918 Patent, col. 10:27-52; Fig. 4). This language could support a narrower construction requiring these specific technical features.

The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism for downloading the application and distinguishes it from navigating a repository. Its definition will be important for assessing whether the accused products, which may use internal APIs or redirects to an app store page, practice the claimed invention.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires causing "initiation of a download... over the direct communication link" ('918 Patent, col. 10:8-12). This could be argued to cover any process that begins a download without forcing the user to manually re-navigate a separate store interface.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts its solution with navigating through repositories ('918 Patent, col. 1:56-59). An accused infringer might argue that a "direct" link must bypass the repository's product page entirely and initiate the file transfer directly, and that a link that merely redirects to a standard App Store page is not "direct."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the '918 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges Defendant has "actual knowledge" of the '918 Patent as of the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" infringing products, which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶14).

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

• A core issue will be one of applicability and scope: Can the claims of the '918 Patent, which are rooted in the context of consumer-facing mobile app stores, be construed to read on the functionality of enterprise software platforms and their associated marketplaces for add-ons or integrations?
• A central claim construction question will be the definition of "search intent": Will the term be defined broadly as the user's general goal, or will it be limited to the specific, multi-engine, probability-based analytical process detailed in the patent's specification? The answer will likely determine the breadth of products capable of infringing.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Given the lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint, a primary focus will be on what evidence Plaintiff can produce to demonstrate that Defendant's products actually perform each step of the claimed method, particularly the determination of "intent" and the establishment of a "direct communication link" for a "download."