Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`
`Frank E. Scherkenbach (CA SBN )
`Adam J. Kessel (pro hac vice)
`kessel@fr.com
`Proshanto Mukherji (pro hac vice)
`mukherji@fr.com
`scherkenback@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park Drive
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: 617-542-5070 / Fax: 617-542-8906
`
`Michael R. Headley (CA SBN 220834)
`headley@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel: 650-839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`BYTEDANCE LTD., BYTEDANCE, INC.
`TIKTOK, INC., and TIKTOK PTE. LTD,
`
`
`
`M. Elizabeth Day (SBN 177125))
`eday@feinday.com
`Marc Belloli (SBN 244290)
`mbelloli@feinday.com
`FEINBERG DAY KRAMER ALBERTI
`LIM TONKOVICH & BELLOLI LLP
`577 Airport Blvd., Suite 250
`Burlingame, CA. 94010
`Tel: 650 825-4300/Fax 650 460-8443
`
`Brian N. Platt (pro hac vice)
`bplatt@wnlaw.com
`Brent P. Lorimer (pro hac vice)
`blorimer@wnlaw.com
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`60 East South Temple Suite 1000
`Salt Lake City, UT 84111
`Tel: 801-533-9800/Fax 801-328-1707
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`TRILLER, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`(OAKLAND DIVISION)
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`BYTEDANCE LTD., BYTEDANCE, INC.
`TIKTOK, INC., and TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
`STATEMENT AND RESPONSE TO
`COURT’S ORDER REGARDING
`RELATED CASES (DKT. NO. 49)
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Plaintiffs ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and TikTok Pte. Ltd. (collectively
`
`“TikTok”) and Defendant Triller, Inc. (“Triller”) submit this Joint Case Management Statement
`
`regarding the parties’ litigation, pursuant to the Court’s July 20, 2021 Order Regarding Joint Notice
`
`re Transferred Case, Relating Case, and Setting Case Management Conference (Dkt. No. 49).
`
`A. Status of Related Cases and Stayed Proceedings
`
`Triller brought an action against ByteDance Ltd. (“BDL”) and TikTok Inc. (“TTI”) in the
`
`Western District of Texas on July 9, 2020, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,691,429
`
`(“the Triller Patent”). Triller subsequently amended the complaint to add ByteDance Inc. (“BDI”)
`
`10
`
`and TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TTPL”) as defendants. BDL, TTI, BDI and TTPL moved for transfer of the
`
`11
`
`action to this Court. That motion was granted on July 9, 2021. On October 28, 2020, BDL and TTI
`
`12
`
`filed an IPR against the Triller Patent. BDL and TTI filed a second IPR against the Triller Patent on
`
`13
`
`April 9, 2021. The PTAB has instituted trial on the first IPR and is expected to issue a decision as to
`
`14
`
`whether trial will be instituted in the second IPR in October 2021. The parties have since agreed to
`
`15
`
`and the Court has ordered a stay of proceedings related to Triller’s claims for patent infringement in
`
`16
`
`the Transferred Case (see Dkt. No. 94 in Case No. 3:21-cv-5300-JSW). The parties have also
`
`17
`
`agreed, and the Court has ordered a stay of TikTok’s pending declaratory judgment claims related
`
`18
`
`to the Triller Patent in this case pending resolution of the IPR proceedings concerning the Triller
`
`19
`
`Patent.
`
`20
`
`TikTok originally filed this action against Triller on October 28, 2020, seeking a declaratory
`
`21
`
`judgment of noninfringement concerning the Triller Patent. TikTok amended its complaint on
`
`22
`
`November 11, 2020, accusing Triller of infringing three patents owned by TikTok: U.S. Patents
`
`23
`
`9,648,132; 9,992,322; 9,294,430 (collectively “the TikTok Patents”).
