Better Browsing LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Better Browsing LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00013, E.D. Tex., 01/10/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper against a foreign corporation in any judicial district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3), and notes Defendant has previously consented to jurisdiction and venue in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that computer products sold by Defendant, which are preloaded with the Microsoft Edge internet browser, infringe patents related to web browser zoom and group bookmarking functionalities.
• Technical Context: The patents address user interface enhancements for web browsers, a technology area focused on improving user experience and efficiency in information retrieval and display.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of the same patent family. U.S. Patent No. 11,150,779 is a continuation of the application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,838,736, which is itself a continuation of an earlier application. This shared lineage suggests a common specification and priority date, which can streamline claim construction but also may tie the patents’ validity together.

Case Timeline

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 describes a problem in which web browsers lack the ability to effectively handle webpages with fonts and images that are too small or too large for a user to read, rendering the information "useless" if it cannot be dynamically resized (’736 Patent, col. 4:36-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for a web browser that presents a specific "zoom icon" on the display. A single selection of this icon is claimed to cause two actions: changing the zoom factor of the webpage and changing the appearance of the icon itself to reflect the new zoom factor (’736 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:38-42). This provides immediate visual feedback of the current magnification level directly on the control element.
• Technical Importance: The invention aimed to provide a more integrated and intuitive user control for webpage magnification at a time when managing content display size was a significant usability challenge (’736 Patent, col. 3:1-4).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • Presenting to a user an icon shown on a web browser display wherein said icon directly controls a zoom function for webpages displayed in at least an active window.
  • Wherein appearance of the zoom icon indicates a current zoom factor.
  • Wherein a selection of said zoom icon directly causes the web browser to perform both of the following actions:
    • changing zoom factor for one or more selected webpages displayed in said at least an active window; and
    • changing appearance of the zoom icon to indicate the current zoom factor for said one or more selected webpages.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 identifies inefficiencies in conventional web browsing, including the inability to save a complete or pruned list of hyperlinks from a search for future use and the serial, one-at-a-time nature of reviewing webpages (’779 Patent, col. 5:1-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention combines the zoom functionality of the parent patent with a method for "group bookmarking." The method involves loading a plurality of webpages, allowing a user to zoom a selected page without affecting others, and providing a "group bookmark icon" that, when selected, generates and saves a data structure containing the URLs of the plurality of webpages concurrently connected to the browser (’779 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:35-57). This allows for saving entire sessions or search results for later recall.
• Technical Importance: The technology purports to streamline the research process by enabling users to manage and save collections of webpages as a single unit, rather than as individual bookmarks (’779 Patent, col. 7:46-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • A computerized method for operating zoom and group bookmarking functions in a web browser.
  • Loading a plurality of webpages.
  • Receiving a user selection of one webpage and displaying it in an active window.
  • Displaying a zoom icon that indicates a current zoom factor and, upon selection, changes the zoom factor for only the selected webpage and changes its own appearance to reflect the new factor.
  • Displaying a selectable group bookmark icon.
  • Upon selection of the group bookmark icon, generating a group bookmark comprising a data structure storing the URLs of the plurality of webpages and saving it in memory.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are computer devices sold by ASUS, including the ASUS ZenBook, ASUS ProArt Studiobook, ASUS ExpertBook, and ASUS ROG Zephyrus, which come preloaded with the Microsoft Edge internet browser software (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused functionality resides within the preloaded Microsoft Edge software (Compl. ¶14). The relevant functions are the browser's ability to adjust the zoom level of webpages and to save multiple open tabs as a group of favorites (Compl. ¶15). Figure 5 in the complaint depicts a zoom control within a menu in the Microsoft Edge browser. (Compl. Fig. 5, p. 6). Figure 4 of the complaint shows an example of the Microsoft Edge browser's bookmarking function, where multiple open tabs are saved into a "Sports" folder in the "Favorites bar." (Compl. Fig. 4, p. 6). The complaint alleges these products are sold through ASUS's website and various major retailers (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'736 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the zoom control in Microsoft Edge, which is comprised of a menu label ("Zoom"), a percentage readout, and separate "+" and "-" buttons, constitutes an "icon" as that term is used in the patent. The patent specification's figures depict a single, button-like "Zoom" element, which may be argued to be narrower in scope than the accused menu-based control (e.g., ’736 Patent, Fig. 9, element 911).

'779 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The infringement case for the ’779 Patent will depend on whether the sequence of user actions and system responses in Microsoft Edge for zooming and saving tab groups maps onto the specific, ordered steps of Claim 1. The court will need to determine if creating a "Favorites" folder from open tabs is legally equivalent to generating a "group bookmark comprising a data structure" as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "icon" (’736 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

The construction of "icon" is critical to the infringement analysis for both patents. If the term is construed narrowly to mean only a single, integrated graphical object as depicted in the patent's figures, it may not read on the multi-part zoom control (text label, percentage readout, +/- buttons) within a menu in the accused Microsoft Edge browser.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not explicitly define "icon" and uses it in the context of a user interface element that controls a function. A plaintiff may argue that any graphical user interface control that performs the claimed functions meets the definition.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict the "zoom" function as a singular button-like object within a toolbar (’736 Patent, Fig. 9, element 911; Fig. 21). A defendant may argue these embodiments limit the term's scope to such a unitary graphical element, distinguishing it from a menu item.

Term: "group bookmark" (’779 Patent, Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term is the core of the novel feature added by the ’779 Patent. The infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused "Favorites" folder functionality in Microsoft Edge meets the definition of a "group bookmark."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself provides a functional definition: "a data structure storing at least the plurality of uniform resource locators" (’779 Patent, col. 21:5-7). Plaintiff will likely argue that a "Favorites" folder containing multiple URLs fits squarely within this definition. The specification also discusses "bookmarking selected webpages or all the webpages as a list of hyperlinks" (’779 Patent, col. 7:51-53).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may scrutinize the specific steps of "generate" and "save" to argue for a more constrained interpretation than simply creating a folder. However, given the express definition within the claim, a narrow construction may be difficult to support from intrinsic evidence alone.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating ASUS "advising or directing" end-users and providing "instructions that guide users" to use the accused zoom and bookmarking features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶26, ¶44). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused features are not "staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use" (Compl. ¶27, ¶45).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit, forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶28, ¶46). It further alleges willful blindness based on a purported "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" by ASUS (Compl. ¶30, ¶48).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "icon," as used in the patents and depicted in their figures as a unitary toolbar button, be construed to cover the multi-component "Zoom" control located within a drop-down menu in the accused Microsoft Edge browser? The outcome of this claim construction dispute could be dispositive for the infringement analysis of both patents.
• A key question of claim mapping will be whether the combined operation of the per-tab zoom function and the "save all tabs to a favorites folder" feature in Microsoft Edge performs each and every step, in the specified order, of the complex method laid out in Claim 1 of the ’779 patent. While the complaint presents a plausible narrative, the technical and sequential details of the accused functionality will face intense scrutiny.