HyperQuery LLC v. Chaos Software GmbH

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Chaos Software EOOD (Bulgaria)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00407, E.D. Tex., 06/20/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for downloading software applications by first determining a user's "search intent" from a query and then presenting relevant applications.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of improving the relevance of search results within application marketplaces, moving beyond simple keyword matching to a more nuanced understanding of user intent.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-03-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 Priority Date
2013-12-11	U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 Application Filing Date
2016-12-27	U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 Issue Date
2025-06-20	Complaint Filing Date

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. (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the process of searching for mobile applications in central repositories (e.g., app stores) as "very time consuming" and often yielding irrelevant results, partly because returned applications may be promoted by the repository owner rather than being tailored to the user's specific needs. (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that analyzes a user's search query to determine the underlying "search intent"—the actual topic of interest—rather than just performing a keyword match. (’918 Patent, Abstract). Based on this determined intent, the system selects one or more relevant applications from a repository, displays corresponding icons in a "dynamic display segment," and then establishes a "direct communication link" to download a selected application. (’918 Patent, col. 4:54-64; Fig. 2). This process is designed to overcome the limitations of traditional app store search mechanisms. (’918 Patent, col. 2:11-14).
• Technical Importance: The described technology represents an effort to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of application discovery by incorporating a layer of semantic analysis into the search process. (’918 Patent, col. 2:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims, identifying them as the "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not attached to the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
• Essential elements of Independent 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 a central repository;
  • causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed;
  • receiving an input from the user indicating a particular selected application;
  • causing establishment of a direct communication link to the location hosting the application; and
  • causing initiation of a download of the application.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific accused product or service. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference but not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). This suggests the accused products are software systems or services that facilitate the search for and download of applications. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference in its Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible from the complaint itself. The narrative infringement theory alleges that the Defendant's products perform the claimed method of receiving a user query, determining user intent, selecting and displaying an application based on that intent, and initiating a download upon user selection. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s claims and the general nature of the allegations, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions.
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused products "determin[e] the search intent" in the manner claimed by the patent. The dispute could focus on whether the accused functionality is merely a sophisticated keyword search or if it performs the semantic analysis described in the ’918 Patent specification, such as using multiple "engines" to compute "certainty scores." (’918 Patent, col. 6:18-7:17).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide evidence regarding how the accused products technically operate. A key question will be whether the accused system "caus[es] establishment of a direct communication link" between the user device and the application host, as required by the claim, or if it uses an intermediary architecture that falls outside the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "determining the search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’918 Patent. The outcome of the case may depend heavily on whether the accused products' search and recommendation algorithms are found to perform this step. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from conventional keyword search technology.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the step broadly as "determining the search intent based on the input search query," without importing the specific mechanisms from the specification. (’918 Patent, col. 10:29-30). A party could argue this language covers any process that ascertains a user's underlying topic of interest.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed, multi-step process for determining intent. This includes tokenizing a query, processing it through a "plurality of engines" corresponding to different topics (e.g., dates, music, basketball), computing "certainty scores," and performing statistical and semantic analysis to identify a "coherent query." (’918 Patent, col. 6:18-6:21; col. 8:1-8:17). A party may argue that the claim term should be construed to require these specific features.

• The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the nature of the connection used to download the application. Its construction is important for determining whether the architecture of an accused system infringes.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a specific definition for this term, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning: a connection that facilitates the download without requiring the user to manually navigate through additional pages or storefronts.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The context implies a link established by the search server that connects the user device directly to the "location that stores the selected application," such as an application repository or web source. (’918 Patent, col. 4:59-64). A party could argue this requires a specific network path that bypasses other intermediary servers.

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 allegedly infringes the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The basis for willfulness appears to be post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that "service of this Complaint" constitutes actual knowledge and that Defendant’s continued infringing activities thereafter support claims for induced infringement and, implicitly, willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 15).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: will the central limitation "determining the search intent" be construed broadly to cover modern semantic search functions, or will it be narrowed to the specific multi-engine, certainty-score-based architecture detailed in the patent’s written description?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what proof will be offered to show that the accused products actually perform the claimed "intent determination" and establish a "direct communication link" as required by the claims, especially given the lack of specific factual allegations in the complaint regarding the accused products' functionality?