Better Browsing LLC v. Acer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Browsing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00567, E.D. Tex., 12/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the defendant, Acer Inc., is a foreign entity, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), such an entity may be sued in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges that Acer sells products in the district through authorized sellers.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer products, which are preloaded with Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge software, infringe two patents related to integrated web browser zoom and group bookmarking functionalities.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface enhancements for web browsers, specifically methods for adjusting the display size of webpages and for saving collections of open webpages.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents share a specification and priority claim. U.S. Patent No. 11,150,779 is a continuation of the application that matured into U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736, which itself traces its priority back to a 2002 provisional application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative challenges involving these 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 (Issued Oct. 19, 2021)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional web browsing in the early 2000s as a "laborious ping-pong process" between search engine result pages and the actual websites, impeded by latency and a lack of integrated browser tools (’779 Patent, col. 5:48-53). It also notes that browsers at the time lacked effective zoom capabilities for content with small fonts or images and could not easily bookmark a group of related websites at once (’779 Patent, col. 4:57-62, col. 5:1-6).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computerized method within a web browser that integrates both a zoom function and a group bookmarking function. The method allows a user to load and view multiple webpages, use a dedicated zoom icon to resize a single selected webpage without altering the others, and use a separate group bookmark icon to generate and save a single bookmark containing the URLs for all concurrently connected webpages (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 19:30-col. 20:8). This creates a more unified and efficient browsing experience by combining these distinct functionalities.
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve browser usability by providing integrated tools to manage content visibility and organization, addressing the efficiency and accessibility challenges prevalent when network speeds were slower and user interfaces were less sophisticated (’779 Patent, col. 5:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶25).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A computerized method for operating zoom and group bookmarking functions in a web browser concurrently connected to a plurality of website domains.
  • Loading a plurality of webpages.
  • Displaying a selected webpage in an active window.
  • Displaying a zoom icon that directly controls a zoom function for only the selected webpage, where the icon's appearance indicates the current zoom factor.
  • Upon user selection of the zoom icon, changing the zoom factor for the selected webpage without altering another of said plurality of webpages and changing the icon's appearance to reflect the new factor.
  • Displaying a selectable group bookmark icon.
  • Upon user selection of the group bookmark icon, generating a group bookmark storing the URLs of the concurrently connected webpages and saving it to memory.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’779 patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736: Internet Browser Zoom Function (Issued Sep. 16, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in contemporary web browsers, noting they "don't have a zoom capability to enlarge a viewing area or make it smaller," which renders webpages with small fonts or images difficult to use (’736 Patent, col. 4:38-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for a browser zoom function controlled by a dedicated icon. The icon's appearance visually indicates the current zoom level. A user's selection of the icon "directly causes" the browser to perform a compound action: changing the webpage's zoom factor and, simultaneously, updating the icon's appearance to reflect the newly applied zoom factor (’736 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 21). This provides a streamlined, single-point control mechanism with immediate visual feedback.
• Technical Importance: The invention offered an integrated and more intuitive user interface solution for managing webpage visibility, enhancing accessibility at a time when web design was less responsive to varying display sizes and resolutions (’736 Patent, col. 4:38-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A method for a zoom function on a web browser.
  • Presenting a user an icon on the browser display that directly controls the 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 directly causes the browser to perform both of the following actions:
    • Changing the zoom factor for one or more selected webpages.
    • Changing the appearance of the zoom icon to indicate the current zoom factor.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’736 patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies the "Accused Products" as a range of Acer computer product lines, including the Acer Aspire, Chromebook, Predator, and Swift Edge, among others (Compl. ¶17). The infringement allegation is directed at these devices when they are "preloaded with either the Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge internet browser software" (Compl. ¶17).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused functionality resides within the preloaded browser software, specifically its "group bookmarking and web page zooming" features (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes several screenshots from Microsoft Edge to illustrate these functions. Figure 2A shows the user interface for bookmarking all open tabs as a group (Compl. Fig. 2A). Figure 2D depicts the zoom control element within the Microsoft Edge settings menu, which displays a percentage and allows for adjustment (Compl. Fig. 2D). The complaint asserts Acer markets and sells these computer products throughout the United States (Compl. ¶10, ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

