Better Browsing LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Co

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Browsing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00300, E.D. Tex., 06/22/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a "regular and established place of business" in Plano, Texas, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s HP Chromebook products, which are preloaded with Google Chrome browser software, infringe patents related to web browser zoom and group bookmarking functionalities.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses user interface efficiencies for web browsers, seeking to reduce latency and improve information management by integrating features for zooming on individual webpages and bookmarking multiple open tabs simultaneously.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a specification and claim priority through a chain of continuing applications originating from a 2002 provisional application. The ’779 Patent is a continuation of the application that issued as the ’736 Patent. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,150,779 - “Systems And Methods For Providing An Internet Browser Zoom And Group Bookmark Functions”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,150,779, “Systems And Methods For Providing An Internet Browser Zoom And Group Bookmark Functions,” issued October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional web browsing as inefficient, noting that users must serially load and review webpages, which introduces significant latency ('779 Patent, col. 3:25-35). It also notes that browsers lack the ability to coalesce pertinent webpages from multiple independent websites and that reading small text and images on webpages is often difficult ('779 Patent, col. 3:10-18, col. 4:56-59).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an enhanced web browser that integrates zoom and group bookmarking functions. The solution allows a user to change the zoom level of a single selected webpage without altering other open webpages and to save a collection of all concurrently open webpages as a single "group bookmark" for later recall ('779 Patent, Abstract; col. 19:35-58). Figure 26 illustrates the creation of a "Group of hyperlinks" from currently visible webpages ('779 Patent, Fig. 26).
• Technical Importance: This technology aimed to improve the user experience by reducing the time spent waiting for pages to load and providing more powerful tools for managing and viewing information gathered from multiple web sources ('779 Patent, col. 5:50-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • Loading a plurality of webpages in a web browser instance.
  • Receiving a user selection of one webpage and displaying it in an active window.
  • Displaying a zoom icon that directly controls a zoom function for the selected webpage, with the icon's appearance indicating the current zoom factor.
  • In response to a user selection of the zoom icon, changing the zoom factor for only the selected webpage and changing the icon's appearance to reflect the new factor.
  • Displaying a selectable group bookmark icon that controls a group bookmarking function for the plurality of webpages.
  • In response to a user selection of the group bookmark icon, generating a group bookmark (as a data structure storing the URLs) and saving it to memory.

U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736 - “Internet Browser Zoom Function”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736, “Internet Browser Zoom Function,” issued September 16, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies that websites frequently contain fonts and images that are "small and difficult to read" and that conventional web browsers "don't have a zoom capability to enlarge a viewing area or make it smaller," which can render information useless ('736 Patent, col. 4:36-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for a web browser that presents an icon to directly control a zoom function. As described in the detailed description, user interaction with the icon—such as by clicking it or rotating a mouse wheel while the cursor is over it—changes the zoom factor for one or more webpages and simultaneously updates the icon's appearance to show the new zoom level ('736 Patent, col. 17:15-28).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a more direct and dynamic user interface for resizing webpage content, aiming to enhance readability and usability without navigating through multiple menu levels ('736 Patent, col. 4:42-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶47).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
  • Presenting an icon on a web browser display that directly controls a zoom function for webpages in an active window, where the icon's appearance indicates a current zoom factor.
  • Wherein selection of the icon directly causes the browser to perform two actions:
    • Changing the zoom factor for one or more selected webpages.
    • Changing the appearance of the zoom icon to indicate the current zoom factor for the selected webpage(s).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "HP Chromebook, HP Chromebook x360, HP Elite Chromebook, and HP Elite Dragonfly Chromebook" (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that these devices, all of which come preloaded with the Google Chrome internet browser, provide the infringing functionalities (Compl. ¶20). The core accused features are Google Chrome's "group bookmarking and web page zooming" capabilities (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a screenshot from a YouTube video reviewing the "HP Chromebook 14A" as "the best laptop for students," suggesting the product's features are relevant to its market positioning (Compl. ¶20, Fig. 1). The complaint provides screenshots to demonstrate the accused functionalities, including the user interface for bookmarking all open tabs (Compl. ¶21, Fig. 2A) and the menu control for zooming (Compl. ¶22, Fig. 2D).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'779 Patent Infringement Allegations

'736 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: For the ’779 Patent, a central question may be whether creating a folder of individual bookmarks, as the accused Chrome browser does, meets the claim limitation of generating a single "group bookmark comprising a data structure." The defense may argue this is an aggregation of separate bookmarks, not a single "group bookmark" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question for both patents is whether an icon or control located within a menu (such as Chrome's main menu for zoom or a right-click context menu for "Bookmark all tabs") satisfies the requirement of being "display[ed] in a web browser display." The patent figures consistently show these controls as persistent elements on the main browser toolbar, which may raise the question of whether placement within a menu falls outside the claimed scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "group bookmark" ('779 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the group bookmarking function hinges on whether Google Chrome’s "Bookmark all tabs" feature, which creates a folder of bookmarks, constitutes a "group bookmark." The construction of this term is therefore critical to the second half of claim 1.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires generating "a data structure storing at least the plurality of uniform resource locators." Plaintiff may argue that a bookmark folder is a form of data structure that stores the required URLs, thereby meeting the literal claim language. The specification also refers to bookmarking "all the webpages as a list of hyperlinks" ('779 Patent, col. 7:51-53), which could support a collection-based interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Practitioners may focus on the patent’s repeated use of the singular term "group bookmark" and its depiction in Figure 26 as a single "Group of hyperlinks" object ('779 Patent, Fig. 26). This could support a narrower construction requiring a single, monolithic bookmark entity rather than a container of multiple, separate bookmark entities.

• The Term: "displaying a ... icon in a web browser display" ('779 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The complaint identifies the infringing zoom and bookmarking icons as elements located within menus. Whether this meets the "displaying" limitation will be a key point of dispute, as the patent's own drawings show these icons as part of the persistent, always-visible browser interface.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "web browser display" could be argued to encompass the entire visual area of the application, including any menus that are opened by the user. Under this view, an icon is "displayed" at the moment the user accesses the relevant menu.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s specification, particularly Figure 9, shows the zoom icon (911) and a bookmark function (part of the options under 907) as buttons on the main browser toolbar ('779 Patent, Fig. 9). This consistent depiction of a persistent, immediately accessible icon may be used to argue that "displaying" requires more than being available within a secondary menu.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement.
  • Inducement is alleged based on HPE "advising or directing" end-users and distributing instructions that guide users to use the accused functionalities in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33, ¶52).
  • Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused zoom and group bookmarking features are "specially designed to be used in an infringing way" and have "no substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶34, ¶53).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on knowledge acquired "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶35, ¶54). It further alleges that HPE has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" and has thus been "willfully blind" to Plaintiff's patent rights (Compl. ¶36, ¶55).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "group bookmark," as recited in the ’779 patent, be construed to read on a feature that creates a folder containing multiple individual bookmarks, or does the patent require the generation of a single, integrated data object?
• A key question of claim construction will be whether an icon or control located within a drop-down menu satisfies the claim requirement of being "display[ed] in a web browser display," particularly when the patent specification's embodiments consistently depict these controls as persistent elements on the primary user interface.
• An evidentiary hurdle may concern indirect infringement: The complaint will need to be supported by evidence showing that HPE took specific steps to actively induce end-users to perform the particular multi-step methods of the claims, beyond merely pre-loading a general-purpose browser onto its hardware.