HyperQuery LLC v. Sony 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 Sony Corp., a Japanese multinational conglomerate known for its consumer electronics, gaming platforms (PlayStation), entertainment content, and digital services. The litigation targeted Sony's systems and methods related to downloading applications via communication networks, implicating its extensive product lines, including mobile devices, gaming platforms, and digital content delivery systems. The sole patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 B2, titled "System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network." This patent broadly describes a method for receiving a user's search query, determining their intent, selecting relevant applications from a central repository, displaying an icon, and facilitating the download of the chosen application via a direct communication link.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00023, and presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" with accelerated trial schedules and experienced patent juries. Despite the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision limiting venue options, PAEs frequently employ strategies, such as suing foreign entities, to maintain cases in this district. The litigation concluded relatively quickly, being voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on February 19, 2026, just over 13 months after its filing on January 13, 2025, and notably, before significant motion practice. This outcome meant no damages or injunctive relief were formally awarded by the court.

This case is notable due to HyperQuery LLC's status as an NPE, asserting a patent central to modern app distribution against a major operating company like Sony, which reflects a broader pattern of targeting large technology and entertainment entities with app-related functionalities. The same patent has been asserted in over ten other cases, including against Nintendo, Roku, Amazon, and Electronic Arts, highlighting a deliberate licensing and enforcement strategy. Furthermore, Unified Patents, an organization focused on deterring baseless patent litigation, filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against the '918 patent on November 5, 2024, indicating a challenge to its validity separate from the district court proceedings. The rapid voluntary dismissal with prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas, without a full adjudication, is also a common characteristic of NPE litigation in this venue, often signaling an undisclosed settlement.

The patent infringement litigation HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Corp., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00023), saw a rapid conclusion with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The case, centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918, was terminated just over 13 months after its filing.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-01-13: HyperQuery LLC filed a complaint against Sony Corp. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918. This patent pertains to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network, and HyperQuery LLC is identified as a patent assertion entity. The complaint was part of a broader campaign by HyperQuery, which added numerous defendants to its litigation efforts around the same time, all in the Eastern District of Texas.
• The case was dismissed before Sony filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, indicating an early resolution prior to substantive defensive pleadings. Therefore, no answer or counterclaims from Sony were recorded in the public information before dismissal.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• The case concluded at an early procedural stage, and public records indicate that no significant pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment, reached a ruling.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Given the early dismissal, the case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage, and no Markman hearings or rulings were recorded.

Discovery Milestones:

• The swift dismissal of the case before substantive pleadings suggests that the litigation did not proceed far enough to involve significant discovery milestones.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions occurred in this case. A scheduling order from January 29, 2026, had set jury selection for April 6, 2026, and a pretrial conference for March 6, 2026, but the case was dismissed before these dates.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2026-02-18: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed an order dismissing the case with prejudice.
• 2026-02-19: HyperQuery LLC's patent infringement action against Sony Corp. was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The Court accepted HyperQuery's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
• The dismissal with prejudice means that HyperQuery cannot reassert the same infringement claims against Sony under the '918 patent. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Searches for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 did not yield any active or terminated IPR or PGR challenges. Therefore, there were no parallel PTAB proceedings that directly affected this litigation.

I was unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing HyperQuery LLC in HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Corp., case number 2:25-cv-00023, from the provided search results. While the case details, including its voluntary dismissal with prejudice, are clear, the attorneys for the plaintiff are not explicitly named in the snippets.

Other cases involving HyperQuery LLC mentioned an attorney, Antranig Garibian, filing a notice of voluntary dismissal in HyperQuery LLC v. Apple Inc.. However, it cannot be confirmed from the available information if this attorney or their firm also represented HyperQuery LLC in the Sony Corp. case.

To definitively identify the counsel of record, a direct review of the case's docket sheet on PACER would be necessary.

Despite aggressive web searches for docket entries, court opinions, and legal news, I was unable to definitively identify the specific counsel of record representing Sony Corp. in HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Corp., case number 2:25-cv-00023. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice at an early procedural stage, before substantive defensive pleadings, which may explain the limited public record regarding detailed attorney appearances.

While firms like Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. have a long-standing relationship with Sony Group Corporation for patent procurement, portfolio management, and defending against U.S. patent disputes, including in district courts and IPR matters, and have appeared for Sony in other Eastern District of Texas cases, there is no direct evidence in the search results confirming their specific appearance in HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Corp. (2:25-cv-00023). Other firms such as Morrison & Foerster LLP and Erise IP, P.A. have also represented Sony in patent litigation in other courts.

Without direct access to the specific docket entries for case number 2:25-cv-00023 on PACER, the counsel of record for Sony Corp. in this particular case remains unconfirmed.