HyperQuery LLC v. BigCommerce Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: BigCommerce, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00175, W.D. Tex., 04/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of patent infringement in the district, causing harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform infringes a patent related to systems and methods for identifying a user's search intent to recommend and download relevant software applications.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for improving the discovery of software applications in online repositories by analyzing a user's query to infer intent, rather than relying on simple keyword matching.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff is the assignee of the patent-in-suit with the right to enforce it, but does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent.

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"

• 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).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes conventional application search processes in central repositories (like app stores) as "very time consuming." It notes that search results are often not based on relevancy to the user's specific needs or intent, requiring users to navigate through potentially "tens or hundreds of applications" to find a suitable one. (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that attempts to solve this problem by first determining the "search intent" of a user's query, which "indicates a topic of interest." (’918 Patent, col. 2:24-25). Based on this determined intent, the system selects one or more relevant applications from a repository and displays an icon for the selected application, allowing the user to initiate a direct download. The detailed description explains that this intent can be determined "implicitly" based on environmental variables like location and time, or "explicitly" by analyzing the query itself. (’918 Patent, col. 4:9-16, 36-41; Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology aims to provide an application search solution that moves beyond simple keyword matching to a more sophisticated, intent-based model, thereby overcoming the limitations of conventional search solutions. (’918 Patent, col. 2:8-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" identified in an attached exhibit but does not specify them in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). System claim 11 is a representative independent claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 11 are:
  • A system comprising a network interface, a processor, and a memory.
  • The system is configured to receive an input search query from a user device.
  • The system determines the "search intent" based on the query, where the intent indicates a "topic of interest".
  • It selects, based on the "search intent", at least one application from an "applications central repository".
  • It causes an icon for the selected application to be displayed.
  • In response to a user input, it establishes a direct communication link to the application's hosting location and causes the download to be initiated. (’918 Patent, col. 11:5 - col. 12:30).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming specific products. (Compl. ¶11). The allegations are directed at products and services from BigCommerce, Inc., a provider of e-commerce platform services.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products in detail. It alleges generally that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). The complaint also references, but does not include, an "Exhibit 2" containing claim charts that allegedly compare the patent claims to the accused products. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint alleges inducement through the distribution of "product literature and website materials." (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that Defendant's products infringe the ’918 Patent but incorporates its detailed infringement allegations by reference to an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided. (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant makes, uses, and sells products that embody the patented system for downloading applications. (Compl. ¶11). A full analysis based on claim charts is not possible from the complaint alone.

The core of the infringement theory, based on the asserted patent, would be that Defendant's e-commerce platform provides an application marketplace where merchants can search for and install third-party applications. This system allegedly receives a merchant's search query, determines the merchant's "intent" to find a certain type of application, selects and displays icons for relevant applications from its repository, and then facilitates the installation of the selected application, thereby meeting the limitations of the asserted claims.

Identified Points of Contention:

• Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's proprietary, business-to-business application marketplace for its e-commerce platform constitutes an "applications central repository" as contemplated by the patent, which uses public-facing consumer app stores as its primary examples. (’918 Patent, col. 4:45-47).
• Technical Questions: The complaint's theory hinges on the allegation that the accused products "determine the search intent." (’918 Patent, col. 12:13). A central technical question will be what evidence exists that the accused search functionality performs the sophisticated, multi-engine, token-based intent analysis detailed in the patent specification, rather than a conventional keyword-based search. (’918 Patent, col. 7:1 - col. 8:44).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’918 Patent. The outcome of the case may depend on whether the accused system's search process is found to "determine the search intent" or merely perform a keyword match. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent specification describes a highly detailed process for its determination.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 11 itself defines the term broadly, stating that "the search intent indicates a topic of interest of a user of the user device." (’918 Patent, col. 12:15-16).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a specific "intent detection unit (IDU)" with a tokenizer, multiple analysis engines (for locations, people, etc.), and the ability to process "environmental variables," which could be used to argue that "determining the search intent" requires more than a simple query analysis. (’918 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:8-40; col. 7:1-17).

• The Term: "applications central repository"

• Context and Importance: Infringement requires that the accused system selects applications from such a repository. The definition will determine if the accused BigCommerce app marketplace falls within the claim scope.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides "the AppStore®, Google Play® and the like" as examples, suggesting the term could cover any centralized source of downloadable applications. (’918 Patent, col. 4:45-47).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the use of large, public consumer app stores as the sole examples limits the term to that context, potentially excluding a more specialized, curated, or private B2B application marketplace.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its allegation of willfulness on post-suit conduct. It alleges that Defendant gained "actual knowledge of infringement" upon service of the complaint and that its continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical operation: does the accused BigCommerce search functionality perform the complex, multi-faceted process of "determining the search intent" as detailed in the patent's specification, or does it operate as a more conventional keyword search engine? The case may turn on the evidentiary showing of how the accused system actually analyzes user queries.
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "applications central repository", exemplified in the patent by public consumer app stores, be construed to cover a curated, business-focused application marketplace that serves a specific e-commerce platform?