Litigation

HyperQuery LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Open

2:23-cv-00007

Filed
2023-01-08

Patents at issue (1)

9529918

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

HyperQuery LLC filed patent infringement claims against [LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20U.S.A.%2C%20Inc.) The case is currently open, with HyperQuery LLC having responded to a motion to dismiss.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

HyperQuery LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.. HyperQuery LLC develops collaborative workspace analytics software, designed to integrate documents, queries, data, and visualizations into a single interface. In contrast, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is the U.S. subsidiary of the South Korean multinational major appliance and consumer electronics corporation, LG Electronics Inc., which manufactures and sells a wide range of products including televisions, home appliances, and mobile devices. The accused products in this litigation are LG's mobile devices, specifically those equipped with app stores, which allegedly infringe HyperQuery's patent related to application downloading.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918, titled "System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network". This patent generally relates to techniques for searching for mobile applications ("apps") and providing them to a user, more specifically focusing on searching for applications based on the user's intent. The procedural posture of the case is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.), Case No. 2:23-cv-00007, and it has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne also referred. The E.D. Tex. is a historically plaintiff-friendly venue, known for its "rocket docket" reputation for fast trials and efficient patent litigation, which often makes it a preferred choice for patent assertion entities despite the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision on venue restrictions.

This case is notable as part of a broader pattern of patent assertion by HyperQuery LLC, which has consistently targeted mobile technology companies over software-related patents covering app distribution architecture. HyperQuery, a Jeffrey M. Gross entity, has asserted the '918 patent in over ten other cases against various tech companies, including Amazon, Nintendo, Sony, HTC, Samsung, and HP, often focusing on defendants' app stores. While some of these cases have been voluntarily dismissed, sometimes with prejudice, the ongoing assertions highlight the commercial value and litigation risk associated with patents covering fundamental application download systems. Unified Patents has even sought ex parte reexamination of the '918 patent, citing prior art, to challenge its validity, indicating the patent's significance in the current intellectual property landscape.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

HyperQuery LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, numbered 2:23-cv-00007, was filed on January 8, 2023, or January 9, 2023, seeking relief for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,529,918 and 9,639,611. The '918 patent generally relates to systems and methods for searching for mobile applications based on user intent.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings:

    • 2023-01-08 (or 2023-01-09): HyperQuery LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,529,918 and 9,639,611.

  • Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

    • The provided context indicates that HyperQuery LLC responded to a motion to dismiss. While specific details of the motion's filing by LG are not immediately available from the search results, this motion was part of the early proceedings.

  • Final Disposition – Dismissal:

    • 2023-09-20: The case was closed in the Eastern District of Texas. This early closure suggests a resolution prior to extensive litigation, such as a stipulated dismissal, likely following a settlement or an uncontested motion to dismiss. The specific nature of the closure (e.g., voluntary dismissal with or without prejudice, or settlement) is not detailed in the available search snippets. The official status of the case is now "closed" as of this date.

  • Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

    • 2024-12-17: More than a year after the district court case against LG was closed, Unified Patents announced that an ex parte reexamination was granted for U.S. Patent 9,529,918, which is owned by HyperQuery LLC. The Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) found "substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims" of the '918 patent. This reexamination was initiated by Unified Patents and targets the validity of the patent asserted in the litigation. This proceeding is still ongoing and focuses on the patentability of the '918 patent's claims, independent of the closed district court case against LG.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for press coverage from multiple angles.

Press & Media Coverage

Detailed mainstream press coverage of HyperQuery LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. specifically appears to be essentially nonexistent. My searches across the case caption, party names, the asserted patent numbers ('918 and '611), and the "LG + app store + patent" framing returned no reporting from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra about this particular docket. This is unsurprising for a case of this profile: it was a short-lived, single-defendant NPE suit that ended in transfer and voluntary dismissal without any merits ruling, damages award, or settlement disclosure — the kind of docket that trade press typically covers only as part of a broader filing wave. What coverage does exist comes from industry-monitoring sources and the parties' own communications, not from journalists.

The most substantive third-party discussion is an RPX Empower news item (dated August 1, 2024) that situates the LG case in HyperQuery's litigation campaign. RPX characterized the earlier "round" of suits as "a May-to-September affair" that targeted ASUSTek, HP, LG Electronics (LGE), OnePlus, Samsung, TCL, and ZTE over the provision of mobile devices equipped with a "pre-installed Google search engine" and/or "pre-installed Google Play Store." It reported that only one of the two patents previously in suit — i.e., only the '918 patent — appeared in HyperQuery's later 2024 complaints, with infringement allegations "focused on the defendants' respective app stores." This is notable because it reflects the same narrowing of the campaign that would later show up in HyperQuery's 2025 filings, where the '611 patent dropped out entirely.

