Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.

Case Overview: Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc. (IPR2023-00341) and Related Litigation

Parties and technology. This matter is formally an inter partes review at the PTAB — captioned Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., IPR2023-00341 (U.S. Patent 9,483,448) — but it is the validity front of a broader patent-infringement fight in which Samesurf, Inc. is the plaintiff and Intuit the defendant (Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL, S.D. Cal.). Intuit Inc. is the Mountain View–based financial-software operating company behind TurboTax, QuickBooks, and related online products. Samesurf, Inc. is a small, Los Angeles/Beverly Hills–based Delaware company (10877 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles) founded by K. David Pirnazar, who is also the named inventor of the '448 patent; it bills itself as the "inventor of modern co-browsing" and, while it developed and marketed the underlying technology, it functions in this dispute as a patent-assertion/licensing entity represented by McKool Smith (Ryan McBeth, Alan Block). Samesurf sued in March 2022 alleging that Intuit's co-browsing features in TurboTax Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Online, QuickBooks Live, Smartlook, and QuickBooks Help infringe three patents, and it alleges Intuit copied the technology after 2015 licensing negotiations in which Samesurf built a TurboTax prototype; Samesurf seeks damages for willful infringement. Only U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448 ("Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real-time, Sharable Browsing Experience on a Host Device"; filed May 20, 2010; issued Nov. 1, 2016) remains at issue. Its claim 1 is a method in which a host device establishes a "synchronized browsing session" through a synchronization server, invites an invitee device with a session identifier, records "sharable" web-browsing interactions, requests webpage content directly from the website server (independent of the synchronization server), and transmits only interaction metadata to the synchronization server so the invitee device independently fetches substantially the same webpage content — a lightweight, bandwidth-efficient architecture (as opposed to a "middleman" server relaying full pages or screen video) that also supports masking sensitive data.

Procedural posture. Intuit filed three coordinated IPR petitions on December 16, 2022 (IPR2023-00339, -00341, and -00342, challenging the '145, '448, and '591 patents), represented by Fenwick & West (Jennifer Bush, Michael Sacksteder, Geoffrey Miller). The PTAB (panel of Administrative Patent Judges Karl D. Easthom, Barbara A. Benoit, and Phillip A. Bennett; Judge Benoit authoring) instituted review of all 16 claims of the '448 patent on June 28, 2023 and, after a March 2024 oral hearing, issued its Final Written Decision on June 25, 2024 (Paper 43), holding that Intuit failed to prove any challenged claim unpatentable over the asserted Lebrun, Prajapat, and Wang prior-art combinations — a "sweeping 3–0" win for Samesurf (PRNewswire cites June 26, 2024; docket records show June 25). The district court (originally before Judge Linda Lopez, later reassigned to Judge Robert S. Huie, with Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner) stayed the infringement case in June 2023 pending the IPRs; after the FWDs — which invalidated the '145 and '591 patents but upheld the '448 — Judge Huie lifted the stay (late 2024), and Samesurf withdrew the invalidated patents. Intuit's Request for Director Review of the '448 FWD (Paper 44, filed July 25, 2024) was denied on August 29, 2024 (per the case record). Intuit appealed the FWD to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 24-2298), which affirmed via Rule 36 judgment on April 7, 2026 (per curiam: Dyk, Chen, Stark), while a companion CAFC appeal (24-2268) produced a May 21, 2026 opinion affirming the '145 invalidation. Back in San Diego, Judge Huie then granted Intuit summary judgment of non-infringement on May 28, 2026, construing "synchronized browsing session" to require the host and invitee to share "substantially the same fully interactive browsing experience" and holding TurboTax's co-browsing falls short — ending the case in Intuit's favor without trial.

