HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc.

HyperQuery LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on enforcing intellectual property rights related to software and data management technologies, sued Sony Electronics, Inc. for patent infringement. Sony Electronics, Inc. is a globally recognized consumer electronics manufacturer known for its diverse product lines, including high-definition televisions, cameras, camcorders, personal audio devices, and professional solutions, as well as PlayStation gaming systems and mobile device platforms. The lawsuit accused Sony's systems enabling application downloads, such as the PlayStation Network, Bravia smart TV ecosystem, and mobile device platforms, of infringing the asserted patent.

The sole patent asserted in this case was U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 B2, titled "System and methods thereof for downloading applications via a communication network." This patent generally covers systems and methods for downloading applications by receiving an input search query, determining the user's search intent, selecting relevant applications from a central repository, displaying an icon for the selected application, and then facilitating the download of the application to a user device via a direct communication link.

The litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs, including patent assertion entities, for its established patent litigation infrastructure and perceived plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and jury pools. The case was dismissed without prejudice on HyperQuery LLC's voluntary notice in January 2025, before any claim construction hearings, dispositive motions, or trial scheduling milestones were reached, which is a common procedural posture in NPE litigation that can indicate settlement negotiations or a reassessment of claim viability. This case is notable due to HyperQuery LLC's pattern of asserting the '918 patent against various technology companies in the app distribution and mobile software delivery space. Furthermore, Unified Patents initiated an ex parte reexamination proceeding against the '918 patent in November 2024, with the Central Reexamination Unit granting the request in December 2024, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims.

HyperQuery LLC's patent infringement lawsuit against Sony Electronics, Inc. (2:24-cv-00611, E.D. Tex.) was dismissed without prejudice in January 2025, a relatively short time after its filing.

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

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: HyperQuery LLC filed its complaint against Sony Electronics, Inc. on July 31, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918 B2, which covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network, a technology relevant to app stores and software delivery systems. This patent, owned by Hyperquery LLC (an entity of Jeffrey M. Gross), has been asserted in over ten other cases, including against Nintendo, Roku, and Amazon. The infringement allegations in this round of complaints specifically focused on the defendants' respective app stores.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• There were no public records of substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment in this case, as it resolved before these milestones were reached.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage.

Discovery Milestones:

• No significant discovery milestones were publicly reached or reported due to the early dismissal of the case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Dismissal: The case was dismissed without prejudice on January 17, 2025, upon HyperQuery LLC's voluntary notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This dismissal occurred pre-answer, meaning no judicial findings were made on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement. The dismissal without prejudice preserves HyperQuery's right to refile the same claims in the future.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Prior Art Found: As early as April 26, 2023, prior art was announced to have been found on U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918, which is owned by Hyperquery LLC. This prior art generally relates to a method and system for downloading at least one application via a communication network.
• Ex Parte Reexamination Filed: On November 5, 2024, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 9,529,918. Unified Patents asserted that the '918 patent relates to a system and method for searching for apps in a central repository based on user intent.
• Reexamination Instituted: On December 17, 2024, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified Patents' request for ex parte reexamination, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims of the '918 patent.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for HyperQuery LLC in this case.

Good initial results. Let me verify counsel details and firm affiliations.

Let me retrieve the actual filings to confirm the counsel block and appearances.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — HyperQuery LLC

Research note: I could not query PACER directly, so the below is drawn from the public docket as mirrored by CourtListener/RECAP, Docket Alarm, and PACER Monitor, plus firm websites and state-bar records. The docket entries on which counsel identification rests are not sealed — they are ordinary appearance and filing entries — so the identification here is reliable. What is less well documented is Benjamin Deming's firm affiliation as of January 2025 (discussed below).

1. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff — Lead Counsel

Relevant experience: Rabicoff's own firm biography states he "has led licensing campaigns against Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, LG, Huawei, Samsung, and Google," and that his firm was among Lex Machina's top three most active patent litigation firms in 2017. He is the near-constant counsel across the HyperQuery '918-patent campaign (also filed against Nintendo, Roku, Amazon, Canva, Siemens, Synology, ASUSTOR, etc.), and he routinely appears as PTAB lead counsel/power-of-attorney for NPE patent owners (e.g., Pure Storage v. Digital Cache, IPR2022-00121). He is the single counsel common to essentially all HyperQuery filings, making him unambiguously the lead.