Two other sources directly discuss the '918 patent and reference the LG assertion, though neither is conventional journalism. Unified Patents announced a PATROLL prior-art contest (opened January 19, 2023, expiring March 31, 2023) offering a $2,000 prize for prior art on at least claim 1 of the '918 patent, which it described as owned by "Hyperquery, LLC, an NPE and Jeffery M. Gross entity" and "asserted against LG, Samsung, and HP." Unified separately reported that it filed an ex parte reexamination against the '918 patent on November 5, 2024, and that on December 17, 2024 the Central Reexamination Unit "granted Unified's request, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims." On the plaintiff's side, Ramey LLP issued its own firm press release confirming it "filed the Original Complaint and demand for jury trial seeking relief from patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas January 9, 2023," and identifying the two patents-in-suit.

Two government/regulatory sources discussed the campaign from a risk-warning perspective. China's Shenzhen IP Protection Center published a risk advisory on HyperQuery (April 6, 2023), stating that HyperQuery had filed three suits against Shenzhen companies that day, that the asserted patents were the '918 and '611 patents, that plaintiff's counsel was the Ramey firm, and that the defendants named across its campaign included HP, LG, Samsung, and ASUS; it characterized HyperQuery as an apparent NPE. A follow-up advisory (April 23, 2025) reported that HyperQuery had filed roughly 43 U.S. district court suits over three years, with about 67% in E.D. Tex., and that most cases settled within 181 days of filing.

Where reporting goes beyond — or contradicts — the court record. The one thing worth flagging explicitly is a discrepancy with the previously generated sections and the case metadata. The prior sections state the case was "closed" in E.D. Tex. on 2023-09-20 and that HyperQuery was litigating a motion to dismiss; the metadata still lists the case as "Open." The docket record instead shows that E.D. Tex. case 2:23-cv-00007 was transferred to the Northern District of California on August 11, 2023 (order by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne granting LG's sealed motion to transfer), was re-docketed there as HyperQuery, LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 3:23-cv-04725, and then was voluntarily dismissed by HyperQuery (notice filed 9/29/2023, corrected 9/29/2023, with the case closed by clerk's notice on 10/2/2023 and an amended notice filed 10/13/2023). No damages figure, settlement amount, or license term was ever reported by any outlet — consistent with a voluntary dismissal that discloses nothing about the underlying resolution. I could not find any executive statement from LG or HyperQuery, or any analyst commentary, beyond the sources above.

I should note a caution about source quality: several search results that look like "coverage" (Patsnap litigation blog posts, the Korean IP-NAVI database, Stanford's NPE database, CourtListener/UniCourt/Justia docket aggregators, and Ex Parte/Patsnap AI-generated "complaint analyses") are litigation-data products or automated summaries, not published reporting, and I have not relied on them for factual assertions about the LG case beyond the raw docket events. I also encountered a Law360 headline snippet referencing a Canva sanctions ruling involving a "prolific patent attorney" who "sued on behalf of HyperQuery LLC," but that concerns a different case and defendant, not this one.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff HyperQuery LLC

HyperQuery LLC, a patent assertion entity linked to Jeffrey M. Gross, is consistently represented in its Eastern District of Texas patent litigation by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. While specific docket entries for his appearance in HyperQuery LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (2:23-cv-00007) were not directly found in the provided search snippets, Rabicoff has filed notices of appearance for HyperQuery LLC in numerous other related patent infringement cases in the same district, including HyperQuery LLC v. PDD Holdings Inc. (2:25-cv-00047), HyperQuery LLC v. BigCommerce Pty. Ltd. (2:25-cv-00801), HyperQuery LLC v. Chaos Software GmbH (2:25-cv-00407), and HyperQuery LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (2:24-cv-00617). His firm, Rabicoff Law LLC, lists its location in Chicago, Illinois.

Attorney: Isaac Phillip Rabicoff

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience: Mr. Rabicoff founded Rabicoff Law, which was recognized among Lex Machina's top 3 law firms in 2017 for most active patent litigation. He has led licensing campaigns against major technology companies including LG, Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Huawei, Samsung, and Google, and has successfully challenged numerous Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews. He is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is a registered patent attorney.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Based on available web search results, the following counsel are involved with LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in the case HyperQuery LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (2:23-cv-00007):

  • Hongsun Yoon

    • Role: Director & Senior IP Counsel (in-house)
    • Firm: LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Washington, DC
    • Experience: Manages IP litigation for a wide range of LG-branded products before U.S. District Courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission. He began his legal career at Finnegan and has experience in biotech and pharmaceutical patent practice.

  • Paul I. Margulies

    • Role: Patent Attorney (explicit role for LG in this specific case is not fully clarified from search results; listed as "Challenger (W). : LG Electronics USA Inc" in the case, but his firm affiliation is "Tesla Inc.")
    • Firm: Tesla Inc. (although representing LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in this matter), likely based in Washington, DC (based on other directory listings for Paul I. Margulies with Tesla Inc. where a DC address is present)
    • Experience: Has 17 years of experience as a patent attorney with practice areas including mechanical engineering, manufacturing, transportation, e-commerce, semiconductors, optics, communications, software, and security.

Specific outside counsel of record for LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in this particular case (2:23-cv-00007) could not be definitively identified from the available public search results, beyond the involvement of Paul I. Margulies. While other firms like O'Melveny and Morgan Lewis have represented LG in other patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, their direct appearance in HyperQuery LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. was not explicitly confirmed.