Amy Samberg

I'll research this attorney before drafting the summary.

The initial results point to a different attorney (an insurance defense lawyer). Let me search more specifically.

Now let me find her specific role at Intuit and any professional profile.

Amy Samberg — patent litigation profile

Focus areas. The tracked record for Amy Samberg is thin: a single appearance, as in-house counsel for Intuit Inc. in Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc. (S.D. Cal. No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL). That case concerned software/cloud technology — specifically "co-browsing" and synchronized web browsing features accused in Intuit's TurboTax Live, TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Live, and QuickBooks Online products. Any broader technology portfolio (standards, pharma, mechanical, etc.) is not established by the available data, and I found no web-searchable practice description for her.

Side preference. Her one tracked appearance is on the defendant side (0 plaintiff-side, 1 defendant-side), consistent with a role defending an operating company rather than prosecuting claims for NPEs/PAEs. The tracked role designation is in-house counsel, which typically means managing rather than briefing the litigation; outside counsel of record for Intuit in the district court and PTAB matters was Fenwick & West (Michael J. Sacksteder, Jennifer R. Bush, Geoffrey R. Miller, and colleagues).

Firm context. Based on the tracked appearance, she is/was in-house at Intuit Inc. I could not verify her current employer, prior firms, bar admissions, or education from reliable sources; searches for a professional profile tied to Intuit returned no results. Note a naming caution: a different attorney, Amy M. Samberg (Arizona State B.S. 1988; University of Arizona J.D. 1991), practices insurance coverage and bad-faith defense in Arizona/Nevada/Colorado (Snell & Wilmer, Foran Glennon, Clyde & Co) — that is a separate individual, not a patent litigator, and none of those credentials should be attributed here.

Notable case and outcome. Samesurf v. Intuit is the whole of the tracked record and it resolved in Intuit's favor across forums. Samesurf asserted three patents ('448, '145, '591) over co-browsing. Intuit petitioned for IPR; the PTAB found all claims of the '145 patent obvious over Lebrun in view of Wang (and invalidated the other asserted patent), and the Federal Circuit affirmed on May 21, 2026 (Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Nos. 2024-2268/-2269, nonprecedential), also affirming via Rule 36 in No. 2024-2298 (Apr. 7, 2026). The PTAB upheld the '448 patent, but on May 28, 2026 the district court granted Intuit summary judgment of non-infringement as to '448, disposing of the last remaining patent.

PTAB / IPR experience. The matter she is associated with involved multiple IPR proceedings (IPR2023-00339, -00341, -00342) and two Federal Circuit appeals arising from them, so she has been in-house counsel on a case with substantial PTAB activity. I found no evidence of her personally appearing as counsel of record in any IPR or PGR proceeding.

Bar / education. Not reliably sourced for this individual; omitted.