`
`24
`
`Triller believes that the remaining claims of TikTok’s Amended Complaint for infringement
`
`25
`
`of the TikTok Patents (the Second, Third and Fourth Claims for Relief) should be dismissed
`
`26
`
`pursuant to its Alice motion (Dkt. 46) or alternatively stayed pending the IPR petitions Triller
`
`27
`
`intends to file no later than October 28, 2021. TikTok disagrees and asks that the Court set a
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`
`schedule to permit the parties to go forward with its claims for infringement of the TikTok Patents
`
`following briefing on any motion to stay that Triller files.
`
`B. Response to the Court’s inquiry regarding Triller’s motion for judgment on the
`pleadings
`
`The parties’ respective responses to the Court’s inquiry (Dkt. No. 49) regarding whether and
`
`when to proceed with Triller’s Section 101 motion (Dkt. No. 46) are as follows:
`
`TikTok’s position: Triller’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Is Premature
`
`Triller cites no authority for staying the proceedings on the TikTok Patents at this juncture,
`
`and TikTok is aware of no authority for the notion of staying a case in its entirely based on the mere
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`pendency of a Section 101 motion or on the hypothetical possibility of an IPR being instituted on a
`
`11
`
`hypothetical petition for an IPR that has not yet been filed. A stay at this juncture also would be
`
`12
`
`unduly prejudicial to TikTok, by allowing an infringer to continue its unchecked infringement based
`
`13
`
`on speculation about the outcome of a contested motion and on IPRs that Triller may or may not
`
`14
`
`file. Triller’s gambit is clearly an attempt to regain strategic advantage now that Triller’s
`
`15
`
`affirmative infringement claims are dead in the water.1
`
`16
`
`Moreover, Triller’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings concerning the TikTok Patents
`
`17
`
`(Dkt. No. 46) is not ripe. Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 can be determined at this stage
`
`18
`
`“only when there are no factual allegations, that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility
`
`19
`
`question as a matter of law.” Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121,
`
`20
`
`1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, the Court should defer briefing on Triller’s motion until the factual
`
`21
`
`and legal questions surrounding TikTok’s asserted patents can be adjudicated on a developed
`
`22
`
`record.
`
`23
`
`As a threshold matter, while Triller attempts to breeze over claim construction issues in a
`
`24
`
`pair of footnotes, see Dkt. No. 46 at fn. 1-2, it is clear from Triller’s motion that numerous claim
`
`25
`
`construction disputes will require resolution as a predicate for the § 101 analysis. Bancorp Servs.,
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Triller’s argument also includes baseless speculation that the TikTok patents were acquired “to be
`used as leverage against Triller,” but Triller has no information whatsoever on that issue and
`therefore no basis for casting aspersions in that manner. Triller is also mistaken about the
`assignment history, but that is irrelevant to the issues before the Court.
`2
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`
`
`
`L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[I]t will
`
`ordinarily be desirable—and often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a §
`
`101 analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic
`
`character of the claimed subject matter.”); RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 18-cv-07152-JST, 2019
`
`WL 7834759, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he Court finds it appropriate to defer ruling on the
`
`question of patent eligibility until after claim construction.”). For instance, the terms “separate
`
`meta-data layer” and “track meta-data” recited by each of the three independent claims of the ’430
`
`patent both require construction, as do the limitations requiring that the claimed software
`
`application “link” a “user account on the remote server to [other] user accounts” in the asserted
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`claims of each of the asserted patents.2 TikTok intends to proffer constructions of these terms
`
`11
`
`(among others) that will establish, under step one of the Alice framework, that the claims are
`
`12
`
`directed to improvements and solutions to a technical problem in a technical field, and/or under step
`
`13
`
`two of the framework, that the claims recite significantly more than Defendant’s alleged abstract
`
`14
`
`idea. See Dkt. No. 46 at 7-13 (alleging that the claims “are directed to a computerized social
`
`15
`
`network . . . and therefore purport to solve a problem and/or to provide an improvement in
`
`16
`
`organizing human activity,” not “a problem in a technical field or . . . an improvement in a technical
`
`17
`
`field,” and do not recite any feature “that transforms them into significantly more than a patent on
`
`18
`
`an abstract idea”).3 These claim constructions (and others) are directly relevant to the arguments
`
`19
`
`Triller raised in its Section 101 motion and will almost certainly be disputed by Triller, since
`
`20
`
`TikTok’s constructions will squarely contradict the arguments Triller presented in its motion.
