HyperQuery LLC v. Siemens Corp. — Voluntarily Dismissed With Prejudice After 123 Days
HyperQuery LLC asserted US9529918B2 — a patent covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network — against Siemens Corp. in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Siemens filed an answer, closing the case permanently after just 123 days.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissal with prejudice closes HyperQuery’s app-download patent claim
On April 18, 2025, HyperQuery LLC filed an infringement action against Siemens Corp. in the Western District of Texas, asserting US9529918B2 — a patent directed at systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. HyperQuery was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a noted track record in NPE assertion campaigns. No defendant counsel of record appears in the public docket, consistent with the case closing before Siemens filed a formal response.
On August 15, 2025, HyperQuery filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss an action before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Siemens had not yet done so, the notice was self-effectuating — no court order was required to terminate the case. The court’s August 19 order confirmed the dismissal and directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
The 123-day lifespan and pre-answer timing suggest the case resolved — or was abandoned — without any substantive litigation on the merits. Whether the parties reached a confidential settlement, HyperQuery assessed the claim as non-viable after filing, or another strategic factor drove the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: HyperQuery is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Siemens on US9529918B2.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 123 days
123 days from filing to closure — resolved well before any responsive pleading from Siemens
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating pre-answer dismissal
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Siemens had not yet responded, HyperQuery’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing. The court’s subsequent order was confirmatory, not operative.
No court order requiredWith prejudice: permanent bar on reasserting these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing HyperQuery’s right to reassert the same claims against Siemens under US9529918B2. This is a materially stronger outcome for Siemens than a dismissal without prejudice, which would leave the door open to refiling. HyperQuery elected the with-prejudice designation voluntarily — the record does not disclose why.
Claims permanently extinguishedHyperQuery closes the door on Siemens — but retains the patent
While HyperQuery permanently forfeits its infringement claims against Siemens, US9529918B2 itself remains in force and can still be asserted against other parties. The voluntary nature of the dismissal preserves HyperQuery’s broader enforcement posture — only this defendant is shielded. The absence of any fee-shifting order also means HyperQuery avoids an adverse cost ruling.
Patent survives for other defendantsSiemens gains permanent protection; other market players remain exposed
Siemens Corp. exits the litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest available shield short of an invalidity ruling — without incurring the cost of formal litigation. However, other companies operating app distribution or download infrastructure over communication networks should not read this outcome as clearing the patent. US9529918B2 remains active and licensable, and NPE enforcement campaigns typically involve multiple defendants.
Other players still at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HyperQuery LLC | Company | Non-practicing entity — holder of US9529918B2 covering app download systems via networksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Siemens, Corp. | Company | Siemens Corp. — U.S. subsidiary of global industrial and technology conglomerate Siemens AGSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac 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 Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — the plaintiff’s notice alone terminated the case without judicial intervention. The with-prejudice designation, chosen voluntarily by HyperQuery, converts what is formally a procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits as to Siemens. The cost-bearing provision — each party covers its own fees — reflects the absence of any bad-faith or fee-shifting motion. No merits ruling, claim construction, or invalidity determination was issued.
US9529918B2 — Systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network
US9529918B2, filed under application number US14/103500, is directed at systems and methods for enabling the download of applications via a communication network. The patent’s technical domain sits at the intersection of network communication protocols and software distribution infrastructure — covering the mechanisms by which applications are requested, transmitted, and received over networked systems. As a granted utility patent with an issued number in the B2 series, it represents a fully examined and allowed claim set.
The commercial relevance of US9529918B2 extends across a broad range of technology sectors: enterprise software delivery, industrial IoT platforms, mobile and embedded application distribution, and cloud-based software provisioning. Siemens — a major player in industrial automation, smart infrastructure, and digital enterprise software — is a plausible target given the scope of its networked software products. However, with no claim construction on record, the precise boundaries of infringement risk remain unclear, making independent FTO analysis essential for any company operating adjacent technology.
Should your team run an FTO against US9529918B2?
Any company involved in delivering, distributing, or managing application downloads over communication networks — including enterprise SaaS providers, industrial IoT platform vendors, embedded systems integrators, and cloud infrastructure operators — should treat US9529918B2 as an active enforcement risk. The Siemens dismissal provides no public invalidity or non-infringement ruling to rely on. If your product involves network-based application provisioning or over-the-air software delivery, a formal FTO review is warranted before this patent appears in a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the granted claims of US9529918B2 against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and identify the prosecution history limitations that bound the claim scope. Given the NPE assertion context, understanding whether your implementation falls within or outside the claim language is the first step in a defensible IP risk assessment. Eureka’s citation graph also surfaces related family members and continuation risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9529918B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar app download and network software patent cases in Texas federal courts
Explore related NPE infringement actions asserting software distribution and network application delivery patents in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the app download and network software IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal with prejudice in a NPE assertion raises as many questions as it answers for companies in adjacent technology spaces.
Pre-answer resolution limits public record — but with-prejudice matters
Cases that close before an answer is filed leave no claim construction, invalidity arguments, or merits rulings on record. For Siemens, the with-prejudice bar is durable protection. For the rest of the market, there is no public ruling on the validity or scope of US9529918B2 to rely upon.
NPE campaign risk: one dismissal does not clear the patent
HyperQuery’s representation by Rabicoff Law LLC — a firm associated with repeat NPE assertion activity — suggests US9529918B2 may be part of a broader licensing or litigation campaign. Companies in the app distribution, enterprise software delivery, or network-based application deployment space should assess their exposure independently of this Siemens outcome.
HyperQuery v Siemens — key questions answered
HyperQuery LLC filed an infringement action against Siemens Corp. in the Western District of Texas asserting US9529918B2, a patent covering systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network. The case was filed April 18, 2025 and dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2025 after 123 days.
The public record does not disclose the reason. HyperQuery filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Siemens served an answer. Possible explanations include a confidential settlement, a reassessment of claim mapping, or a strategic decision to preserve resources — but none of these are confirmed in the court record.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. When filed with prejudice, the dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from reasserting the same claims against the same defendant. No judicial approval is required.
No. The dismissal with prejudice protects only Siemens Corp. from future HyperQuery claims under US9529918B2. The patent itself remains in force and can be asserted against other parties. No invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued, so the patent’s enforceability against third parties is unchanged.
US9529918B2 covers systems and methods for downloading applications via a communication network, filed under application US14/103500. Companies in enterprise software delivery, industrial IoT, cloud-based application provisioning, and over-the-air software update systems may fall within the scope of the claims. An FTO analysis against the granted claim language is recommended for any company operating in adjacent product categories.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.