Querytron LLC v. Etsy Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Querytron LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Etsy, Inc. (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04751, S.D.N.Y., Filing Date: 06/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s e-commerce platform infringes a patent related to enhancing internet search results with buyer-oriented information, such as seller ratings.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for augmenting online search results with seller-specific data to provide buyers with more information about a seller's reputation and quality before navigating to their website.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint does not allege any other significant procedural events such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-05	'820 Patent Priority Date
2020-01-14	'820 Patent Issue Date
2025-06-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820 - "Enhanced buyer-oriented search results"

(Compl. ¶¶8-9)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional internet search results are often "seller-oriented," meaning their ranking can be manipulated by sellers through tactics like hidden metadata or paying for placement, which provides little value to a prospective buyer seeking a trustworthy seller. (’820 Patent, col. 2:11-20, 2:34-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that enhances search results by associating them with "seller-specific information." (’820 Patent, Abstract). This system allows "buying entities" to rate "selling entities" with whom they have done business. When a user performs a search, this rating information is generated and presented in proximity to the corresponding search result (e.g., a URL), allowing the user to evaluate a seller's reputation before clicking the link. (’820 Patent, col. 3:1-11; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to shift the focus of search from seller-driven optimization to buyer-centric, trust-based information by integrating crowdsourced ratings directly into the search results interface. (’820 Patent, col. 2:53-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references claim charts in an exhibit that was not filed with the complaint. (’820 Patent, ¶11, ¶16). Based on the patent, representative independent claim 1 is a method claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Generating and transmitting for display seller-specific information for one or more "selling entities" who are "individual persons."
  • The seller-specific information is associated with a URL in a list of search results.
  • This generation and transmission is performed by a "toolbar application" on the user's computer.
  • The "toolbar application" adds the seller-specific information to the search result.
• The complaint generally alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" identified in charts incorporated by reference from an unprovided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The accused instrumentality is understood to be the search functionality of the Etsy.com e-commerce platform.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and internally tests products that practice the patented technology. (Compl. ¶¶11-12). It also alleges the distribution of "product literature and website materials" that instruct end-users. (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused search functionality or its specific features. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates by reference claim charts from an Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the filing. (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint's specific allegations is not possible.

The general infringement theory appears to be that the search results pages on Defendant’s platform infringe the ’820 Patent. When a user searches for a product, the Etsy platform returns a list of results. These results are associated with specific sellers, and the platform displays seller-specific information—such as star ratings, number of sales, or seller location—in proximity to each result. This functionality is alleged to meet the limitations of the asserted claims.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Architectural Question: A central point of contention may arise from the "toolbar application" limitation in claim 1. The claim requires that a "toolbar application executed on a computer from which the person entered the one or more query terms" performs the step of adding the seller-specific information. (’820 Patent, col. 25:12-16). The complaint does not allege that Defendant provides a toolbar. If, as is common, Defendant's system generates the enhanced search results on its own servers before transmitting a complete page to the user, a significant legal and factual question arises as to whether this server-side process can be construed as a client-side "toolbar application" as recited in the claim.
  • Scope Question: Claim 1 requires that the "selling entities are individual persons." (’820 Patent, col. 25:5-6). The case may turn on whether the sellers on Defendant's platform, who may operate as sole proprietorships, LLCs, or other business structures, fall within the scope of the term "individual persons" as used in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a definitive analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the language of independent claim 1 and the likely nature of the accused system, the following terms may be critical.

• The Term: "toolbar application"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the infringement analysis for claim 1. If the term is construed narrowly to mean a client-side browser plug-in or extension, and Defendant’s system operates entirely on the server-side, it may create a substantial challenge for Plaintiff's infringement case.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to offer an explicit definition that broadens the term beyond its conventional meaning. Parties seeking a broader construction might argue the term should not be limited to a specific implementation, but the specification provides little support for this.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes an embodiment where a "toolbar" application that executes on the same computer as the Internet browser of the user" intercepts and modifies search result pages. (’820 Patent, col. 8:7-14, 18:55-62). This repeated, specific description of a client-side component may support a narrower construction.

• The Term: "selling entities are individual persons"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine which of Defendant's sellers are covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that its sellers are primarily business entities, not "individual persons," in an attempt to avoid infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s focus on connecting buyers and sellers in a business-to-business context could be argued to support a functional definition that includes individuals operating as a business (e.g., sole proprietors).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "selling entities may be individual people, for example." (’820 Patent, col. 4:30-31). It also describes providing separate ratings for selling entities, their companies, and their products, suggesting a distinction between a person and the company they work for. (’820 Patent, col. 11:50-57). This could support a narrower construction limited to natural persons.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the accused products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the word "willful," it pleads the basis for post-suit willfulness by alleging that the complaint itself provides "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court's determination of several key issues:

• A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: can Defendant's server-side system for generating enhanced search results be construed to meet Claim 1's explicit limitation of a client-side "toolbar application"? The outcome of this question at claim construction could be dispositive for at least some asserted claims.
• A second key issue is one of definitional scope: does the term "individual persons," as used in the patent, encompass the diverse forms of sellers operating on Defendant's e-commerce platform, including those structured as formal business entities?
• Finally, an evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff, in the absence of the referenced claim charts in the complaint, can produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused platform's functionality maps to every element of the asserted claims.