Information Exchange Tech LLC v. Hopper Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Information Exchange Technologies LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Hopper, Inc. (Canada)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00092, E.D. Tex., 02/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is not a resident of the United States and may be sued in any judicial district under the alien-venue rule.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Hopper App and associated website infringe patents related to methods for managing and retrieving information from multiple web information portals through a unified software interface.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns meta-search and browser integration tools that automate the process of querying multiple distinct websites (e.g., travel sites, search engines) and displaying the results.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,987,168 - "Method for Managing Information," issued July 26, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the inefficiency and frustration for users who must manually navigate to multiple different websites, input the same query repeatedly, and review results on each site independently, which is a "time consuming and frustrating task" ’168 Patent, col. 2:1-4
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a software application that acts as an intermediary between a user and multiple websites ("information portals") ’168 Patent, abstract The software "teaches" itself how to interact with each website by having the user perform an initial search, analyzing the resulting URL ("address query string"), and generating a "query string template" specific to that site ’168 Patent, col. 4:18-65 Subsequently, a user can enter a query once into the software application, which then automatically formats and sends the query to one or more selected portals and displays the results ’168 Patent, col. 5:1-9
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve upon conventional web browsers by automating simultaneous searches across multiple websites through self-generated query templates, thereby streamlining online information retrieval ’168 Patent, col. 1:51-61

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 2 ’168 Patent, col. 11:23-48
• Claim 2 Elements:
  • A method for using a software application to make an information portal distinct from the application display search results.
  • The information portal allows entry of query terms and generates corresponding address query strings to retrieve search results.
  • Receiving, in the software application, a query term for which results are to be displayed by the information portal.
  • Generating, in the software application, an address query string including the query term, where the string is generated from a query string template that identifies a query term location and includes additional terms specific to the portal.
  • Communicating the address query string to the information portal.
  • Displaying the search results generated by the portal based on the address query string.
  • The displayed search results are the same as those that would have been displayed if the query term had been entered directly into the information portal.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,682,894 - "Method for Managing Information," issued March 25, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Similar to its parent '168 patent, the '894 patent addresses the inefficiency of manually submitting queries to multiple websites ’894 Patent, col. 1:49-54 It focuses on the user's ability to organize and manage these external websites within the software application itself.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a user, through a user interface, can add multiple "information portals" (websites) into specific categories ’894 Patent, abstract; ’894 Patent, col. 6:11-16 For each added portal, the system generates an "information location identifier template" ’894 Patent, col. 5:46-51 When a user enters a query into a single data entry field, the system uses these templates to create separate, corresponding query strings for each portal, communicates them, and displays the retrieved results ’894 Patent, col. 9:1-11
• Technical Importance: This method provides a unified interface for users to not only conduct meta-searches but also to organize the target websites into logical groups, improving the user experience for recurring, categorized information retrieval tasks ’894 Patent, col. 4:5-17

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 ’894 Patent, col. 11:5-31
• Claim 1 Elements:
  • Adding, by a user through a user interface, a plurality of information portals within at least one information category, where each portal corresponds to a website.
  • Generating an information location identifier template for each portal so each portal recognizes the template for effecting a search.
  • Displaying at least one data entry field for entering a query term.
  • Receiving the query term entered into the data entry field.
  • Creating a separate corresponding query string for each portal based on the corresponding template.
  • Communicating with each portal to send the query string and retrieve results.
  • Displaying the search results generated by at least one portal in the format specific to that portal.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The Hopper App and the website www.hopper.com (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶¶14-15

