HyperQuery LLC v. HP Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: HP Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00006, W.D. Tex., 01/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes two patents related to systems and methods for improving a user's search for applications or web content by determining user intent and providing device-appropriate results.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in mobile application stores and web search engines by providing more relevant, context-aware, and device-optimized results to users.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff is the assignee of the patents-in-suit. The complaint itself does not reference 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. 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's background section describes the process of finding applications in repositories as "very time consuming," noting that search results are often not based on relevancy and may be promoted by the repository owner, failing to meet the user's specific needs or intent (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that receives a search query, determines the user's "search intent," selects one or more applications from a central repository based on that intent, and then presents an icon for the selected application to the user, often in a dynamic display segment (’918 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:52-58). Upon user selection of the icon, the system establishes a direct link to download the application, streamlining the discovery and installation process (’918 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to improve the user experience of discovering mobile applications by moving beyond simple keyword matching to a more context-aware system that attempts to discern what the user is trying to accomplish.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint alleges infringement of one or more claims but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶12, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology and includes the following essential elements:

• Receiving an input search query from a user device.
• Determining a "search intent" based on that query.
• Selecting at least one application from a repository based on the determined search intent.
• Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed to the user.
• Receiving a user input indicating selection of the application.
• Establishing a direct communication link to a location hosting the application.
• Causing the download of the application to the user device.

U.S. Patent No. 9,639,611 - "System and method for providing suitable web addresses to a user device," issued May 2, 2017

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a problem where search engines provide uniform resource locators (URLs) that are not optimized for the user's specific device, such as returning a website version designed for a personal computer to a mobile phone user, resulting in a "sub-optimal" experience (’611 Patent, col. 1:56-63).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method that receives a query, identifies configuration parameters of the user's device (e.g., device type, OS), determines the user's search intent, and then generates a "suitable web address" by modifying a standard URL based on the device configuration and intent (’611 Patent, Abstract). This modification is intended to ensure "optimal display" of the content on the user's device (’611 Patent, col. 2:25-28).
• Technical Importance: This technology seeks to resolve the mismatch between generic search results and the proliferation of diverse device types (e.g., phones, tablets) by creating device-aware URLs.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’611 Patent are asserted, referencing a non-proffered exhibit (Compl. ¶21, ¶26). Independent claim 1 is representative of the technology and includes the following essential elements:

• Receiving a query from a user device.
• Identifying at least one "configuration parameter" of the user device.
• Determining a "search intent" based on the query.
• Selecting an information resource (e.g., a website) to serve the intent.
• Identifying the web address for that resource.
• "Modifying" the identified web address to generate a "suitable web address" based on the original address, the search intent, and the device's configuration parameter.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint alleges infringement by unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12, ¶21).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint incorporates by reference Exhibits B and D, which purportedly identify the accused products and describe their infringing functionality (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). However, these exhibits were not filed with the public complaint. Consequently, the specific accused instrumentalities, their technical operations, and their market context cannot be identified from the provided documents.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or a narrative description of the infringement theory, instead stating that infringement charts are included in Exhibits B and D, which are incorporated by reference but were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint makes general allegations that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12, ¶21). The complaint further alleges these products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). Without the exhibits, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from the ’918 Patent: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention, as the selection of a relevant application hinges on its determination. The scope of this term will be critical, as it defines whether a simple keyword search suffices or if a more complex analytical process is required by the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 requires only "determining the search intent based on the input search query" (’918 Patent, col. 10:61-62), which could be argued to encompass any process that ascertains a user's goal from a query.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a detailed process for determining intent, distinguishing between "explicit intent" derived from the query itself and "implicit intent" derived from "environmental variables" like location, time, or user profile (’918 Patent, col. 4:7-15). The specification further details a system of engines, tokenizers, and certainty scores to process queries, which may suggest a narrower, more technical definition (’918 Patent, col. 7:1-col. 8:43).

Term from the ’611 Patent: "modifying at least one identified web address to generate a suitable web address"

• Context and Importance: This is the core functional step of the ’611 Patent. The definition will determine what kind of technical action constitutes "modifying" a URL to make it "suitable" for a device, a key point of dispute over what technologies fall within the claim's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language could be argued to cover any method that serves a device-specific webpage in response to a request for a generic URL, including common server-side redirects or content negotiation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of a modified URL format: http://<information resource address>/<input query><intent><device parameters><app parameters> (’611 Patent, col. 7:9-13). This example, which involves constructing a new URL with specific parameters, may support a narrower construction limited to direct URL rewriting rather than other methods of delivering device-specific content.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It asserts that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶15-16, ¶24-25).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful" but does allege "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint and its (un-filed) claim charts (Compl. ¶14, ¶23). This allegation may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. Plaintiff also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to recover attorney's fees (Compl. ¶G(i)).

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

• A primary issue is one of pleading sufficiency and evidence: Given that the exhibits identifying the accused products and detailing the infringement theories were not filed with the complaint, a key question is whether the allegations meet federal pleading standards. The court may need to address the lack of specificity before the case can proceed on the merits.
• A central question of claim scope will concern the term "search intent" in the ’918 Patent. The case may turn on whether this term is construed broadly to cover conventional search refinement techniques or is limited to the more sophisticated implicit and explicit intent-determination systems detailed in the patent's specification.
• A key technical and legal question for the ’611 Patent will be the meaning of "modifying" a web address. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether this term requires the specific URL parameterization described in the patent's examples or if it can be interpreted to cover more common, pre-existing methods for serving device-optimized web content.