Querytron LLC v. Amazon.com: Voluntary Dismissal After 87 Days
Querytron LLC asserted US10534820B2, a patent covering enhanced buyer-oriented search results, against Amazon.com in the Eastern District of Texas. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal just 87 days after filing, before Amazon answered or moved for summary judgment.
Querytron's early exit: search patent dismissed at the starting gate
On 13 February 2026, Querytron LLC filed a patent infringement action against Amazon.com, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:26-cv-00118) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The sole asserted patent was US10534820B2, directed to enhanced buyer-oriented search results technology. Querytron was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC; Amazon by Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Querytron filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the court accepted and acknowledged dismissal of all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed on 11 May 2026, just 87 days after filing and before Amazon filed any answer or summary judgment motion. What drove Querytron's decision to dismiss at this early stage is not disclosed in the available public record, nor are any terms beyond the cost allocation.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 87 days
87 days — resolved well before typical district court trial timelines
US10534820B2 — Enhanced Buyer-Oriented Search Results
Any e-commerce operator, marketplace platform, or search technology provider deploying buyer-oriented or intent-ranked search result systems should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US10534820B2. The patent remains enforceable after this dismissal, and the Eastern District of Texas is an established plaintiff-friendly venue for future assertion.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepts and acknowledges Querytron's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, confirming all claims are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs. Because the dismissal was filed before Amazon answered, no merits determination was made on infringement, validity, or claim scope, leaving US10534820B2 legally intact.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the early exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's right to dismiss before answer
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Amazon had not yet answered, so Querytron exercised this right unilaterally. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal with prejudice.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalDismissed with prejudice: Querytron cannot refile this claim
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Querytron is barred from bringing the same infringement claims against Amazon under US10534820B2 in the future. This differs from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The Basis of Termination records only 'Voluntary dismissal' without further qualification; the specific terms beyond the cost allocation are not disclosed in the available record.
No refiling against AmazonAmazon exits without adjudication on the merits
Amazon.com, Inc. was dismissed from the case before it was required to answer the complaint or mount a substantive defence. The dismissal with prejudice eliminates the specific threat from Querytron under this patent, but no court has ruled on Amazon's products or on the validity or scope of US10534820B2.
No merits ruling on patentUS10534820B2 remains live — third-party risk persists
Because the case ended without a validity or infringement determination, US10534820B2 retains its presumption of validity. Other e-commerce operators deploying buyer-oriented search result technologies should note the patent is still enforceable. Querytron remains free to assert it against other defendants.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Querytron LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Querytron LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Querytron LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Christopher Banner | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in buyer-oriented search technology
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Querytron v. Amazon dispute and the technology landscape around US10534820B2.
Querytron LLC's patent holdings in search and e-commerce
Querytron LLC's assertion of US10534820B2 suggests an IP portfolio focused on search result presentation and buyer-intent technology. Mapping Querytron's full patent holdings can reveal whether additional patents in adjacent search or recommendation domains pose enforcement risk to marketplace operators beyond this single assertion.
Portfolio monitoringFiling trends in buyer-oriented and personalised search ranking
Buyer-oriented search result technology is an active filing area, with major platform operators and NPEs alike staking claim positions in result ranking, intent prediction, and personalised retrieval. Tracking filing velocity and assignee concentration around these techniques helps R&D teams anticipate where IP thickets are forming.
Filing trend analysisAmazon's defensive patent position in search and discovery
Amazon.com maintains an extensive patent portfolio in e-commerce search, product discovery, and recommendation systems. Analysing Amazon's filing activity in buyer-intent and search ranking technology can surface both defensive assets and areas where third-party claims like Querytron's may find gaps.
Defensive IP mappingAdjacent innovation space: search result presentation and UX
Around the claims of US10534820B2, adjacent white-space exists in areas such as real-time buyer intent inference, contextual result re-ranking, and multimodal search interfaces. Companies developing next-generation e-commerce search experiences may find patentable differentiation in these neighbouring domains.
Innovation white spaceSimilar e-commerce search patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting search and e-commerce technology patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the e-commerce search IP landscape
An early voluntary dismissal with prejudice against Amazon signals dynamics worth monitoring across buyer-oriented search technology.
Pre-answer dismissals rarely signal patent weakness alone
Cases that collapse within 87 days before the defendant answers are consistent with several scenarios: commercial resolution, licensing, or strategic repositioning. The available record does not disclose which applies here. IP teams should not read this dismissal as a validity concession on US10534820B2.
US10534820B2 remains a live enforcement risk for e-commerce search
No court has assessed the validity or scope of US10534820B2. Companies operating buyer-oriented or personalised search ranking systems in e-commerce should consider whether their implementations fall within the patent's claims, particularly given the Eastern District of Texas venue.
Querytron v Amazon.com — key questions answered
US10534820B2 (application number US11/340905) is the sole patent asserted by Querytron LLC against Amazon.com, Inc. in Case No. 2:26-cv-00118. It covers enhanced buyer-oriented search results technology. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and closed after 87 days via voluntary dismissal.
The case was dismissed 87 days after filing, before Amazon filed an answer or any summary judgment motion. Querytron filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The specific reasons for the early dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits. Querytron is barred from bringing the same claims against Amazon under US10534820B2 in the future. However, the patent itself remains valid and enforceable and Querytron may assert it against other defendants.
The court order provides that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No fee award was made in favour of either party.
Yes. The case was dismissed without any court ruling on validity or infringement. US10534820B2 retains its presumption of validity under US patent law. Querytron LLC remains free to assert it against other defendants operating buyer-oriented search result technologies.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.