`
`
`
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach (SBN 142549 / scherkenbach@fr.com)
`Adam J. Kessel (pro hac vice application to be filed / kessel@fr.com)
`Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice application to be filed / mukherji@fr.com)
`Jeffrey Shneidman (pro hac vice application to be filed / shneidman@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834 / headley@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC. AND TIKTOK INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-7572
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,691,429
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs ByteDance Inc. (“BDI”) and TikTok Inc. (“TTI”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
`
`hereby allege for their Complaint against Defendant Triller, Inc. (“Triller” or “Defendant”) as
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`follows:
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,691,429 (“the ’429 patent,” attached as Exhibit A). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that they
`
`do not infringe any claim of the ’429 patent.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs are technology companies that provide and support a variety of mobile
`
`software applications that enable people around the world to connect with, consume, and create
`
`entertainment content, including via an application called “TikTok.” TikTok is a mobile software
`
`application that millions of Americans, including many in this judicial district, use to create and
`
`share short videos composed of expressive content.
`
`10
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Triller operates an app called “Triller” which it characterizes as “an
`
`11
`
`entertainment platform built for creators.”1 Defendant Triller has alleged that TikTok infringes the
`
`12
`
`’429 patent, and Plaintiffs disagree.
`
`13
`
`4.
`
`Specifically, on July 29, 2020, Triller filed a lawsuit against the entities TikTok Inc.
`
`14
`
`and Bytedance Ltd. in the Western District of Texas (C.A. No. 20-cv-00693) (“the Texas
`
`15
`
`Litigation”) alleging that those entities “directly and indirectly infringe the [’429] Patent by making,
`
`16
`
`using, offering for sale, selling, and importing the popular iOS and Android software application
`
`17
`
`known as ‘TikTok.’” Id., Dkt. No. 1 ¶3. Triller has alleged that the “Accused Products” in that
`
`18
`
`lawsuit (the “Accused TikTok Products”) are “software products [that] are available for iOS and
`
`19
`
`Android hand-held or tablet devices and are distributed under the TikTok brand name.” Id., ¶14.
`
`20
`
`Triller has alleged that “making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing the Accused
`
`21
`
`Products” constitutes patent infringement and violates at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (c). Id.
`
`22
`
`¶34 et seq. Triller has also alleged that Plaintiffs’ training videos, demonstrations, brochures, and
`
`23
`
`user guides instruct users of the TikTok apps to infringe the ’429 patent. Id. Triller has alleged that
`
`24
`
`making the Accused TikTok Products (among other acts) infringes at least claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and
`
`25
`
`7 of the ’429 patent. Id.
`
`
`1 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/triller-social-video-platform/id994905763 (accessed Oct. 27,
`2020).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`5.
`
`Notwithstanding Triller’s allegations in the Texas Litigation, that district is not a
`
`proper forum for a dispute concerning the Accused TikTok Products. Bytedance Ltd., a defendant
`
`in that case, is a holding company based outside of the United States that does not have employees
`
`or property in Texas. TTI, the other defendant in that case, has no employees or facilities in the State
`
`of Texas and, more specifically, does not have any regular and established place of business in that
`
`forum, and thus is not subject to venue under the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC
`
`v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ , 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). Plaintiffs thus bring the
`
`instant action in a proper forum—in the state where all of the relevant parties are based, and in the
`
`judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Triller’s alleged
`
`10
`
`infringement claims have occurred and continue to occur.
`
`11
`
`6.
`
`BDI and TTI are the only companies based in the United States responsible for
`
`12
`
`developing, providing, and supporting the Accused TikTok Products. Triller’s actions and
`
`13
`
`allegations have created a real and immediate controversy between Triller and Plaintiffs as to
`
`14
`
`whether the Accused TikTok Products infringe any claim of the ’429 patent. Triller’s lawsuit and
`
`15
`
`statements that “making” the Accused TikTok Products infringes the ’429 patent demonstrate that
`
`16
`
`it is highly likely that Defendant Triller will assert infringement against BDI in addition to its
`
`17
`
`previous allegations against TTI. In the meantime, the cloud of Triller’s allegations, including that
`
`18
`
`making the Accused TikTok Products infringes the ’429 patent, hangs over BDI.
`
`19
`
`7.
