HyperQuery LLC v. Creatio Emea Ltd. — Dismissed With Prejudice After 137 Days
HyperQuery LLC asserted US9529918B2 — covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network — against Creatio Emea Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after just 137 days, permanently surrendering the right to re-file these claims against this defendant.
A swift voluntary exit: HyperQuery drops Creatio app-download claim
On June 23, 2025, HyperQuery LLC filed a patent infringement action against Creatio Emea Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00654), asserting US9529918B2, which covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The case was represented on the plaintiff side by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm associated with patent assertion matters, while Creatio retained DLA Piper US LLP — a major defence firm with deep patent litigation experience.
On November 7, 2025 — just 137 days after filing — HyperQuery filed a Notice of Dismissal voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissed all pending claims and causes of action with prejudice, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent, merits-equivalent termination: HyperQuery cannot reassert US9529918B2 against Creatio Emea Ltd. in future litigation.
The 137-day timeline suggests the parties reached an understanding — whether a licensing arrangement, a covenant not to sue, or a decision by HyperQuery that the case lacked viability — before any substantive judicial activity. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a formal settlement with payment. The public record does not disclose any licence terms or financial consideration, leaving the precise commercial resolution unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 137 days
137 days — resolved well before any claim construction hearing
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): voluntary dismissal before answer or summary judgment
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here the court accepted HyperQuery’s notice and entered dismissal with prejudice — a permanent bar on re-litigating these specific claims against Creatio Emea Ltd. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: it carries the same preclusive effect as an adverse judgment on the merits.
Permanent claim barHyperQuery permanently forfeits these claims against Creatio
By electing dismissal with prejudice, HyperQuery surrendered any future right to sue Creatio Emea Ltd. on US9529918B2. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would permit re-filing. Whether HyperQuery received any consideration — a licence fee, a covenant, or simply concluded the case was not viable — is not disclosed in the public record. The mutual cost order suggests no clear prevailing party was designated.
Cannot re-assert vs. CreatioCreatio secures permanent protection from this specific assertion
Creatio Emea Ltd., defended by DLA Piper, exits the litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — providing res judicata-like protection against HyperQuery reasserting US9529918B2. The early resolution, before any substantive motion practice, suggests DLA Piper’s engagement may have accelerated HyperQuery’s decision. Creatio bears its own legal costs under the court’s order, meaning no fee-shifting was awarded in its favour despite the outcome.
Protected from re-assertionEarly exit pattern: what it signals for app-platform patent risk
Cases resolved this quickly in E.D. Texas — before claim construction — typically indicate either a licensing resolution or a plaintiff’s reassessment of claim strength once a well-resourced defendant engages. For other SaaS and low-code platform vendors, US9529918B2 remains asserted against the world outside this case. Companies offering application distribution or download functionality via communication networks should assess their exposure to this patent independently.
Patent still live vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HyperQuery LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9529918B2 (app download systems)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Creatio Emea Ltd. | Company | Creatio Emea Ltd. — low-code/no-code CRM and workflow platform providerSearch 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 | Michael G. Strapp. | Attorney | Counsel for Creatio Emea Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Creatio Emea Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts HyperQuery’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice as filed, entering dismissal with prejudice across all pending claims. The ‘denied as moot’ language for all other relief requests confirms no substantive ruling was made on infringement or validity — the case ends procedurally, not on the merits. The mutual cost-bearing direction is notable: it forecloses any fee-shifting argument, suggesting neither party sought or won an ‘exceptional case’ designation under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US9529918B2 — Systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network
US9529918B2 (application number US14/103500) is a granted US utility patent directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The patent addresses the architecture and process by which end-user devices retrieve and install applications over networked infrastructure — a foundational capability underpinning cloud-delivered software, mobile enterprise platforms, and SaaS onboarding workflows. The application’s filing context places it in the period when cloud and mobile application distribution was maturing commercially.
For the SaaS and low-code platform sector, US9529918B2 represents a potentially broad assertion vehicle: any platform that facilitates the delivery or provisioning of applications to users over a network could find itself within the patent’s claim perimeter. The assertion against Creatio — a workflow and CRM platform — suggests the patent holder views modern SaaS delivery architectures as potentially infringing. Competitors and adjacent vendors in application distribution, enterprise mobility management, and cloud-native deployment should assess their exposure before receiving a demand letter.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9529918B2?
Any product team building or maintaining a system that delivers, installs, or provisions software applications to end-user devices over a communication network — including SaaS platforms, enterprise app stores, mobile device management tools, and cloud-native deployment pipelines — should consider whether US9529918B2 reads on their architecture. The fact that this patent has been actively asserted in E.D. Texas, a plaintiff-friendly venue, means the litigation risk is real and not hypothetical.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9529918B2 against your product’s technical specifications, identify relevant prior art that may support an invalidity argument, surface related patents in the same family, and flag any assignment or licensing activity that changes the enforcement landscape. Running a targeted FTO now is significantly less costly than responding to litigation in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9529918B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar app-distribution patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving communication-network application download patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including NPE assertions against SaaS and platform vendors.
What this case signals for the SaaS and app-distribution IP landscape
A 137-day with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas is rarely accidental — it reflects real commercial pressure, strategic reassessment, or private resolution.
With-prejudice dismissals protect defendants — but only against that plaintiff
Creatio is permanently shielded from HyperQuery on US9529918B2. However, if the patent is ever assigned or licensed to another entity, Creatio’s protection does not automatically extend. Monitoring assignment records for US9529918B2 is a prudent ongoing step for Creatio and similarly positioned platform vendors.
E.D. Texas remains a high-activity venue for app-technology assertions
HyperQuery’s filing in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the venue’s continued attractiveness for patent assertion entities. SaaS vendors and communication-network application providers operating in this market should maintain current FTO analyses covering issued patents in this technology cluster, particularly those asserted by NPEs represented by smaller specialist plaintiff firms.
HyperQuery v Creatio — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 bars HyperQuery LLC from re-asserting US9529918B2 against Creatio Emea Ltd. in any future action. It carries preclusive effect equivalent to a judgment on the merits. However, it does not bind third parties — if HyperQuery assigns the patent to another entity, Creatio’s protection may not automatically extend, and monitoring assignment records is advisable.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possibilities consistent with a 137-day with-prejudice exit include: a private licensing or settlement agreement, a covenant not to sue, or a plaintiff determination that the case lacked sufficient viability once DLA Piper engaged for the defence. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests no formal prevailing party designation, which is consistent with a negotiated exit.
US9529918B2 is a granted US utility patent, filed under application number US14/103500, covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. It broadly addresses the architecture and processes by which software applications are delivered to end-user devices over networked infrastructure, potentially reading on SaaS delivery, mobile app provisioning, and cloud-native deployment systems.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal is specific to the claims between HyperQuery LLC and Creatio Emea Ltd. It has no legal effect on HyperQuery’s ability to assert US9529918B2 against other defendants. Other SaaS vendors, platform providers, or companies in the application distribution space should independently assess their exposure to this patent.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00654). E.D. Texas remains one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States, historically favoured by patent assertion entities for its procedural predictability and jury composition. Its continued use by NPEs and specialist plaintiff firms makes it a key venue for SaaS and technology companies to monitor.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.