Querytron Heggem LLC v. Redfin Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Querytron-Heggem LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Redfin Corporation (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00558, W.D. Tex., 10/19/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to enhancing internet search results with seller-specific data, such as user-submitted ratings.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of generic, seller-oriented internet search results by creating a system to overlay them with buyer-oriented data, thereby allowing users to evaluate the quality and trustworthiness of service providers found via search.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of an earlier-filed patent application, giving it an earlier priority date for shared subject matter. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,849,707, "Business-oriented search," issued September 30, 2014 (Compl. ¶¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that standard internet search results are often "seller-oriented" and provide "very little information" to help a prospective buyer find a "high-quality seller." (’707 Patent, col. 2:35-42). This ordering can be manipulated by sellers and does not reflect the quality or trustworthiness of the underlying business, making the search process akin to finding a "needle in a haystack" (’707 Patent, col. 2:53-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that enhances standard search results by associating the URLs in those results with registered "selling entities" (e.g., individual service providers) and "buying entities" (e.g., their customers) within a "business-to-business connectivity service" (’707 Patent, cl. 1). When a user performs a search, the system presents "seller-specific information," such as ratings provided by prior "buying entities," in proximity to the corresponding search result, allowing the user to make a more informed decision about which links to pursue (’707 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve the efficiency of online commerce by injecting a layer of structured, buyer-centric reputational data into otherwise generic search engine results pages (’707 Patent, col. 6:7-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’707 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '707 Patent Claims" detailed in an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶11, 16). The following analysis is based on independent claim 1 as a representative claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Registering "selling entities" and "buying entities" within a "business-to-business connectivity service."
  • Receiving search query terms from a user.
  • Identifying search results from an internet search engine whose URLs have been previously registered in association with a selling entity.
  • Ranking these identified search results based on ratings or a filter score.
  • Generating and presenting "seller-specific information" (e.g., the selling entity's name, company, and product/service) only for those ranked search results.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify the accused products or services by name, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an unattached document, Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context, as these details are allegedly contained within the unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint's infringement theory is contained entirely within "the claim charts of Exhibit 2," a document incorporated by reference but not attached to the filing (Compl. ¶¶16-17). The body of the complaint lacks any specific factual allegations that map the functionality of an accused product to the elements of any asserted claim. Consequently, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the provided documents.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "business-to-business connectivity service"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the first two limitations of claim 1, defines the environment in which the invention operates (’707 Patent, cl. 1). The outcome of the case may depend on whether a real estate platform that connects individual agents (businesses) with individual home buyers (consumers engaged in a significant transaction) falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because Redfin’s public-facing services are primarily consumer-oriented, creating a potential mismatch with the "business-to-business" framing of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the registration of "people" as "buying entities" and "selling entities" (’707 Patent, col. 6:15-19) and more generally refers to a "potential buyer" seeking a "product or service," which could be argued to extend beyond strictly corporate transactions (’707 Patent, col. 1:53-58).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title is "Business-oriented search," and the specification repeatedly refers to a "business-to-business" context (’707 Patent, col. 1:1; col. 6:15). The figures and examples also appear to contemplate commercial actors, with attributes such as "Manager," "Owner," "Rev $1M," and "company" suggesting a focus on formal business entities (’707 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 6:30-34).

The Term: "selling entity"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis, as the claims require a system of registering and rating these specific entities. Claim 1 defines a "selling entity" as corresponding to "a single individual associated with one or more companies" (’707 Patent, cl. 1). Infringement will hinge on whether the accused platform registers users who meet this specific structural definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that "The selling entities may be individual people, for example" (’707 Patent, col. 5:17-18), which supports reading the term to cover individual service providers rather than just corporate bodies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself contains a potential structural limitation: "wherein each of the one or more selling entities corresponds to a single individual associated with one or more companies and wherein each individual is associated with only one selling entity" (’707 Patent, col. 1). A defendant could argue that its system, if it allows an individual agent to be associated with multiple brokerages or no specific company, does not meet this precise requirement.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’707 Patent (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge entitles Plaintiff to enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim term "business-to-business connectivity service", which is described in the patent with language of commercial enterprise, be construed to cover a platform that primarily facilitates transactions between real estate professionals and individual consumers? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive.
• A second central question will be evidentiary and factual: As the complaint defers all substantive infringement allegations to an unattached exhibit, a key challenge for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence that the accused platform actually performs the specific steps recited in the claims. In particular, the case may turn on whether the accused system can be shown to "rank" search results based on "ratings" from other users and "present" the "seller-specific information" in the particular manner required by the patent’s claims.