HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp

HyperQuery LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) and an entity of Jeffrey M. Gross, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Appian Corp.. While there is an operating company also named Hyperquery that develops collaborative workspace software for analytics and was acquired by Deepnote, the HyperQuery LLC involved in litigation is widely recognized as a patent assertion entity. Defendant Appian Corp. is a public enterprise software company headquartered in McLean, Virginia, specializing in business process automation and AI agent orchestration through its low-code development platform, which offers features for application development, workflow automation, AI, and process mining. The complaint alleges infringement by Appian's products or services related to its platform, likely concerning functionalities involving application deployment, management, or associated search capabilities, given the nature of the asserted patent.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918, titled "System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network". This patent generally describes systems and methods for downloading applications to a user device by receiving an input search query, determining the user's search intent, and subsequently initiating the download of a selected application via a communication network. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (E.D. Virginia), known for its "rocket docket" reputation due to its expedited trial schedule, which typically appeals to plaintiffs seeking swift resolutions. However, the E.D. Virginia also has a history of transferring cases involving out-of-state companies if a substantial connection to the state cannot be demonstrated.

This case is notable due to HyperQuery LLC's extensive history of asserting the '918 patent in a broad campaign against numerous technology companies, including Sony, Nintendo, Roku, Amazon, LG, Samsung, HP, and HTC, underscoring a consistent NPE assertion pattern. Furthermore, the validity of the '918 patent is currently under scrutiny, as Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding in November 2024, which was granted by the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) in December 2024, finding "substantial new questions of patentability" on all challenged claims. This parallel reexamination could significantly influence the district court litigation. Appian itself is no stranger to aggressive intellectual property litigation, having recently secured a $2.036 billion trade secret misappropriation jury verdict against Pegasystems Inc. in Virginia, a case that is now headed for retrial following a Virginia Supreme Court decision.

HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp: Key Legal Developments (1:25-cv-01884)

The patent infringement case of HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp, filed in the Eastern District of Virginia under case number 1:25-cv-01884, remains open as of June 1, 2026. This litigation concerns U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 ("the '918 patent").

Litigation Chronology:

• Filing of Complaint: HyperQuery LLC initiated the lawsuit against Appian Corp on October 28, 2025.
• Initial Pleadings: Details regarding Appian Corp's answer, potential counterclaims, or any motions to dismiss specific to this case are not yet publicly detailed in the available search results.
• Pre-trial Motions: No specific pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR) have been identified for this particular case in the provided information. While other related cases involving HyperQuery LLC and the '918 patent have seen motions to dismiss and for protective orders, these entries are tied to different defendants and jurisdictions.
• Claim Construction (Markman): The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, nor have any outcomes been publicly reported.
• Discovery Milestones: No significant discovery milestones or orders specific to HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp have been publicly reported.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: Given the recent filing date of October 2025, the case has not progressed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.
• Final Disposition: The case is currently active and marked as "Open."

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918, has been the subject of a parallel ex parte reexamination proceeding initiated by Unified Patents.

• On November 5, 2024, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination request against the '918 patent.
• The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified's request on December 17, 2024, determining that there were substantial new questions of patentability regarding all challenged claims of the '918 patent.
• The '918 patent generally relates to a system and method for searching for applications in a central repository based on user intent.
• Prior art against the '918 patent was identified as early as April 26, 2023, by Unified Patents through a contest.
• The outcome of this reexamination could potentially impact the district court litigation, depending on whether claims of the '918 patent are amended or cancelled.

I am unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing HyperQuery LLC in HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp, Case No. 1:25-cv-01884 (E.D. Virginia). Despite multiple attempts to locate this information through web searches targeting public docket records, legal news sites like Law360 and Bloomberg Law, and general public records, the detailed attorney appearances for this specific case are not readily available through open web search queries. This information is typically found directly on the PACER docket system, which requires direct access or a subscription to specialized legal databases that can retrieve this data. Without such access, I cannot confirm the names, roles, firms, office locations, or specific patent litigation experience of the plaintiff's attorneys. It is highly probable that counsel has appeared given the case filing date in October 2025, but their identities are not publicly indexed in a way accessible via general web search.

To identify the counsel of record representing Appian Corp. in HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp, case number 1:25-cv-01884 in the E.D. Virginia, direct access to the court's docket (e.g., via PACER) would be ideal. However, based on publicly available information and the current date, specific counsel appearances for this recently filed patent infringement case are not immediately detailed in the general web search results.

While comprehensive details for HyperQuery LLC v. Appian Corp are not yet widely published, Appian Corp. has a history of significant intellectual property litigation. Notably, Appian was involved in a major trade secret misappropriation case, Appian Corp. v. Pegasystems Inc., which involved a multi-billion dollar jury verdict that was later remanded for retrial by the Virginia Supreme Court. This case highlights Appian's engagement in complex IP disputes and provides insight into some of their legal team.

Jaye Campbell serves as the General Counsel for Appian Corp. and leads their global legal team. She has over 20 years of experience leading legal departments and was quoted regarding the Pegasystems case, stating Appian's intent to press its trade secret claims in a new trial. While her role is in-house, general counsel often oversee and direct external litigation counsel.

Christopher Geyer, a former Deputy General Counsel at Appian, now works as Counsel in the Corporate & Securities, Intellectual Property practice of Scale LLP. He has a background in IP strategy, litigation, and dispute resolution, including patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, and was involved in the trade secret lawsuit that resulted in a $2 billion jury verdict (presumably referring to the Pegasystems case). While no longer in-house, his previous role indicates Appian's internal expertise in managing such cases.

Without direct docket access for 1:25-cv-01884, the specific external firms and attorneys that Appian has retained for this particular patent infringement case cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings for new cases in the E.D. Virginia are often not immediately summarized with detailed counsel information in general web searches. It is possible that counsel has appeared, but the information is not yet broadly indexed or publicly highlighted outside of the official docket.