DCT

7:25-cv-00176

HyperQuery LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00176, W.D. Tex., 04/18/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of patent infringement in the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to systems and methods for determining a user's search intent to recommend and facilitate the download of software applications.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the field of application discovery on digital platforms, aiming to improve the relevance of search results 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 patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-03-28 '918 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2016-12-27 '918 Patent - Issue Date
2025-04-18 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

  • Issued: December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the process of searching for mobile applications in repositories as "very time consuming" and often yielding irrelevant results, partly because results may be "promoted by the repository's owner" rather than being tailored to the user's actual needs or intent. (’918 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that receives a search query from a user, analyzes it to determine the underlying "search intent," and then selects one or more applications from a central repository based on that determined intent. (’918 Patent, Abstract). The system then displays an icon for the selected application and, upon user input, establishes a "direct communication link" between the user's device and the application's source to initiate a download, seeking to streamline the discovery and installation process. (’918 Patent, col. 4:55-68).
  • Technical Importance: The described technology sought to advance application search beyond basic keyword matching by implementing a more sophisticated, intent-based analysis to improve the relevance and efficiency of app discovery. (’918 Patent, col. 2:9-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers, deferring to an unattached exhibit. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claims 1 (method) and 11 (system) are representative of the patent's scope.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method) includes the following essential elements:
    • 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 at least one applications central repository.
    • Causing an icon corresponding to the selected application to be displayed on the user's device.
    • Receiving an input from the user device indicating a particular selected application.
    • Causing establishment of a direct communication link between the user device and a location hosting the application.
    • Causing initiation of a download of the application to the user device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint does not identify any accused products or services by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count." (Compl. ¶11). These charts are part of Exhibit 2, which is referenced but was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. It alleges in general terms that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '918 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement via claim charts provided in Exhibit 2, which is incorporated by reference but not attached to the filed complaint. (Compl. ¶16-17). Consequently, a detailed claim chart analysis based on the complaint's specific allegations is not possible. The complaint states in general terms that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’918 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’918 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s language and the general nature of the complaint, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions once the accused products are identified:
    • Scope Questions: The patent describes a specific architecture for an "intent detection unit" (IDU) involving tokenizers and multiple analytical engines. (’918 Patent, Fig. 3, col. 6:9-50). A central question will be whether the phrase "determining the search intent" as used in the claims is limited to this disclosed architecture or can be read more broadly to cover other methods of search query analysis used by modern digital storefronts.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence will show that the accused product performs the specific step of "causing establishment of a direct communication link" between the user device and the application's host? The interpretation of "direct" could be a focal point, depending on whether the accused system's download process is routed through intermediary servers or platforms.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "search intent"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the ’918 Patent. Its construction will likely determine the breadth of the claims and whether they read on conventional search and recommendation systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's specification provides a detailed, complex embodiment for determining intent, which could be used to argue for a narrow construction.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a high-level definition, stating the intent "represents the type of content, the content, and/or actions that currently may be of an interest to the user." (’918 Patent, col. 4:4-7). This language could support a construction covering any system that analyzes user interest beyond literal keyword matching.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a specific "intent detection unit (IDU)" that tokenizes a query and processes it through a "plurality of engines," each configured for different topics (e.g., locations, music, people). (’918 Patent, col. 6:51-65, col. 7:1-6). This detailed implementation could support a narrower construction limited to systems with a similar multi-engine, entity-mapping architecture.

  • The Term: "direct communication link"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the final step of the claimed method before download initiation and is critical to distinguishing the claimed process from a simple redirect. The technical implementation of the download mechanism in an accused product will be compared against the court's construction of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define "direct," which could support an argument that any uninterruped data path initiated by the system qualifies, even if it is managed by a central server.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent states the link is established "between the user device and the location that stores the selected application." (’918 Patent, col. 4:61-63). This could be interpreted to require a link that bypasses other platforms (like the search server itself or a separate app store platform), connecting the user more immediately to the ultimate download source.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had "actual knowledge of infringement" from the moment of service of the complaint and its attached (but unfiled) claim charts. (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). The allegations are based entirely on post-suit knowledge, with no assertion of pre-suit notice or knowledge.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "determining the search intent," which is described in the patent with a specific multi-engine architecture, be construed broadly enough to cover the search and recommendation algorithms used in the accused products, or is it strictly limited to the patent's detailed embodiment?

  2. A second central question will be evidentiary: given the complaint's lack of specificity and its reliance on an unfiled exhibit, can Plaintiff produce technical evidence demonstrating that any of Defendant's products actually perform the complete, multi-step method of Claim 1, particularly the specific steps of determining "intent" (as construed by the court) and establishing a "direct communication link" for downloads?