Intuit v. SameSurf (24-2298): Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability
Intuit challenged SameSurf's US9483448B2 — covering a method and apparatus for real-time, sharable browsing on a host device — and the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability finding in a Rule 36 judgment. The appeal ran for 574 days before closing on 7 April 2026.
Federal Circuit locks in unpatentability of SameSurf's shared browsing patent
Intuit, Inc. brought this appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-2298), filed 10 September 2024 and closed 7 April 2026. The case concerned US9483448B2, a patent held by SAMESURF, INC. directed to a method and apparatus for implementing a real-time, sharable browsing experience on a host device. The underlying proceeding involved a patentability challenge — an invalidity or cancellation action — against that patent.
The Federal Circuit issued a one-line Rule 36 affirmance: 'AFFIRMED.' The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable,' confirming the lower tribunal's finding that the challenged claims of US9483448B2 do not satisfy patentability requirements. Rule 36 affirmances signal that the court found no reversible error warranting a written opinion, leaving the unpatentability determination fully intact.
The 574-day duration is consistent with a standard Federal Circuit appellate review cycle. A Rule 36 judgment forecloses further development of the legal record on this patent, meaning the specific reasoning behind the unpatentability finding remains with the lower tribunal's decision. No further terms are disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Unpatentable in 574 days
574 days from filing to Federal Circuit close — consistent with standard appellate review timelines
US9483448B2 — Real-time sharable browsing on a host device
US9483448B2 has been adjudicated unpatentable and is no longer enforceable as challenged. However, product and R&D teams developing real-time co-browsing, remote session sharing, or collaborative browser-based tools should not rely solely on this outcome as freedom-to-operate assurance. SameSurf may hold related patents or pending applications covering adjacent claim scope, and the Rule 36 affirmance produces no written claim construction guidance that can be used to define safe design-around boundaries.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's one-line order — 'AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.' — is a summary disposition under which the court adopts the lower tribunal's unpatentability finding without elaboration. Rule 36 affirmances are reserved for cases where the panel finds no reversible error and no precedential value in a written opinion. For both parties, this means the unpatentability of US9483448B2 is final at the appellate level, with the detailed legal reasoning residing solely in the record below.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: no reversible error found
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance is a summary judgment that adopts the lower tribunal's decision without a written opinion. It signals the appellate panel found no reversible error in the reasoning or outcome below. For US9483448B2, this means the unpatentability determination is final at this appellate level, with no new legal reasoning added to the public record.
Unpatentability upheldSameSurf loses enforceability of its shared browsing patent
With the unpatentability finding affirmed, SAMESURF, INC. can no longer enforce US9483448B2 as it stood challenged. The patent's claims have been adjudicated unpatentable, eliminating it as an assertion vehicle against Intuit or, by extension, other parties operating in the real-time co-browsing and screen-sharing technology space. Further appellate options at this level are exhausted.
Patent invalidatedIntuit secures a clean freedom-to-operate signal
Intuit, represented by Fenwick & West LLP, successfully defended the unpatentability finding on appeal. The affirmance removes the threat of US9483448B2 being enforced against Intuit's products and services. Given that the patent covered real-time sharable browsing on a host device — technology relevant to Intuit's collaborative and screen-sharing product features — the outcome carries direct commercial relevance.
Challenger prevailsCo-browsing patent landscape: one fewer assertion risk
The affirmance strengthens the precedent that this category of real-time shared browsing claims is vulnerable to patentability challenge. Companies operating in co-browsing, remote assistance, and collaborative web session technology should note that US9483448B2 is no longer an active enforcement risk. The Rule 36 disposition, however, produces no written guidance on claim construction or prior art scope.
Reduced assertion riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intuit, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SAMESURF, INC. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Geoffrey Robert Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Intuit, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan G. Tamimi | Attorney | Counsel for Intuit, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael John Sacksteder | Attorney | Counsel for Intuit, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Payam Ahmadi | Attorney | Counsel for Intuit, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shannon Turner | Attorney | Counsel for Intuit, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Intuit, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan Peter Block | Attorney | Counsel for SAMESURF, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Archis Vasant Ozarkar | Attorney | Counsel for SAMESURF, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan B. McBeth | Attorney | Counsel for SAMESURF, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Pollinger | Attorney | Counsel for SAMESURF, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McKool Smith PC | Law Firm | Representing SAMESURF, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the real-time co-browsing and collaborative session space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Intuit v. SameSurf dispute — tracking portfolio activity, technology trends, and white space in shared browsing and remote session technology.