Why it matters. This is a notable study in how the same patent family and same prior art can produce divergent PTAB outcomes: the Board found the '145 and '591 claims obvious over Lebrun/Wang yet upheld all 16 claims of the '448 patent, and the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance of that split gives Samesurf a validated "core" patent while its siblings died — a result Samesurf has publicly used to push licensing across the co-browsing/customer-support and "Agentic AI" industries. The venue (San Diego) is significant because Intuit's TurboTax headquarters sits there (7535 Torrey Santa Fe Rd.), supporting personal jurisdiction and giving Samesurf's request for injunctive relief teeth during tax season; the case also spawned satellite disputes, including Intuit's unsuccessful attempt to compel disclosure of Samesurf's litigation-funding arrangements (Bloomberg Law, Dec. 13, 2024, before Magistrate Judge Leshner). Ultimately, the litigation vindicated the patent's validity while leaving Intuit victorious on infringement — a reminder that even a fully validated patent can fail on claim-scope/claim-construction grounds, and that the 2015 pre-suit negotiation narrative plus willfulness theories made this an unusually high-stakes assertion campaign against a marquee operating company.

Sourcing note: The FWD (Paper 43), petition (Paper 2), Director Review request (Paper 44), and CAFC Rule 36 judgment are publicly available via Docket Alarm, USPTO PTAB records, and the Federal Circuit's website; the stay-lift and summary-judgment rulings are summarized via Studicata/VitalLaw (No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2026)) and McKool Smith's and Samesurf's press materials. The August 29, 2024 Director-Review denial date and the institution date rest on the case record as provided; I did not locate a separate public order confirming the denial date.

Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc. — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Preliminary note on the procedural posture

The case metadata you provided (IPR2023-00341, Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc.) is the PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448 — the IPR in which Intuit was the petitioner (hence "plaintiff" in the IPR caption). The underlying patent infringement litigation is the parallel district court action with reversed roles: Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.). Below is the chronological development of that litigation, with the parallel IPRs (IPR2023-00339, -00341, -00342) and their decisive effect on the case.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2022-03-29 — Complaint filed. Samesurf sued Intuit in the Southern District of California (ECF No. 1), alleging infringement of three co-browsing patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,483,448 (the '448 patent, "host device"), 9,185,145 (the '145 patent, "guest device"), and 8,527,591 (the '591 patent, "guest device"). Samesurf asserted specific claim subsets of each patent (e.g., claims 1–4, 6–8, 11–14, 16 of the '448 patent) and accused Intuit's TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Live, Smartlook, and other co-browser-enabled products. (Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 47–49, 87–208; Order Denying Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 27 at 2 (2023-01-10); Order Granting Mot. to Lift Stay, ECF No. 64 (2024-10-07).) The case was initially assigned to Judge Linda Lopez/Magistrate Karen S. Crawford (3:22-cv-00412-LL-KSC) and was later reassigned to Judge Robert S. Huie/Magistrate David D. Leshner (3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL).

Answer/counterclaims. Intuit's formal answer was not located in the public sources reviewed for this summary; the earliest responsive pleading on the record is the § 101 motion to dismiss (below). Intuit's operative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity are documented through that motion and the three IPR petitions, but I cannot confirm specific answer or counterclaim allegations without a PACER docket check.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

2022-05-23 — Intuit's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (§ 101). Intuit moved to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim, arguing all asserted claims of all three patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter (ECF No. 16; hearing set for 2022-06-27). Samesurf opposed on 2022-06-13 (ECF No. 19); Intuit replied on 2022-06-17 (ECF No. 22). (See Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 22, and MTD, ECF No. 16-1.)

2023-01-10 — Motion to dismiss denied. Judge Huie denied the § 101 motion (and Intuit's request for oral argument), holding the asserted claims were directed to patent-eligible subject matter (ECF No. 27). The order is an 18-page Alice/Mayo analysis; Samesurf later cited it in the IPR as a finding that the '448 claims are patent-eligible. (Order Denying Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 27 (2023-01-10); IPR2023-00341 Patent Owner Response at 36.)