`
`21
`
`Therefore, resolving Section 101 issues would require a fulsome analysis of the claim construction
`
`22
`
`issues as well.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 These examples are but a subset of the terms requiring construction in each of TikTok’s three
`asserted patents. Should the Court invite briefing on Triller’s motion, Plaintiffs will provide a
`more complete list of terms needing construction.
`3 It would be an inefficient use of the Court’s time to engage in claim construction twice – first, to
`resolve issues underlying the § 101 analysis, and then again later in the case after the parties
`have identified those infringement and validity issues that hinge on claim construction. The
`better course will be for the Parties to engage in fact discovery and exchange of contentions so
`that all claim construction disputes can be resolved together.
`3
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Triller’s Section 101 arguments are equally flawed on the merits. Though TikTok submits
`
`that a joint CMC statement is not the proper forum to debate the merits of contested motions,
`
`TikTok provides the following brief response to Triller’s improper copying and pasting of a large
`
`swath of its Section 101 motion into this submission. While Triller repeatedly asserts that the
`
`asserted claims should be held invalid as directed to allegedly “conventional” and “generic”
`
`components and technical features, TikTok absolutely disputes, as just one example, that the use of
`
`“track meta-data” on a “separate meta-data layer” is somehow conventional or “only a feature, just
`
`as a generic computer was merely a feature in the Supreme Court’s Alice decision.” Dkt. No. 46 at
`
`12. Such factual disputes cannot be resolved without discovery. Dkt. No. 46 at 11-12; Berkheimer
`
`10
`
`v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The question of whether a claim element or
`
`11
`
`combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
`
`12
`
`relevant field is a question of fact. Any fact, such as this one, that is pertinent to the invalidity
`
`13
`
`conclusion must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Like indefiniteness, enablement, or
`
`14
`
`obviousness, whether a claim recites patent eligible subject matter is a question of law which may
`
`15
`
`contain underlying facts.”) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., Pebble Tide LLC v. Arlo Techs., No.
`
`16
`
`19-769-LPS, 2020 WL 509183, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 31, 2020) (denying 12(c) and 12(b)(6) motions
`
`17
`
`challenging under § 101 claims directed in part to “a user’s spoken request and the metadata
`
`18
`
`associated with the spoken request . . . fed to a social network database”). Indeed, Triller does not
`
`19
`
`assert that the claimed systems and methods are directed to human processes previously performed
`
`20
`
`in a non-computerized context, calling into question Triller’s allegations regarding the
`
`21
`
`“conventional” nature of the claimed technology. Dkt. No. 46 at 11-12. At a minimum, fact and
`
`22
`
`expert discovery is necessary before any such determination can be made.
`
`23
`
`Further still, taking the claims as a whole in light of the specification, there is substantial
`
`24
`
`evidence that the asserted claims do—as the Patent Office found—recite patent-eligible subject
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`
`
`
`matter.4 As just one example, the independent claims of the ’430 patent recite “a music application
`
`[that] uses track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer and defines attributes of the
`
`tracks, the meta-data being external to a music track to make sharing and browsing of track
`
`information possible without needing to distribute the related music track files.” The specification
`
`of the ’430 patent explains that these features address the shortcomings of prior-art music
`
`applications that “offer[] only limite[d] pay per track services and with limited functionality that
`
`fails to approach the richness of a high quality [digital audio player],” by providing a “genuinely
`
`transformative . . . way people acquire and listen to digital music.” ’430 Patent at 2:37-41, 3:1-3;
`
`see generally id. at 1:34-3:39. Thus, the asserted claims recite specific, inventive features sufficient
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`to reject Triller’s § 101 challenge, and certainly more than sufficient to deny judgment on the
`
`11
`
`pleadings. See Cellwitch, 2019 WL 10734767, at *6 (“[A] patentee can defeat a Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`12
`
`motion by identifying specific, plausible factual allegations in the claims that make them inventive.