11,150,779 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a modern tabbed browser interface, where only one webpage is visible at a time, constitutes the "plurality of webpages" being "concurrently connected" in a "web browser instance" as described by the patent. The patent's figures (e.g., Fig. 10-12) depict a multi-pane display where multiple webpages are simultaneously visible, raising the question of whether tabs are equivalent to the claimed configuration.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that zooming one webpage occurs "without altering another." This raises a key factual question. Browser zoom is often implemented on a per-domain basis, not per-tab. If two allegedly separate "webpages" (in different tabs) are from the same domain, a court will need to determine whether the accused browser's zoom function alters both, which could be contrary to the claim limitation. The complaint does not provide evidence to resolve this.

8,838,736 Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The claim requires that a "selection of said zoom icon directly causes" the browser to perform two actions. The infringement theory relies on the zoom control shown in Figure 2D, which is accessed via a main menu icon. A dispute may arise over whether this two-step process (clicking the menu, then clicking a separate +/- button) meets the claim's requirement for "direct" causation, especially given the patent abstract's language describing a "single selection of the zoom icon" causing the actions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’779 Patent

• The Term: "without altering another of said plurality of webpages"
• Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical to the infringement analysis. If the accused browsers implement zoom on a per-domain basis, zooming one tab could alter the zoom of another tab open to the same domain. This would create a significant non-infringement argument. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation determines whether a common browser behavior falls inside or outside the claim scope.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A plaintiff might argue that each tab contains a distinct "webpage," and the limitation is met as long as tabs open to different domains are not altered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s focus on simultaneously displayed, independent panes (e.g., ’779 Patent, Figs. 10-12) suggests that "webpages" are treated as distinct, self-contained visual entities whose zoom control should be entirely independent, regardless of their source domain.

For the ’736 Patent

• The Term: "directly causes"
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation centers on a zoom control located within a menu. The construction of "directly causes" will determine whether this multi-click interaction is covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it goes to the heart of the user interaction sequence required for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue "directly" distinguishes the claimed icon-based method from changing zoom via a complex series of non-obvious preference menus, and that the accused feature is the most "direct" way to access the function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract of the parent ’779 patent, which shares a specification, states that a "single selection of the zoom icon directly causes" the actions (’779 Patent, Abstract). This suggests a one-click causal chain, which may not read on the accused two-click (menu, then button) process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for the ’736 patent only. It alleges Acer induces infringement by providing instructions and promoting the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶41). It further alleges contributory infringement by asserting that the accused browsers have "special features" that are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶42).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’736 patent, based on Acer's continued alleged infringement "since at least the time of receiving this Complaint" (Compl. ¶41). The prayer for relief explicitly requests treble damages for willful infringement of the ’736 patent (Compl. ¶46(d)).

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

• A core issue will be one of interface equivalence: Can the patentee demonstrate that the accused, modern tabbed-browser interface—where webpages are loaded into non-visible tabs and functions are often accessed via menus—is the legal and technical equivalent of the patent's described "concurrently connected" multi-pane displays and "direct" icon controls?
• A key evidentiary question for the ’779 patent will be one of functional independence: Does the zoom function in the accused browsers operate on a true per-webpage/per-tab basis as claimed ("without altering another"), or does it operate on a per-domain basis, a technical distinction that could place a common implementation outside the scope of the claim?
• A central dispute for the ’736 patent will be a question of causation and intent: Does the two-step process of accessing the accused zoom feature via a menu satisfy the claim's "directly causes" limitation, and can the plaintiff show that Acer, by merely pre-loading a standard third-party browser, possessed the specific intent required to be liable for inducing its customers' use of that feature?