HyperQuery LLC v. Fiserv, Inc. — Dismissed With Prejudice After 72 Days
HyperQuery LLC filed a patent infringement action against Fiserv, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9529918B2 covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The case closed just 72 days after filing when HyperQuery voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
App-download patent suit against Fiserv ends before substantive litigation
On January 15, 2025, HyperQuery LLC filed suit against Fiserv, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00040), asserting infringement of US9529918B2 — a patent directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. Fiserv is a major global fintech and payments technology company whose platforms could plausibly interact with application distribution infrastructure covered by the asserted claims.
The case closed on March 28, 2025, just 72 days after filing. HyperQuery filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, denied all pending requests for relief as moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
A dismissal with prejudice at this early stage is commercially notable: it permanently extinguishes HyperQuery’s right to reassert US9529918B2 against Fiserv. The 72-day window suggests the parties may have reached an off-the-record resolution, or that HyperQuery assessed the litigation risk and chose to exit before Fiserv could mount a formal defence. The public record is silent on whether any consideration changed hands, making the true driver of the dismissal unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 72 days
72 days — resolved well below the median E.D. Texas patent case duration
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. HyperQuery exercised this right and chose to dismiss with prejudice — a stronger finality than the rule requires. The court’s role was limited to accepting and acknowledging the notice; no merits ruling was made.
No merits adjudicationWith prejudice: Fiserv is permanently shielded on this claim
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. HyperQuery cannot refile the same infringement claims against Fiserv based on US9529918B2 in any federal court. This is the most complete procedural protection Fiserv could obtain short of a defendant verdict. The public record confirms the prejudice designation explicitly in the filed notice and in the court’s order.
Bars refiling against FiservHyperQuery exits early — US9529918B2 remains enforceable against others
While the dismissal with prejudice forecloses future action against Fiserv, it does not invalidate or limit US9529918B2 itself. HyperQuery retains the right to assert the patent against other parties. The decision to exit before Fiserv filed an answer avoids the risk of an invalidity counterclaim or IPR petition that could have threatened the patent’s broader enforceability.
Patent survives; Fiserv claim extinguishedEarly exit signals potential off-the-record resolution or tactical reassessment
The 72-day lifecycle — from filing to dismissal with prejudice — is consistent with either a confidential settlement or a plaintiff’s early reassessment of claim viability. No invalidity record was created, no claim construction was briefed, and no fee award was entered. Companies in the fintech and application distribution space should note that US9529918B2 remains an active enforcement asset against other potential defendants.
Watch patent for further assertionsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HyperQuery LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9529918B2 covering app-download systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fiserv, Inc. | Company | Fiserv, Inc. — global fintech and payments technology 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 | Kelly Elizabeth Ransom | Attorney | Counsel for Fiserv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP (La) | Law Firm | Representing Fiserv, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepting HyperQuery’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a procedural instrument, not a merits ruling. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ carries maximum preclusive effect: res judicata bars HyperQuery from reasserting the same claims against Fiserv. The cost-bearing order — each party pays its own fees — suggests no finding of exceptional case conduct. The denial of all other pending relief as moot confirms no substantive orders were entered prior to dismissal.
US9529918B2 — System and methods for downloading applications via a communication network
US9529918B2, filed under application number US14/103500, is directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The patent sits within the application distribution and software delivery technology domain — covering architectures that facilitate the transfer and installation of software applications across networked environments. This technology domain intersects with mobile app stores, enterprise software distribution platforms, and fintech client-side deployment systems.
For companies operating in financial services technology, the breadth of a patent covering networked application download systems is commercially significant. Fiserv’s product portfolio — spanning digital banking, payment processing, and merchant solutions — involves substantial client-side application deployment. HyperQuery’s decision to assert US9529918B2 against Fiserv, and Fiserv’s apparent ability to resolve the matter swiftly, suggests this patent may be actively monitored as an enforcement asset across the fintech sector.
Should you run an FTO against US9529918B2?
Any company deploying or distributing software applications through a communication network — particularly in fintech, SaaS, digital banking, or mobile payments — should assess exposure to US9529918B2. The patent’s claims on networked application download systems are broad, and no claim construction ruling exists to define their outer limits. The absence of an invalidity record means the patent enters any future dispute fully intact.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US9529918B2’s claim landscape against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could inform a validity challenge, and identify other pending HyperQuery assertions. For R&D and product teams building or integrating app-download functionality into financial services platforms, running this analysis before litigation risk materialises is the commercially prudent path.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9529918B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar app-download and software distribution patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving networked application download and software distribution patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including early voluntary dismissals and PAE assertion patterns.
What this case signals for the fintech and app-distribution IP landscape
A 72-day dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas suggests either a swift resolution or an early tactical exit — both carry intelligence value for fintech IP teams.
Dismissal with prejudice creates res judicata protection for Fiserv only
Fiserv’s protection is absolute against future HyperQuery assertions of US9529918B2. However, the patent remains live and can be asserted against any other party in the fintech or app-delivery ecosystem. IP teams at similar companies should not treat Fiserv’s exit as an industry-wide clearance.
No invalidity record created — patent exits litigation unscathed
Because the case ended before any substantive briefing, no prior art record, claim construction ruling, or invalidity finding exists for US9529918B2. This preserves the patent’s enforcement posture. Competitors operating in the application download and distribution technology space face the same claim scope uncertainty as existed before the suit was filed.
HyperQuery v Fiserv — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars HyperQuery LLC from reasserting US9529918B2 infringement claims against Fiserv, Inc. in any federal court. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata, giving Fiserv complete protection against this specific claim. No merits ruling was made and no invalidity finding was entered.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes HyperQuery’s claims against Fiserv specifically. US9529918B2 remains a granted, enforceable US patent and can be asserted against any other party. No invalidity finding, claim construction ruling, or IPR petition record was created during this case, leaving the patent’s claim scope legally uncontested.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A 72-day voluntary dismissal with prejudice before the defendant filed an answer is consistent with either a confidential settlement or an early plaintiff reassessment of the case’s merits or economics. The mutual cost-bearing order does not indicate any fee award, which suggests no finding of bad faith or exceptional conduct.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court permission before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Filing under this rule means Fiserv had not yet answered, suggesting the dismissal came at the earliest viable stage. HyperQuery’s choice to include ‘with prejudice’ — which the rule does not require — makes the dismissal final and bars any future action against Fiserv on the same claims.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00040). E.D. Texas has historically been one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States, favoured by patent assertion entities for its plaintiff-friendly procedural history, experienced patent dockets, and efficient trial scheduling. The Waco and Marshall divisions within E.D. Texas continue to handle significant volumes of patent infringement cases.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.