`
`As set forth herein, Plaintiffs do not infringe the ’429 patent. Therefore, an actual
`
`20
`
`and justiciable controversy exists between the parties as to whether Plaintiffs’ Accused TikTok
`
`21
`
`Products infringe any claim of the ’429 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to resolve the real,
`
`22
`
`immediate, and justiciable controversy concerning these issues and to determine the respective
`
`23
`
`rights of the parties regarding the ’429 patent. Plaintiffs respectfully seek a judicial determination
`
`24
`
`that the ’429 patent is not directly or indirectly infringed by Plaintiffs, including by their products
`
`25
`
`and/or services.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff BDI is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 250
`
`Bryant Street, Mountain View, California, 94041.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff TTI is a California corporation having its principal place of business at 5800
`
`Bristol Parkway, Culver City, California, 90230.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, and based on its allegations in the Texas Litigation,
`
`Defendant Triller, Inc. is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 2121
`
`Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2320, Los Angeles, California, 90067.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, and based on its allegations in the Texas Litigation, Triller
`
`10
`
`is the owner of the ’429 patent.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`
`12.
`
`This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-2202, and
`
`14
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.
`
`15
`
`13.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this action
`
`16
`
`because this Court has jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims arising under the Patent Laws
`
`17
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
`
`18
`
`14.
`
`This Court can provide the relief sought in this Declaratory Judgment Complaint
`
`19
`
`because an actual case and controversy exists between the parties within the scope of this Court’s
`
`20
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, at least because Triller has accused the Accused TikTok
`
`21
`
`Products of infringing its patent, e.g., by suing others (including TTI) for patent infringement
`
`22
`
`alleging infringement by “making” the Accused TikTok Products.
`
`23
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff BDI makes the Accused TikTok Products that Triller alleges infringe, and
`
`24
`
`thus, BDI, in addition to TTI, should be the subject of Triller’s allegations. Triller has also alleged
`
`25
`
`that “portions of the Accused [TikTok] Products” are “especially made or adapted for use in
`
`26
`
`infringement of the ’429 Patent, and … [are] not suitable for substantial non-infringing use.” See
`
`27
`
`Texas Litigation Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 36, which implies that TTI and BDI’s roles in the development of
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`
`those products is an act of contributory infringement. Triller’s allegations against TTI and users of
`
`the Accused TikTok Products cast a cloud over TTI and BDI’s business, causing uncertainty for
`
`TTI and BDI, regarding the ongoing provision or use of the Accused TikTok Products.
`
`16.
`
`Triller has maintained this charge despite the fact that the Accused TikTok Products
`
`(and use thereof) do not in fact infringe, and have not infringed, any claims of the ’429 patent.
`
`Triller’s allegations and actions have created a real, live, immediate, and justiciable case or
`
`controversy between Triller and Plaintiffs.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction
`
`17.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Triller. Triller’s principal place of business
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is in California. Triller’s Terms of Service state that “Triller, Inc.[’s] address is at 2121 Avenue of
`
`11
`
`the Stars Suite 2350, Los Angeles, California 90067.” See Exhibit B.
`
`12
`
`18.
`
`Triller also lists both Los Angeles and San Francisco among the locations of its
`
`13
`
`worldwide offices on its website, including at https://www.triller.co/faq/index.html:
`
`
`
`19. Moreover, Triller has purposefully directed its activities toward and engaged in
`
`numerous specific contacts within this District, including by soliciting and providing goods and
`
`services to people in this District (in the form of Triller’s own products, including the Triller app),
`
`and by soliciting investment and receiving funding from persons in this District. On information and
`
`belief, Triller also has a number of users in this District, including users who post and view videos
`
`located in this district, as shown in the exemplary screenshots below.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`Triller has also purposefully directed its conduct at this District with its attempt to
`
`enforce the ’429 patent by making accusations of infringement against the Accused TikTok
`
`Products, which are made in this District.
`
`Venue
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of
`
`the events giving rise to the claim presented in this Complaint occurred in this district (28 U.S.C.
`
`§1391(b)(2)). For example, BDI makes the TikTok Accused Products in this district. Venue is also
`
`proper in this district because Triller’s principal place of business is in California, and Triller
`
`“resides” in this district under Federal venue laws because it is subject to personal jurisdiction in
`
`this district (see 28 U.S.C. §1391(c)(2) & (d)).