2022-12-16 — Three IPR petitions filed. Intuit petitioned for IPR of all claims of all three asserted patents: IPR2023-00339 ('145), IPR2023-00341 ('448), and IPR2023-00342 ('591), relying principally on Lebrun (WO 00/48110) and Wang (US 2005/0033656), with Prajapat (US 2005/0021626) on ground 2 of the '448 IPR. (Lift-Stay Order, ECF No. 64 at 2; IPR2023-00341 papers.)

2023-06-28 — PTAB instituted all three IPRs. (ECF No. 64 at 2.)

2023-06-30 — Stay granted. On the parties' joint motion, the court stayed the district court case pending completion of the IPRs (ECF No. 60). At that point the case was in early discovery — no party depositions noticed, no expert discovery begun. (ECF No. 64 at 3.)

2024-10-07 — Stay lifted. After the IPR final written decisions (below), Samesurf moved to lift the stay (ECF No. 61, filed 2024-08-16); Intuit opposed (ECF No. 62). Judge Huie granted the motion, reasoning that the PTAB decisions had simplified the case (Samesurf agreed to drop the invalidated '145 and '591 patents), that delay was prejudicing Samesurf, and that the pendency of Intuit's IPR appeal did not justify a continued stay (ECF No. 64).

2026-05-28 — Summary judgment of non-infringement (final merits ruling). Intuit moved for summary judgment on the sole remaining patent ('448). Judge Huie granted summary judgment of non-infringement, entered judgment for Intuit, and denied all remaining motions (including Daubert motions) as moot (order at ECF No. 346; decision reported as Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal. May 28, 2026)). The court held that Intuit's co-browsing feature did not satisfy the "synchronized browsing session" limitation as construed: the TurboTax agent could only scroll, point, click-to-highlight, or drag-to-box, while the customer could click links, fill/submit forms, activate dropdowns, watch videos, run searches, and navigate — i.e., the host and invitee devices did not share "substantially the same fully interactive browsing experience." The court also rejected Samesurf's argument that the specification redefined "fully interact" (lexicography argument), relying on Thorner, Luminara Worldwide, and Poly-America. (VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, June 3, 2026; Goodmans IP Blog, July 9, 2026; SJ Order, ECF No. 346.)

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Claim construction order — ECF No. 109 (date not confirmed in public sources; issued after the stay was lifted and before the 2026 SJ ruling). The court construed the key term "synchronized browsing session" as:

"a browsing session administered by the synchronization server in which the host device and the invitee device have substantially the same fully interactive browsing experience in a simultaneous or nearly simultaneous real-time manner." (ECF No. 109 at 18–19, quoted in SJ Order, ECF No. 346.)

The construction was a modified version of the PTAB's IPR construction, incorporating prosecution-history disclaimers Samesurf made during the IPR to distinguish Lebrun/Prajapat. Notably, the court rejected Samesurf's argument that Intuit was bound by the claim-construction positions Intuit took in the IPRs, citing Aylus Networks and Oxygenator Water Techs. The order also addressed "invitee device" and rejected Intuit's indefiniteness challenge to the "recording a shared web browsing interaction" limitation (applying Nautilus/§ 112(b)). In the 2026 SJ order, the court clarified that "substantially the same" modifies both "fully interactive" and "browsing experience" — the interpretation that proved dispositive.

---

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-12-12 — Litigation-funding discovery denied. Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner denied Intuit's motion to compel Samesurf to produce its litigation-funding/financing agreements and related materials — a notable win for Samesurf on a hot-button issue (reported by Bloomberg Law, 2024-12-13).
• Pre-stay posture (2023). At the time of the June 2023 stay, discovery was nascent (no party depositions noticed, no expert discovery), per the court's stay and lift-stay orders (ECF No. 60; ECF No. 64).
• Post-stay expert discovery (2025–2026). After the stay was lifted, the case ran fact and expert discovery on the '448 patent. The record reflects Samesurf's technical expert (Dr. Friedman) submitting an expert report on the "synchronized browsing session" limitation, which the court found insufficient to defeat summary judgment, and competing Daubert motions that were denied as moot after the SJ ruling (ECF No. 346).

