Better Browsing LLC v. Samsung Electronics CO., LTD.

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Browsing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00302, E.D. Tex., 06/23/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, and because Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Chromebook products, which are preloaded with Google Chrome browser software, infringe patents related to web browser zoom and group bookmarking functionalities.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on user interface features within web browsers designed to improve the efficiency and usability of viewing webpage content and managing multiple open tabs.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a patent family with a lengthy prosecution history, sharing a priority claim to a 2002 provisional application. The later-issued '779 Patent is a continuation of the application that matured into the earlier-issued '736 Patent, suggesting a related technical focus.

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 searching as a "laborious ping-pong process" between a search engine's list of hyperlinks and the actual target webpages, which is inefficient and time-consuming (’779 Patent, col. 5:46-53). It also identifies the lack of native browser functions to dynamically zoom content or to easily save and manage groups of related webpages (bookmarks) as a single unit (’779 Patent, col. 4:57-63, col. 5:1-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an enhanced web browser that can concurrently load multiple webpages and provides integrated user interface controls to manage them (’779 Patent, col. 6:35-53). This includes a "zoom icon" that adjusts the view size of a selected webpage without affecting other open webpages and a "group bookmark icon" that allows a user to save a collection of open tabs as a single bookmark for later recall (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 19:36-51).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve browser usability by leveraging then-increasing network bandwidth and local processing power to create a more integrated and less latent browsing experience (’779 Patent, col. 5:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Loading a plurality of webpages in a web browser.
  • Displaying a selected webpage in an active window.
  • Displaying a "zoom icon" that directly controls zoom for the selected webpage and indicates the current zoom factor.
  • In response to selecting 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 selecting the group bookmark icon, generating and saving a group bookmark containing the URLs of the concurrently connected webpages.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 a common usability problem where webpages contain fonts and images that are "small and difficult to read" (’736 Patent, col. 4:36-38). It states that conventional web browsers at the time lacked a dedicated "zoom capability to enlarge a viewing area or make it smaller" (’736 Patent, col. 4:39-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for a browser zoom function controlled by an "icon shown on a web browser display" (’736 Patent, Claim 1). The appearance of this icon indicates the current zoom factor. When a user selects the icon, the browser changes the zoom factor for one or more webpages and simultaneously changes the icon’s appearance to reflect the new zoom level (’736 Patent, Abstract; col. 18:7-24).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a more direct and visually intuitive interface for users to adjust the size of webpage content, addressing a key accessibility and usability need in web browsing (’736 Patent, col. 4:36-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • Presenting a user an "icon" on a web browser display that directly controls a zoom function for webpages in an active window.
  • The appearance of the zoom icon indicates a current zoom factor.
  • A selection of the zoom icon causes the browser to change the zoom factor for one or more selected webpages.
  • A selection of the zoom icon also causes the browser to change the appearance of the icon to indicate the new current zoom factor for the selected webpage(s).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies Samsung’s “Galaxy Chromebook, Galaxy Chromebook 2 360, Galaxy Chromebook Go, Chromebook 4, Chromebook 4+, and Chromebook Plus” (Compl. ¶20). The infringement allegations center on the “Google Chrome internet browser software” that comes preloaded on these devices (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused functionality resides within the Google Chrome browser, specifically its features for group bookmarking and webpage zooming (Compl. ¶21). The complaint provides a screenshot described as the "Google Chrome user interface for group bookmarking all presently open tabs" (Compl. Fig. 2A, ¶21). It also provides a screenshot described as the "zoom icon in Google Chrome, which enables zoom functionality" (Compl. Fig. 2D, ¶21).
• The complaint alleges these products are sold by Samsung through its own website and various other retailers, and that users can begin using the accused Google Chrome browser immediately after purchase (Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’779 Patent Infringement Allegations

’736 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the term "icon," as used in the claims, can be construed to read on a menu item (for zoom) or a context-menu option (for group bookmarking). The patent figures depict persistent, single-click buttons in a toolbar for these functions (e.g., ’779 Patent, Fig. 9, item 911; Fig. 26, item 2603), whereas the accused product uses a different user interface paradigm. The defense may argue that "icon" implies a specific type of graphical element not present in the accused product.
  • Technical Questions: For the '779 patent, the claim requires changing the zoom of a selected webpage "without altering another." While this is how modern tabbed browsers typically function, a court would require factual evidence demonstrating that the accused Google Chrome browser operates precisely as claimed. For group bookmarking, a question exists as to whether the multi-step user action of right-clicking a tab and selecting an option from a menu meets the claim limitation of "receiving a user indication of a selection of said group bookmark icon."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "zoom icon" (present in both patents)

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term is critical because the accused product's zoom control is located within a dropdown menu, not as a persistent, standalone icon on the main browser interface as depicted in the patents' figures. Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine whether the accused functionality literally meets this claim element or if an argument under the doctrine of equivalents would be necessary.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract of the ’779 Patent describes "an icon which directly controls the zoom function," without limiting its form or placement (’779 Patent, Abstract). A plaintiff could argue this language supports interpreting "icon" as any selectable graphical user interface element that initiates the claimed function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently illustrate the "zoom icon" as a distinct, persistent button within the main browser command bar (e.g., ’779 Patent, Fig. 9, element 911; ’736 Patent, Fig. 21). A defendant could argue these specific embodiments limit the term to such a configuration, excluding menu items.

• The Term: "group bookmark icon" (’779 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term's definition is central to whether the accused process of right-clicking a tab to open a context menu and then selecting "Bookmark all tabs" infringes the claim. The claim recites receiving a "selection of said group bookmark icon," which may suggest a single user action on a single element.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function broadly as "bookmarking selected webpages or all the webpages as a list of hyperlinks" (’779 Patent, col. 8:51-54). Plaintiff may argue that any UI control that achieves this result, regardless of its implementation as a button or menu item, falls within the term's scope.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 26 of the patent depicts a single, clickable "Bookmark" button (2603) that directly initiates the creation of a "Group of hyperlinks" (2606). The defense could use this figure to argue that the claim requires a dedicated, single-action graphical element, not a multi-step process involving a context menu.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Samsung induces infringement by advertising and distributing instructions that guide end-users to use the accused features of Google Chrome on its devices (Compl. ¶¶34, 53). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused products contain "special features" (the zoom and group bookmarking functions) that are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶¶35, 54).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Samsung's knowledge of the patents "at least as of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action" (Compl. ¶¶36, 55). The complaint also alleges willful blindness, claiming on information and belief that Samsung has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶37, 56).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: Can the term "icon", which the patent specifications illustrate as a persistent, single-click toolbar button, be construed to cover the menu-based and context-menu-based functionalities for zoom and group bookmarking in the accused Google Chrome browser?
• A key infringement question will be one of operational correspondence: Does the accused product's multi-step user interaction for creating a group bookmark (i.e., right-click, then select from a menu) meet the claim language requiring a user to select a single "group bookmark icon", or does this difference create a non-infringement defense that would necessitate an argument under the doctrine of equivalents?
• A third potential issue relates to direct infringement: As the asserted claims are method claims performed by an end-user operating the browser, a question may arise as to whether Samsung, the hardware provider, can be held liable as a direct infringer, or whether liability is limited to indirect infringement theories (inducement and contributory infringement).