HyperQuery LLC v. Hikvision USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Hikvision USA Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00408, E.D. Tex., 04/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a "foreign corporation" (incorporated outside of Texas) and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, causing harm to the Plaintiff in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for searching for and downloading software applications based on a user's determined "search intent."
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for improving the relevance and efficiency of discovering applications within digital repositories, like mobile app stores.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, any post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, or any known licensing history.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-03-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 Earliest 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
2025-04-17	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, issued December 27, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem with conventional application repositories where searching for a desired application can be "very time consuming." It suggests that search results are often not based on relevance to the user's actual need, but are instead "commonly promoted by the repository's owner," leading to inefficient navigation through irrelevant options (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where the system first receives a user's search query and then determines the user’s "search intent" (’918 Patent, Abstract). This intent can be derived explicitly from the query text or implicitly from contextual data like the user's location or the time of day (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-16). Based on this determined intent, the system selects a relevant application, displays an icon for it, and upon user input, establishes a "direct communication link" to a location hosting the application to initiate the download, thereby streamlining the discovery and installation process (’918 Patent, col. 4:55 - col. 5:8).
• Technical Importance: This technology represents an approach to application discovery that moves beyond simple keyword matching toward a more contextual, intent-driven model, aiming to provide more relevant results and a more efficient user experience (’918 Patent, col. 1:25-31).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, including "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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 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 application to the user device over the direct communication link.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

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

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality of the accused instrumentalities. All allegations regarding the technical operation of the accused products are contained within the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an external exhibit, which was not provided. Therefore, a tabular analysis cannot be performed. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It alleges these products satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The complaint incorporates the specific infringement allegations from the charts in Exhibit 2 by reference (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: As the complaint does not describe how the accused products function, a central question will be how Plaintiff intends to map the features of the unnamed "Exemplary Defendant Products" to the specific method steps recited in the asserted claims, such as "determining the search intent".
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be what proof Plaintiff offers to demonstrate that the accused products perform the specific functions required by the claims. For example, it is unclear what evidence will show that the accused products establish a "direct communication link" between a user device and a hosting location, as distinct from a standard hyperlink within a search interface.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central technical concept of the patent. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the logic used by the accused products to generate search results falls within the court’s construction of "search intent".
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "search intent" broadly, distinguishing between "explicit intent" derived from a query and "implicit intent" derived from "environmental variables and/or personal variables" such as location, time of day, and user profile information (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-16). This could support a construction covering any system that uses context beyond keywords.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a specific multi-stage process for determining intent, involving a "tokenizer" and a plurality of "engines" that map tokens to entities and compute "certainty scores" (’918 Patent, col. 9:18 - col. 10:43). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this more complex, disclosed implementation.

The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed method from conventional search-and-navigate processes. Its construction is critical to determining whether the accused products perform the final steps of the claimed method. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to define the mechanism that provides the invention's purported efficiency benefit.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean any hyperlink or software instruction that, upon user selection, initiates a download without requiring the user to navigate through additional pages (e.g., a detailed product page) within the application repository.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires "establishment of a direct communication link between the user device and a location hosting the particular one of the at least one selected application" (’918 Patent, col. 10:5-9). This language could support a narrower construction requiring a connection that bypasses an application store's front-end interface and links more directly to the server or content delivery network where the application file itself is stored.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶14-15).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint asserts that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). While not using the term "willful," the pleading alleges continued infringement despite this knowledge and requests damages for "continuing or future infringement" and a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which forms a basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶14; Prayer D, E.i).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidence and specificity: Given the complaint’s lack of detail regarding the accused products, a key question is what specific products are at issue and what technical evidence Plaintiff will introduce to prove that they actually perform each element of the asserted claims, particularly the more abstract steps of "determining the search intent" and creating a "direct communication link."
• The case will also likely turn on a question of claim scope: The construction of the term "search intent" will be a central legal battle. The resolution will depend on whether the court defines the term broadly to encompass any contextual search logic or narrowly limits it to the specific multi-engine, certainty-score-based architecture detailed in the patent's specification.