Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
HyperQuery v. Asustek Computer | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00178

HyperQuery, LLC v. Asustek Computer, Inc.

6:23-cv-00178 W.D. Tex. Closed US9639611B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 9 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 29 Sep 2023, with US9639611B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9639611B2
Application no.
US14/468955
Case no.
6:23-cv-00178
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
David Alan Ezra
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
9 Mar 2023 – 29 Sep 2023
Duration
204 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
System and method for providing suitable web addresses to a user device
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00178, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9639611B2 Active App. US14/468955

System and method for providing suitable web addresses to a user device

A system and method for providing a suitable web address to a user device. The method comprises: receiving a query from the user device; identifying at least one configuration parameter of the user device; determining a search intent based on the received query; selecting at least one information resource from a plurality of information resources to serve the search intent; identifying a web address respective of each of the at least one selected information resource; and generating a suitable web address based on each identified web address, the search intent, and the at least one configuration parameter, wherein accessing the at least one information resource via the suitable web address allows optimal display of the information provided by the information resource on the user device.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
2 May 2017
Earliest priority
27 Aug 2013
Est. expiry
9 Sep 2031
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/30
Prosecution counsel
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
Examiner
NGUYEN, PHONG
US9639611B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9639611B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, HyperQuery, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 6:23-cv-00178 · W.D. Tex. · closed 29 September 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:23-cv-00178?

6:23-cv-00178 is a patent infringement action brought by HyperQuery, LLC against Asustek Computer, Inc., filed on 9 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 29 September 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00178?

US9639611B2 (“System and method for providing suitable web addresses to a user device”), assigned to HYPERQUERY LLC, currently active. The record also lists System and method for providing suitable web addresses to a user device.

How was case 6:23-cv-00178 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, HyperQuery, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 6:23-cv-00178 take?

204 calendar days, from filing on 9 Mar 2023 to closure on 29 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00178?

Chief Judge David Alan Ezra presided. Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff HyperQuery. Vinay V. Joshi appears for defendant Asustek Computer.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00178 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00178 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.