Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.

Samesurf, Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against Intuit Inc. The plaintiff, Samesurf, Inc., is a technology company based in Los Angeles, founded in 2009, that specializes in real-time visual engagement and co-browsing technology for sales, support, and collaboration, describing itself as the inventor of modern co-browsing and a pioneer in Agentic AI. Samesurf offers a platform that enables multiple remote users to share online experiences in real time across any device or browser, incorporating security features like in-page control passing and redaction of sensitive screen elements. The defendant, Intuit Inc., is an American multinational business software company headquartered in Mountain View, California, known for financial software products such as TurboTax, QuickBooks, Credit Karma, and Mailchimp.

The lawsuit alleged that Intuit infringed Samesurf's patented co-browsing technology by integrating it into various Intuit products, including TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Live, and Smartlook. Samesurf claimed that Intuit misappropriated its technology after engaging in licensing discussions in 2015, during which Samesurf created a prototype for Intuit's TurboTax platform. While the provided case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 8457145 as the patent at issue, court documents and the subsequent Federal Circuit decision consistently refer to U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145 (the '145 patent), along with 9,483,448 and 8,527,591, as the patents-in-suit. Specifically, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) finding that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145 are unpatentable for obviousness. This patent is titled "Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real-Time, Sharable Browsing Experience on a Guest Device" and generally relates to a system where a guest device can join a synchronized browsing session administered by a synchronization server, receiving web browsing interaction data to independently access a website.

The litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Case number 3:22-cv-00412, filed 2022-03-29). Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner and Judge Robert S. Huie were involved in various stages of the proceedings, including motions and scheduling. This venue, located in a prominent technology hub, frequently handles complex patent litigation. The case is notable for its direct linkage to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB, which ultimately led to the invalidation of the asserted patent claims, and the subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This IPR linkage and Federal Circuit affirmation underscore the significant impact of post-grant review processes on the enforceability of patents in infringement suits, particularly for technology companies like Samesurf asserting their intellectual property against larger corporations like Intuit.

The patent infringement litigation Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., case number 3:22-cv-00412, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, involved U.S. Patent Nos. 9,483,448 (the '448 Patent), 9,185,145 (the '145 Patent), and 8,527,591 (the '591 Patent). The case ultimately concluded with the invalidation of the '145 patent by the Federal Circuit and a summary judgment of non-infringement for the '448 patent in the district court.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

• 2022-03-29: Complaint Filed
  Samesurf, Inc. filed a complaint against Intuit Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,483,448, 9,185,145, and 8,527,591. Samesurf claimed Intuit incorporated its patented co-browsing technology into products like TurboTax Online, QuickBooks Online, TurboTax Live, QuickBooks Live, and Smartlook, after prior business negotiations failed to materialize. The complaint included a demand for a jury trial.

• 2022-05-23: Intuit Files Motion to Dismiss
  Intuit filed a motion to dismiss Samesurf's complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

• 2022-12-16: Intuit Files IPR Petitions
  Intuit filed three Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging all claims in the asserted patents: IPR2023-00339 (for the '448 patent), IPR2023-00341 (for the '145 patent), and IPR2023-00342 (for the '591 patent).

• 2023-01-10: Motion to Dismiss Denied
  The District Court denied Intuit's motion to dismiss the complaint, which was based on arguments that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

• 2023-01-24: Intuit Files Answer
  Intuit filed its answer to Samesurf's complaint.

• 2023-03-13: Scheduling Order Issued
  The Court issued a scheduling order for the action.

• 2023-06-28: PTAB Institutes IPR Proceedings
  The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings for all three petitions filed by Intuit, challenging all claims of the '448, '145, and '591 patents.

• 2023-06-30: Case Stayed Pending IPR
  The District Court granted the parties' joint motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings at the PTAB. At this time, the case was in the early stages of discovery.

• 2024-06-25: PTAB Issues Final Written Decisions (FWDs)
  The PTAB issued Final Written Decisions (FWDs) for the IPR petitions. The PTAB found claims 1-16 of the '448 Patent not unpatentable. However, the PTAB found all claims of the '145 Patent and the '591 Patent to be unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

• 2024-07-25: Intuit Requests Director Review for '448 Patent FWD
  Intuit filed a request for Director Review of the PTAB's FWD regarding the '448 Patent.

• 2024-08-16: Samesurf Files Motion to Lift Stay
  Samesurf filed a motion to lift the stay in the district court action. In light of the PTAB's decisions, Samesurf agreed to withdraw the '145 and '591 Patents from the action once the stay was lifted.

• 2024-08-29: Director Review for '448 Patent Denied
  Intuit's request for Director Review of the '448 Patent FWD was denied.

