HyperQuery LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. — Dismissed With Prejudice in 133 Days
HyperQuery LLC, asserting US9529918B2 covering app-download systems, filed against Nintendo in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after just 133 days, with each party bearing its own costs — permanently closing the door on these specific claims.
A swift voluntary exit: HyperQuery drops Nintendo suit with prejudice
On July 31, 2024, HyperQuery LLC filed a patent infringement action against Nintendo Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00613). The suit asserted US9529918B2 — a patent directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network — against Nintendo’s app distribution infrastructure. HyperQuery was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm known for NPE-style assertion campaigns, while Nintendo retained Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
The case closed on December 11, 2024, when HyperQuery filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Critically, the order provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — meaning neither side received a fee award. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits, barring HyperQuery from reasserting the same claims against Nintendo in any future proceeding.
At just 133 days, the case resolved unusually quickly for E.D. Texas patent litigation, suggesting a pre-litigation resolution or early pressure from Nintendo’s defence team rather than any substantive merits fight. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached; the fee-sharing order is consistent with either a negotiated exit or a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. No claim construction schedule or inter partes review filings are reflected in the record, leaving the ultimate trigger for dismissal unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 133 days
133 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases that reach trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, HyperQuery exercised that right but elected dismissal with prejudice — a stronger finality than Rule 41’s default. The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, converting it into a binding, final order that closes all pending claims as moot.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalHyperQuery permanently forfeits these claims against Nintendo
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. HyperQuery cannot refile the same infringement claims based on US9529918B2 against Nintendo in any U.S. court. This is a materially worse outcome than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not indicate whether a financial settlement underlies this exit, but the with-prejudice election and mutual cost-bearing order are consistent with a negotiated resolution or a recognition that the claims faced significant headwinds.
Claims permanently extinguishedNintendo secures a permanent bar — but no fee award
Nintendo obtains a with-prejudice dismissal, giving it a preclusion shield against HyperQuery reasserting US9529918B2. However, the court denied all pending relief as moot and ordered mutual cost-bearing, meaning Nintendo received no attorney-fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 despite the case’s early closure. The absence of a fee award suggests Nintendo did not — or chose not to — pursue an ‘exceptional case’ finding at this stage.
Preclusion secured, no fee awardNPE app-download assertions remain a live risk for platform operators
The swift resolution of this case provides little substantive guidance on the validity or scope of US9529918B2. Other technology companies operating app distribution platforms — particularly those in gaming, mobile, and streaming — should note that the patent survives unchallenged in its validity. HyperQuery or its successors may assert the same patent against different defendants. An FTO analysis and patent landscape review remain prudent for any company whose products touch networked application delivery.
Patent validity untestedFull 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 | Nintendo Co., Ltd. | Company | Nintendo Co., Ltd. — global video game and interactive entertainment hardware companySearch 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 | Jeremy Jason Lang | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis Andrew Schreiber | Attorney | Counsel for Nintendo Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nintendo Co., Ltd.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 precise language of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming that no judicial merits determination was made — the dismissal is entirely plaintiff-initiated. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the legally operative element: it converts what would otherwise be a procedural exit into a final judgment, permanently extinguishing HyperQuery’s right to reassert these claims against Nintendo. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard in early voluntary dismissals and does not reflect a finding on litigation conduct by either party.
US9529918B2 — System and methods for downloading applications via a network
US9529918B2 (application no. US14/103500) is directed to systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The patent covers the architecture and workflows enabling a device to locate, request, and install applications from a remote server or distribution endpoint over a network. It is relevant to any platform that facilitates end-user acquisition of software applications — including mobile app stores, gaming marketplaces, and enterprise application delivery systems. The patent’s claims, which have not been construed or invalidated in this proceeding, remain in force.
In the context of Nintendo’s business, the asserted patent is commercially significant: Nintendo operates the Nintendo eShop, a first-party digital storefront through which consumers download games and applications to Switch and other consoles. Any patent covering networked application download workflows has potential read-across to console, mobile, and cloud-based distribution systems. The unchallenged status of US9529918B2 means that other platform operators — across gaming, mobile, and enterprise sectors — face residual assertion risk from this or related patents in the same family.
Should your product team run an FTO check against US9529918B2?
Any company developing or operating a system through which end users download, install, or update applications over a communication network should treat US9529918B2 as a live risk factor. The patent was asserted against one of the world’s largest gaming platforms, and no invalidity ruling, IPR institution, or claim construction narrowing its scope has resulted from this case. Mobile platform operators, gaming storefronts, enterprise app delivery vendors, and connected device OEMs are all plausible targets for future assertion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9529918B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art relevant to validity challenges, and flag related patents in the same family or owned by the same assignee. Running this analysis before receiving a demand letter — rather than after — significantly strengthens your negotiating position and allows pre-emptive IPR strategy development.
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 patent infringement actions involving networked app download and distribution system patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the app distribution IP landscape
A 133-day lifecycle and with-prejudice exit raises pointed questions about assertion strategy and defensive posture in app-download patent disputes.
Early dismissal with prejudice is a strategic pressure signal
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this quickly — before any claim construction or substantive motion — it typically signals that defendant’s early defensive response, whether a licensing counter-offer, an IPR threat, or a venue challenge, shifted the economics of continued assertion. Companies facing similar NPE actions in E.D. Texas should consider front-loading invalidity analysis and IPR filing assessments in the first 90 days.
US9529918B2 remains live and unchallenged in validity
No IPR petition or invalidity ruling emerged from this case, meaning the patent’s claims are legally intact. Any company operating a networked app download or distribution system — gaming platforms, mobile storefronts, enterprise app delivery — should assess exposure to US9529918B2. The lack of a public licence or settlement disclosure leaves the assertion posture of this patent uncertain going forward.
HyperQuery v Nintendo — key questions answered
HyperQuery LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Nintendo Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas on July 31, 2024, asserting US9529918B2. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by HyperQuery on December 11, 2024 — 133 days after filing — under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. HyperQuery is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims based on US9529918B2 against Nintendo in any U.S. court. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, this forecloses any future refiling of the same infringement action against the same defendant.
US9529918B2 (application no. US14/103500) covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The patent is potentially relevant to any platform enabling end users to locate and install software applications remotely — including console and mobile app stores, gaming marketplaces, and enterprise app delivery systems.
The public court record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached. The with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing order are consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. No licence terms or settlement amounts appear in the publicly filed documents.
No. The dismissal was procedural and plaintiff-initiated. No invalidity ruling, claim construction, or IPR decision resulted from this case. US9529918B2 remains in force and legally valid. Other companies operating networked app download platforms may still face assertion risk from this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.