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide a method for users to search for travel information, such as flights, hotels, and cars Compl. ¶15 A user enters query terms (e.g., flight origin, destination, dates), and the application generates address query strings (URLs) to retrieve search results from distinct "information portals," such as individual airline websites Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶26
• The functionality is described as an automated system that allows for simultaneous searches across multiple websites through a unified interface Compl. ¶23 The complaint alleges the Accused Products create query strings using templates that are specific to each information portal (e.g., a different template for each airline website) Compl. ¶26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’168 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The complaint asserts that the Hopper App uses a "query string template" for each airline website Compl. ¶26 A potential point of contention may be whether the Hopper App's method of generating URLs is equivalent to the patent's description of creating and storing a "template" based on an initial user-driven "teaching" process, or if it uses a different mechanism, such as a pre-programmed API or a different form of URL construction.
  • Scope Question: Claim 2 requires that the displayed results be the "same search results" that would have been displayed if the query were entered directly on the portal. A factual dispute may arise over whether the results presented within the Hopper App are identical to those on the source airline's website, or if they are filtered, re-ordered, or otherwise modified in a way that makes them not the "same."

’894 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: Claim 1 requires "adding, by a user of the computer through a user interface, a plurality of information portals." A central question may be whether the Hopper App's functionality, which presents a pre-selected or dynamically aggregated list of airlines, meets this limitation. The dispute could focus on whether the user "adds" portals in the manner contemplated by the patent, or if the system simply provides access to a fixed or centrally managed set of sources.
  • Technical Question: The claim requires displaying results "in the format specific to the at least one information portal." The complaint alleges this is met by using an airline's logo Compl. ¶39 The court may need to determine if displaying a logo is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if it requires a more substantial replication of the source portal's unique data presentation, layout, or branding.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "information portal" (appears in claims of both patents)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the external websites the patented system interacts with. Its construction is critical because the infringement allegations depend on characterizing third-party airline websites as "information portals" Compl. ¶26 Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to websites with a specific type of search interface or structure, as depicted in the patent's embodiments.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is broad, encompassing various categories of websites, including search engines, online stores, and map generation sites, not just one specific type ’168 Patent, col. 4:1-12
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures heavily feature interactions with traditional search engines and e-commerce sites having distinct text input boxes and submission buttons (e.g., ’168 Patent, Fig. 8). A defendant could argue this context limits the term to websites with a similar, user-facing search field architecture.

The Term: "query string template" (’168 Patent) / "information location identifier template" (’894 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the claimed technical solution, representing the stored structure of a URL that the software uses to build new queries. The infringement case hinges on whether the Hopper App's method for generating URLs for different airlines constitutes the use of such a "template."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the template as being generated by analyzing a query address string to "identify the location of the query term" and "any information portal separators" ’168 Patent, col. 4:51-57 This could be interpreted broadly to cover any stored URL pattern that reserves a location for a query term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific process for generating the template: the software "teaches" itself by prompting a user to input a sample query into the live portal and then analyzes the resulting URL ’168 Patent, col. 4:49-65 ’168 Patent, col. 6:46-54 A narrower construction might require that the template be generated through this specific, user-initiated "teaching" or "training" process, rather than being pre-programmed or derived through other means.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement by providing the Accused Products to end-users and distributing instructions, advertising, and promotions that allegedly guide and encourage infringing use Compl. ¶27 Compl. ¶40
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s alleged "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others," constituting willful blindness Compl. ¶28 Compl. ¶41 The complaint also alleges willfulness based on knowledge of the patents since at least the time of receiving the complaint Compl. ¶30 Compl. ¶43

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

• A core issue will be one of process equivalence: Does the Hopper App's method for generating search queries for various airlines rely on an "information location identifier template" that is created through a "teaching" or "training" process as described in the patents, or does it use a fundamentally different technical mechanism (e.g., pre-configured API calls) that may fall outside the scope of the claims?
• A second key question will be one of user agency and scope: Do users of the Hopper App "add...a plurality of information portals" as required by claim 1 of the ’894 patent, or does the app present a curated, non-customizable list of travel providers? The answer will likely depend on how the court construes the act of "adding" in the context of the patent's specification.
• A final evidentiary question will be whether the search results displayed in the Hopper App are, in fact, the "same search results" that a user would see on the source airline's website, as required by claim 2 of the ’168 patent. This raises a factual dispute regarding potential filtering, re-ranking, or modification of data by the accused system.