HyperQuery LLC v. Amazon.com — Dismissed With Prejudice After 132 Days
HyperQuery LLC filed an infringement action against Amazon.com in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US9529918B2, a patent covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The case closed in 132 days when HyperQuery voluntarily dismissed with prejudice — permanently relinquishing its right to re-file the same claims against Amazon.
A rapid end: HyperQuery’s app-download patent claim against Amazon folds in under five months
On July 31, 2024, HyperQuery LLC filed suit against Amazon.com, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00617), asserting infringement of US9529918B2. The patent, filed under application number US14/103500, claims systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network — a technology domain directly relevant to Amazon’s digital distribution infrastructure, including services such as the Amazon Appstore.
The case closed on December 10, 2024, just 132 days after filing, when HyperQuery filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice and denying all pending relief as moot. Critically, the dismissal with prejudice functions as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring HyperQuery from reasserting the same patent claims against Amazon in any future proceeding.
The 132-day duration — encompassing filing through closure with no reported substantive motions or claim construction proceedings — is consistent with a pre-litigation settlement or licensing resolution, though the public record does not confirm any financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing order is standard for agreed dismissals and does not signal relative leverage. What drove HyperQuery to accept a with-prejudice termination, rather than a without-prejudice exit that would preserve optionality, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 132 days
132 days — well below the E.D. Texas median time-to-trial, suggesting resolution before substantive litigation began
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss — but with a permanent catch
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. When filed with prejudice, however, the dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits. HyperQuery exercised this procedural right but accepted the highest-consequence form: a permanent bar against re-litigating the same claims against Amazon on US9529918B2.
Permanent bar on re-filingWith prejudice vs. without prejudice: why the distinction matters here
A dismissal without prejudice would preserve HyperQuery’s option to refile against Amazon — useful if claim construction, IPR outcomes, or licensing strategy shifted. By contrast, a with-prejudice dismissal permanently forecloses that path. The public record does not disclose why HyperQuery accepted this higher-consequence exit. This distinction is significant for any third-party watching US9529918B2: the patent remains in force against other defendants, but Amazon has secured permanent immunity from HyperQuery’s claims.
Amazon permanently shieldedHyperQuery exits with prejudice — enforcement rights against Amazon extinguished
HyperQuery permanently surrendered its right to assert US9529918B2 against Amazon. Whether this reflects a confidential settlement, a strategic reassessment of claim scope against Amazon’s specific implementations, or litigation cost pressure is unknown from the public record. The with-prejudice nature suggests HyperQuery received something of value in exchange — a settlement or license is consistent with this outcome — though this is not confirmed by the docket.
Enforcement against Amazon endedAmazon obtains permanent release from this patent claim at minimal litigation cost
Amazon, represented by DLA Piper, reached resolution before substantive motions were filed and avoided an award of costs against it. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Amazon with a durable shield against this specific patent on the same claims. However, US9529918B2 remains active and enforceable against other parties in the app-download and digital distribution space — Amazon’s resolution does not extinguish the patent itself.
Low-cost, durable resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HyperQuery LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9529918B2 covering app download systems and methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and cloud platform operator; operator of the Amazon AppstoreSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for HyperQuery LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing HyperQuery LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (Austin, US) | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order tracks the standard Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) acceptance formula but explicitly records the with-prejudice designation — meaning this is not a neutral procedural close. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ carries the weight of a merits adjudication under res judicata principles, permanently barring HyperQuery from re-asserting the same claims against Amazon. The denial of all pending relief as moot and the mutual cost-bearing directive are consistent with an agreed resolution reached before Amazon filed a responsive pleading.
US9529918B2 — System and methods for downloading applications via a communication network
US9529918B2, filed under application number US14/103500, protects systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The patent sits at the intersection of mobile computing, digital distribution, and network communications — covering the core mechanism by which software applications are delivered to end-user devices over a network. This technology is foundational to app store ecosystems and cloud-based software delivery platforms, making it broadly relevant across consumer and enterprise software distribution.
For companies operating digital distribution platforms, app stores, enterprise mobile device management systems, or over-the-air update infrastructure, US9529918B2 represents a potentially broad assertion risk. The patent’s continued enforceability following HyperQuery’s with-prejudice dismissal against Amazon suggests the claims were not invalidated during this litigation cycle. Any competitor or adjacent platform operator that has not conducted a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent should consider doing so — particularly given the Eastern District of Texas venue preference and HyperQuery’s demonstrated willingness to litigate.
Should your platform run an FTO analysis against US9529918B2?
Any company developing or operating systems for distributing, delivering, or updating applications over a network — including app store operators, enterprise MDM providers, cloud software vendors, and OTA update platforms — should assess their exposure to US9529918B2. The patent survived this litigation cycle without invalidation, and HyperQuery’s with-prejudice settlement with Amazon does not restrict its enforcement against other parties. The Eastern District of Texas, where this case was filed, remains plaintiff-friendly for patent assertion entities.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map US9529918B2 claim elements against specific product architectures, identify prosecution history estoppel, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark the patent’s claim scope against comparable grants in the app-download and network software space. Running a targeted FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than reactive litigation defence in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9529918B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar app-download and digital distribution patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving application download and network software delivery patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including actions by patent assertion entities against major platform operators.
What this case signals for the app-download and digital distribution IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas typically signals either a confidential resolution or a strategic retreat — both carry distinct implications for patent holders and platform operators.
With-prejudice exits in 132 days are consistent with early licensing resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this quickly — before any substantive motion practice — the most common explanation is a confidential license or settlement. Patent assertion entities rarely accept permanent claim bars without consideration. Companies operating digital distribution platforms should treat this pattern as a signal that US9529918B2 is being actively monetised.
US9529918B2 remains live against other app-platform operators
Amazon’s resolution provides no protection to other defendants. Any company operating app stores, digital distribution networks, or over-the-air application delivery systems should assess their exposure to US9529918B2. The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent assertion entities in this technology domain, and HyperQuery’s rapid resolution with Amazon may indicate confidence in the patent’s enforceability.
HyperQuery v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars HyperQuery from reasserting the same patent claims under US9529918B2 against Amazon in any future proceeding. Under res judicata principles, this functions as a final adjudication on the merits. Amazon is permanently shielded from this specific assertion — though the patent remains enforceable against other defendants.
US9529918B2 is a US patent filed under application number US14/103500. It covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network — technology directly relevant to app stores, digital distribution platforms, cloud software delivery, and over-the-air update systems. The patent was asserted by HyperQuery LLC against Amazon.com in the Eastern District of Texas in 2024.
The public docket does not disclose the reason. However, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice after only 132 days — and before substantive motion practice — is typically consistent with a confidential license or settlement agreement. It is unusual for a plaintiff to accept permanent claim preclusion without receiving some form of consideration, though this cannot be confirmed from the public record.
No. The dismissal with prejudice only precludes HyperQuery from re-asserting these specific claims against Amazon. US9529918B2 remains in force and enforceable against any other party. The patent was not invalidated, and no claim construction rulings were issued that would narrow its scope. Other app-platform operators remain potentially exposed.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00617). E.D. Texas is a historically favoured venue for patent assertion entities due to its procedural rules and jury composition. Its selection here is consistent with common PAE litigation strategy, and companies in the app-download and digital distribution sector should monitor filings in this district.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.