HyperQuery LLC v. Creatio Emea Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Creatio Emea Ltd. (Cyprus)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00654, E.D. Tex., 06/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and the complaint asserts that Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's unspecified products, which involve downloading applications based on user queries, infringe a patent related to determining user search intent to recommend and provide applications.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to systems that analyze a user's search query to infer underlying intent and then present relevant applications for download, a field relevant to mobile app stores and search engine functionality.
• Key Procedural History: No significant procedural history is mentioned in the complaint. The subject matter of the patent—methods for determining user intent and displaying results—may raise questions of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a topic of frequent litigation for software-based inventions.

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
2025-06-23	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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional application search methods as "very time consuming," requiring users to navigate through numerous irrelevant or promoted applications that do not meet the user's specific needs or intent (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-12). Keyword searches are often too broad, returning applications that are not relevant to the user's specific interest (e.g., a search for "ticket" returns apps for movies, sports, and concerts) (’918 Patent, col. 1:62-col. 2:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that receives a user's search query and determines the user's "search intent" to identify a relevant "topic of interest" (’918 Patent, Abstract). Based on this determined intent, the system selects one or more applications from a repository and displays a corresponding icon in a "display segment" over the user's screen. A user interaction with the icon then establishes a direct link to download the application (’918 Patent, col. 2:20-33). This process is designed to bypass irrelevant results by focusing on the inferred user intent rather than simple keyword matching (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-7).
• Technical Importance: The technology represents an effort to improve the relevance and efficiency of application discovery on mobile devices by moving beyond simple keyword search to a more context-aware, intent-based model (’918 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify them (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 11 are the broadest method and system claims, respectively.
• 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 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... application; and
  • causing initiation of a download of the particular one of the... application to the user device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific product, method, or service (Compl. ¶11). The allegations are directed at "Defendant products identified in the charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11); however, the referenced exhibit containing these charts was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context. It alleges in general terms that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports products that "practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates its substantive allegations by reference to an external document, "Exhibit 2," which was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint states that these charts compare the "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" and demonstrate that the products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the referenced exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" perform the method of receiving a search query, determining intent, and providing a link to download an application, thereby infringing one or more claims of the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it is the basis for selecting relevant applications beyond simple keyword matching. The definition of "search intent" will be critical to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the claimed method from prior art search techniques. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the accused system's method of analyzing queries and selecting results falls within the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "search intent" broadly 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 could support a construction covering any form of query analysis that goes beyond literal keyword matching.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a specific example of determining "implicit intent" by analyzing "environmental variables" (like time and location) and "personal variables" (like user profile) to derive a "category of interest" (’918 Patent, col. 4:9-29). A defendant may argue this detailed process limits the scope of "search intent" to methods that incorporate such specific contextual data, rather than any general semantic analysis.

• The Term: "display segment over a display of the user device"

• Context and Importance: This term describes how the results of the intent-based search are presented to the user. Its construction is key to infringement, as it requires a specific user interface element. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's user interface creates what can be considered a "display segment over a display."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. The summary of the invention describes "creating a display segment over a display," which could be interpreted to encompass various UI overlays, such as pop-ups, banners, or dedicated frames within an application (’918 Patent, col. 2:27-28).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent later mentions "instigating a display segment to be created in which the icon... is to be displayed" (’918 Patent, col. 12:38-41). A defendant might argue that this implies the creation of a new, distinct UI element specifically for this purpose, potentially excluding results integrated into a standard, pre-existing list or search results page.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '918 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is predicated entirely on post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

Given the limited information provided, the case appears to center on fundamental questions of claim scope and evidence.

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "search intent," as defined and described in the ’918 Patent, be construed to read on the specific algorithms or processes used by the accused products to analyze user queries and return application results?

2. A second key issue will concern claim construction: does the accused product's user interface, whatever it may be, generate a "display segment over a display" as required by the claims, or does it present results in a conventional manner that falls outside this limitation?

3. A critical evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can marshal to show that the accused products actually perform the claimed steps, particularly the internal step of "determining the search intent," an allegation for which the complaint currently provides no specific factual support.