---

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

No trial occurred. The case was resolved at summary judgment on 2026-05-28 (ECF No. 346). Because the court granted Intuit's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and entered judgment for Intuit, there was no verdict, no JMOL, no motion for new trial, and no fee award. All remaining motions (including Daubert motions) were denied as moot. (VitalLaw, June 3, 2026.)

---

6. Final disposition / present posture

• 2026-05-28 — Judgment for Intuit on the '448 patent (sole remaining patent). The district court case is closed.
• As of 2026-09-01 (today): I have not confirmed any notice of appeal by Samesurf from the summary judgment; public commentary (Bloomberg Law via Goodmans, July 2026) characterized the SJ ruling as resolving the last of the patent issues between the parties. If Samesurf appeals, it would go to the Federal Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1295.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on the litigation

Intuit's three IPRs were the strategic centerpiece of the defense and drove the entire trajectory of the litigation:

IPR2023-00341 ('448 patent) — Intuit lost, and lost the appeal.

• Petition filed 2022-12-16; instituted 2023-06-28; Patent Owner Response 2023-09-28; Petitioner Reply 2023-12-20; oral hearing early 2024.
• 2024-06-25 — Final Written Decision: claims 1–16 not unpatentable — a "sweeping 3–0 IPR victory" for Samesurf (the Board rejected Intuit's Lebrun/Wang and Prajapat/Wang obviousness grounds, finding Intuit had misapprehended the references).
• 2024-07-25 — Intuit's Request for Director Review (challenging the Board's treatment of limitations 1[c]–1[g]); denied 2024-08-29.
• 2024-09-06 — Intuit appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-2298).
• 2026-04-07 — Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB per Rule 36 (nonprecedential judgment; Dyk, Chen, and Stark) — Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. 24-2298 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 2026).

IPR2023-00339 ('145 patent) and IPR2023-00342 ('591 patent) — Samesurf lost.

• FWDs issued 2024-06-25: all challenged claims of the '145 and '591 patents unpatentable as obvious over Lebrun + Wang.
• Samesurf appealed both; appeals consolidated at the Federal Circuit as Nos. 24-2268 and 24-2269.
• 2026-05-21 — Federal Circuit affirmed, in a Stark-authored opinion (Dyk and Chen joining), upholding the Board's construction of "web browsing interaction data" as "data related to web browsing interactions" (broad enough to cover partial webpages) and the resulting obviousness finding — Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Nos. 24-2268, 24-2269 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2026) (per VitalLaw, noted nonprecedential; also covered by IPWatchdog, May 21, 2026).

Effect on the litigation:

1. Stay (2023-06-30 → 2024-10-07): The IPRs froze the district court case for ~16 months.
2. Claim narrowing: After the FWDs, Samesurf withdrew the invalidated '145 and '591 patents, leaving only the '448 patent — which the PTAB had upheld (ECF No. 64).
3. Claim construction interplay: The district court's Markman order adopted a modified version of the PTAB's '448 construction, incorporating Samesurf's IPR prosecution-history disclaimers — and that construction ultimately drove Intuit's winning summary judgment of non-infringement (ECF No. 109; ECF No. 346).
4. Validity clarity: The Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance (2026-04-07) confirmed the '448 patent's validity over Intuit's challenges, leaving non-infringement as the sole remaining issue — which Intuit then won at summary judgment on 2026-05-28.

---

Bottom line

Samesurf won the validity war at the PTAB on the '448 patent (and on appeal), but lost the infringement case: the '145 and '591 patents were killed in the parallel IPRs, and after the stay was lifted and claim construction resolved the "synchronized browsing session" limitation, Judge Huie granted Intuit summary judgment of non-infringement on 2026-05-28, entering judgment for Intuit on the sole remaining patent. As of 2026-09-01, Intuit has prevailed across the board — no liability, no damages — and the district court case is closed, with no confirmed appeal by Samesurf.

