Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc.
Patentability filed 28 Aug 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 21 May 2026, with US9185145B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9185145B2
- Application no.
- US13/951789
- Case no.
- 24-2268
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Aug 2024 – 21 May 2026
- Duration
- 631 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Method and apparatus for the implementation of a real-time, sharable browsing experience on a guest device
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Method and apparatus for the implementation of a real-time, sharable browsing experience on a guest device
The present invention describes a method and apparatus for the implementation of a real-time, sharable web browsing experience on a guest device, utilizing the transfer of URL and form data information. The present invention further describes a method for joining a synchronized browsing session administered by a synchronization server, comprising activating a hyperlink associated with the synchronized browsing session, sending a request to join the synchronized browsing session to the synchronization server in response to the activation of the hyperlink, and joining the synchronized browsing session. The present invention further describes a method for implementing a synchronized browsing session, comprising receiving information related to a shared web browsing interaction performed by a host device from a synchronization server, and performing the shared web browsing interaction based on the information received from the synchronization server.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Nov 2015
- Est. expiry
- 14 Dec 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2023-00339 · Patentability · filed by INTUIT INC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PIRNAZAR, KAMBIZ DAVID
- Classification
- G06F15/16G06F17/30H04L12/58H04L29/06
- Prosecution counsel
- Jafari Law Group, Inc.
- Examiner
- CHANG, JUNGWON
Parties of record
Samesurf, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F15/16G06F17/30H04L12/58H04L29/06
- Counsel
- Alan Peter Block · Archis Vasant Ozarkar · Ryan B. McBeth · Steven Pollinger
- Firm
- McKool Smith PC
Intuit, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Geoffrey Robert Miller · Jonathan G. Tamimi · Michael John Sacksteder · Payam Ahmadi · Shannon Turner
- Firm
- Fenwick & West, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Peter Block | Samesurf, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Archis Vasant Ozarkar | Samesurf, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Ryan B. McBeth | Samesurf, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Steven Pollinger | Samesurf, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Geoffrey Robert Miller | Intuit, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jonathan G. Tamimi | Intuit, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael John Sacksteder | Intuit, Inc. | Defendant |
| Payam Ahmadi | Intuit, Inc. | Defendant |
| Shannon Turner | Intuit, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“We have considered Samesurf’s remaining arguments and find they lack merit. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we agree with the Board’s construction of the disputed term and, thus, its conclusion that all claims of the ’145 patent are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED”
Case 24-2268 · Fed. Cir. · closed 21 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 24-2268?
24-2268 is a patent patentability brought by Samesurf, Inc. against Intuit, Inc., filed on 28 Aug 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 21 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 24-2268?
US9185145B2 (“Method and apparatus for the implementation of a real-time, sharable browsing experience on a guest device”), assigned to SAMESURF, INC., currently active. The record also lists Method and apparatus for the implementation of a real-time, sharable browsing experience on a guest device.
How was case 24-2268 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “We have considered Samesurf’s remaining arguments and find they lack merit. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, we agree with the Board’s construction of the disputed term and, thus, its conclusion that all claims of the ’145 patent are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED”
How long did case 24-2268 take?
631 calendar days, from filing on 28 Aug 2024 to closure on 21 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-2268?
Alan Peter Block, Archis Vasant Ozarkar, Ryan B. McBeth and Steven Pollinger are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Samesurf. Geoffrey Robert Miller, Jonathan G. Tamimi, Michael John Sacksteder, Payam Ahmadi and Shannon Turner appear for defendant Intuit.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-2268 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.