`
`22.
`
`In addition, the TikTok Accused Products are distributed to users in the United States
`
`exclusively through Apple’s App Store and Google Play, both of which are run by companies with
`
`principal places of business in California and more specifically in this judicial district. Apple’s
`
`principal place of business is in Cupertino, California, and Google’s principal place of business is
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`in Mountain View, California.
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`forth herein.
`
`CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF –
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the ’429 Patent
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-22 as though fully set
`
`24.
`
`Neither Plaintiffs nor their products have infringed, induced others to infringe, or
`
`contributed to infringement by others of, any claim of the ’429 patent. Nor do any end-users of
`
`Plaintiffs’ products infringe any such claim.
`
`25.
`
`By way of example, neither Plaintiffs nor their products infringe, induce others to
`
`infringe, or contribute to any infringement by others of, claims 1-10 of the ’429 patent, at least
`
`because Plaintiffs and their products do not perform the method step of “synchronizing each video
`
`take of the plurality of captured video takes with the selected audio track while each video take of
`
`the plurality of video takes is being captured, wherein synchronizing further comprises playing,
`
`from a first beginning, the selected audio track at substantially the same time as a second beginning
`
`of capturing each video take of the plurality of video takes.” Nor do any end-users of Plaintiffs’
`
`products perform this method step.
`
`26.
`
`By way of further example, Plaintiffs’ products do not infringe, induce others to
`
`infringe, or contribute to any infringement by others of, claims 11-16 of the ’429 patent, at least
`
`because their products are not a “user device, comprising … at least one processor operable to: …
`
`synchronize each video take of the plurality of captured video takes to the recorded audio track as
`
`each video take of the plurality of video takes is being captured, wherein synchronizing further
`
`comprises playing, from a first beginning, the selected audio track at substantially the same time as
`
`a second beginning of capturing each video take of the plurality of video takes.” Nor are Plaintiffs’
`
`products installed or otherwise used by end-users in a way that satisfies this claim limitation.
`
`27.
`
`By way of example, neither Plaintiffs nor their products infringe, induce others to
`
`infringe, or contribute to any infringement by others of, claims 17-19 of the ’429 patent, at least
`
`because Plaintiffs and their products do not perform the method step of “synchronizing, while the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`plurality of video takes are being captured, each video take of the plurality of captured video takes
`
`to the selected audio track, wherein synchronizing further comprises playing, from a first beginning,
`
`the selected audio track at substantially the same time as a second beginning of capturing each video
`
`take of the plurality of video takes; and creating a music video comprising the selected audio track
`
`and at least a subset of the plurality of captured video takes synchronized to the selected audio track;
`
`wherein creating comprises: displaying the subset of the plurality of captured video takes based on
`
`the number of faces determined to be within each video take.” Nor do any end-users of Plaintiffs’
`
`products perform this method step.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a definite
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`and concrete, real and substantial, justiciable controversy between Triller and Plaintiffs regarding
`
`11
`
`the noninfringement of the ’429 patent, including with respect to Plaintiffs’ Accused TikTok
`
`12
`
`Products. This controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant issuance of a
`
`13
`
`Declaratory Judgment.
`
`14
`
`
`
`15
`
`16
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`29.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial
`
`17
`
`by jury on all issues triable to a jury.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to enter judgment in their favor
`
`20
`
`against Triller:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`A. For judgment that Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ products, and users of Plaintiffs’ Products do not
`
`infringe and have not infringed under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (or any subsection thereof) any claim
`
`of the ’429 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and that none of them
`
`are liable for damages or injunctive relief based on any claim of the ’429 patent;
`
`B. That the case be found exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Plaintiffs be awarded
`
`their reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action;
`
`C. For costs and expenses in this action; and
`
`8
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 1 Filed 10/28/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Michael R. Headley
` Frank E. Scherkenbach
`(SBN 142549 / scherkenbach@fr.com)
`Adam J. Kessel
`(pro hac vice application to be filed / kessel@fr.com)
`Proshanto Mukherji
`(pro hac vice application to be filed / mukherji@fr.com)
`Jeffrey Shneidman
`(pro hac vice application to be filed / shneidman@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`
`Michael R. Headley (SBN 220834 / headley@fr.com)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`ByteDance Inc. and TikTok Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`Case No 3:20-cv-7572.
`
`