HyperQuery LLC v. Pico Immersive Pte Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: PICO Immersive Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00049, E.D. Tex., 01/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for determining a user's search intent to recommend and facilitate the download of software applications.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of finding relevant applications in crowded digital marketplaces by analyzing a user's query to infer their underlying goal, rather than relying on simple keyword matching.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a chain of applications, including several provisional applications, dating back to 2011. 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

Issued December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that searching for applications in central repositories (e.g., app stores) can be "very time consuming" and yield irrelevant results, partly because search results are often promoted by the repository owner rather than being tailored to the user's specific intent (ʼ918 Patent, col. 1:52-col. 2:9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that receives a search query from a user, analyzes it to determine the user's "search intent," selects one or more applications from a repository based on that intent, and then displays an icon for the selected application. Upon user interaction with the icon, the system establishes a direct communication link to the application's source to initiate a download (ʼ918 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-7). A core component is an "intent detection unit" (IDU) that processes the query to understand the user's underlying topic of interest (ʼ918 Patent, Fig. 1, 140).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents an effort to improve application discovery by adding a layer of semantic analysis to the search process, aiming to provide more relevant results than conventional keyword-based search engines prevalent at the time (ʼ918 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 (method) and Claim 11 (system).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the key elements of the 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 reserves the right to assert other claims, which could include dependent claims with additional limitations (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11). However, it does not name these products directly in the body of the complaint, instead referring to charts in an "Exhibit 2" which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17).

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 a system for searching for and downloading applications. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in an Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not available for review, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" perform all the steps of the claimed method, thereby satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the scope of "determining the search intent." The patent describes a detailed "intent detection unit" involving query tokenization and analysis by multiple engines (ʼ918 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:18-54). The question for the court will be whether the accused products' search algorithms perform a process that falls within the scope of this claimed step, or if they employ a more conventional search method that the patentee may have sought to improve upon.
• Technical Questions: The complaint's reliance on an unattached exhibit raises the evidentiary question of what proof Plaintiff will offer to show that the accused products perform each element of the asserted claims. For instance, evidence will be needed to demonstrate that the accused products "caus[e] establishment of a direct communication link" as recited in the claim, and how that functionality is distinct from a standard hyperlink in a list of search results (ʼ918 Patent, col. 10:4-7).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "determining the search intent"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in both independent claims and captures the core inventive concept of moving beyond keyword matching. The outcome of the case may depend on how broadly or narrowly this term is construed. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate whether the accused products' search algorithms are covered by the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the "search intent represents the type of content... that currently may be of an interest to the user" (ʼ918 Patent, col. 4:4-7). This language could support an interpretation covering any method that infers a user's topic of interest from a query.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details a specific method for determining intent, which involves "tokenizing the input search query," processing it "via a plurality of engines" that compute "certainty score[s]," and then analyzing those scores to determine the intent (ʼ918 Patent, col. 10:29-50). This detailed description could support a narrower construction limited to systems that perform these specific sub-steps.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness allegations are based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of infringement obtained upon service of the complaint and the accompanying claim charts (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). This frames the allegation as one of post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "determining the search intent," as described in the patent's detailed embodiments, be construed to cover the specific search and recommendation algorithms implemented in Defendant’s accused products? The patent’s disclosure of a multi-engine system with "certainty scores" may create a high bar for infringement.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: given the complaint’s reliance on an unattached exhibit, the case will turn on whether discovery yields sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate, on an element-by-element basis, that the accused products actually perform the specific steps of receiving a query, analyzing intent, selecting an application, and establishing a "direct communication link" for download as claimed.