`
`13
`
`. . . A court can only resolve the question of patent eligibility, particularly at the ‘inventive step’
`
`14
`
`prong of the Mayo-Alice analysis, when there are no factual allegations in dispute that preclude the
`
`15
`
`resolution of the issue as a matter of law.”) (citing Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306,
`
`16
`
`1317 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Notably, each of TikTok’s asserted patents also issued after the Supreme
`
`17
`
`Court’s landmark decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), so the
`
`18
`
`PTO was informed by the Supreme Court’s § 101 guidance for all three asserted patents.5
`
`19
`
`Moreover, Triller’s proposal seeks to gain an improper asymmetrical advantage by attacking
`
`20
`
`TikTok’s patents under § 101 while agreeing to a stay on its own patent, sidestepping for now the
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`4 To the extent Triller argues that TikTok’s factual allegations underlying the patentability of its
`claims are not within the four corners of its Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 9), given the early
`stage of the case and lack of prejudice to Triller, Plaintiffs should be permitted to amend their
`complaint to incorporate them. Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1125 (holding that the district court “did err
`when it denied leave to amend without claim construction and in the face of factual allegations,
`spelled out in the proposed second amended complaint, that, if accepted as true, establish that
`the claimed combination contains inventive components and improves the workings of the
`computer”); cf Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc., No. 4: 19-cv-01315-JSW, 2019 WL 10734767, at *1
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (“If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should
`grant leave to amend, unless amendment would be futile.”).
`5 TikTok’s ’322 patent issued on June 5, 2018, the ’132 patent issued on May 9, 2017, and the ’430
`patent issued on March 22, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`
`fact that its own asserted claims are clearly more vulnerable to a § 101 attack.6 Asserted claim 1 of
`
`Triller’s patent, for instance, merely covers the use of a generic computer to automate the
`
`conventional human process of creating music videos. See Dkt. No. 46 at 11-12. Should Triller’s
`
`patent survive IPR, it will be more efficient for the Court to consider § 101 issues involving both
`
`sides’ patents at the same time, and Triller will then have to face the consequences of being held to
`
`the positions it takes against TikTok’s patents with respect to its own asserted patent. It is also
`
`notable that under Triller’s proposed course of action, there may not be an institution decision in
`
`any hypothetical IPRs Triller files until May 2022, and, even if instituted, the PTAB would not hand
`
`down any final decisions until May 2023; we could very well have been to trial on the TikTok
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Patents by then. Even if Triller’s future hypothetical IPR petitions were to have any substantive
`
`11
`
`merit—which there is no reason to suspect at this point since Triller has not presented any evidence
`
`12
`
`that it has even begun work on a petition—there is also a significant likelihood that the PTAB
`
`13
`
`would still exercise its discretion under Fintiv to deny institution of any IPR petitions Triller files,
`
`14
`
`given how long Triller has waited to file any such IPRs. See Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-
`
`15
`
`00019, Paper 11, 2020 WL 2126495 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`16
`
`Triller’s position: The Court should proceed with Triller’s Alice motion and stay all
`
`17
`
`proceedings related to the TikTok Patents in the interim
`
`18
`
`TikTok’s request that the Court defer briefing on Triller’s Motion for Judgment on the
`
`19
`
`Pleadings (“the Alice motion”) should be denied. The TikTok patents, acquired after this action was
`
`20
`
`commenced to be used as leverage against Triller, are plainly invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`21
`
`TikTok argues that Triller has no basis to suggest that the TikTok patents were acquired for
`
`22
`
`purposes of leverage, asserting that it will be unduly prejudiced by “unchecked infringement” of the
`
`23
`
`patents. Triller disagrees. The assignment database at the USPTO reveals that Lemon, Inc. executed
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`6 TikTok did not move for judgment on the Triller Patent prior to the case being transferred, in light
`of Judge Albright’s uniform practice of deferring § 101 rulings until later in the case. In any
`event, given the statistically high likelihood that Triller’s claims currently subject to IPR will be
`invalidated by the PTAB, there is no reason to use this Court’s resources on a § 101 challenge at
`this juncture.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`
`an assignment assigning the TikTok patents to TTPL on November 10, exactly one day prior to
`
`filing the amended complaint in which the TikTok patents were first asserted against Triller. 7
`
`TikTok asserts that there is no authority for staying this case pending resolution of Triller’s
`
`Alice motion. To the contrary, “the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in
`
`every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for
`
`itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).
