Querytron LLC v. Shutterstock Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Querytron LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Shutterstock, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-04761, S.D.N.Y., 09/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems for presenting search results infringe a patent related to enhancing internet search results with buyer-oriented, seller-specific information.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the field of internet search technology, specifically concerning methods to improve the quality and trustworthiness of search results in commercial contexts by integrating external data about the sellers associated with those results.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that an Original Complaint was filed on June 5, 2025, which may be relevant for establishing the date of Defendant’s alleged knowledge for claims of indirect and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-27	Priority Date for U.S. Patent 10,534,820
2020-01-14	U.S. Patent 10,534,820 Issues
2025-06-05	Original Complaint Filed
2025-09-18	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

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

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 10,534,820, issued January 14, 2020 (the “'820 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional internet search results are fundamentally "seller-oriented," meaning their ranking is often influenced by sellers’ manipulation techniques rather than the quality of the product or service offered (Compl. ¶11; ’820 Patent, col. 2:8-16). This provides prospective buyers with "very little information" to distinguish high-quality, trustworthy sellers from others, making the search process akin to finding a "needle in a haystack" (Compl. ¶12; ’820 Patent, col. 1:37-40, 1:50-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a computer-implemented method for enhancing search results by integrating "seller-specific information" alongside the standard search listings (Compl. ¶13; ’820 Patent, Abstract). This information, which can include ratings and other attributes, is associated with the URL of a given search result and is derived from a database of registered buying and selling entities (’820 Patent, col. 4:26-34). A user can then use this additional, buyer-oriented data to "determine which of the search results to investigate further" (’820 Patent, col. 3:8-11).
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that this approach improves computer functionality by providing more reliable data for user decision-making, thereby reducing computational resources and network bandwidth wasted on investigating unreliable vendors (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’820 Patent (Compl. ¶¶17, 19).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1, a method claim, include:
  • Generating and transmitting for display, based on a list of search results from an internet search engine, seller-specific information.
  • This seller-specific information is for one or more "selling entities" associated with a URL of a search result.
  • The selling entities are specified as "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 person entered the... query terms."
  • The toolbar application adds the seller-specific information to the search result.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶23).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated by reference from an exhibit that was not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶23, ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

• Based on the infringement allegations, the accused instrumentalities are systems operated by Defendant Shutterstock that provide search results to users (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
• The allegedly infringing functionality involves processing search results and enhancing them with "seller-specific information" derived from a "business-to-business connectivity database" rather than from the search engine’s own internal ranking algorithms (Compl. ¶19). This functionality is alleged to provide users with credibility information to evaluate sellers associated with search results (Compl. ¶19).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' commercial importance or market positioning.
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement details are provided in claim charts in an Exhibit 2, which was not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶28, ¶29). The narrative allegations suggest the following infringement theory:

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s search systems practice the method of Claim 1 of the ’820 Patent (Compl. ¶28). The core of the alleged infringement is that when a user performs a search on Defendant's platform, the system generates a list of search results and enhances them by "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" (Compl. ¶19, ¶20). The complaint asserts this "seller-specific information" is not derived from the search engine's own ranking algorithm but from an external-style database containing "attributes of the one or more selling entities" (Compl. ¶19). This process is alleged to provide users with credibility information that allows them to better evaluate the sellers (e.g., content creators) associated with the search results.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the information displayed by Shutterstock (e.g., contributor portfolios, download statistics, or other metadata) qualifies as "seller-specific information" comprising "attributes" as claimed in the ’820 Patent. The defense may argue its displayed information is merely part of its native search and relevance algorithm, which the patent sought to supplement, not replace (Compl. ¶19).
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires that the "selling entities" be "individual persons" (’820 Patent, col. 25:4-5). A key factual question will be whether the accused system associates information with individual human creators or primarily with corporate accounts or anonymous user profiles, and whether the latter falls within the scope of the claim.
• Scope Questions: Claim 1 further requires that the enhancement be performed by a "toolbar application" on the user's computer (’820 Patent, col. 25:14-17). The infringement analysis may turn on whether Defendant’s system, which is likely a server-side implementation, can be found to infringe a claim specifying a client-side toolbar.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "selling entities ... are individual persons"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in independent Claim 1 and seems to narrow the claim scope to systems that track and display information about individual human sellers, not just corporate brands. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused platform, Shutterstock, features content from both individual creators and agencies. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether the term is construed to cover various types of user accounts or is limited strictly to identified natural persons.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses "selling entities" as potentially being "individual people" but also refers to them in the context of working for a company (e.g., "two separate selling entities who both work for the company that owns the URL") ('820 Patent, col. 4:30-32, 4:51-52). This could suggest the "person" is the legally relevant entity, regardless of their employment structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The explicit language "individual persons" in the claim itself is strong evidence for a narrow construction limited to natural persons (’820 Patent, col. 25:4-5). The patent also contrasts these entities with "companies," for which separate ratings may be provided, suggesting a deliberate distinction ('820 Patent, col. 9:52-55).

Term: "toolbar application"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 explicitly recites that the method steps of generating, transmitting, and adding the seller-specific information are "performed by a toolbar application executed on a computer from which the person entered the one or more query terms" (’820 Patent, col. 25:14-17). This term is critical because it appears to define the architecture of the claimed invention as a client-side software implementation. If Shutterstock’s system is purely server-based, non-infringement may be a strong defense unless Plaintiff can advance a viable doctrine of equivalents theory.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "toolbar application" should be interpreted functionally to cover any client-side code, such as a script downloaded to a browser, that performs the claimed function, even if not a traditional, persistent browser toolbar.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and consistently describes the invention’s implementation as a "toolbar" that executes on the user's computer, intercepts search result pages, and modifies them before display ('820 Patent, col. 10:5-12; col. 18:55-19:10). This consistent description provides strong support for construing the term to mean a conventional browser toolbar or plug-in.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, asserting that since at least the filing of the Original Complaint (June 5, 2025), Defendant has knowingly encouraged infringement by distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26, ¶27).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. Plaintiff claims that Defendant had "actual knowledge" of the ’820 Patent upon service of the complaint but "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products (Compl. ¶25, ¶26).

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

• A core issue will be one of architectural mismatch: Can Plaintiff prove that Defendant’s likely server-side search enhancement system infringes Claim 1, which explicitly requires the key method steps to be performed by a client-side "toolbar application"?
• A second central question will be one of definitional scope: Does the information Shutterstock displays about its content contributors meet the claimed definition of "seller-specific information" comprising "attributes" of "selling entities" that are "individual persons," or is it functionally and definitionally distinct from what the patent describes?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: As the complaint lacks specific details and its claim chart exhibit is missing, the case will depend on evidence uncovered during discovery showing precisely how Defendant’s systems generate and integrate contributor data with search results, and whether that process maps onto the specific steps recited in the asserted claim.