HyperQuery LLC v. Chaos Software GmbH — Dismissed Without Prejudice in 42 Days
HyperQuery LLC asserted US9529918B2 — covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network — against Chaos Software GmbH in the Eastern District of Texas. The case ended by voluntary dismissal without prejudice just 42 days after filing, leaving the door open for future action.
A 42-day patent filing ends without merits ruling in E.D. Texas
On April 17, 2025, HyperQuery LLC filed a patent infringement action against Chaos Software GmbH in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00415), asserting US9529918B2 — a patent directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The case was handled on the plaintiff side by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a known focus on NPE and patent assertion work.
On May 29, 2025, just 42 days after filing, HyperQuery filed a Notice of Dismissal and Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted it, dismissing all claims without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No defendant counsel of record had appeared, and no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed, meaning plaintiff was entitled as of right to dismiss without court permission. The dismissal without prejudice leaves HyperQuery free to re-assert the same patent against Chaos Software or any other party.
The speed of resolution — 42 days — is notably short even for an early-exit patent case and suggests the matter resolved before any substantive litigation began. Whether the parties reached a private settlement, a licensing arrangement, or HyperQuery simply chose to stand down is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of defendant counsel filings indicates Chaos Software GmbH may not have formally engaged with U.S. litigation at all.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 42 days
42 days — well below the median E.D. Texas patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed without prejudice: what the 42-day exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s right to dismiss before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without court permission before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a unilateral procedural right. The court’s role is purely ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges the notice. No merits ruling is made, and the dismissal is recorded as without prejudice, meaning the claims are not extinguished.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: claims survive — but what drove the exit?
A dismissal without prejudice means HyperQuery retains the right to assert US9529918B2 again, whether against Chaos Software GmbH or a different defendant. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or licence was reached privately. Patent practitioners should note: if a second suit is filed on the same patent, a court could scrutinise whether an early voluntary dismissal followed by re-filing constitutes strategic manipulation of the docket.
Re-filing risk remainsChaos Software exits without a validity or non-infringement ruling
Chaos Software GmbH filed no counsel of record and obtained no ruling on the merits. While this avoids litigation cost, it also means no invalidity finding, no claim construction, and no non-infringement determination protects the company if HyperQuery or a successor entity re-asserts the patent. The absence of a dismissal with prejudice or any covenant not to sue is a vulnerability product counsel should monitor.
No defensive record createdUS9529918B2 remains fully enforceable after this exit
Because the case ended without any court ruling on validity or infringement, US9529918B2 retains its presumption of validity. Companies operating app download platforms, content delivery pipelines, or application marketplace infrastructure should treat this patent as an active assertion risk. The E.D. Texas filing venue and Rabicoff Law’s involvement are consistent with a broader assertion campaign pattern, suggesting other defendants may receive demand letters.
Patent still in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HyperQuery LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9529918B2 covering app-download network systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Chaos Software GmbH | Company | Chaos Software GmbH — software company, developer of commercial applicationsSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is brief and purely procedural. Judge Gilstrap accepted HyperQuery’s notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the mechanism available when no answer or dispositive motion has been filed by the defendant. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ is determinative: no claim was decided on its merits, the patent’s validity was never adjudicated, and HyperQuery retains full standing to re-assert US9529918B2 in a future action. The denial of all other relief as moot is standard language confirming no substantive orders remain pending.
US9529918B2 — Systems and Methods for Downloading Applications via a Network
US9529918B2 (application no. US14/103500) is directed to systems and methods for enabling the download of applications via a communication network. The patent falls within the broad domain of software delivery and application distribution infrastructure — technology underpinning mobile app stores, enterprise software portals, and cloud-based application marketplaces. The specific filing and grant timeline positions it squarely within the era of mass-market mobile application ecosystems.
Strategically, US9529918B2 sits in a technology space occupied by virtually every major platform company, mobile OS vendor, and enterprise software distributor. Its assertion against Chaos Software GmbH — a commercial software developer — suggests the patent holder views the claims as applicable beyond traditional app-store operators. The patent’s continued enforceability following this dismissal without prejudice means it represents an ongoing risk for companies in the software and application delivery sector.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9529918B2?
Any company operating a system that distributes, delivers, or enables end-user download of software applications via a network should evaluate its exposure to US9529918B2. This includes mobile app marketplace operators, enterprise software delivery platforms, cloud-native application portals, and SaaS onboarding systems. The fact that this patent has already been asserted in E.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — elevates the urgency of a proactive clearance assessment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product legal teams to map independent claims of US9529918B2 against their specific product architecture, flag potential design-around opportunities, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if the patent is asserted. Given the without-prejudice dismissal here, a forward-looking FTO is more valuable than waiting for a demand letter to arrive.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9529918B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar app-download patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related NPE infringement actions involving software distribution and application-download patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the app-download and software distribution IP landscape
A 42-day E.D. Texas filing that exits without prejudice warrants close attention from any company in the app distribution or software delivery space.
Early voluntary dismissals rarely mean the threat is over
A Rule 41 without-prejudice dismissal is among the most information-light outcomes in patent litigation. It signals that something changed quickly — settlement, licence, or tactical retreat — but creates no estoppel. Any company in the application-download or software delivery space should monitor HyperQuery LLC and US9529918B2 for follow-on activity.
E.D. Texas + Rabicoff Law = a recognisable assertion pattern
The combination of Eastern District of Texas venue and Rabicoff Law LLC as plaintiff counsel is consistent with NPE-style assertion campaigns. Companies that have not yet received demand letters but operate app download or distribution infrastructure should consider a proactive FTO assessment against US9529918B2 before a complaint lands.
HyperQuery v Chaos — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning no merits ruling was made. HyperQuery retains the right to re-file the same claims based on US9529918B2 against Chaos Software GmbH or any other party. The patent’s validity was never adjudicated, so it remains fully presumed valid and enforceable.
US9529918B2 (application no. US14/103500) is a U.S. patent directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. It covers infrastructure used in software delivery and application distribution — relevant to mobile app stores, cloud application portals, and enterprise software delivery platforms.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the 42-day voluntary dismissal. Possible explanations include a private settlement, a licensing agreement, or a tactical decision to re-file or redirect the assertion campaign. The absence of any defendant counsel filings suggests Chaos Software GmbH did not formally engage with the U.S. litigation before the dismissal was filed.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar re-filing. HyperQuery may reassert US9529918B2 against Chaos Software GmbH in a future action. However, if a second voluntary dismissal were filed, courts may treat it as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B), which practitioners and defendants should monitor.
The case ended without any IPR petition being filed or any invalidity challenge reaching a court. US9529918B2 remains in force and has not been subjected to a PTAB validity review in this proceeding. Companies concerned about the patent’s assertion risk may consider filing an IPR petition proactively — subject to the one-year bar from any complaint date that may apply to them individually.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.