HyperQuery LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

HyperQuery LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) linked to Jeffrey M. Gross, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA), a major interactive entertainment company known for its gaming titles and digital distribution platforms like the EA App. The core of the dispute revolved around HyperQuery's accusation that EA's systems for application downloading and distribution, or its app delivery infrastructure, infringed on the asserted patent. The sole patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 B2, which generally covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network, more specifically relating to techniques for searching for mobile applications based on user intent.

The case was filed in the Western District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its patent-friendly procedures and, prior to a July 2022 order, the near-certainty of assignment to Judge Alan Albright in the Waco Division. Although the case was filed after the judicial assignment rules changed, resulting in its handling by Judge Derek T. Gilliland for early motions and Judge David Counts for closure, the district remains a popular choice partly because many technology companies have a presence in Austin, satisfying venue requirements.

This litigation is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting broader trends in NPE assertions within the software and app-distribution industry. HyperQuery LLC is actively engaged in asserting this and potentially other patents, with reports indicating "ongoing assertion campaigns" and "new rounds of suits targeting mobile app stores" against various tech companies. The case concluded rapidly—within 140 days—with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, meaning HyperQuery is barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against EA for the '918 patent. This pre-answer resolution, without substantive rulings on validity or infringement, is characteristic of NPE litigation where defendants with robust legal resources can achieve early settlements or withdrawals. Furthermore, the patent itself has faced challenges, with Unified Patents initiating ex parte reexamination proceedings and finding substantial new questions of patentability, highlighting ongoing scrutiny of its validity.

HyperQuery LLC's patent infringement lawsuit against Electronic Arts, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (7:25-cv-00176) was filed on April 18, 2025, and concluded rapidly with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on September 5, 2025. The case lasted approximately 140 days and did not proceed to substantive litigation stages.

Key legal developments and the outcome are as follows:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-04-18): HyperQuery LLC filed a complaint alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 B2. The patent covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: Electronic Arts did not file an answer or any substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment, as the case was dismissed before that stage.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The litigation did not reach the claim construction phase.
• Discovery Milestones: No discovery disputes or milestones occurred.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: The case was terminated well before any trial or related proceedings could take place.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment (2025-09-04/05): On September 4, 2025, HyperQuery LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, leading to the case's termination on September 5, 2025. This dismissal prevents HyperQuery LLC from re-filing the same infringement claims against Electronic Arts based on U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 B2. No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was ordered, and each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: While the district court case was active, no PTAB proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 directly impacted its outcome. However, Unified Patents had been seeking prior art for the '918 patent since at least January 2023 and found relevant prior art by April 2023. On November 5, 2024, after the dismissal of the Electronic Arts case, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918. On December 17, 2024, the Central Reexamination Unit granted Unified Patents' request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims of the '918 patent.

Here is the counsel of record representing HyperQuery LLC in the case HyperQuery LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc.:

• Name: Isaac Rabicoff
• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Office Location: Chicago, IL
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Isaac Rabicoff founded Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm recognized by Lex Machina as one of the top three most active in patent litigation in 2017. He has led patent licensing campaigns against major technology companies including Amazon, Apple, Google, Huawei, LG, Samsung, and T-Mobile. As lead counsel, he has successfully defeated institution of numerous post-grant review petitions, including Covered Business Method review petitions filed by Mastercard and Adobe, and an Inter Partes Review petition filed by RPX Corporation. Mr. Rabicoff has argued before the Federal Circuit and is a registered patent attorney.

Defendant Electronic Arts, Inc. was represented by counsel from Reed Smith. The case was dismissed before an answer was filed, but Reed Smith's involvement as the "multi-attorney defense team" for Electronic Arts was noted.

Based on available information, the following counsel represented Electronic Arts, Inc.:

• Firm: Reed Smith LLP
  • Attorneys (specific individuals not named in public summaries): The available information indicates a "multi-attorney defense team" from Reed Smith, but does not identify specific lawyers by name who made appearances or were lead counsel in this particular case.
  • Relevant Experience: Reed Smith is known for its experienced IP litigation counsel, often representing defendants in patent infringement cases, especially those involving sophisticated legal challenges. Their involvement in this case suggests they were retained immediately upon service.

No specific in-house counsel appearances for Electronic Arts were identified in the public record for this case, though Electronic Arts does employ various legal counsel for litigation, patents, and other legal affairs. Given the early dismissal, detailed appearances on the docket might be minimal.