• 2024-09-06: Intuit Appeals '145 Patent FWD to Federal Circuit
  Intuit filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the PTAB's FWD on the '145 patent (specifically, appealing the aspects that upheld some claims or related to claim construction that could affect future infringement allegations). Note: While the provided case summary states Intuit appealed the finding of unpatentability, the search results indicate Intuit appealed aspects related to the '448 patent, and Samesurf appealed the unpatentability of the '145 patent. However, the Federal Circuit decision on May 21, 2026, explicitly states Samesurf was the appellant regarding the '145 patent, challenging the PTAB's unpatentability determination.

• 2024-10-07: Motion to Lift Stay Granted
  The District Court granted Samesurf's motion to lift the stay, allowing the case to proceed with respect to the '448 patent.

• 2024-10-23: Amended Scheduling Order Issued
  The Court issued an amended scheduling order, and set deadlines for various discovery and claim construction related activities, including invalidity contentions, preliminary and responsive claim constructions, and a joint claim construction chart.

• 2024-12-04: Motion to Compel Regarding Litigation Funding
  Intuit filed a motion to compel discovery regarding individuals or entities with a financial interest in the litigation's outcome. The Court granted the motion, ordering Samesurf to identify such persons or entities by December 12, 2024, and to submit any litigation funding agreements for in camera review.

• 2025-05-02: Claim Construction Order (Markman) Issued for '448 Patent
  The Court issued a claim construction order, construing the disputed claim terms from the '448 Patent.

• 2026-02-20: Intuit Files Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement for '448 Patent
  Intuit filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement regarding the remaining asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448.

• 2026-03-20: Samesurf Opposes Summary Judgment Motion
  Samesurf filed its response in opposition to Intuit's motion for summary judgment.

• 2026-05-21: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision for '145 Patent
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's final written decision, finding all claims of Samesurf's U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145 unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit agreed with the PTAB's construction of the term "web browsing interaction data" and concluded that the record supported the obviousness determination. This decision effectively invalidated the '145 patent.

• 2026-05-28: Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Granted for '448 Patent
  The District Court granted Intuit's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for the '448 patent. This order also denied as moot the parties' Daubert motions, motions in limine, and motions for potential trial dates, effectively concluding the district court litigation.

Outcome:
The case concluded with the invalidation of U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145 (the '145 patent) by the Federal Circuit, affirming the PTAB's finding of obviousness. In parallel, the district court granted Intuit's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for U.S. Patent No. 9,483,448 (the '448 patent), which was the only remaining patent in the district court action after Samesurf withdrew the '145 and '591 patents due to the PTAB's earlier decisions. This led to the termination of the district court case on May 21, 2026.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Samesurf, Inc., in Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., based on available information:

• Alan P. Block

  • Role: Counsel (filed the initial complaint).
  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C., Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Block is an experienced intellectual property litigator, particularly in patent litigation, and has discussed pre-filing considerations in patent litigation. He is recognized as a Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation.

• Ashley N. Moore

  • Role: Counsel (requested to appear Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Moore is a trial attorney specializing in intellectual property disputes, including patent, licensing, and trade secret matters. She has been recognized as a "Leading Lawyer in Patent Litigation" by The Legal 500 and Best Lawyers in America, and has experience with PTAB proceedings.

• Ryan McBeth

  • Role: Counsel (requested to appear Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C., Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. McBeth is a Principal focusing on complex commercial and technology-related litigation, including patent, trade secret, and trademark disputes. He has worked on cases involving various technologies and handles appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Inter Partes Review proceedings. He previously worked as a computer engineer at IBM and is an inventor on a U.S. patent.

All identified attorneys are from McKool Smith P.C., indicating that this firm primarily represented Samesurf, Inc. in the district court proceedings. While Alan P. Block filed the initial complaint, and Ashley Moore and Ryan McBeth requested pro hac vice appearances, specific designations such as "lead counsel" or "local counsel" were not definitively established through web search, beyond their general roles as counsel involved in the litigation. There is no information from the provided searches to suggest in-house counsel for Samesurf, Inc. in this context.

I'll research Intuit's counsel of record in this case using multiple targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the district court docket and confirm each attorney's role.

Let me verify a few specific leads: the pro hac vice applicant whose application was denied, Mintz Levin's involvement, and the docket's counsel entries.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Intuit Inc.

Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., No. 3:22-cv-00412-RSH-DDL (S.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: Intuit was represented throughout by Fenwick & West LLP, with Michael J. Sacksteder as the principal district-court attorney of record and Jennifer R. Bush as the registered lead counsel in the parallel IPRs. I found no San Diego local counsel of record and no Intuit in-house counsel appearing on the docket. Note one correction to the prior sections: the metadata's "Patent 8457145" is a typo — the patents actually at issue are the '448, '145 and '591 patents (the prior sections already flagged this), so counsel identification below is keyed to the real case, not the erroneous number.