2. Benjamin Charles Deming — Additional Counsel of Record (appearance only)

⚠️ Firm-affiliation caveat: Deming's firm at the time of his January 2025 appearance is the one genuinely soft fact here. PatSnap lists "Dnl Zito" alongside Rabicoff Law as plaintiff firms for this case, and his California/Texas bar records and other 2025 E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. appearances (e.g., Secure Matrix LLC v. Santikos Real Estate Services) show the DNL Zito Dallas address — but older authoritative sources (California Bar, Martindale, Texas bar) still list Rutan & Tucker, Costa Mesa. I could not retrieve the text of Dkt. 10 itself to read the signature block, so I cannot state definitively which firm name appears on that filing. Treat "DNL Zito (Dallas)" as well-supported but not confirmed from the primary document.

Relevant experience: Deming has appeared on the NPE/patent-owner side in co-pending assertion campaigns — for example, in Valve Corporation v. Rothschild (W.D. Wash. 2:23-cv-01016), where he was admitted pro hac vice and appeared for the Rothschild-family defendants (Display Technologies LLC, Patent Asset Management LLC, Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems LLC, et al.), and in 2025 for Secure Matrix LLC (another assertion entity, W.D. Tex.). His background is IP and commercial litigation.

Who did not appear for the plaintiff

• No local counsel appeared. E.D. Tex. practice does not compel local counsel, and the docket reflects only Rabicoff (out of Chicago) and Deming. There is no separate Marshall/Tyler or Texas-based local-counsel entry.
• No additional Rabicoff Law attorneys appeared in this docket (contrast with other HyperQuery matters, where persons such as Kenneth Matuszewski have appeared on related filings in other districts/PTAB).

Timing observation worth flagging

Deming's appearance (Jan. 6, 2025) landed just two days before Rabicoff filed the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Jan. 8, 2025, Dkt. 11), and one week before HyperQuery filed a fresh action against Sony Corporation (the Japanese parent) in the same district, 2:25-cv-00023, on Jan. 13, 2025 — in which the plaintiff's counsel of record is again Rabicoff Law LLC. That sequence is consistent with a substitution/refiling strategy rather than a merits resolution, and it explains why the docket shows a brief, multi-counsel appearance period immediately before dismissal.

Contradiction to flag against the earlier-generated sections

The prior "Defendant representatives" section states that the docket "does not explicitly identify the counsel of record for Sony Electronics." That is inconsistent with the docket as mirrored publicly: Dkt. 8 (Dec. 10, 2024), Sony's unopposed extension application, is signed by John M. Guaragna (a DLA Piper partner frequently used by Sony in E.D. Tex.), and the earlier summary itself elsewhere cites Guaragna. The correct statement for the defendant side is that Guaragna appeared for Sony on that filing, not that no counsel is identifiable. (Defendant-side identification is outside this task's scope, but the contradiction should be corrected in the case file.)

Bottom line

HyperQuery's plaintiff-side representation was led and almost entirely conducted by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago), the registered patent attorney who runs the firm-wide HyperQuery '918 campaign; Benjamin Charles Deming filed a belated appearance (Jan. 6, 2025) and is recorded as counsel on the docket, most likely then with DNL Zito (Dallas), though that firm attribution is not verifiable from the primary filing text I could access. No local counsel appeared, and no plaintiff filings in this case are sealed.

The publicly available information for HyperQuery LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc. (2:24-cv-00611 E.D. Tex.) does not explicitly identify the counsel of record for Sony Electronics, Inc. The case was dismissed without prejudice on HyperQuery LLC's voluntary notice in January 2025, before significant litigation milestones that would typically reveal detailed counsel information on the public docket.

However, based on general patent litigation trends and information regarding Sony's intellectual property defense, some inferences can be made:

• Sony's Typical Patent Litigation Counsel: Sony is a large, multinational corporation with a robust intellectual property portfolio and frequently engages in patent litigation. They are known to use prominent law firms for their patent defense. Wolf Greenfield, for example, highlights its long-standing relationship with Sony, representing them in U.S. patent disputes, including patent litigation and IPR matters. Other firms, like Patterson Belknap, have also represented Sony Electronics in obtaining dismissals in patent infringement cases.
• In-House Counsel: Sony also employs in-house counsel to manage its litigation and intellectual property. For example, a litigator job description for Sony Electronics indicates the role involves managing and driving strategy for affirmative and defensive litigations and intellectual property enforcement matters. Former Sony in-house counsel have also been involved in patent litigation against Sony by other entities.

Without specific docket entries or a published opinion identifying counsel for this particular case, a definitive list of attorneys, their roles, and specific firm office locations cannot be provided. It is common for such details to be less prominent in cases dismissed early in the proceedings.