Caveats: (1) Intuit's answer/counterclaims were not located in the public sources reviewed; (2) the exact filing date of the claim-construction order (ECF No. 109) is not confirmed — it postdates the lift of the stay (2024-10-07) and predates the SJ order; (3) no PACER search was run to confirm post-judgment activity (e.g., a possible Samesurf appeal of the SJ judgment, which would have a 60-day deadline running from late May/June 2026).

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff in the Underlying Infringement Action

Framing note (important): The case metadata in this docket (IPR2023-00341) lists "Plaintiff: Intuit Inc." and "Defendant: Samesurf, Inc." — that reflects the IPR caption, where Intuit is the petitioner and Samesurf the patent owner. The patent infringement case referenced in the task is the parallel district court action, Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal., filed Mar. 29, 2022), in which Samesurf, Inc. is the plaintiff and Intuit the defendant. Counsel below is therefore Samesurf's litigation team — McKool Smith, P.C. — which filed the complaint, defended the '448 patent at the PTAB, and handled both Federal Circuit appeals. (I could not access PACER directly to pull the certified attorney-appearance list; the roster below is reconstructed from the complaint signature block, docket exhibits, PTAB papers, CAFC opinions, McKool Smith press releases, Law360, and VitalLaw, and should be treated as accurate as to the lead attorneys and well-documented team members.)

Lead / trial counsel

• Ryan B. McBeth — Lead counsel (principal) — McKool Smith, P.C., Houston, TX (600 Travis St., Suite 7000). The public face of Samesurf's campaign: he is quoted in McKool Smith's March 2022 announcement that the firm filed the Samesurf complaint, became Samesurf's lead counsel in the IPRs (PTAB updated mandatory notice, Mar. 7, 2024, IPR2023-00339 Paper 34), argued the March 27, 2024 IPR oral hearing, and argued for Samesurf (appellee) in the Federal Circuit in No. 24-2298, which affirmed the '448 FWD by Rule 36 on April 7, 2026 (CAFC Rule 36 Judgment: "RYAN B. MCBETH, McKool Smith, PC, Houston, TX, argued for appellee"). He is also the lead name on Samesurf's appeal of the non-infringement summary judgment (CAFC No. 26-2000, docketed July 2, 2026, per Ex Parte's CAFC tracker). Experience: former IBM computer engineer and inventor (U.S. Patent 7,881,826); joined McKool from Bracewell in Jan. 2022; Texas-licensed (pro hac vice in California); Patexia-ranked top patent-owner litigator.

• Alan Peter Block — Lead California / local counsel — McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C. (McKool Smith's Los Angeles office), 300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2900, Los Angeles (CA SBN 143783). He is the California-admitted partner anchoring the S.D. Cal. case (McKool's own press release: "Samesurf is represented by Ryan McBeth and Alan Block of McKool Smith"). He argued Samesurf's appeal in CAFC Nos. 24-2268/24-2269 (the '145 patent invalidation affirmance, May 21, 2026, per the opinion: "ALAN PETER BLOCK, McKool Smith, P.C., Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant"), and is named as part of the team on the '448 IPR win. Experience: veteran California patent trial lawyer; formerly of Hennigan Bennett & Dorman (the firm McKool Smith combined with to form McKool Smith Hennigan).

Supporting team (well-documented in this matter)

• Archis (Neil) V. Ozarkar — Backup counsel — McKool Smith, Houston (Reg. No. 71,265). Backup counsel for Samesurf in all three IPRs and "also represented by" counsel at the CAFC in both Nos. 24-2298 and 24-2268/69; named in McKool Smith's PTAB-win press release.

