DCT
2:23-cv-00629
Better Browsing LLC v. Razer Inc.
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Better Browsing LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Razer Inc. (Singapore)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00629, E.D. Tex., 12/22/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in any U.S. judicial district because Defendant is a foreign entity.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Razer Blade line of computer products, which are preloaded with the Microsoft Edge internet browser, infringe two patents related to browser zoom and group bookmarking functionalities.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface enhancements for web browsers, specifically aiming to improve the user experience of viewing content and managing multiple webpages.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents originate from a U.S. provisional application filed in 2002, indicating a long development and prosecution history for the claimed technology. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-09-10 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736 |
| 2002-09-10 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,150,779 |
| 2014-09-16 | U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736 Issues |
| 2021-10-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,150,779 Issues |
| 2023-12-22 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736 - "Internet Browser Zoom Function," issued September 16, 2014
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the common problem of webpages containing fonts and images that are too small and difficult to read, which can render information useless to a user (’736 Patent, col. 4:36-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for a web browser zoom function operated by a specific user interface element. It describes an on-screen "icon" that both directly controls the zoom level of a webpage and simultaneously changes its own appearance to visually indicate the current zoom factor to the user (’736 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:51-68). This dual-function icon is intended to provide a more integrated and intuitive user control.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to improve web browser usability by consolidating zoom control and status indication into a single, interactive element, departing from systems that relied on separate menu commands or static displays.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- Presenting a "zoom icon" on a web 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 user selection of the icon directly causes the web browser to both:
- Change the zoom factor for one or more selected webpages.
- Change the "appearance of the zoom icon" to indicate the new, current zoom factor.
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 notes that web browsers lack the ability for a user to easily save a complete list of hyperlinks, such as those returned from a search engine, for later use. Users are typically limited to saving favorite hyperlinks one at a time (’779 Patent, col. 5:1-8).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method that combines the zoom functionality of the parent '736 patent with a novel group bookmarking feature. The method allows a user to select a "group bookmark icon" which causes the browser to generate and save a single "group bookmark" data structure containing the URLs of multiple webpages to which the browser is concurrently connected (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 20:57-68).
- Technical Importance: This technology sought to streamline the common user workflow of conducting research across multiple websites by enabling the capture and recall of an entire session or set of related pages with a single action.
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- Loading a plurality of webpages from a plurality of website domains.
- Displaying a selected webpage in an active window.
- Displaying a "zoom icon" that directly controls zoom for the selected webpage and whose appearance indicates the current zoom factor.
- Upon user selection of the zoom icon, changing the zoom factor and the icon's appearance for the selected webpage without altering other webpages.
- Displaying a "selectable group bookmark icon" that controls a group bookmarking function for the plurality of webpages.
- Upon user selection of the group bookmark icon, generating a "group bookmark" comprising a data structure that stores the URLs of the plurality of webpages, and saving that bookmark in memory.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies computer products including the Razer Blade 14 through Razer Blade 18, which are all allegedly preloaded with the Microsoft Edge internet browser software (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
The infringement allegations focus on the functionality within the Microsoft Edge browser that allows users to perform "group bookmarking and web page zooming" (Compl. ¶17). The complaint includes a screenshot from a YouTube review showing the Microsoft Edge browser preloaded on a Razer Blade 16 device (Compl. ¶17, Fig. 1). Further screenshots depict the user interface for group bookmarking and zoom functionalities within Microsoft Edge, which Plaintiff alleges perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶17, Figs. 2-5). The complaint alleges Razer is a "leading manufacturer and seller" of consumer electronics in the U.S. and worldwide (Compl. ¶7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’736 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| presenting to a user an icon shown on a web browser display wherein said icon directly controls a zoom function | The Microsoft Edge browser presents a zoom icon that directly controls the zoom function. Figure 5 from the complaint shows a zoom menu with a zoom icon. | ¶25, Fig. 5 | col. 4:36-42 |
