HyperQuery LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00205, W.D. Tex., 03/22/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile device products infringe patents related to intent-based search for providing users with relevant mobile applications and optimized web addresses.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for improving the user experience on mobile devices by interpreting a user's search intent to deliver more relevant application suggestions or content-optimized web links, moving beyond simple keyword matching.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-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, issued Dec. 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the process of searching for mobile applications in conventional repositories as "very time consuming" and often yielding irrelevant results. ('918 Patent, col. 2:4-6). It notes that keyword searches can be ineffective because they return all applications containing the keyword, rather than discerning the user's specific goal (e.g., a search for "ticket" returns movie, sport, and concert apps, when the user may only want one type). ('918 Patent, col. 1:60-col. 2:3).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that receives a user's search query and goes beyond keywords to "determine the search intent." ('918 Patent, Abstract). Based on this determined intent, the system selects a relevant application, creates a "display segment over a display of the user device," and shows an icon for the selected application, from which a user can initiate a direct download. ('918 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described solution sought to overcome limitations in application discovery by making search results more contextually relevant to the user's underlying needs, thereby reducing search friction. ('918 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify the asserted claims in its body, stating they are identified in an attached exhibit not included with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶ 12, 17). Independent claims 1 (a method) and 11 (a system) are the patent's foundational claims.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶ 12).

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 addresses the "sub-optimal" user experience that occurs when a search on a mobile device returns a URL for a website formatted for a personal computer. ('611 Patent, col. 1:56-64). It also notes that content may be better viewed through a dedicated mobile app, but conventional search engines often return a standard web URL instead of a link to or within the app. ('611 Patent, col. 2:2-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes receiving a query, determining the user's search intent, and identifying the "configuration parameter of the user device" (e.g., device type, OS, installed apps). ('611 Patent, Abstract). Based on this information, the system "generat[es] a suitable web address" that is optimized for the user's specific device and context, which could be a mobile-specific website or a deep link into an application. ('611 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:62-65).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to create a more seamless bridge between web search and the increasingly app-centric mobile ecosystem by directing users to the best-formatted content for their device. ('611 Patent, col. 2:9-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify the asserted claims in its body, stating they are identified in an attached exhibit not included with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶ 21, 26). Independent claims 1 (a method) and 12 (a system) are the patent's foundational claims.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶ 21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim charts (Exhibits 3 and 4) which were not included with the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 21). The named defendant is OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a mobile device manufacturer. (Compl. ¶ 3).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). This implies the products include functionality for searching and downloading applications, and for providing optimized web links based on user search queries. The complaint does not provide specific details regarding the operation of the accused functionality or its market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the specific details by reference to claim chart exhibits that are not provided in the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 27). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'918 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that Defendant directly infringes the ’918 Patent by making, using, selling, and importing products that satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 17). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the accused OnePlus products implement a system for determining a user's search intent to recommend and facilitate the download of mobile applications. (Compl. ¶ 17).

'611 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts direct infringement of the ’611 Patent, alleging that Defendant's products practice the claimed technology. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 26). The narrative theory is that these products provide users with optimized web addresses or deep links into applications based on their search queries and device context, thereby infringing the claims. (Compl. ¶ 26).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question for the ’918 Patent will be how the accused products "determine the search intent." The court will need to evaluate whether the accused functionality performs the complex analysis described in the patent (e.g., tokenizing queries, using multiple engines, calculating probabilities) or a more conventional keyword-based search that may fall outside the claim scope. ('918 Patent, col. 7:1-col. 8:44). For the ’611 Patent, a key technical question is how the accused products "generat[e] a suitable web address." The dispute may center on whether the system dynamically modifies a URL with device-specific parameters, as the patent describes, or simply selects a pre-existing link from a list. ('611 Patent, col. 7:7-24).
• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’918 Patent may turn on the scope of the term "display segment over a display." A question for the court will be whether this requires a specific graphical overlay, as the language suggests, or if it can read on results presented within a standard, full-screen application interface. ('918 Patent, Abstract).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’918 Patent (from independent claim 1)

• The Term: "determining the search intent"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent. Its construction will be critical in distinguishing the claimed invention from conventional search technologies. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether standard app store search algorithms that use popularity or user history infringe.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses both "implicit intent," derived from environmental and personal variables, and "explicit intent," derived from the query itself, suggesting the term is not limited to analyzing only the query text. ('918 Patent, col. 4:7-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 5 and the detailed description disclose a specific multi-step process involving tokenizing a query, processing it with a "plurality of engines," computing certainty scores, and performing statistical and semantic analysis, which could support a narrower construction requiring this specific implementation. ('918 Patent, col. 9:36-col. 10:55).

For the ’611 Patent (from independent claim 1)

• The Term: "modifying at least one identified web address to generate a suitable web address"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core action that produces the optimized output. The dispute will likely focus on whether "modifying" and "generating" requires the creation of a new URL string or merely the selection of an existing one.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that selecting the most appropriate URL from several options (e.g., a mobile URL over a desktop one) constitutes "generating a suitable" result for the user, even if the string itself is not altered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific format example: http://<information resource address>/<input query><intent><device parameters><app parameters>, which strongly suggests the dynamic construction of a new URL by adding parameters, not just selecting a pre-existing one. ('611 Patent, col. 7:7-12).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of both patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-16, 24-25).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" since being served with the complaint and its associated (but unprovided) claim charts. (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 23). The allegation of willfulness is based on Defendant's continued infringing activities after receiving this notice. (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 24).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused OnePlus search functionality perform the specific multi-step process of "determining the search intent" as detailed in the '918 patent's specification, or does it use a more conventional search algorithm that falls outside the claim scope?
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the phrase "generating a suitable web address" in the '611 patent be construed to cover the selection of an optimal link (e.g., a deep link into an app), or does it strictly require the dynamic modification and construction of a new URL string with specific parameters, as described in the patent's embodiments?
• An initial evidentiary hurdle for the plaintiff may be the sufficiency of its pleadings. By relying entirely on unprovided exhibits to identify the accused products and map claim elements to the accused functionality, the complaint may face an early challenge regarding whether it provides sufficient notice of the basis for its claims.