`
`TikTok’s request for deferral of briefing on Triller’s Alice motion is an attempt to delay and
`
`increase the cost of these proceedings for Triller. Resolution of Triller’s motion at this early stage
`
`will save the parties and the Court huge expense and effort that will have been wasted if the motion
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`is granted. TikTok suggests that Triller’s decision to proceed with its Alice motion before filing an
`
`11
`
`IPR is somehow improper. Triller has not yet filed IPRs because TikTok’s claims are clearly invalid
`
`12
`
`under Alice, and disposition of those claims under § 101 is an efficient and less costly alternative to
`
`13
`
`an IPR. If the Alice motion is unsuccessful, Triller will proceed with IPRs.8
`
`14
`
`Last, TikTok argues that any IPR filed by Triller will be without substantive merit9 and is
`
`15
`
`likely to be denied under the PTAB’s Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv10 decision. Triller disagrees. The Fintiv
`
`16
`
`analysis requires consideration of multiple factors, including, inter alia, the degree of investment by
`
`17
`
`the parties and the Court in the underlying district court action. Virtually nothing has occurred in
`
`18
`
`this action, nor could it have, given the stay of the proceedings pending resolution of motion to
`
`19
`
`transfer the Texas action.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`7 The USPTO patent assignment database also reveals that Omnifone, the original assignee of the
`TikTok patents, executed an assignment of the patents to Lemon, Inc. on September 21, 2020, a
`short two months prior to TTPL’s purchase. TikTok’s assertion that Triller’s request for a stay is
`an attempt to “regain strategic advantage” because its infringement claims are “dead in the
`water” is decidedly premature, as the PTAB has not issued a Final Written Decision in either
`IPR.
`8 TikTok argues that Triller’s decision to pursue IPR and Alice motions on separate tracks is
`somehow nefarious, but that is exactly what TikTok did vis-à-vis the Triller patent. In addition
`to the inconsistency of its argument, TikTok’s insistence that Triller pursue its Alice motion and
`IPRs simultaneously would result in more, not less, cost and effort.
`9 TikTok’s assertion that any IPR petitions filed by Triller will have no substantive merit is without
`basis, as TikTok concedes it does not know the basis for such petitions.
`10 IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 2020 WL 2126495 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`The TikTok patents describe and claim software that allows users to create personal
`
`accounts/ profiles in a social network, view profiles of other users, interact with other users, send
`
`messages to and from other users, and link the user’s accounts to other users. The asserted claim of
`
`the ’430 patent adds a requirement that the software “uses track meta-data that is formed as a
`
`separate meta-data layer and defines attributes of tracks, the meta-data being external to a music
`
`track to make sharing and browsing of track information possible without needing to distribute the
`
`related music track files.” In other words, this claim recites a social networking platform, on a
`
`portable wireless computing device, such as a cell phone, where users share profiles and messages,
`
`including messages about the attributes of music recommendations, without actually sending the
`
`10
`
`music track. All of these claims are directed to “abstract ideas” and are not patent eligible.
