Better Browsing, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 7 cases

7 cases on record naming Better Browsing, LLC: 7 as claimant, 0 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

7 cases on record

Cases on record
7
As claimant
7
As respondent
0
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06F15/16 · G06F17/30 · G09G5/00 · G06F3/0481
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:24-cv-00013 Better Browsing, LLC v. Asustek Computer, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 10 Jan 2024 196 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00629 Better Browsing, LLC v. Razer, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 22 Dec 2023 206 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00567 Better Browsing, LLC v. Acer, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 6 Dec 2023 239 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:23-cv-00571 Better Browsing, LLC v. Toshiba, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 6 Dec 2023 30 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00301 Better Browsing, LLC v. Lenovo, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 23 Jun 2023 318 d Case Terminated
2:23-cv-00300 Better Browsing, LLC v. Hewlett-Parkard, Co. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 22 Jun 2023 288 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00020 Better Browsing, LLC v. Opera Norway AS Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 17 Jan 2023 266 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Better Browsing, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Better Browsing is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.