Querytron LLC v. eBay Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Querytron LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: eBay, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00950, D. Del., 07/29/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Delaware and having committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform infringes a patent related to enhancing internet search results with buyer-oriented seller information.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for augmenting standard web search results with reputation and rating data for sellers associated with those results, aiming to provide buyers with more trustworthy information.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is related to two prior U.S. patent applications, Ser. No. 10/752,163 and Ser. No. 11/153,929. The complaint itself serves as the basis for Plaintiff's allegation of Defendant's actual knowledge of infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-27	Earliest Priority Date ('820 Patent Application Filing)
2020-01-14	U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820 Issues
2025-07-29	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820 - “Enhanced buyer-oriented search results” (Issued Jan. 14, 2020)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional internet search results are often "seller-oriented" rather than "buyer-oriented" (’820 Patent, col. 2:35-36). It notes that sellers can manipulate their ranking through methods like hidden metadata, and the position of a search result provides a buyer with very little information about the seller's quality or trustworthiness (’820 Patent, col. 2:12-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to enhance search results by presenting "seller-specific information," such as ratings from previous buyers, directly in association with the corresponding search result (’820 Patent, Abstract). This allows a prospective buyer to use the presented rating information to better evaluate which search results to investigate further (’820 Patent, col. 3:6-12). The process is illustrated in a flowchart showing that after a search engine generates results, the system determines if a result's URL matches a registered selling entity, and if so, presents seller-specific information with that result (’820 Patent, FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to solve the information asymmetry problem in e-commerce by embedding a layer of reputation data directly into the search process, theoretically enabling buyers to make more informed purchasing decisions.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '820 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11, 16). For the purpose of this analysis, Independent Claim 1 is used as a representative example.
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following key elements:
  • Generating and transmitting for display seller-specific information of one or more selling entities associated with a URL in a list of search results.
  • The selling entities are specified as being "individual persons."
  • The seller-specific information comprises "attributes" of the selling entities.
  • The generation and transmission is performed by a "toolbar application executed on a computer" from which the search was initiated.
  • The toolbar application "adds" the seller-specific information to the search result.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, which may include dependent claims, under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts that were not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, 16). Given that the defendant is eBay, Inc., the accused instrumentality is understood to be the search and results functionality of the eBay.com online marketplace platform.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific technical functionality of the accused products. It makes a conclusory allegation that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '820 Patent" and that they "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '820 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint contains no allegations regarding the accused products' commercial importance or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include the claim charts from Exhibit 2 that detail its infringement theories (Compl. ¶17). The narrative infringement theory is that the Defendant's products, understood to be the eBay platform, directly infringe the ’820 Patent. This infringement allegedly occurs when the platform generates a search results page that includes not only product listings but also associated seller information, such as feedback ratings and seller status (Compl. ¶11, 16). The complaint alleges this conduct constitutes making, using, and selling the patented invention (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges direct infringement occurs through internal testing of the products by Defendant's employees (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "toolbar application executed on a computer from which the person entered the one or more query terms"

Context and Importance

This term appears central to the infringement analysis for Claim 1. The claim language appears to require that the infringing act be performed by a client-side software component (a "toolbar") on the user's own computer. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused eBay system is widely understood to be a server-side platform that generates an integrated results page, which may not meet the "toolbar application" limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff might argue that the "toolbar application" is merely one embodiment and the true invention is the functional process of combining search results with seller data, irrespective of where it is executed. The "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION" section describes the invention in broader functional terms without consistently mentioning a toolbar (’820 Patent, col. 2:59-3:19).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is explicit. The specification provides detailed descriptions of a toolbar-based embodiment, stating a "toolbar application can intercept a search results page" from an engine like Google and "modifies the code of the page" before display (’820 Patent, col. 19:1-8). This supports a narrow construction limited to a client-side application that modifies third-party search results.

The Term: "selling entities are individual persons"

Context and Importance

Claim 1 requires that the "selling entities" whose information is displayed must be "individual persons." The validity of the infringement claim may depend on whether the sellers on the accused eBay platform satisfy this limitation.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue that "individual persons" should be interpreted broadly to include sole proprietorships or small businesses that are legally indistinct from their individual owners. The patent’s focus is on connecting "business-to-business buyers and sellers," which does not inherently exclude entities run by individuals (’820 Patent, col. 1:8-14).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant would likely argue for the plain and ordinary meaning, asserting that "individual persons" excludes registered business entities such as corporations or LLCs. The patent repeatedly distinguishes between "selling entities" (which it defines as "individual people") and the "company that owns the URL" or the companies for which they work, suggesting a deliberate distinction (’820 Patent, col. 4:30-34; col. 9:47-49).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patent (Compl. ¶14). The specific factual basis for this allegation is referenced as being in the unprovided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products (Compl. ¶14). These allegations form a basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A central issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "toolbar application executed on a computer," which the patent specification describes as a client-side program that modifies third-party search results, be construed to read on the Defendant's server-side system that generates a fully-integrated results page?
2. A key factual question will be one of entity status: does the evidence show that the "selling entities" featured in the accused eBay search results are predominantly "individual persons" as required by the plain language of Claim 1, or are they primarily corporate or other business entities that fall outside this limitation?
3. An important evidentiary question will be one of infringing action: what proof can Plaintiff offer that Defendant’s system performs the specific step of "add[ing] the seller-specific information to the search result," as claimed, rather than generating an integrated page in a single, atomic step?