IP Law Daily, PATENT—S.D. Cal.: Surviving claims in web collaboration technology infringement lawsuit succumb to summary judgment challenge, (Jun 3, 2026)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

The accused tax-preparation platform did not provide participants with a substantially equivalent, fully interactive browsing experience required by the asserted claims.

A federal district court in San Diego has granted summary judgment of non-infringement to a financial software company, disposing of the sole remaining patent in a long-running patent dispute over collaborative web-browsing technology. The court held that the accused products did not satisfy the asserted patent’s “synchronized browsing session” limitation because participants in the accused co-browsing sessions lacked substantially the same fully interactive browsing experience. Having found no infringement as a matter of law, the court entered judgment for the defendant and denied all remaining motions as moot (Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff, Samesurf, Inc., develops technology that enables users to share and interact with internet content in real time. The defendant, Intuit Inc., is a financial software company that offers online tax-preparation and accounting services, including TurboTax and QuickBooks products.

The dispute ultimately centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448 (“the ’448 patent”), titled “Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real time, Sharable Browsing Experience on a Host Device.” The patent describes technology intended to allow multiple users to browse and interact with internet content simultaneously through a synchronized browsing session.

Samesurf filed suit in March 2022, alleging that Intuit’s TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Live, and other products employing co-browsing technology infringed three patents. Intuit responded by challenging the patents both in district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board through inter partes review proceedings. The PTAB ultimately upheld the validity of the ’448 patent but found the other two asserted patents unpatentable as obvious. Following those rulings, Samesurf withdrew the invalidated patents, leaving the ’448 patent as the only patent remaining in the case. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the PTAB’s decision sustaining the ’448 patent. Intuit then moved for summary judgment, arguing that its accused products did not meet several claim limitations, including the requirement for a “synchronized browsing session.”

Claim scope. First, the court addressed a dispute over the meaning of the claim term “synchronized browsing session.” In an earlier claim-construction order, the court had construed the term to mean a browsing session administered by a synchronization server in which the host device and invitee device have “substantially the same fully interactive browsing experience” in real time. The parties disagreed about the scope of that language.

Samesurf argued that the construction required only that both participants be able to interact with the same content in some manner. Intuit argued that the construction required participants to possess substantially the same type and level of interactivity. The court concluded that its original construction adopted Intuit’s interpretation and clarified that “substantially the same” modified both “fully interactive” and “browsing experience.”

Patent record. The court found substantial support for that interpretation in the patent specification. The specification repeatedly described “the present invention” as allowing all users to browse and fully interact with the same internet content. It also distinguished prior-art systems by explaining that all users in a synchronized session could view, book, and alter the same flight results without coordinating inputs. Relying on Federal Circuit precedent regarding statements describing “the present invention,” including Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Electronics Co., 814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., 839 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court concluded that the patent limited synchronized browsing sessions to systems in which all users could fully interact with the same content.

Lexicography rejected. Samesurf also argued that the patent specification contained a special definition of the phrase “fully interact with.” The company contended that a participant could be considered fully interactive if it could perform any one of several listed activities.

The court rejected that argument. Citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court explained that a patentee acting as its own lexicographer must clearly redefine a claim term. The cited passage merely provided examples of actions users might perform during a synchronized browsing session and did not establish a special definition. The court therefore applied the phrase’s ordinary meaning.

Accused products. The court next compared the properly construed claims with the accused products. The record showed that during a TurboTax Live co-browsing session, tax professionals could scroll, point to items, highlight links, and draw boxes on the screen. Customers, however, could not perform those highlighting functions. Conversely, customers could click links, complete forms, execute searches, navigate to different pages, watch embedded videos, and download files, while the tax professionals could not perform those activities.

Based on those undisputed facts, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that both participants enjoyed substantially the same fully interactive browsing experience. The differing abilities of customers and tax professionals demonstrated that the two sides experienced materially different levels and types of interaction with the web content. The court further held that the tax professionals’ limited capabilities prevented them from having a “fully interactive” browsing experience. As a result, the accused products failed to satisfy a required claim limitation, defeating every asserted claim of the ’448 patent.

Expert testimony. Samesurf relied heavily on opinions from its technical expert, Dr. Friedman, who concluded that the accused products met the synchronized browsing session limitation. The court found those opinions insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact.

According to the court, the expert’s analysis rested on an interpretation of the claim language that conflicted with the court’s construction. Quoting Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 658 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the court noted that expert testimony based on an incorrect understanding of claim construction must be disregarded. Because Dr. Friedman’s infringement analysis relied on a rejected interpretation of the disputed limitation, his opinions could not prevent summary judgment.

Outcome. Having determined that the accused products did not satisfy the synchronized browsing session limitation, the court granted summary judgment that Intuit did not infringe any asserted claim of the ’448 patent. Because that ruling resolved the entire case, the court declined to address Intuit’s additional non-infringement theories and denied the parties’ Daubert motions, motions in limine, and related requests as moot.

The Case is No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL.

Judge: Huie, R.

Attorneys: Adam Skrzecz (McKool Smith) for the Samesurf, Inc. Daniel Ledesma (Fenwick & West LLP) for Intuit, Inc.

Companies: Samesurf, Inc.; Intuit, Inc.

Cases: Patent CaliforniaNews TechnologyInternet