Background
Samesurf, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448, which covers technology enabling multiple users to simultaneously browse and interact with identical online content through a synchronization server. The patent, which expires in May 2030, describes a system where a centralization server manages shared browsing sessions so that participants see and can interact with the same web pages in real time.
Samesurf sued Intuit in 2022, alleging that Intuit’s TurboTax Online and TurboTax Live products infringed the ‘448 patent through their co-browsing features — tools that allow Intuit’s tax experts to view and interact with a customer’s TurboTax session during live assistance calls. Intuit moved for summary judgment of noninfringement.
The case is part of a broader multi-front patent dispute between the parties. In parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a different Samesurf patent — U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145 — was found unpatentable as obvious, a decision the Federal Circuit affirmed on May 21, 2026. The ‘448 patent at issue here, however, survived its own IPR challenge and was validated by the PTAB.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Huie granted Intuit’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that Intuit’s co-browsing implementation in TurboTax does not meet the claim limitations of the ‘448 patent.
The ruling turned on claim construction — specifically, how the patent’s claims describe the interaction between a synchronization server and client devices during a shared browsing session. The court found that Intuit’s system operates in a fundamentally different manner from the patented architecture, such that no reasonable jury could find infringement. With the noninfringement finding, the court dismissed all remaining pending motions as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Surviving IPR does not guarantee infringement. Even though the ‘448 patent was validated by the PTAB and survived inter partes review, the district court independently found that the accused product does not infringe the patent’s claims. Patent validity and infringement are separate inquiries.
- Claim construction remains decisive. The ruling reinforces that summary judgment of noninfringement often hinges on how broadly or narrowly claim terms are construed — and that a claim construction favorable to the patentee on validity does not automatically capture all competing implementations.
- Multi-front patent litigation carries risk. Samesurf fought on multiple fronts (district court, PTAB, and Federal Circuit) with different patents, ultimately losing both the validity challenge on one patent and the infringement claim on the other.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for companies deploying co-browsing and screen-sharing features in customer support and collaboration tools. The ruling suggests that not every synchronized browsing implementation will fall within the scope of Samesurf’s patent portfolio, even when the underlying patents are upheld as valid.
The case also illustrates the strategic complexity of patent litigation involving multiple patents across multiple forums. Samesurf’s ‘448 patent survived IPR — a significant achievement — but that victory proved hollow when the district court found no infringement. For patent holders, this serves as a reminder that winning on validity is only half the battle; the accused product must actually practice the claimed invention.