• Scott W. Hejny — Backup counsel (former lead in IPRs) — McKool Smith, Dallas (300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500; Reg. No. 45,882). Signed Samesurf's PTAB powers of attorney and was IPR lead counsel until McBeth took over as lead in March 2024; named in the firm's IPR-win press release.

• Saif M. Askar — Counsel (pro hac vice in the IPRs) — McKool Smith, Houston. Admitted pro hac vice before the PTAB (Patent Owner's Motion for PHV Admission, IPR2023-00342, Paper 7, Mar. 9, 2023), which states he "represents Samesurf as counsel" in the parallel S.D. Cal. case; appeared with McBeth at the March 27, 2024 IPR oral hearing.

• Steven Pollinger — Counsel — McKool Smith, Austin, TX. "Also represented by" counsel at the CAFC in Nos. 24-2298 and 24-2268/69 ("STEVEN POLLINGER, Austin, TX"); named in the IPR-win press release.

• Adam D. Skrzecz — Associate — McKool Smith, Houston. Appears on Law360's case-participation list for Samesurf v. Intuit (S.D. Cal., filed Mar. 29, 2022) and is identified by VitalLaw/IP Law Daily (June 3, 2026) as counsel for Samesurf on the summary-judgment phase: "Adam Skrzecz (McKool Smith) for the Samesurf, Inc."

• Ashley N. Moore — Associate — McKool Smith, Dallas. Signed the complaint-style signature block on Samesurf filings (TX SBN 24074748, "pro hac vice application forthcoming"), indicating docket appearance in the California action.

Other counsel observed (IPR-specific, not district-court counsel of record)

• Bernard Tomsa — Brooks Kushman P.C. Appeared at the March 27, 2024 IPR hearing as "Amendment Counsel" for Samesurf; his role was confined to the PTAB proceedings (amendments were at issue), not the infringement case.

In-house counsel

• None identified. Samesurf is a small Los Angeles–based company; its founder and CEO, K. David Pirnazar (also the named inventor of the '448 patent), attended the IPR oral hearing as a company representative, but no in-house attorney appears in the filings.

Sourcing caveat

The complaint in 3:22-cv-00412 (ECF No. 1) and subsequent docket appearances were not directly verifiable from PACER in this analysis; the McBeth/Block lead pairing is confirmed by McKool Smith's own March 2022 press release and the CAFC opinions, and Skrzecz's appearance is confirmed by Law360's docket feed and VitalLaw's June 2026 report. If you need the certified list of every attorney who filed a notice of appearance in the S.D. Cal. docket (including any later-added McKool Smith associates), that should be pulled from PACER/ECF for 3:22-cv-00412 — I did not find evidence of any non-McKool Smith outside or local counsel for Samesurf in this case.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Intuit Inc.

A threshold clarification: the case metadata is the PTAB IPR (IPR2023-00341), but the "patent infringement case" referred to here is the underlying district court action, Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.), in which Intuit Inc. is the defendant (and the IPR petitioner). Intuit is represented throughout by Fenwick & West LLP. The plaintiff Samesurf is represented by McKool Smith (Ryan B. McBeth, Alan P. Block, Adam Skrzecz, et al.) — included only to avoid confusion.

Confirmed district court counsel of record (Intuit)

Michael J. Sacksteder — Lead counsel

• Firm/office: Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco (555 California St., 12th Floor).
• Role: Principal district court attorney of record for Intuit and Intuit's lead/arguing counsel on appeal. He signed Intuit's S.D. Cal. pleadings — including the unopposed extension motion (ECF No. 12), the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and reply (ECF Nos. 16, 16-1, 22), and the corporate disclosure statement (ECF No. 17) — with the signature block "Attorneys for Defendant INTUIT INC." He also argued Intuit's appeals of the PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit (Nos. 24-2298, affirmed by Rule 36 judgment Apr. 7, 2026; and 24-2268/24-2269, decided May 21, 2026), and served as pro hac vice backup counsel in the IPRs.
• Experience note: Fenwick IP litigation partner with substantial patent-trial and Federal Circuit practice; argued the '448 and '145/'591 appeals before Judges Dyk, Chen, and Stark.

