DCT

2:25-cv-00040

HyperQuery LLC v. Fiserv Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Fiserv, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00040, E.D. Tex., 01/15/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for downloading software applications based on a user's determined search intent rather than simple keyword matching.
Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of mobile application discovery, aiming to improve the relevance of search results in crowded application repositories by analyzing a user's underlying intent.
Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-03-28	Earliest Priority Date for '918 Patent
2016-12-27	'918 Patent Issued
2025-01-15	Complaint Filed

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 process of finding applications in repositories like the App Store® as "very time consuming" because it requires navigating numerous categories and yields results that are often promoted by the repository owner rather than being most relevant to the user's actual needs or intent ('918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that receives a user's search query, determines the user's "search intent," and then selects one or more relevant applications ('918 Patent, Abstract). Instead of just returning a list, the system can create a "display segment" over the existing user interface to show an icon for the selected application, and upon a user gesture, establish a "direct communication link" to download it ('918 Patent, col. 4:55-63). The system's ability to determine "intent" may go beyond the explicit query to include "implicit intent" derived from environmental variables like time and location ('918 Patent, col. 4:9-16).
Technical Importance: The described technology seeks to shift application discovery from a keyword-based retrieval model to a more sophisticated, context-aware recommendation model, improving user experience by reducing search friction ('918 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '918 patent, identified as the "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" in an incorporated exhibit that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent's independent claims are 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 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 selected application to be displayed;
- receiving an input from the user device indicating a particular application;
- causing establishment of a direct communication link to a location hosting the application; and
- causing initiation of a download of the application.
The complaint's reference to "one or more claims" suggests the possibility that dependent claims may also be asserted (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any of Defendant's products or services (Compl. ¶11). It refers to the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts within an incorporated but unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality or market context of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶17). As a result, a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the accused products to the patent claims is not possible from the complaint itself.

The narrative theory of infringement is that Defendant directly infringes the ’918 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint also alleges direct infringement occurs when Defendant’s employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶12). The infringement allegations are asserted to be literal or, alternatively, under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's lack of specificity raises the foundational question of which of Defendant's products are actually at issue. A central dispute may concern the definition of "search intent" ('918 Patent, col. 9:62). The question is whether this term, as used in the patent, requires the complex contextual analysis described in the specification or if it can be read to cover more conventional keyword-based search functionalities.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what proof exists that the accused products perform the specific function of "determining the search intent" as distinct from simply matching keywords in a query ('918 Patent, col. 10:20-24). Another technical question will be whether the accused products "caus[e] establishment of a direct communication link" as claimed, or if they merely provide a standard hyperlink to a third-party application repository ('918 Patent, col. 10:4-7).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "search intent"
- Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent, distinguishing the claimed method from prior art keyword searching. The outcome of the case may depend heavily on whether the functionality of the accused products falls within the court's construction of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires "determining the search intent based on the input search query," which could be argued to encompass any process that derives a user's goal from a query ('918 Patent, col. 9:62).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed system for determining intent, involving tokenizing a query, processing it with multiple "engines" (146), and analyzing it with an "analyzer" (148) that considers both "explicit intent" from the query and "implicit intent" from environmental data like location and time ('918 Patent, col. 4:7-29, Fig. 3). A party could argue the term should be limited to this more complex, multi-faceted analysis.
The Term: "direct communication link"
- Context and Importance: This term defines how the user accesses the selected application for download. Infringement may turn on whether the accused system's method of connecting the user to the application source meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  - Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 1, "causing establishment of a direct communication link," could be argued to mean any link that connects the user to the download location without requiring further searching ('918 Patent, col. 10:4-7).
  - Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the server (130) is configured to "establish a direct communication link between the user device and the location that stores the selected application," which could be interpreted to require a specific server-initiated action rather than simply passing a URL to the user device's browser or app store client ('918 Patent, col. 4:60-63).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element for inducement is pleaded as arising "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the lawsuit provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to" infringe, which establishes a basis for post-filing willful infringement (Compl. ¶14). The prayer for relief requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is tied to findings of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct (Prayer ¶i).

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

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "search intent," which the patent specification ties to a complex, context-aware analytical process, be construed to cover the functionality of what may be more conventional keyword-based search systems in Defendant's products?
A second central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of detail, the case will depend on whether discovery produces evidence showing that Defendant's accused products actually perform the specific technical steps recited in the claims, particularly the "determining search intent" and "causing establishment of a direct communication link" limitations.
Finally, a key question for damages will be one of knowledge and intent: the allegations of inducement and willfulness are based on knowledge derived from the complaint itself. The viability of these claims will depend on Defendant’s actions post-filing and the ultimate strength of the underlying infringement case.