HyperQuery LLC v. GOG SP Z Oo

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: GOG sp. z o.o. (Poland)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00041, E.D. Tex., 01/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed software products infringe a patent related to intent-based search and download systems for software applications.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for improving the relevance of search results within digital application storefronts by analyzing a user's underlying intent.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority to a series of provisional and non-provisional applications, indicating a developed patent portfolio in this technology area. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing, or inter partes review proceedings involving 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," issued December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional methods for searching application repositories (e.g., app stores) are inefficient. Searches often return irrelevant, promoted applications, requiring users to sift through long lists, and keyword searches are only effective if the user already knows the application's name (’918 Patent, col. 1:56-65, col. 2:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that goes beyond simple keyword matching. It receives a user's search query and determines the user’s "search intent" to identify a relevant application (’918 Patent, Abstract). This determination can be based on an analysis of the query itself ("explicit intent") or on contextual data like the user's location, time of day, or profile ("implicit intent") (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-16). The system then displays an icon for the selected application and, upon user input, establishes a "direct communication link" to download it (’918 Patent, col. 4:56-64).
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to provide a more intelligent and efficient user experience for application discovery by moving from a simple keyword-based retrieval model to a more sophisticated intent-based recommendation model.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including unspecified "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" identified in a referenced exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • receiving, via the communication network, 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 at least one selected application to be displayed on a display of the user device;
  • receiving via the communication network an input from the user device indicating a particular one of the at least one selected application;
  • causing establishment of a direct communication link between the user device and a location hosting the particular one of the at least one selected application; and
  • causing initiation of a download of the particular one of the at least one selected application to the user device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific details regarding the functionality or market context of the accused products. The infringement allegations are contained entirely within "charts incorporated into this Count" via Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a narrative infringement theory or a claim chart comparing the patent claims to the accused products. It states that infringement is demonstrated in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which is not included in the public filing (Compl. ¶16-17). Consequently, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A threshold issue for the court will be identifying the specific "Exemplary Defendant Products" and reviewing the evidence Plaintiff proffers to show that these products perform each step of the asserted claims.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what mechanism the accused products use to rank or select applications in response to a user query. The case may turn on whether this mechanism performs the function of "determining the search intent" as required by the claim, or if it is a conventional keyword matching or sales-based ranking system that falls outside the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "determining the search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central inventive concept distinguishing the patent from prior art search methods. The scope of this term will likely be determinative of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate whether standard search result ranking algorithms are sufficient to infringe or if a more complex, context-aware analysis is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, requiring only "determining the search intent based on the input search query" (’918 Patent, col. 9:61-62). This could arguably encompass any process that selects a result based on an interpretation of the query's meaning.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process for determining intent, including tokenizing a query, processing it with multiple "engines" corresponding to different topics (e.g., locations, people, apps), computing "certainty scores," and performing statistical and semantic analysis (’918 Patent, col. 7:1-col. 8:16). A defendant may argue that these detailed descriptions limit the term's scope to systems embodying this specific architecture. The specification also distinguishes between "explicit intent" (based on the query alone) and "implicit intent" (based on external context like time or location), raising the question of whether one or both are required (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-35).

The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the "link" is critical to the final steps of the claimed method. Its definition will clarify how the user obtains the selected application and whether intermediate steps (like navigating a product page) negate infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires a link "between the user device and a location hosting the particular one of the at least one selected application" (’918 Patent, col. 10:5-7). This could be read broadly to cover any hyperlink that ultimately resolves to a downloadable file.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's summary describes establishing the link "in response to an input received from the user device" to download the application, which could suggest a one-click download process that bypasses further user navigation on a storefront (’918 Patent, col. 2:29-33). The goal of overcoming the "time consuming" nature of prior art navigation could support an interpretation that the link must be more immediate than a standard link to a product description page (’918 Patent, col. 2:5-6).

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 the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after having "actual knowledge" of the '918 Patent from the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13-14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term “determining the search intent,” as described in the patent’s detailed embodiments involving multiple analytical engines and certainty scores, be construed to cover the search and ranking algorithms used in a conventional digital storefront?
2. A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that the unnamed accused products actually perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the steps of creating a "display segment" with an "icon" and establishing a "direct communication link" for download, as these functions are described in the patent.
3. The outcome may also depend on venue: whether Plaintiff can substantiate its conclusory allegation that a Polish corporation maintains an "established place of business" in the Eastern District of Texas sufficient to satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).