`
`11
`
`TikTok argues that claim construction is necessary before the Court can proceed with the Alice
`
`12
`
`motion, suggesting that the motion cannot proceed without interpretation of the terms “track meta-
`
`13
`
`data,” “separate meta-data layer” and the “link” between user accounts. However, TikTok has not
`
`14
`
`proffered a construction for any of these terms, let alone demonstrated how that construction will
`
`15
`
`affect the patent eligibility analysis. In other words, TikTok has not demonstrated that the resolution
`
`16
`
`of any claim construction issues will actually make a difference. Claim construction issues that do
`
`17
`
`not make a difference to the patent eligibility analysis do not preclude reaching a patent eligibility
`
`18
`
`conclusion on the pleadings. See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1323, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
`
`19
`
`2011) (explaining that the Federal Circuit “has never set forth a bright line rule requiring district
`
`20
`
`courts to construe claims before determining subject matter eligibility”), vacated on other grounds,
`
`21
`
`566 U.S. 1007 (2012); Data Scape Ltd. v. Spotify USA Inc., 2019 WL 7905735, *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug.
`
`22
`
`22, 2019) (“[E]ven considering and accepting Data Scape’s proposed constructions, the patent
`
`23
`
`eligibility analysis would remain the same. . . . It is not necessary to wait to consider the patent-
`
`24
`
`eligibility of the claims until claim construction proceedings, and the Court instead conducts the §
`
`25
`
`101 inquiry now.”). In any event, claim construction is a question of law, not a question of fact, and
`
`26
`
`can be and frequently is treated in connection with Alice motions.
`
`27
`
`As stated in Triller’s Alice motion, the claims of the TikTok patent are directed to a
`
`28
`
`computerized social network for interacting and sharing information among members of the network.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`
`They do not solve a problem or provide an improvement in a technical field. Claims directed to
`
`computerized social networks like those in the TikTok patents have repeatedly been found to be
`
`directed to abstract concepts and therefore invalid under § 101. NetSoc, LLC v. Match Group, LLC,
`
`838 Fed. Appx. 544 (Fed. Cir. 2020), In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d
`
`607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Search and Social Media Partners, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 346 F.Supp.3d
`
`626 (D. Del. 2018), Tele-Publishing, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 252 F.Supp.3d 17 (D. Mass. 2017).
`
`Nothing about the interpretation of the terms “track meta-data,” “separate meta-data layer,” or the
`
`“link” between user accounts will change that result.
`
`TikTok alleges that the “track meta-data” and “separate meta-data layer” are not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`conventional and that they add patentable subject matter to the claims because they solve technical
`
`11
`
`problems or provide improvements in a technical field. There are two problems with that assertion.
`
`12
`
`First, those features only appear in the asserted claim of the ’430 patent, and not in the asserted
`
`13
`
`claims of either of the other two patents at issue. Second, the citations in the ’430 patent to which
`
`14
`
`TikTok refers do not address the “track meta-data” and “separate meta-data layer” features of the
`
`15
`
`claims and do not claim that those features solve problems or provide improvements in a technical
`
`16
`
`field, let alone cause the asserted claims “as a whole” to be directed to such a solution or
`
`17
`
`improvement.
`
`18
`
`If the “track meta-data” and “separate meta-data layer” were important to the claimed
`
`19
`
`invention, the inventors likely would have emphasized those concepts in the 119-page specification
`
`20
`
`shared by the TikTok patents. The “track meta-data” and “separate meta-data layer” terms do not
`
`21
`
`appear anywhere in the 119-page specification, not even once. That is because, as Judge Koh
`
`22
`
`concluded on a motion to dismiss, “there is . . . nothing ‘non-conventional’ . . . about “storing . . .
