throbber
Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 60 Filed 09/17/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`M. Elizabeth Day (SBN 177125)
`eday@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 (Admitted pro hac vice)
`bplatt@wnlaw.com
`Brent P. Lorimer (Admitted 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.
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., and
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No: 4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`RESPONSE TO ORDER REGARDING
`CORRECTED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Defendant provides the following response to the Court’s Order Regarding Corrected
`
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 59).
`
`On September 8, 2021, Triller filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 101 in accordance with the briefing schedule previously ordered by the Court pursuant to the
`
`parties’ stipulation. (Dkt. No. 56.) Triller’s motion was 25 pages in length, consistent with Local
`
`Rule 7-4(b), but inadvertently overlooking the fact that this Court’s Standing Order No. 6 limits
`
`RESPONSE TO ORDER RE: CORRECTED MOTION
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 60 Filed 09/17/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`such motions to 15 pages. On September 13, 2021, counsel for Plaintiffs notified Defendants that
`
`Triller’s motion was in excess of the 15-page limit specified in the Court’s Civil Standing Order
`
`No. 6 and demanded that Defendant re-file a brief in compliance with the page-limits of Civil
`
`Standing Order No. 6.
`
`On September 15, 2021, Defendant filed a corrected 15-page version of its motion for
`
`judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. No. 58). The Corrected Motion is a shortened version of the
`
`original motion. The basic arguments remain unchanged. Counsel for Plaintiffs requested
`
`additional time to respond to the corrected motion, and the Court’s next available hearing date is
`
`November 5, 2021. Accordingly, Defendant agreed to November 5, 2021.
`
`10
`
`This response is accompanied by a stipulation by the parties agreeing that the default
`
`11
`
`briefing schedule set forth in the local rules should govern for Triller’s corrected motion, and that
`
`12
`
`the motion should be set for hearing on November 5, 2021 instead of October 8, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Dated: September 17, 2021
`
`WORKMAN NYDEGGER
`
`/s/ Brian N. Platt
`Brian N. Platt
`
`Attorneys for
`TRILLER, INC.
`
`
`
`2
`
`RESPONSE TO ORDER RE: CORRECTED MOTION
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket