Better Browsing LLC v. Toshiba Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Browsing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Toshiba Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00571, E.D. Tex., 12/06/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation, making venue appropriate in any judicial district, and because Defendant conducts business and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computers, when preloaded with Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge browser software, infringe patents related to 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 bookmarks for multiple open webpages simultaneously.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents claim priority back to a provisional application filed in 2002, indicating a long development and prosecution history for the underlying technology. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings 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 October 19, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional web searching as a "laborious ping-pong process" between a search results page and individual websites, noting an "inability [to] greatly impede[] information search, retrieval, and viewing processes" (’779 Patent, col. 3:15-19). It also notes that conventional web browsers lack an integrated capability to dynamically zoom in or out on content (’779 Patent, col. 4:58-62).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an enhanced web browser that can display multiple webpages concurrently and provides integrated tools to manage them (’779 Patent, col. 7:8-10). The solution includes a dedicated "zoom icon" for changing the view size of a selected webpage without affecting other displayed pages, and a "group bookmark icon" that allows a user to save the locations of a plurality of open webpages into a single data structure with one action (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 19:36-59).
• Technical Importance: The described methods sought to improve browsing efficiency by leveraging increasing network bandwidth and local processing power to reduce the repetitive steps required to view and manage information from multiple sources (’779 Patent, col. 5:55-6:2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • A computerized method for operating zoom and group bookmarking functions in a web browser.
  • Loading a plurality of webpages in a browser instance.
  • Displaying a selected webpage in an active window.
  • Displaying a zoom icon that directly controls a zoom function for the selected webpage and whose appearance indicates the current zoom factor.
  • In response to selecting the zoom icon, changing the zoom factor for the selected webpage without altering another of the plurality of webpages, 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 a group bookmark data structure storing the URLs of the plurality of webpages and saving it to memory.

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 web browsers at the time did not have a "zoom capability to enlarge a viewing area or make it smaller" (’736 Patent, col. 4:36-40).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a browser displays an icon that both indicates the current zoom factor and directly controls the zoom function for one or more webpages (’736 Patent, Abstract). A single selection of this icon, which can include clicking the icon or rotating a mouse wheel while the cursor is over it, causes the browser to change the zoom factor and simultaneously update the icon's appearance to reflect the new zoom level (’736 Patent, col. 4:44-55; Fig. 21).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a more direct and intuitive user interface for controlling webpage zoom compared to navigating through menus, streamlining the user experience.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • A method for a zoom function on a web browser.
  • Presenting 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 icon directly causes the browser to perform two actions:
    1. Changing the zoom factor for one or more selected webpages.
    2. Changing the appearance of the zoom icon to indicate the new current zoom factor.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are identified as Toshiba Chromebook and Toshiba Dynabook computers that "come preloaded with either the Google Chrome or Microsoft Edge internet browser software" (Compl. ¶15). The infringement allegations focus on the functionality of the browser software operating on Toshiba's hardware (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Accused Products provide "group bookmarking and web page zooming" functions (Compl. ¶16). Figure 1 of the complaint provides a screenshot from a YouTube video review purporting to show a Toshiba Dynabook device preloaded with Microsoft Edge software (Compl. Fig. 1, ¶16). Further screenshots depict the Microsoft Edge user interface, showing a feature to bookmark all open tabs into a new folder and the creation of a shortcut icon for that folder group (Compl. Figs. 2A, 2B). Another screenshot shows the zoom control feature within the Microsoft Edge menu, which displays the current zoom percentage and includes controls to change it (Compl. Fig. 2D). The complaint alleges these products are offered for sale through major retailers (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’779 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Does the claim term "group bookmark," which the patent describes as a singular data structure, read on the accused functionality of creating a "folder" containing multiple, separate bookmarks?
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires changing the zoom factor of a "selected webpage" while "without altering another of said plurality of webpages." This language, along with patent figures depicting multi-pane displays (e.g., ’779 Patent, Figs. 10-12), raises the question of whether the claim is applicable to a modern tabbed browser where only one webpage is active and visibly rendered at a time.

’736 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: What is the scope of "icon shown on a web browser display"? Does a control located within a drop-down menu meet this limitation, or does the patent’s context (e.g., ’736 Patent, Fig. 9) suggest an icon on the main, persistent user interface? Further, what is the scope of "selection of said zoom icon"? Does clicking a button adjacent to the zoom percentage display constitute a selection of the icon itself?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

  • Context and Importance: The viability of the infringement allegation for the group bookmarking function hinges on whether creating a "folder" of separate bookmarks is equivalent to generating "a group bookmark." Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused feature is a standard browser function, and its equivalence to the claimed term is a central dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function as creating a "group of hyperlinks," which could be interpreted broadly to encompass a folder containing multiple hyperlink bookmarks (’779 Patent, col. 19:40-45, Fig. 26).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites "a group bookmark" (singular) that comprises "a data structure." This could be argued to require a unitary data object, rather than a conventional folder structure that acts as a container for distinct bookmark objects.

• The Term: "without altering another of said plurality of webpages" (’779 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation appears tailored to a multi-pane browser environment where multiple webpages are displayed simultaneously. Its application to a standard tabbed browser, where only one page is active, is a critical point of contention that could determine infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that "altering" refers only to a persistent change to the content or state of inactive tabs, and since those remain unchanged, the limitation is met.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly illustrates and describes a browser that displays multiple webpages concurrently in separate windows or panes (’779 Patent, Figs. 10, 11, 12; col. 8:1-3). A defendant could argue this context limits the claim's scope to such multi-pane browsers, making it inapplicable to the accused tabbed browsers.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement of the ’736 patent. It alleges that "Acer" induces infringement by providing instructions and promoting the use of the Accused Products, and that the products contain special features not suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 41). The complaint's reference to "Acer," a non-party, instead of the named defendant Toshiba, suggests a potential pleading error.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement and treble damages for the ’736 patent (Compl. ¶45(d)). The factual basis appears to rest on post-suit conduct, as the inducement allegation is made for the period "Since at least the time of receiving this Complaint" (Compl. ¶40).

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

• A core issue will be one of applicability and claim scope: Can claims rooted in a patent disclosure that heavily emphasizes a multi-pane, simultaneous webpage display environment (’779 Patent, Figs. 10-12) be construed to read on the functionally distinct architecture of a modern tabbed browser where only one webpage is active at a time? This question is central to the viability of the limitation "without altering another of said plurality of webpages" in the ’779 patent.
• A second key issue will be definitional: Does a browser feature that saves open tabs into a bookmark "folder" (Compl. Fig. 2A) meet the claim limitation of "a group bookmark"? Similarly, does a zoom control located within a menu (Compl. Fig. 2D) satisfy the requirements of a "zoom icon" that "directly controls" zoom functionality as claimed in both patents?
• Finally, a procedural question for the court will be how to address the pleading deficiency in the indirect infringement allegations, which are explicitly directed at "Acer," a non-party, rather than the defendant, Toshiba (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41).