DCT

7:25-cv-00055

HyperQuery LLC v. Canva US Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00055, W.D. Tex., 02/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant having an established place of business in the district and allegedly committing acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to systems and methods for downloading applications based on a user's determined search intent.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving application discovery on user devices by interpreting a user's search query to discern underlying intent, rather than merely matching keywords, to recommend relevant applications.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. Plaintiff is identified as the assignee of the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-28 '918 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-27 '918 Patent Issue Date
2025-02-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 (System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network), issued December 27, 2016. (Compl. ¶9; ’918 Patent, cover).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the process of searching for applications in large repositories (e.g., mobile app stores) as being "very time consuming" and inefficient because search results are often irrelevant to a user's specific needs or are promoted by the repository owner rather than being based on relevancy. (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem with a system that receives a user's search query and goes beyond simple keyword matching to determine the user's "search intent"—the underlying topic of interest. (’918 Patent, col. 2:22-26). Based on this determined intent, the system selects relevant applications, displays corresponding icons in a "display segment," and facilitates a direct download upon user interaction. (’918 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology represents a shift from conventional, keyword-driven application search toward a more context-aware or semantic search model intended to provide more accurate and efficient results for the user. (’918 Patent, col. 2:8-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," identified as "Exemplary '918 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not attached to the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • Receiving an input search query from a user device.
    • Determining the "search intent" based on the query.
    • Selecting at least one application from an "applications central repository" based on the intent.
    • Causing an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
    • Receiving an input from the user indicating a selection of the application.
    • Causing the establishment of a "direct communication link" to the application's hosting location.
    • Causing the initiation of the application download over that link.
  • The complaint’s reference to "one or more claims" suggests Plaintiff reserves the right to assert additional dependent and independent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not specifically name any of Defendant's products or services. It refers to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and states they are identified in charts within Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement claim charts by reference to an external Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the public filing. (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale certain "Exemplary Defendant Products" that satisfy all elements of the asserted claims of the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the claim language and the general nature of Defendant's business as a design platform, the infringement analysis may raise several questions for the court:
    • Scope Questions: The patent describes its invention in the context of mobile application stores like the Apple App Store. (’918 Patent, col. 1:44-45). A central dispute may be whether the term "applications central repository" can be construed to cover the library of integrated apps and tools within Defendant's design platform, or if it is limited to standalone, general-purpose mobile app stores.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products perform the specific step of "determining the search intent" as required by the claim? (’918 Patent, col. 10:61-62). The patent details a potentially complex process involving tokenization and semantic analysis to find a "topic of interest," and a key question will be whether the accused search functionality performs these specific operations or a more conventional keyword search. (’918 Patent, col. 7:1-col. 8:16).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "search intent"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims. Its construction will likely determine whether infringement requires a sophisticated, multi-step analytical process or if it can be met by more conventional search technologies. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to distinguish the invention from the prior art discussed in the patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The body of claim 1 itself broadly defines the step as "determining the search intent based on the input search query," which could be argued to encompass any process that derives a topic from a query. (’918 Patent, col. 10:61-62).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes "search intent" as a "topic of interest" derived by analyzing the query through a series of "engines" that compute probabilities for different entities (e.g., locations, people, apps) and perform statistical and semantic analysis to find a "coherent query." (’918 Patent, col. 4:3-6; col. 7:1-col. 8:43). This language may support a narrower construction limited to such detailed analytical methods.

  • The Term: "applications central repository"

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether Defendant's platform, which is primarily a design tool with integrated apps, falls within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not facially restrictive and could be argued to apply to any centralized source from which a user can select and download applications or add-ins.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section explicitly uses "the App Store™ by Apple®, and the like" as the primary example of a central repository. (’918 Patent, col. 1:44-45). This may support a narrower definition limited to large-scale, third-party marketplaces for mobile device applications.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users to operate its products in a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶14). This allegation is based on knowledge acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint." (Compl. ¶15).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter supports a finding of enhanced damages. (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.

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

The resolution of this case may turn on the following central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "applications central repository," which the patent specification grounds in the context of standalone mobile OS app stores, be construed to cover the integrated app marketplace within Defendant’s cloud-based design platform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused search functionality perform the specific, multi-engine analytical process of "determining the search intent" as detailed in the patent’s specification, or does it perform a conventional keyword-based search that falls outside the claim scope?
  • An initial procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency: Given the complaint’s failure to identify any accused product by name and its reliance on an unattached exhibit to provide infringement contentions, a threshold issue may be whether the allegations meet the plausibility standard required to proceed.