---

1. District Court (S.D. Cal.) — counsel of record for Intuit

Evidence: The Justia docket for the case shows an April 2022 entry "Attorney Michael J Sacksteder added to party Intuit, Inc." (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3:2022cv00412/[730060](/patent/730060)). Intuit's motion to dismiss and reply were both filed over Fenwick & West's name with Sacksteder's signature block (reproduced as exhibits in the IPRs: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00341/Intuit_Inc._v._Samesurf_Inc/docs/01-31-2024-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2006-Defs_Notice_of_Motion_and_Motion_to_Dismiss_Pursuant_to_Rule_12b6.pdf). The final merits ruling (ECF 346, 5/28/2026) is reported with Ledesma as Intuit's attorney (https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-s-d-cal-surviving-claims-in-web-collaboration-technology-infringement-lawsuit-succumb-to-summary-judgment-challenge/ipm0118fcfe9549d74d6e8531b84e2485970d).

The case was reassigned over time (Judge Linda Lopez → Judge Robert S. Huie, with Magistrate Judge David D. Leshner and previously Karen S. Crawford), so early filings bear the "LL-KSC" suffix and later ones "RSH-DDL."

2. PTAB / IPR counsel (IPR2023-00339, -00341, -00342)

Per Intuit's Power of Attorney dated 11/28/2022 (filed 12/16/2022), all of Intuit's IPR counsel are Fenwick & West, 801 California Street, Mountain View, CA:

• Jennifer R. Bush (Reg. No. 50,784) — Lead counsel, all three IPRs; registered practitioner.
• Michael J. Sacksteder — backup counsel (admitted pro hac vice in the IPRs; his own PHV motion describes him as a Fenwick partner with 25+ years of patent litigation and a member of the California bar).
• Geoffrey R. Miller — backup counsel.
• Daniel Ledesma — backup counsel.
• Christopher L. Larson (Reg. No. 68,243) — backup counsel.

Source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00339/Intuit_Inc/docs/12-16-2022-Petitioner/Notice__Power_of_Attorney-1-Petitioners_Power_of_Attorney.pdf

3. Federal Circuit appeals

• Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., Nos. 2024-2268, 2024-2269 (appeals from IPR2023-00339 and IPR2023-00342 — the '145 and '591 patents), decided May 21, 2026. Intuit's appellate team: Michael John Sacksteder (argued, Fenwick & West, San Francisco); also Payam Ahmadi, Shannon Turner, Geoffrey Robert Miller (New York), Jonathan G. Tamimi (Seattle). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2268/24-2268-2026-05-21.html
• Intuit Inc. v. Samesurf, Inc., No. 2024-2298 (Intuit's appeal from IPR2023-00341 — the '448 patent), affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 on April 7, 2026. Same Fenwick team, Sacksteder arguing for appellant. https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2298.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.4-7-2026_2672529.pdf

This clarifies the item in the prior "Key legal developments" section: it was Intuit that appealed the '448 FWD (No. 2024-2298), while Samesurf appealed the '145/'591 FWDs (Nos. 2024-2268/2269).

4. What I could not confirm (do not treat as fact)

• San Diego local counsel: S.D. Cal. does not require local counsel, and I found no separate local-counsel appearance for Intuit. Fenwick's nearest offices are in the Bay Area. If a local attorney was retained, no evidence of it surfaced.
• Intuit in-house counsel: No in-house attorney appears on the docket, in the PTAB papers, or in the Federal Circuit opinions.
• Eric Arthur Menist: The docket shows a March/April 2022 Request to Appear Pro Hac Vice by an "Eric Menist" that was denied (ECF 14, filed 4/21/2022; ECF 15, denial 4/22/2022). I could not verify from the sources retrieved which party he sought to represent, so I am not attributing him to Intuit; the timing (about a month after the complaint, alongside Samesurf's McKool Smith PHV applications) makes his affiliation ambiguous.
• Shreyas A. Kale (Mintz Levin, San Francisco): A Law360 attorney-case listing associates him with "March 29, 2022 — Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., California Southern" (https://www.law360.com/firms/mintz-levin/attorneys/shreyas-a-kale/cases). Aggregator listings such as this can capture counsel for either side or even pre-suit/related matters, and I could not corroborate a Mintz Levin appearance in the docket or opinions. Unverified — do not rely on it.
• Parallel C.D. Cal. case: A complaint bearing the same caption and text appears under a Central District case number, 2:22-cv-02060, filed the same day (https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--22-cv-02060/Samesurf_Inc._v._Intuit_Inc/). This may be a duplicate/erroneous docket record rather than a second suit; I could not resolve it, so treat any C.D. Cal. counsel rosters with caution.

5. Verification caveats

My searches hit their step limit before I could pull the full PACER docket sheet directly. The district-court picture above rests on (a) the Justia docket summary, (b) Intuit filings reproduced as IPR exhibits, (c) the 5/28/2026 summary-judgment order (ECF 346) and its VitalLaw summary, and (d) the Federal Circuit opinions. Counsel may also have appeared on sealed filings (the case involved sealed litigation-funding discovery per the December 2024 motion to compel), which would not be publicly visible. For a definitive list of every appearance, the PACER docket for 3:22-cv-00412 (last public retrieval July 17, 2025 per Justia Dockets) should be checked directly.