HyperQuery LLC v. Canva US Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: HyperQuery LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Canva US, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC

• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00438, W.D. Tex., 11/12/2025

• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s software platform infringes a patent related to systems that determine a user's search intent to select and recommend applications for download.

• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses semantic search for application discovery, a method for improving the relevance of search results beyond simple keyword matching in crowded digital marketplaces.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit based on a prior complaint filed in the same district, [HyperQuery LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/hyperquery-llc) v. Canva US Inc, No. 7:25-cv-00055-DC-DTG.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-03-28	'918 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2013-12-11	'918 Patent Application Filing Date
2016-12-27	'918 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-12	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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional methods for searching application repositories as inefficient and frustrating (Compl. ¶10). These methods rely on simplistic keyword matching, which returns irrelevant results (e.g., a search for "ticket" returns applications for sports, concerts, and movies worldwide, even if the user only wants local movie tickets) and forces users to navigate "tens or hundreds of applications" (’918 Patent, col. 1:58-65, col. 2:5-6).

• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that goes beyond keyword matching to first determine the user's "search intent"—the underlying topic of interest—and then selects an application based on that determined intent (’918 Patent, Abstract). The specification details a system that can tokenize a user's query and process it through a "plurality of engines," each configured for a different topic of interest (e.g., locations, people, music) (’918 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 6:10-17). These engines compute "certainty scores" that are analyzed to derive a coherent understanding of what the user is truly seeking before any application is selected (’918 Patent, col. 7:52-58).

• Technical Importance: The described approach aims to solve the technical problem of low-relevance results in application discovery, thereby improving the efficiency of search systems and reducing wasted computational resources (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶17-18).

• Independent Claim 1 of the '918 Patent recites the essential elements of a method including:

  • 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 for the selected application to be displayed.
  • Receiving an input from the user indicating a particular application.
  • Causing the establishment of a direct communication link to a location hosting the application.
  • Causing the initiation of a download of the application.

• The complaint notes that dependent claims, such as those reciting the determination of "implicit and explicit intent" (Claim 3) and the use of a "plurality of engines" to compute a "certainty score" (Claim 7), further capture the invention (Compl. ¶14).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" without naming specific products or services (Compl. ¶22). It states that these products are identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶27-28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products embody the inventive concepts of the ’918 Patent by implementing a search mechanism that determines user intent to select an application (Compl. ¶15). The functionality is described as a "two-step process of first determining intent and then selecting based on that intent," which is alleged to be an improvement over prior art keyword matching (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation or market context of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external exhibit (Exhibit 2), which is not included in the provided document (Compl. ¶28). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory alleges that Defendant's products practice the claimed technology by receiving user search queries and performing an "intelligent analysis" to determine the user's "search intent" before selecting and presenting relevant applications (Compl. ¶13-14, ¶17). The complaint focuses on the core steps of "determining the search intent" and "selecting, based on the search intent, at least one application," alleging these represent a departure from conventional systems and map directly onto the functionality of the accused products (Compl. ¶18). The complaint further alleges that more specific features of the invention, such as the use of multiple specialized engines and certainty scoring, are also present in the accused products (Compl. ¶19).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused product functionality falls within the scope of the patent's claims, particularly the terms "application" and "applications central repository." The patent's specification consistently provides examples related to discovering and downloading third-party mobile applications from platforms like the App Store® ('918 Patent, col. 1:43-45, col. 4:45-47). This raises the question of whether an integrated software platform that recommends internal assets (e.g., design templates or elements) can be said to be "selecting... at least one application from at least one applications central repository."
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that the accused products determine "search intent" using an "unconventional search intent determination protocol" (Compl. ¶18). What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product’s search feature performs the specific multi-engine, certainty-score analysis described in the '918 Patent's specification, as opposed to employing other advanced, but technically distinct, search and recommendation algorithms?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "search intent"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the analysis performed by the accused products is equivalent to the process claimed by the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges it is the key technological improvement over the prior art (Compl. ¶17).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines "search intent" broadly as representing "the type of content, the content, and/or actions that currently may be of an interest to the user" ('918 Patent, col. 4:3-6). This language could support a construction that covers any process of discerning a user's goal beyond literal keyword matching.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides detailed descriptions of two specific methods for determining intent: "implicit intent" based on environmental variables and "explicit intent" derived from a multi-engine analysis of a tokenized query ('918 Patent, col. 4:9-41). A party could argue that the term should be limited by these detailed embodiments, particularly the complex multi-engine architecture that the complaint itself highlights as a key inventive feature (Compl. ¶19).

• The Term: "selecting... at least one application from at least one applications central repository"

• Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused product performs this specific step. The definition of "application" and "repository" will determine if the patent's scope, seemingly focused on mobile app stores, can read on the accused system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "application" should be given its plain and ordinary meaning of a software program that performs a function and that "repository" simply means a place where things are stored, without limitation to third-party app stores.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently uses "applications" or "apps" in the context of downloadable programs for mobile devices from sources like "the App Store™ by Apple®" ('918 Patent, col. 1:36-45). The detailed description further refers to an "index of applications that can be downloaded from applications central repositories" and gives "AppStore®, Google Play® and the like" as examples ('918 Patent, col. 4:45-47). This context may support a narrower construction limited to discovering and downloading distinct software programs from app-store-like sources.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’918 Patent (Compl. ¶25-26).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported actual knowledge of the infringement. This knowledge is alleged to arise from both the service of the current complaint and a prior complaint filed in the same district (Compl. ¶24-25).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms "application" and "applications central repository," which are described in the patent in the context of third-party mobile app stores, be construed to cover the recommendation and use of internal software features or design templates within an integrated digital platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused product's search functionality operate using the specific multi-engine, tokenization, and certainty-scoring architecture that forms the detailed technical disclosure of the '918 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation that places it outside the scope of the claims?