`
`23
`
`metadata information, but not the content.” TS Patents LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., 279 F.Supp.3d 968, 996
`
`24
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2017). Thus, the case law has already concluded that metadata stored separately from the
`
`25
`
`content to which it relates is conventional as a matter of law, and TikTok has provided no reason
`
`26
`
`that the metadata features cause the asserted claims “as a whole” to be directed to something other
`
`27
`
`than organizing human activity in the form of a computerized social network. Discovery is not
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`
`needed to demonstrate that the features on which TikTok relies do not solve its Alice invalidity
`
`issues.
`
`
`
`TikTok argues that Triller seeks an unfair and asymmetrical advantage because Triller’s
`
`claims against TikTok have been stayed and TikTok cannot attack Triller’s patents in an Alice
`
`motion. TikTok could have filed its own Alice motion against Triller’s patents but chose instead to
`
`file IPRs. It then affirmatively sought a stay of Triller’s claims against it. It should not now be heard
`
`to complain that the stay it sought has features not to its liking.
`
`
`
`Moving forward with Triller’s Alice motion and staying other proceedings in this action is
`
`an efficient use of the resources of the Court and the parties. If the motion is granted, there will be
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`no need for expensive and prolonged fact discovery, motion practice, expert reports and discovery,
`
`11
`
`and trial. The Court and the parties will save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars and
`
`12
`
`commensurate time savings. Triller’s Alice motion is a rifle shot which, if granted, will save
`
`13
`
`everyone time and money. If it is denied, Triller plans to file IPRs testing the validity of TikTok’s
`
`14
`
`patents. As a result, if the Alice motion is granted, the parties will save the time expense of this
`
`15
`
`proceeding and three IPR proceedings.
`
`16
`
`C. Joint Case Management Statement – Standard Sections
`
`17
`
`1.
`
`Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Venue, and Service
`
`18
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`19
`
`TikTok’s complaint against Triller sets forth various claims for infringement of the TikTok Patents,
`
`20
`
`over which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`21
`
`Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. There are no
`
`22
`
`issues regarding personal jurisdiction or venue, and there are no outstanding issues regarding
`
`23
`
`service.
`
`24
`
`2.
`
`Brief Description of the Case and Defenses, and Events Underlying the Action
`
`25
`
`On January 9, 2021, Triller filed a motion to dismiss TikTok’s complaint based on the first-
`
`26
`
`filed doctrine or, in the alternative, to stay the case. (Dkt. No. 33.) On March 30, 2020, the Court
`
`27
`
`denied Triller’s motion to dismiss and issued an order staying proceedings regarding TikTok’s DJ
`
`28
`
`claim pending the resolution of a motion to transfer by Judge Albright in the Western District of
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`JT CASE MGMT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER
`Case No. 4:20-cv-07572-JSW
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 50 Filed 08/06/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`
`Texas. (Dkt. No. 44.) On April 13, 2021, Triller answered the amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 45.)
`
`On April 15, 2021, Triller filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Section 101. (Dkt.
`
`No. 46.) Shortly afterwards, the Court sua sponte vacated the hearing schedule for Triller’s motion
`
`and stayed this case in its entirety pending resolution of the transfer issue. (Dkt. No. 47.)
`
`Triller asserts that the TikTok Patents are invalid and not infringed.
`
`On July 9, 2021, Judge Albright granted TikTok’s motion to transfer (6:20-cv-693-ADA,
`
`Dkt. No. 85), and the Texas case has been transferred to this District (3:21-cv-5300-JSW). The
`
`parties agreed to stay the transferred case and the proceedings related to TikTok’s DJ claim
`
`regarding Triller’s patent in this case. (Dkt. No. 48.)
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`3.
`
`The Principal Legal And Factual Issues in Dispute
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`Factual Issues
`
`The following factual issues are in dispute regarding the TikTok patents:
`
`i.
`
`Whether Triller directly and/or indirectly infringes the TikTok Patents, either
`
`14
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`ii.
`
`The extent of damages and other relief to which TikTok is entitled.
`
`iii.
`
`Factual issues relating to Triller’s Section 101 mot