Querytron LLC v. Upwork Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Querytron LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Upwork, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00957, D. Del., 07/30/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed the alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online freelance marketplace platform infringes a patent related to enhancing search results with buyer-oriented information, such as seller ratings.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the field of online search and e-commerce, addressing the problem of information asymmetry between buyers and sellers by supplementing search results with performance and reputation data.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit was granted subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may be relevant to any future analysis of obviousness-type double patenting with respect to related patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-05	'820 Patent Priority Date
2006-01-27	'820 Patent Application Date
2020-01-14	'820 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820, “Enhanced buyer-oriented search results,” issued January 14, 2020.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem where standard Internet search results are "seller-oriented" rather than "buyer-oriented" ('820 Patent, col. 2:34-35). Sellers can manipulate their ranking using techniques like hidden metadata or by paying for placement, giving a prospective buyer little unbiased information to assess a seller's quality or trustworthiness from the search results page alone ('820 Patent, col. 2:10-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a service where "selling entities" (e.g., individual service providers) are registered and associated with their websites (URLs) ('820 Patent, col. 6:18-42). "Buying entities" who transact with these sellers can submit ratings to the service ('820 Patent, col. 7:1-16). When a user performs an internet search, a "toolbar application" intercepts the results, identifies URLs corresponding to registered sellers, and "adds the seller-specific information" (like ratings) to the search results page before it is displayed, allowing the user to make a more informed choice ('820 Patent, col. 25:12-21). This process is illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 1.
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to inject trusted, peer-generated data directly into the search process, thereby reducing information asymmetry and improving market efficiency for buyers seeking reliable sellers online ('820 Patent, col. 2:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including "exemplary claims" identified in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A method for facilitating business-to-business personal connections by enhancing Internet search engine results, comprising the steps of:
  • generating and transmitting for display... seller-specific information of one or more selling entities associated with a... URL of a search result...
  • wherein the one or more selling entities are individual persons;
  • wherein the seller-specific information comprises attributes of the one or more selling entities;
  • wherein the generating and transmitting step is performed by a toolbar application executed on a computer; and
  • wherein the toolbar application adds the seller-specific information to the search result.
• The complaint notes that Plaintiff may assert other claims, including dependent claims, at a later time (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). Based on the defendant's business, this refers to the Upwork online freelance marketplace platform.

Functionality and Market Context

The Upwork platform allows clients ("buyers") to find and hire freelancers ("sellers") for various services. The complaint alleges that these products practice the claimed technology (Compl. ¶16). The platform includes an internal search function where clients can enter query terms to find freelancers. In the resulting list, each freelancer's profile summary is displayed along with "seller-specific" metrics such as a "Job Success Score," star ratings, earnings, and number of jobs, which are derived from past interactions with other clients on the platform.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products practice the claimed technology and satisfy all elements of the asserted claims, incorporating specific comparisons in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative theory suggests that Upwork's platform, which displays freelancer ratings and attributes within its search results, infringes the '820 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Architectural Questions: A primary point of contention may be whether the accused Upwork platform, which appears to generate search results with rating information on the server-side as part of an integrated web application, meets the claim limitation of a "toolbar application" that "adds" information to a search result ('820 Patent, col. 25:12-21). The patent specification repeatedly describes a client-side toolbar that intercepts and modifies a results page from a separate search engine ('820 Patent, col. 18:50-60). This raises the question of whether a fundamental architectural difference exists between the claimed invention and the accused system.
• Scope Questions: The interpretation of "Internet search engine" will be critical ('820 Patent, col. 25:9-10). The patent's background discusses general web search engines like "Google and Yahoo!" ('820 Patent, col. 1:35-37). The case may turn on whether this term can be construed to cover a proprietary, on-site search functionality like that used within the Upwork platform, or if it is limited to general-purpose web crawlers.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "toolbar application"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as it defines the specific software architecture that performs the claimed method. Upwork’s system is a web platform, not a conventional browser toolbar. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to a client-side browser plug-in or if it can be interpreted more broadly to cover a software module on a server that performs a similar function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition limiting the term's structure, which a party might argue leaves room for a functional, rather than purely structural, interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the toolbar as a distinct, client-side component. For example, it discusses a "toolbar' application that executes on the same computer as the Internet browser" ('820 Patent, col. 10:2-9) and a process where the toolbar "intercepts a search results page," "parses and modifies the source code of the page," and then "causes the Internet browser to display the modified page" ('820 Patent, col. 10:55-63). This language suggests a specific client-side architecture that is distinct from a server-side web application.

Term: "Internet search engine"

• Context and Importance: The scope of this term dictates whether the patent applies to closed-ecosystem search functions (like on a specific marketplace website) or only to general-purpose web search engines. The infringement case depends on Upwork's internal search function falling within the term's scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states it "relates generally to search engines" ('820 Patent, col. 1:20-21), which could be argued to encompass any system that searches a corpus of data (like a database of freelancers) and returns results.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background of the invention explicitly names "Google and Yahoo!" as examples ('820 Patent, col. 1:35-37). The detailed description focuses on a system that enhances results from these general engines, implying the "Internet search engine" is a separate entity whose results are intercepted by the claimed "toolbar application" ('820 Patent, col. 18:41-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant providing "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on how to use the accused platform in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its service constitutes "actual knowledge" of infringement and that Defendant's continued activities despite this notice support a claim for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶13-14). This is a claim for post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mismatch: does the claim language requiring a "toolbar application" that "adds" information to search results read on an integrated, server-side web platform like Upwork's, or is it limited to the client-side browser plug-in architecture described throughout the patent's specification?
• A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Internet search engine," which the patent illustrates with examples like Google and Yahoo!, be construed broadly enough to cover the proprietary, internal search function of a single website like the Upwork marketplace?
• The resolution of these two questions, which are central to claim construction, will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.