HyperQuery LLC v. ZTE Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: ZTE Corporation (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00210, W.D. Tex., 03/22/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm to the plaintiff.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products infringe two patents related to methods for improving mobile search results by determining user intent to recommend applications and by modifying web addresses to optimize them for specific user devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in mobile search, aiming to provide users with more relevant application downloads and device-appropriate web content, thereby improving the user experience on smartphones and other portable devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning 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 describes the process of searching for mobile applications in repositories like the App Store™ as "very time consuming," requiring users to navigate through numerous irrelevant applications that are often promoted by the repository owner rather than being tailored to the user's actual needs or intent (’918 Patent, col. 1:35 - col. 2:9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method that analyzes a user's search query to determine a "search intent," which indicates the user's topic of interest. Based on this intent, the system selects a relevant application, displays its icon in a "display segment" on the user's device, and, upon user interaction with the icon, establishes a direct communication link to download the application (’918 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). The system is described as capable of determining both explicit intent from the query itself and "implicit intent" from environmental or personal variables like location or time of day (’918 Patent, col. 4:7-35).
• Technical Importance: This technology aims to move beyond simple keyword matching in application stores by introducing a layer of semantic understanding to provide more accurate, intent-driven application recommendations.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit, but does not specify claim numbers in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
  • receiving an input search query from a user device;
  • determining the search intent based on the input search query;
  • selecting, based on the search intent, at least one application from an applications central repository;
  • causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed;
  • receiving an input from the user indicating a particular selected application;
  • causing establishment of a direct communication link to a location hosting the application; and
  • causing initiation of a download of the application over that link.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more 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: When a user performs a web search on a mobile device, the resulting URL may point to a version of a website optimized for personal computers, leading to a "sub-optimal" user experience on the mobile device's smaller screen (’611 Patent, col. 1:56 - col. 2:7).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method that receives a query, identifies "configuration parameter[s]" of the user's device (such as device type, OS, or display size), and determines the user's "search intent." The system then identifies a web address for a relevant information resource and actively "modif[ies]" that address based on the device parameters and intent to "generate a suitable web address" that allows for "optimal display" (’611 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-28). For example, parameters may be appended to a URL to direct the user to a mobile-specific version of a webpage ('611 Patent, col. 7:8-24).
• Technical Importance: This technology seeks to automate the delivery of device-appropriate web content, eliminating the need for users to manually find mobile-friendly versions of websites.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '611 Patent Claims" identified in an exhibit without specifying claim numbers in the complaint's text (Compl. ¶21). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Independent Claim 1 requires a method comprising the steps of:
  • 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 to serve the intent;
  • identifying a web address for that resource; and
  • 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.
• The complaint refers generally to "one or more claims" of the ’611 Patent (Compl. ¶21).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main text. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in claim chart exhibits attached to the complaint (Compl. ¶¶12, 17, 21, 26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint incorporates by reference Exhibits 3 and 4, which allegedly contain claim charts detailing how the accused products infringe the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶18, 27). As these exhibits were not provided, the complaint itself does not contain sufficient detail for an analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the patents-in-suit both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶¶12, 21). The specific infringement allegations are presented in claim charts in Exhibits 3 and 4, which are incorporated by reference but are not available for analysis (Compl. ¶¶17-18, 26-27). The complaint asserts that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶¶17, 26). In the absence of the claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• ’918 Patent: The infringement analysis may focus on whether the accused products perform the specific, multi-step process recited in the claims. Key technical questions could include:
  • What evidence demonstrates that the accused system "determin[es] the search intent" beyond simple keyword matching, as contemplated by the patent's disclosure on explicit and implicit intent (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-35)?
  • Does the accused functionality "caus[e] establishment of a direct communication link" for a download in response to a specific user input, or does it follow a more conventional series of redirects common in app stores?
• ’611 Patent: The dispute may turn on the claim limitation requiring the active "modifying" of a web address.
  • Does the accused system merely select a pre-existing, mobile-specific URL (e.g., an "m.domain.com" address) from a database, or does it technically "modify" a base URL to "generate a suitable web address" by adding or changing parameters, as described in the patent (’611 Patent, col. 7:8-24)? The distinction raises a question of whether the accused functionality meets the literal scope of this claim element.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’918 Patent Term: "determining the search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's departure from standard keyword searching. Its scope will define whether the claim covers only simple query analysis or more complex, context-aware processes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes determining intent "implicitly" based on "environmental variables and/or personal variables" such as location, time, and user demographics, suggesting a scope beyond the text of the query itself (’918 Patent, col. 4:9-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description also discloses a specific process for determining intent by tokenizing a query, processing it through different "engines" (e.g., for locations, names), and computing a "certainty score" to identify a "coherent query" (’918 Patent, col. 10:27-66). This could support a more structured, multi-step definition.

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

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core action of the invention. Whether the accused products "modify" a URL or simply select a different one will be a critical infringement question. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require an active transformation rather than a passive selection.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should cover any process that results in a different, more suitable URL being provided to the user, regardless of the mechanism.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "modifying... to generate" suggests an active construction of a new URL. The patent's own example shows appending parameters to a base URL ("http://m.yelp.com/search?find_desc={pizza}&l=a:{NY}") to create the final, suitable address (’611 Patent, col. 7:17-24). This supports an interpretation requiring dynamic URL construction, not just redirection to a different, pre-existing link.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

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

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations are based on knowledge obtained "at least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts" (Compl. ¶¶16, 25). The complaint also alleges that service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23). This frames the willfulness claim as arising from post-suit conduct.

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

1. A Core Functional Question (’918 Patent): The case may turn on whether the accused functionality performs the specific, intent-based application selection and "direct communication link" generation as claimed, or if it operates as a more conventional search-and-redirect system, creating a potential mismatch in technical operation.
2. A Key Definitional Question (’611 Patent): A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "modifying... to generate a suitable web address" be construed to read on a system that selects a pre-existing, mobile-optimized URL, or does the claim language require the specific technical act of dynamically constructing a new URL string based on device parameters?
3. An Evidentiary Threshold: As the complaint’s core infringement allegations are contained entirely within external exhibits not available for review, a threshold question will be whether the evidence in those charts is sufficient to plausibly demonstrate that the accused products practice each element of the asserted claims.