HyperQuery LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00178, W.D. Tex., 03/09/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Western District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unspecified products made, used, or sold by Defendant infringe a patent related to methods for optimizing web search results for specific user devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of delivering web content appropriately across a diverse ecosystem of devices (e.g., desktops, smartphones, tablets) by modifying web addresses based on device characteristics and user intent.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of several earlier applications, establishing a lengthy prosecution history that may be relevant for claim construction. The complaint itself serves as the basis for Plaintiff's allegation of Defendant's actual knowledge of infringement.

Case Timeline

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

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 describes a problem where standard web search engines return uniform resource locators (URLs) that may not be optimized for the specific device a user is employing. For example, a search on a smartphone might return a link to a desktop-formatted webpage, resulting in a suboptimal user experience ('611 Patent, col. 1:56-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system and method that receives a user's query, identifies configuration parameters of the user's device (e.g., device type, OS), and determines the user's "search intent." Based on these factors, it selects an appropriate online information resource (like a website or web application) and then modifies the resource's web address to generate a "suitable" web address. This new address is tailored to provide an optimal display of the content on that specific user device ('611 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-28).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to bridge the gap between generic web search and the increasingly fragmented landscape of user devices, ensuring that content is delivered in a format best suited for the user's context (e.g., directing a user to a mobile-specific site or a deep link within an app). ('611 Patent, col. 1:46-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '611 Patent Claims" detailed in an Exhibit B that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Independent claim 1 (a method claim) includes the following essential elements:
  • receiving a query from the user device;
  • identifying at least one configuration parameter of the user device;
  • determining a search intent based on the received query;
  • selecting at least one information resource from a plurality of information resources to serve the search intent;
  • identifying a web address for each of the at least one selected information resource; and
  • modifying at least one identified web address to generate a suitable web address based on the identified web address, the search intent, and the at least one configuration parameter.
• Independent claim 12 recites a system configured to perform the steps of the method.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not name any specific product, model, or service (Compl. ¶11). It states these products are identified in the unattached Exhibit B (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It makes only conclusory statements that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '611 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement via claim charts in Exhibit B, which was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶17). The table below summarizes the infringement theory for representative Claim 1 based on the complaint's general allegations.

'611 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks any factual allegations detailing how the accused products perform the claimed steps. A central dispute will likely be whether the accused products actually perform functions corresponding to "determining a search intent" and "modifying... a web address." The court may question what evidence exists that the accused products do more than conduct a standard keyword search and return a standard URL.
• Scope Questions: A key question will be whether the accused products' functionality falls within the scope of the claims. For example, does the simple act of returning a mobile-formatted URL from a search engine meet the "modifying" limitation, or does the claim require a more active transformation or construction of the URL string as described in the patent's specification?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the invention from a conventional keyword search. Its construction will determine the level of analytical sophistication required to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent describes a complex process for determining intent, and the case may turn on whether the accused products perform such a process.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the claims, which may support an argument for applying its plain and ordinary meaning.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes determining "search intent" by classifying queries into distinct categories ("informational," "transactional," "navigational," "experience") and using probabilistic engines to analyze tokenized queries ('611 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 4:55-61; col. 8:6-26). This could support a narrower construction that requires these specific analytical steps.

The Term: "modifying at least one identified web address"

• Context and Importance: This is the core action step of the claimed method. Whether the accused products "modify" web addresses will be a critical infringement question.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that "modifying" is met by selecting a different, pre-existing URL (e.g., an m.domain.com address instead of a www.domain.com address) from a set of available options based on the device parameters.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an exemplary format for a "suitable URL" that is actively constructed by concatenating parameters: http://<information resource address>/<input query><intent><device parameters><app parameters> ('611 Patent, col. 7:7-12). This suggests "modifying" requires the dynamic generation or alteration of the URL string itself, not merely selecting a pre-existing one.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The allegation is also based on conduct occurring after Defendant was served with the complaint (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it explicitly alleges "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" arising from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's infringement has continued despite this knowledge, which may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness (Compl. ¶14).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary support: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, a key question is whether Plaintiff can produce technical evidence to show that the accused ASUS products actually perform the specific steps of determining a user's "search intent" and "modifying" a web address in the manner claimed by the '611 patent.
• The case will likely depend heavily on claim construction: A core question will be one of definitional scope, particularly for the term "modifying... a web address." The court's interpretation—whether it requires the dynamic construction of a new URL string as detailed in the specification, or if it can be met by selecting a pre-existing, device-appropriate URL—will be critical in determining infringement.