HyperQuery LLC v. BigCommerce Pty Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Case Name: HyperQuery LLC v. BigCommerce Pty. Ltd.
• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: BigCommerce Pty. Ltd. (Australia)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00801, E.D. Tex., 08/15/2025
• 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’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for downloading software applications based on a user's determined search intent.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for improving the relevance of application search results within app stores or similar repositories by analyzing user queries to discern underlying intent rather than relying on simple keyword matching.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving 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"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918, issued December 27, 2016 (the "’918 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the inefficiency of conventional application repository search functions, noting that keyword-based searches often return irrelevant results, forcing users to navigate through "tens or hundreds of applications" in a "very time consuming" process (ʼ918 Patent, col. 2:5-7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that receives a user's search query and determines the user's "search intent," which represents the underlying topic of interest (ʼ918 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:4-6). Based on this determined intent, the system selects a relevant application from a repository, displays an icon for it, and, upon user input, establishes a "direct communication link" to download the application, thereby streamlining the discovery and installation process (ʼ918 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 2:21-33).
• Technical Importance: The described technology aims to provide an application search solution that overcomes the limitations of then-current keyword-based search systems by adding a layer of semantic analysis to better match applications to a user's actual needs (ʼ918 Patent, col. 2:11-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified "exemplary claims" of the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 (method) and Claim 11 (system).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method) Elements:
  • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
  • Determining the search intent based on the query.
  • Selecting at least one application from a repository based on the intent.
  • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
  • Receiving an input from the user indicating a particular selected application.
  • Causing the establishment of a direct communication link to the application's location.
  • Causing the initiation of the application's download.
• Independent Claim 11 (System) Elements:
  • A system comprising a network interface, a processor, and a memory with instructions to perform the core functions of determining search intent, selecting an application, causing an icon to be displayed, and establishing a direct link for download in response to user input.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused product, method, or service by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an exhibit that was not included with the public filing (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’918 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an external "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement allegations but does not include this exhibit in the filing (Compl. ¶¶16-17). In lieu of a claim chart summary, the narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides no specific facts explaining how any feature of a BigCommerce product maps to any specific limitation of a patent claim.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the complaint's lack of specificity, any infringement analysis will depend on evidence introduced during discovery. Based on the patent's disclosure, two primary questions may arise:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be how the accused products allegedly perform the "determining the search intent" step. The complaint provides no evidence to suggest the accused products use a process analogous to the patent's detailed description, which involves tokenizing queries, processing them via multiple engines, and calculating "certainty scores" (ʼ918 Patent, col. 7:1-col. 8:43). The analysis will question whether the accused functionality is merely a conventional keyword search or a more sophisticated intent-based system as claimed.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused system establishes a "direct communication link" as required by the claims. The analysis raises the question of whether a standard hyperlink to a third-party application store page meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more specific server-brokered connection that directly initiates a download, as suggested by the specification (ʼ918 Patent, col. 4:60-63).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "determining the search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept distinguishing the claimed method from conventional keyword searching. Its construction will likely determine the scope of the patent and whether the accused products infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's detailed specification could be used to argue for a narrower construction than the plain words might suggest.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself—"determining the search intent based on the input search query"—is broad and does not recite the specific multi-engine architecture from the specification (ʼ918 Patent, col. 9:61-62).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific, complex process for determining intent, involving tokenization, multiple distinct engines (e.g., for locations, names, URLs), and the calculation of "certainty scores" to find a "coherent query" (ʼ918 Patent, col. 8:1-16). A defendant may argue that these detailed descriptions limit the claim term to this or a similar sophisticated process, excluding simpler search algorithms.

The Term: "direct communication link"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical for defining the final step of the claimed process. The interpretation will clarify what type of connection between the user's device and the application source is required to infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean any link that leads a user to a download page without requiring further searching, distinguishing it from a link that merely returns the user to the main page of an application repository.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the server is configured to "initiate[] the download of the application to the user device" after establishing the link (ʼ918 Patent, col. 4:62-63). This language may support a narrower construction requiring the system to actively trigger the download, rather than simply redirecting the user's browser to a location where the user must then manually initiate the download.

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 its products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it asserts that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This allegation forms a basis for potential claims of post-filing willful infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions that bridge claim construction and infringement analysis:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Is the claimed step of "determining the search intent" a broad concept covering any semantic enhancement to a keyword search, or is it limited by the specification to the complex, multi-engine analytical framework that the patent describes as its solution?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: As the complaint offers no detail on the accused products, the case will hinge on whether discovery reveals evidence that the defendant's systems actually perform the specific steps of discerning user "intent" and establishing a "direct communication link" in a manner that falls within the scope of the construed claims.