Querytron Heggem LLC v. Fiverr Intl Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Name: Querytron-Heggem LLC v. Fiverr International Ltd.
  • Plaintiff: Querytron-Heggem LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Fiverr International Ltd. (Israel)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00850, E.D. Tex., 10/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district and has committed acts of patent infringement resulting in harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online marketplace for services infringes a patent related to methods for enhancing internet search results with business-oriented information, such as seller ratings.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses improving the quality and trustworthiness of search results, particularly in business-to-business contexts, by incorporating reputation and rating data directly into the search interface.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,849,707 - Business-oriented search

• Issued: September 30, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional Internet search engines produce results that are "seller-oriented" rather than "buyer-oriented," meaning the ranking is influenced by seller-controlled factors (like metadata) or paid placement, not by factors crucial to a buyer, such as a seller's quality or trustworthiness (’707 Patent, col. 2:5-36). This makes finding a high-quality seller akin to a "search for a needle in a haystack" (’707 Patent, col. 2:51-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that enhances search results with "buyer-oriented information" (’707 Patent, Abstract). The system registers "selling entities" (e.g., service providers) and "buying entities" (e.g., clients), associates them with specific URLs, and allows buyers to submit ratings for sellers with whom they have transacted (’707 Patent, col. 7:5-50). When a user performs a search, the system identifies URLs in the results that correspond to registered sellers and presents "seller-specific information," such as ratings, in proximity to the search result, allowing the user to make a more informed decision (’707 Patent, col. 9:1-15; FIG. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to solve the problem of information asymmetry in online commerce by embedding trust signals directly into the search process, a feature of significant value in business-to-business transactions where quality and reliability are paramount (’707 Patent, col. 2:37-54).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims of the ’707 Patent, referring to them as the "Exemplary '707 Patent Claims" without further specification (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method claim, include:
  • Registering "selling entities" and "buying entities" in a "business-to-business connectivity service."
  • Receiving search query terms from a user.
  • Determining a set of search results from an "Internet search engine that queries the World Wide Web."
  • Selecting a subset of results whose URLs have been previously registered with a selling entity.
  • Ranking this subset based on "ratings that are based on input from one or more buying entities" or a "filter score."
  • Generating and presenting "seller-specific information" (e.g., seller name, company, product/service) in connection with the ranked subset of search results.
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims but reserves the right to assert them.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" without providing specific names (Compl. ¶11). These products are referenced in an "Exhibit 2" which is not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It alleges generally that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports products that practice the claimed technology and distributes "product literature and website materials" instructing on their use (Compl. ¶11, ¶14). Defendant Fiverr International Ltd. operates a well-known online platform for freelance services, which connects individuals and businesses with service providers. Functionality typically includes searching for freelancers, viewing their profiles with associated client ratings, and transacting for services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in an Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶16-17). The complaint's narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '707 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '707 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether Defendant's platform, which operates as a proprietary, closed marketplace, constitutes an "Internet search engine that queries the World Wide Web" as recited in claim 1. The defense may argue that the patent is directed to enhancing results from general web crawlers (e.g., Google, Yahoo!, which are mentioned in the patent's background) and does not read on a closed, internal search system (’707 Patent, col. 1:39-40). The Plaintiff may counter that the term should be construed more broadly to cover any system that searches for and presents online resources.
• Technical Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations detailing how the accused products operate. A key question for the court will be whether the specific ranking and filtering algorithms used by Defendant's platform perform the functions required by the "ranking" limitation of claim 1. The functionality of Defendant's system must be compared to the patent's description of ranking based on "ratings" or a "filter score" derived from buyer-specified criteria (’707 Patent, col. 10:26-col. 11:10).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "Internet search engine"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis. Whether Defendant's internal platform search functionality falls within the scope of an "Internet search engine" will likely be a dispositive issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused platform is a closed ecosystem, whereas the patent specification repeatedly references general-purpose search engines.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes "enhancing search results generated by an Internet search engine" without limiting the type of engine, which could support an argument that any system searching online resources is covered (’707 Patent, col. 2:56-60).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section explicitly names "Google and Yahoo!" as examples of "Internet search engines," suggesting the term was understood to mean a general web crawler (’707 Patent, col. 1:39-40). Furthermore, claim 1 requires the engine to query the "World Wide Web," which may imply a scope beyond a single, proprietary website's database.

Term: "business-to-business connectivity service"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the environment in which the invention operates. Its construction will determine whether Defendant’s platform, which connects individual freelancers with both businesses and individual consumers, qualifies as the type of service envisioned by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent broadly describes connecting "buying entities" and "selling entities" for commercial purposes, which could encompass the transactions on Defendant's platform (’707 Patent, col. 6:14-22).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples of entity attributes such as "company's revenue," "number of subordinates," and "title within the entity's company," suggesting a focus on more formal corporate or organizational entities rather than individual freelancers and their clients (’707 Patent, col. 6:23-33).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’707 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint establishes a basis for post-suit willfulness by alleging that the service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's infringement has continued despite this notice (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Internet search engine," rooted in the patent's context of general web search, be construed to cover the proprietary, internal search function of Defendant's closed marketplace platform? The patent’s explicit references to the "World Wide Web" will be central to this dispute.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational correspondence: assuming the definitional hurdles are cleared, does the evidence show that Defendant’s platform actually performs the specific steps of the claimed method? Given the conclusory nature of the complaint, the case will depend on whether discovery uncovers a direct mapping between the accused system's features, especially its ranking and filtering algorithms, and the detailed limitations recited in the asserted claims.