Daniel Ledesma — District court team member (Fenwick, Mountain View)

• Firm/office: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View (801 California St.).
• Role: Identified in the legal press as counsel for Intuit at the summary-judgment stage (VitalLaw, June 3, 2026: "Daniel Ledesma (Fenwick & West LLP) for Intuit, Inc." in connection with the May 28, 2026 SJ order), and he represents Intuit in the pending Federal Circuit appeal from the district court judgment, Samesurf Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 26-2000 (Fed. Cir., filed July 2, 2026, per the CAFC docket). He was also pro hac vice backup counsel in the three IPRs.
• Experience note: Fenwick IP litigator working across district court, PTAB, and Federal Circuit phases of this dispute.

Fenwick & West IPR/coordinated-defense team (overlapping with the district court defense)

Jennifer R. Bush — Lead IPR counsel

• Firm/office: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View.
• Role: Designated lead counsel for Intuit in the IPRs (Power of Attorney dated Nov. 28, 2022; Reg. No. 50,784); signed the substantive IPR filings (e.g., Motion to Exclude, Paper 34, and Reply, Paper 38) and appeared at the March 2024 oral hearing. She is part of the same coordinated team that defended the district court case, though her separate S.D. Cal. appearance is not independently confirmed in the sources I reviewed.

Geoffrey R. Miller — Backup IPR/appellate counsel

• Firm/office: Fenwick & West LLP, New York, NY.
• Role: Pro hac vice backup counsel in the IPRs; appeared at the oral hearing; also counsel on the CAFC appeals (24-2298 and 24-2268/69). District court appearance not independently confirmed.

Christopher L. Larson — Backup IPR counsel

• Firm/office: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View (Reg. No. 68,243).
• Role: Backup counsel on the IPR powers of attorney and filings. District court appearance not independently confirmed.

Federal Circuit-only counsel (Intuit, not confirmed as S.D. Cal. counsel of record)

• Payam Ahmadi and Shannon Turner (Fenwick & West, San Francisco) and Jonathan G. Tamimi (Fenwick & West, Seattle) — listed on Intuit's Federal Circuit briefs in Nos. 24-2298 and 24-2268/69 (per the CAFC judgments). No indication they appeared in the district court itself.

Local counsel / in-house

• Local counsel: None identified. Fenwick's San Francisco and Mountain View attorneys are California-licensed, so no pro hac vice admissions or separate San Diego local counsel were needed; the early S.D. Cal. docket shows Intuit's filings signed directly by Fenwick (Sacksteder). The only pro hac vice applications on the early docket were Samesurf's McKool Smith attorneys (McBeth, Moore; a Menist application was denied, ECF No. 15).
• In-house: No Intuit in-house attorney appears as counsel of record in the sources reviewed; the matter was run by outside counsel at Fenwick.

Sourcing caveats

• I relied on the public S.D. Cal. docket (Justia, Docket No. 730060), Fenwick-signature exhibits filed in IPR2023-00341 (district court ECF Nos. 12, 16-1, 18, 22, 27), the CAFC Rule 36 judgment in No. 24-2298 (Apr. 7, 2026), the CAFC opinion in Nos. 24-2268/69 (May 21, 2026), the CAFC docket for No. 26-2000 (via Ex Parte), and VitalLaw's June 3, 2026 IP Law Daily report. I could not access PACER directly, so the definitive "attorneys" roster on the S.D. Cal. docket (which would also capture any later-added associates) was not fully retrieved.
• The firm-level representation is certain (Fenwick & West for Intuit); the specific district court appearances of Bush, Miller, and Larson are inferred from their roles as the IPR team rather than independently confirmed on the district court docket.