HyperQuery LLC v. Jetbrains SR

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: JetBrains s.r.o. (Czech Republic)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00042, 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 and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unnamed products infringe a patent related to methods for searching for and downloading software applications based on user search intent.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of mobile application discovery, aiming to improve the relevance of search results within application marketplaces.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review 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 describes conventional application search methods as "very time consuming," requiring users to navigate through extensive lists of applications that may be promoted by the repository owner rather than being relevant to the user's actual needs or intent (ʼ918 Patent, col. 2:3-11).
• 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 applications from a repository that match this intent. An icon for the selected application is then displayed in a "display segment" on the user's device, and user interaction with the icon establishes a "direct communication link" to download the application, streamlining the discovery and installation process (’918 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to provide a more efficient and user-centric application search solution, moving beyond simple keyword matching to a more nuanced, intent-based model for application discovery (’918 Patent, col. 2:12-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’918 Patent without specifying them, referring to them as the "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 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 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 application; and
  • causing initiation of a download of the particular application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically identify any accused product, method, or service. It refers generally to "the Defendant products identified in the charts" ("Exemplary Defendant Products") and "numerous other devices" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of any accused instrumentality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, a claim chart summary cannot be provided. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’918 Patent and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: A primary question will be identifying which JetBrains products are accused and what specific features of those products allegedly perform each step of the asserted claims. The complaint currently lacks these factual allegations.
  • Technical Questions: It will be necessary to determine what evidence Plaintiff possesses that an accused product performs the specific step of "determining the search intent" as described in the patent, rather than merely executing a conventional keyword-based search. Further, evidence will be needed to show the creation of a "display segment" and a "direct communication link" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the dispute will likely focus on whether the accused system performs a simple search or a more complex "intent" analysis as taught by the patent. The patent explains that "search intent" can be determined explicitly from a query or implicitly from environmental or personal variables (e.g., location, time of day) (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-16; col. 10:11-30).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes intent as representing "the type of content, the content, and/or actions that currently may be of an interest to the user" (’918 Patent, col. 4:4-7). This language could support a broader definition covering any determination of user interest beyond literal keyword matching.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed descriptions of determining intent by tokenizing a query, processing it through multiple "engines" corresponding to different topics (e.g., locations, people, music), and calculating "certainty scores" (’918 Patent, col. 10:21-50; Fig. 3). A defendant may argue these detailed embodiments limit the term to such a multi-engine, probabilistic process.

• The Term: "display segment"

• Context and Importance: The claims require causing an icon to be displayed in a "display segment" that is created "over a display of the user device" (’918 Patent, Abstract, col. 2:27-28, Claim 19). Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine what kind of user interface satisfies this limitation (e.g., a pop-up, an overlay, a dedicated area within an application).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to narrowly define the term, which could support an interpretation that any distinct area on a screen where a resulting application icon is shown meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 19 specifies "instigating a display segment to be created" (’918 Patent, col. 12:40-41), which could suggest the segment is a new UI element generated for the purpose of the search, not a pre-existing part of an application's interface.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '918 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement at least since being served with the complaint and has continued to infringe despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶13-14). This forms the basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence linking specific features of an identified JetBrains product to each element of the asserted claims, particularly the complex, multi-step process of "determining the search intent" as described in the ’918 Patent.
2. Definitional Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, specifically whether the term "search intent" is limited to the detailed multi-engine, probabilistic methods disclosed in the specification, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other forms of contextual search.
3. Procedural Viability: A key procedural question, antecedent to the merits, will be whether Plaintiff’s allegation that JetBrains, a Czech company, has an "established place of business" in the Eastern District of Texas can withstand a likely challenge to venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (Compl. ¶7).