HyperQuery LLC v. Overwolf, Ltd.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Overwolf, Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00044, 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 unspecified products and services infringe a patent related to methods for identifying user search intent to recommend and download software applications.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for improving the relevance of application search results by analyzing a user's underlying intent, a central challenge in app stores and software distribution platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initiating document for this litigation. No prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings concerning the patent-in-suit are mentioned. The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge gained from the filing of the complaint itself.

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 (’918 Patent). (Compl. ¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional methods for finding mobile applications are "very time consuming" and often return irrelevant results promoted by a repository's owner, rather than results that "meet the exact user's needs or intent." (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-13).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that attempts to solve this problem by first receiving a search query and then "determining the search intent" of the user. (’918 Patent, Abstract). Based on this inferred intent, the system selects a relevant application, displays an icon for it within a "display segment," and, upon user interaction with the icon, establishes a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application to initiate a download. (’918 Patent, col. 2:21-34). The specification describes a sophisticated process for determining intent that can involve tokenizing the query, processing it with multiple specialized "engines" (e.g., for locations, music, people), and calculating "certainty scores" to identify the most probable user interest. (’918 Patent, col. 9:18-col. 10:40).
• Technical Importance: The described technology represents a move beyond simple keyword-based search toward a more contextual and semantic understanding of user queries to improve the efficiency and accuracy of application discovery. (’918 Patent, col. 2:11-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit. (Compl. ¶11). The patent's independent claims are 1 (a method claim) and 11 (a system claim).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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 selected application;
  • causing establishment of a direct communication link to a location hosting the particular application; and
  • causing initiation of a download of the particular application.
• Independent Claim 11 (System):
  • a network interface to receive a search query;
  • a processor and a memory with instructions that configure the system to:
  • determine the search intent based on the query;
  • select an application based on the intent;
  • cause an icon to be displayed; and
  • responsive to user input, cause a direct communication link to be established to a location hosting the application and cause initiation of a download.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products or services. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’918 Patent and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the products or the referenced exhibit, a detailed description of the accused functionality is not possible. The allegations suggest the products involve a system for users to search for and download software applications. (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement but relies on claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement theory. (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit is not available, a detailed element-by-element comparison cannot be constructed. The narrative theory is that Defendant's products perform the patented method of determining user search intent to select and facilitate the download of applications. (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may be whether the Defendant's method for recommending applications constitutes "determining the search intent" as claimed. The patent describes a specific multi-engine, tokenizing, and scoring process (’918 Patent, col. 9:18-col. 10:40). The case may turn on whether the claims are construed to be limited to this implementation or cover any algorithmic process that goes beyond basic keyword matching to rank or select applications.
• Technical Questions: A second point of contention may arise over the meaning of a "direct communication link." (’918 Patent, cl. 1). It is an open question whether a standard deep link that directs a user to a product page within a third-party service like the Apple App Store or Google Play for a one-click download would meet this limitation, or if the claim requires a connection that more completely bypasses such intermediaries.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"determining the search intent" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent. The outcome of the case will likely depend on how broadly or narrowly this term is defined, as it will determine whether the accused products' search and recommendation algorithms fall within the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, simply requiring "determining the search intent based on the input search query." (’918 Patent, cl. 1). Plaintiff may argue this covers any process that infers a user's goal or interest from a query to select an application.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a highly detailed process for determining intent, including tokenizing a query, processing tokens through specialized engines (e.g., for location, music, people), and using "certainty scores" to resolve ambiguity and identify a "coherent query." (’918 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 9:18-col. 10:40). Defendant may argue the term should be limited to this disclosed embodiment.

"direct communication link" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the mechanism for initiating the download after an application is selected. Its construction is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from a simple search engine that provides a standard hyperlink to an app store's product page.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the goal is to streamline the download process. (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-6). Plaintiff could argue that any link that takes the user from the icon directly to a download prompt, even within a third-party store's API, qualifies as "direct."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites establishing a link "between the user device and a location hosting the particular one of the at least one selected application." (’918 Patent, cl. 1). Defendant may argue this requires a point-to-point connection that bypasses the general interface of a third-party app store, thereby excluding standard deep links.

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 a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

The allegation of willfulness is based entirely on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its (unprovided) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement," rendering any subsequent infringement willful. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. Definitional Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of "determining the search intent." The core question for the court will be whether this term covers any modern, relevance-based application search algorithm or is limited to the specific multi-engine, tokenizing, and certainty-scoring architecture detailed in the patent’s specification.
2. Technical Scope: A second critical issue will be the meaning of "direct communication link." The court will need to decide if a conventional deep link into a third-party application store satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires a more specific technical connection that bypasses standard app store infrastructure.
3. Evidentiary Sufficiency: Given that the complaint fails to identify the accused products by name and relies on an unprovided exhibit for its infringement contentions, a threshold question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient evidence to map the specific functionality of Defendant's products to the limitations of the asserted claims.