SameSurf's active IP position in shared browsing
With US9483448B2 now invalidated, assessing whether SameSurf holds continuation patents, related applications, or divisionals in the real-time browsing session space is a priority for any company in this domain. Portfolio mapping can reveal residual assertion risk or signal whether SameSurf is actively prosecuting next-generation co-browsing claims.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in real-time co-browsing and collaborative session tech
The co-browsing and remote session sharing space — covering host-device browser synchronisation, real-time collaboration overlays, and shared navigation — has seen sustained filing activity across fintech, SaaS, and customer support sectors. Tracking claim-level trends here helps R&D teams anticipate where the next assertion vectors are forming.
Filing trendIntuit's patent activity in collaborative and screen-sharing features
Intuit's successful challenge of US9483448B2 suggests co-browsing and real-time collaboration capabilities are strategically important to its product roadmap. Examining Intuit's own filing activity in remote session, co-browsing, and collaborative interface technology can surface both defensive and offensive IP signals relevant to fintech and SaaS competitors.
Competitor watchDesign-around opportunities near invalidated US9483448B2 claims
The invalidation of US9483448B2 — a method and apparatus claim covering real-time sharable browsing on a host device — leaves adjacent claim space potentially open. R&D teams can use the prior art and claim scope established in the underlying cancellation proceeding to identify novel architectural approaches to shared browsing that are both differentiated and more robustly patentable.
White spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent invalidity appeals in collaborative tech
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving patentability challenges to co-browsing, real-time session sharing, and collaborative web technology patents.
What this case signals for the co-browsing and collaborative tech IP landscape
The Federal Circuit's affirmance closes a significant assertion vector in real-time shared browsing — but raises wider questions for the sector.
Co-browsing patent claims face elevated invalidity risk at the Federal Circuit
The unpatentability of US9483448B2, affirmed without written opinion, suggests the asserted claims lacked sufficient novelty or non-obviousness. Companies in remote collaboration, screen-sharing, and co-browsing spaces should audit their own product exposure against similarly structured patents that may still be active.
Rule 36 dispositions limit the public legal record — monitor the lower tribunal's reasoning
Because the Federal Circuit issued no written opinion, the full basis for unpatentability rests in the lower tribunal's decision. IP teams tracking this space should retrieve and analyse that underlying record for claim-by-claim invalidity reasoning before drawing broader FTO conclusions.
Intuit v SAMESURF — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of SameSurf's US9483448B2 in a Rule 36 judgment issued 7 April 2026. The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable,' confirming the lower tribunal's finding. No written opinion was produced; the affirmance adopts the lower decision without elaboration.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the lower tribunal's unpatentability finding and saw no precedential value in issuing a written opinion. For US9483448B2, it means the patent's challenged claims are definitively unpatentable at the appellate level, with detailed legal reasoning residing solely in the lower tribunal's record.
US9483448B2 (application no. US14/830710), held by SAMESURF, INC., covers a method and apparatus for implementing a real-time, sharable browsing experience on a host device. This technology is relevant to co-browsing, remote session sharing, and collaborative web navigation features used across fintech, SaaS, and customer-support platforms.
The ruling specifically invalidates US9483448B2. Whether SameSurf holds other active patents, pending continuations, or related applications in the co-browsing or shared session space is not addressed by this case record. Companies in this technology area should conduct a full portfolio analysis of SameSurf's IP holdings to assess residual risk.
Intuit was represented by Fenwick & West LLP, with attorneys including Geoffrey Robert Miller, Jonathan G. Tamimi, Michael John Sacksteder, Payam Ahmadi, and Shannon Turner. SAMESURF, INC. was represented by McKool Smith PC, with attorneys Alan Peter Block, Archis Vasant Ozarkar, Ryan B. McBeth, and Steven Pollinger.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.