| wherein appearance of the zoom icon indicates a current zoom factor | The appearance of the zoom icon in Microsoft Edge allegedly indicates the current zoom factor. | ¶25 | col. 20:56-61 |
| wherein a selection of said zoom icon directly causes the web browser to perform both the following actions: changing zoom factor for one or more selected webpages... and changing appearance of the zoom icon to indicate the current zoom factor... | Selection of the zoom icon in Microsoft Edge allegedly changes the zoom factor for the webpage and changes the icon's appearance to reflect the new zoom factor. | ¶25 | col. 20:62-68 |
’779 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| loading... a plurality of webpages... each webpage corresponding to a website from the plurality of website domains | The Microsoft Edge browser loads multiple webpages in tabs, as depicted in the complaint's Figure 2, which shows tabs for "Sports Betting," "Houston Astros," and "ESPN." | ¶39, Fig. 2 | col. 20:31-37 |
| displaying a zoom icon... wherein said zoom icon directly controls a zoom function... wherein appearance of the zoom icon indicates a current zoom factor | Microsoft Edge displays a zoom icon which allegedly controls the zoom function and whose appearance indicates the current zoom factor. The complaint's Figure 5 shows the zoom controls. | ¶39, Fig. 5 | col. 20:41-47 |
| displaying a selectable group bookmark icon... wherein said group bookmark icon controls a group bookmarking function for the plurality of webpages | The complaint alleges Microsoft Edge provides a group bookmarking function. Figure 4 shows a "Sports" bookmark folder containing multiple webpages. | ¶39, Fig. 4 | col. 20:57-64 |
| receiving a user indication of a selection of said group bookmark icon and, in response... generate a group bookmark comprising a data structure storing at least the plurality of uniform resource locators... and save the generated group bookmark in memory | Microsoft Edge allegedly allows users to select the group bookmark icon to generate and save a group bookmark containing the URLs for the plurality of webpages. | ¶39, ¶40 | col. 20:64-68 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for both patents is whether the accused Microsoft Edge browser meets the limitation "wherein appearance of the zoom icon indicates a current zoom factor." The provided screenshot (Compl. Fig. 5) shows a menu with a static magnifying glass icon next to a numerical percentage (e.g., "100%"). The dispute may turn on whether this combination constitutes the "appearance of the icon" itself changing, as required by the claim, or if the claim requires the graphical portion of the icon to change.
- Technical Questions: For the ’779 Patent, a key factual question will be whether the accused group bookmarking feature in Microsoft Edge (e.g., saving tabs to a favorites folder) technically aligns with the claim requirement to "generate a group bookmark comprising a data structure storing at least the plurality of uniform resource locators." The specific implementation of how Edge saves and structures these bookmarks will be critical to determining infringement.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "appearance of the zoom icon indicates a current zoom factor" (asserted in '736 Claim 1 and '779 Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is at the core of the infringement theory for both patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could be dispositive. If the term is construed narrowly to require the graphical element of the icon itself to change, and the accused product only changes an adjacent numerical text display, the infringement case could fail.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not explicitly restrict the "appearance" to only the graphical symbol. A party could argue that the combination of the symbol and the associated, co-located text number constitutes the overall "appearance" of the icon presented to the user. The abstract of the ’736 Patent broadly states the method includes "changing appearance of the zoom icon to indicate the current zoom factor," without specifying the manner of the change (’736 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "icon" is typically understood in the art to mean a graphical pictograph. A party could argue that a change in an adjacent text element is not a change in the "appearance of the zoom icon." The patent specification, when describing the invention, states the system "updat[es] the zoom icon to indicate the zoom factor" (’779 Patent, Abstract), which may suggest a change to the icon element itself rather than an external indicator.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for the ’736 Patent. Inducement is based on allegations that Razer distributes instructions and advertises the use of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶28). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the products have "special features" that are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶29).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Razer's infringement of the '736 Patent is willful, based on knowledge of the patent since at least the time of receiving the complaint (Compl. ¶28). The prayer for relief requests treble damages for willful infringement of the ’736 patent (Compl. ¶44.d).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim phrase "appearance of the zoom icon," which the patents suggest is a dual-function element, be construed to read on a user interface that presents a static graphical symbol alongside a separate, dynamic numerical text field, as is common in modern browsers?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does the "group bookmark" or "tab group" feature in the accused Microsoft Edge browser technically operate by "generat[ing] a group bookmark comprising a data structure" that stores multiple URLs as a single entity, as claimed in the ’779 patent, or does it merely create a folder of individual, separate bookmarks?