HyperQuery LLC v. D2L Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: D2L Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00039, E.D. Tex., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and having committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified 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 addresses inefficiencies in application store search results by analyzing a user's query to determine underlying intent, aiming to provide more relevant application suggestions than traditional keyword-based searching.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff 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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional application searches within mobile app repositories as "very time consuming." (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-6). It notes that keyword searches often return irrelevant results, including applications promoted by the repository owner, forcing users to navigate through "tens or hundreds of applications" to find one that meets their needs. (’918 Patent, col. 2:6-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that receives a user's search query and, instead of merely matching keywords, determines the user's "search intent," defined as the underlying "topic of interest." (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:23-25). Based on this determined intent, the system selects one or more relevant applications from a repository, displays corresponding icons to the user (e.g., in a "dynamic display segment"), and, upon user selection, establishes a direct communication link to download the chosen application. (’918 Patent, col. 4:54-62). This process is illustrated in the system diagram of Figure 1 and the method flowchart of Figure 2.
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to improve the user experience of app discovery by providing a search solution that could better understand user needs and overcome the limitations of simple keyword matching. (’918 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," referring to "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent’s independent claims are Claim 1 (method) and Claim 11 (system).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
  • Determining the "search intent" based on the query.
  • Selecting at least one application from a repository based on the search intent.
  • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
  • Receiving an input indicating a user's selection of the application.
  • Causing establishment of a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application.
  • Causing initiation of the application's download over that link.
• Independent Claim 11 (System) includes the following essential elements:
  • A system with a network interface, processor, and memory configured to perform steps largely parallel to those in Claim 1: determining search intent, selecting an application, causing an icon to be displayed, and causing a direct communication link to be established for download in response to user input.
• The complaint states that Plaintiff's allegations are not limited to the exemplary claims, suggesting the right to assert other dependent claims is reserved (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts provided as "Exhibit 2," which was not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). This suggests the products incorporate functionality for searching for and downloading applications. The complaint also alleges that Defendant sells these products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on their operation (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more specific analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts in "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe the ’918 Patent by performing all the steps of the asserted claims, including determining a user's search intent to provide application download recommendations (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent and the complaint's general allegations, the infringement analysis raises several potential questions for the court.

• Scope Questions: A primary dispute may center on the meaning of "determining the search intent." (’918 Patent, col. 10:2). The court will have to determine if this requires the specific, multi-engine, entity-mapping process described in the patent's specification or if it can be read more broadly to cover other forms of advanced or semantic search. The question is whether the accused system's search logic performs the claimed "intent" determination or a conventional keyword-based search.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products perform the specific architectural steps recited in the claims. For example, what evidence does the complaint provide that the system establishes a "direct communication link" to the application source as claimed, rather than using a standard hyperlink or redirect? (’918 Patent, col. 10:6-8). Similarly, evidence will be needed to show that the accused system "caus[es] an icon...to be displayed" in a manner that maps to the "display segment" concept in the patent. (’918 Patent, col. 9:65-66).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "search intent"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent’s novelty. The distinction between determining "search intent" and performing a conventional keyword search will likely be a dispositive issue for both claim construction and infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will define the boundary between the patented invention and the prior art.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a high-level definition, stating the search intent "represents the type of content, the content, and/or actions that currently may be of an interest to the user." (’918 Patent, col. 4:4-6). This language could support an interpretation that covers any method of inferring a user's topic of interest beyond literal keywords.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a detailed "explicit intent" determination process involving tokenizing a query, processing it with a "plurality of engines" that compute "certainty score[s]" based on mapping tokens to "entities," and analyzing the results. (’918 Patent, col. 10:21-49; Claim 5). A defendant may argue that these detailed embodiments limit the term "search intent" to this specific complex implementation.

• Term: "direct communication link"

  • Context and Importance: This term describes the mechanism for downloading the application. Its construction is important to determine if the accused system's download process meets the claim limitation, or if it uses a more common, indirect method (e.g., redirecting to a third-party app store page).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "direct communication link," which could allow for an interpretation covering any link that ultimately results in a download without significant intermediate user steps.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts its solution with navigating through repositories. The phrasing "establish a direct communication link between the user device and a location hosting the...application" could be argued to exclude links that pass through an intermediary, such as a web-based app store front-end, and require a point-to-point connection for the download itself. (’918 Patent, col. 2:29-32).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "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). Knowledge and intent are alleged to exist at least from the date the complaint was served (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint pleads a basis for post-filing willful infringement. It alleges that the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that any continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

This dispute appears to center on the specific technical implementation of a search-and-download feature. The outcome will likely depend on the court's resolution of two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "search intent," as claimed in the patent, be construed to cover the search functionality of the accused products? This will require the court to decide whether the term requires the complex, multi-engine analytical process detailed in the specification or if it encompasses any search method that goes beyond simple keyword matching.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: assuming a favorable claim construction, what evidence can Plaintiff produce from the accused products and their documentation to demonstrate the performance of specific claim elements, such as the determination of "intent" (as construed), the creation of a "display segment," and the establishment of a "direct communication link"? The case will turn on whether the accused technology's actual operation aligns with the patent's claimed method and system.