DCT
1:25-cv-00956
Querytron LLC v. Poshmark Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Querytron LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: Poshmark, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00956, D. Del., 10/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District and has committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online marketplace infringes a patent related to enhancing internet search results with buyer-oriented information about sellers.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of seller-biased search results in e-commerce by integrating independently sourced data, such as seller ratings and attributes, directly into a user's search results page.
- Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-01-27 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820 |
| 2020-01-14 | U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820 Issued |
| 2025-10-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820 - Enhanced buyer-oriented search results
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820, “Enhanced buyer-oriented search results,” issued January 14, 2020 (the “’820 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional internet search engines produce results ordered primarily to serve sellers' interests, not buyers' needs, by allowing sellers to manipulate their rankings through various techniques (’820 Patent, col. 2:8-16; Compl. ¶11). This provides prospective buyers with "very little information... that will assist him in finding a high-quality seller," making the search for a trustworthy vendor akin to finding a "needle in a haystack" (’820 Patent, col. 1:37-40, 1:50-53; Compl. ¶¶11-12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system to enhance search results by integrating "seller-specific information," such as ratings and attributes from other buyers, directly alongside the search results generated by an internet search engine (’820 Patent, Abstract). As depicted in Figure 1, when a user performs a search, the system determines if a URL in the search results is associated with a registered selling entity; if a match is found, it generates and presents this seller-specific information with the corresponding search result, allowing the user to evaluate sellers based on peer feedback rather than potentially biased, seller-controlled information (’820 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 116-120; Compl. ¶17).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to improve the efficiency and reliability of online commerce by providing buyers with more objective data for making purchasing decisions, thereby reducing time spent investigating untrustworthy vendors (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint focuses on the inventive concepts of Claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶17, 19, 20).
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’820 Patent recites the essential elements of a method for enhancing search results, including:
- Generating and transmitting for display seller-specific information for one or more selling entities, based on a list of search results from an Internet search engine.
- The selling entities are individual persons.
- The seller-specific information comprises attributes of the selling entities.
- The step of generating and transmitting is performed by a "toolbar application" on the user's computer.
- The toolbar application "adds" the seller-specific information to the search result in the list.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Exemplary Defendant Products" detailed in an attached exhibit that was not made publicly available with the complaint (Compl. ¶23). Based on the defendant’s identity as Poshmark, Inc., the accused instrumentalities are understood to be the Poshmark online marketplace platform, including its website and mobile applications.
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused products provide search functionality that allows users to find items and sellers (Compl. ¶¶13-15). The infringement theory centers on the platform's alleged practice of generating a list of search results and enhancing it by displaying "seller-specific information," such as ratings and other attributes associated with the sellers, alongside those results (Compl. ¶¶17, 19). The complaint characterizes this as an enhancement that integrates "business-to-business connectivity data with Internet search results to provide buyer-oriented information" (Compl. ¶15). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not include its referenced claim chart exhibits. The following summary is based on the narrative infringement allegations for Claim 1 presented in the body of the complaint.
- ’820 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| generating and transmitting for display... seller-specific information of one or more selling entities associated with at least a portion of a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a search result | The Poshmark platform allegedly generates search results and transmits for display seller-specific information, such as ratings and attributes, associated with sellers found in those results. | ¶¶17, 19 | col. 8:15-20 |
| wherein the seller-specific information comprises attributes of the one or more selling entities | The seller-specific information allegedly includes attributes of the sellers, derived from what the complaint describes as a "business-to-business connectivity database." | ¶¶17, 19 | col. 5:42-48 |
| wherein the step of generating and transmitting for display the seller-specific information is performed by a toolbar application executed on a computer from which the person entered the one or more query terms | The complaint alleges infringement of the "generating and transmitting" steps but does not specify how the accused Poshmark platform performs this function via a "toolbar application." | ¶¶17, 19 | col. 8:6-10 |
| and wherein the toolbar application adds the seller-specific information to the search result in the list of search result. | The complaint alleges that the accused products add seller-specific information to the search results but does not explain how this is accomplished by a toolbar application, as opposed to a server-side process. | ¶19 | col. 19:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary point of contention may arise from the claim's explicit requirement that a "toolbar application" performs the key steps of generating and adding the seller-specific information. The question for the court will be whether this language can be construed to read on a modern, server-side web architecture, where such information is typically integrated into the webpage code on the defendant's server before being sent to the user's browser, rather than being added by a client-side browser plug-in or toolbar.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the seller-specific information is derived from an "external business-to-business connectivity database" (Compl. ¶19). A key factual question will be whether Poshmark’s seller data is sourced externally as alleged, or if it is generated and maintained internally. Furthermore, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused system "adds" information to an existing search result list, as opposed to generating a fully integrated results page from the outset?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "toolbar application"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to the infringement analysis, as Claim 1 requires that this specific type of software "performs" the generating and transmitting step and "adds" the seller information to the search results (’820 Patent, col. 26:12-19). The viability of the infringement claim may depend entirely on whether Poshmark's server-based system can be considered a "toolbar application."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party seeking a broader construction might point to language describing the invention's overall purpose of enhancing search results, arguing that "toolbar application" is merely one exemplary mechanism. The patent discusses an alternative embodiment where the "Internet search engine may insert all of the enhanced buyer-oriented information into the search results page as the search results page is generated" (’820 Patent, col. 21:8-12), which could be used to argue that the invention was not strictly limited to a literal toolbar.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party seeking a narrower construction will likely emphasize the plain language of Claim 1, which explicitly recites the "toolbar application" limitation. The patent specification repeatedly and distinctly describes the toolbar implementation as a specific architecture where a "toolbar application that executes in conjunction with the user's Internet browser" intercepts and modifies the search results page at the user's computer (’820 Patent, col. 18:55-61). This suggests "toolbar application" was intended to mean a client-side plug-in, not a server-side process.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Poshmark distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that allegedly infringes the ’820 Patent (Compl. ¶26).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Poshmark’s purported knowledge of the ’820 Patent obtained upon service of the complaint (Compl. ¶25). This allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:
A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "toolbar application," which the patent specification describes as a client-side program that modifies search results on a user's computer, be construed to cover the server-side architecture of a modern e-commerce platform like Poshmark, where information is integrated before the webpage is delivered to the user?
A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: what proof will be offered to show that the accused Poshmark platform performs the claimed step of "add[ing] the seller-specific information to the search result," as distinguished from a process that generates a single, integrated results page from multiple data sources simultaneously?