Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`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 (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.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No: 4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO STAY LITIGATION
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Hon. Jeffrey S. White
`
`January 7, 2022
`
`Date:
`Time: 9:00 AM
`Courtroom: 5
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`i
`
`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 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION ........................................................................................................1
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ........................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..................................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................2
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Nature and Stage of the Pleadings ...........................................................................3
`
`Triller’s Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the Three Asserted Patents ..............3
`
`Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Triller .............................................................8
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Simplification of Issues............................................................................................9
`
`Discovery and Trial Dates. ....................................................................................11
`
`Prejudice or Tactical Advantage. ...........................................................................12
`
`Reduce the Burden of Litigation ............................................................................15
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`ii
`
`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 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Aavid Thermalloy LLC v. Cooler Master, Ltd.,
`2019 WL 4009166 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................12
`
`ASCII Corp. v. STD Entm’t USA, Inc.,
`844 F. Supp. 1378 (N.D. Cal. 1994) ........................................................................................11
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`Cellwitch, Inc. v. Tile, Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-1315 JSW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020) ..............................................................8, 9, 11
`
`Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-00186-SI, 2016 WL 5403595 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) ......................................10
`
`In re Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig.,
`385 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2005) .....................................................................................2
`
`Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. GSI Tech., Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-02013 JST, 2014 WL 5021100 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2014) .................................12, 13
`
`Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04613 BLF, 2014 WL 6068407 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014) .....................................8
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)..................................................................................................8
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-1401 WHA, 2014 WL 93954 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2014) ..........................................14
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-4202 SI, 2014 WL 261837 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014) ..........................10, 12, 13, 15
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`139 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc.,
`No. 17-cv-3745-PJH, 2017 WL 5153588 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) .......................................11
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2295 (U.S. 2014) ..............................2
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`iii
`
`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 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-2145 SBA, 2014 WL 3373088, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) ................................8
`
`Heffernan v. City of Paterson,
`578 U.S. 266, 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016) ......................................................................................14
`
`Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`No. 14-cv-00876 RS, 2015 WL 13727876 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015) .............................10, 13
`
`KLA-Tencor Corp. v. Nanometrics, Inc.,
`No. C 05-03116 JSW, 2006 WL 708661 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2006) ......................................13
`
`Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-04275-EDL, 2015 WL 12778777 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2015) .................................10
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. eBay Inc.,
`No. 16-cv-6824 JSW, 2017 WL 2181132 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2017) ......................9, 10, 11, 13
`
`Nat'l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advs. v. Becerra,
`138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) (Breyer, J., dissenting)........................................................................14
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-05920 JSW, 2018 WL 6972999 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) ..............................10, 12
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`69 F. Supp. 3d 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................9
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 5:13-cv-01356-EJD, 2014 WL 116340 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) ...................................11
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-02168 EJD, 2011 WL 4802958 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2011) ......................................9
`
`Riverbed Tech., Inc., v. Silver Peak Systems, Inc.,
`No. C 13-02980 JSW, 2014 WL 1647399 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014) ....................................12
`
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys. v. Cardiocom, LLC,
`No. 14-cv-1574 EMC, 2014 WL 3107447 (N.D. Cal. July 3, 2014) .......................................15
`
`Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys. v. Cardiocom, LLC,
`No. 5:12-cv-3864 EJD, 2012 WL 6020012 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) .....................................15
`
`Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc.,
`159 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................9
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`C-12-3971 RMW, 2013 WL 5225522 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2013) ..........................................15
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. v. Apple,
`No. 18-cv-00361-PJH, 2018 WL 2387855 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018) ....................................13
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`Uniloc USA v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
`Case No. 18-cv-6737 JST, 2019 WL 1905161 (N.D. Cal. April 4, 2019).........................10, 12
`
`VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .........................................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(e) .........................................................................................................................10
`
`America Invents Act Section 18(b) ............................................................................................8, 11
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`v
`
`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 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, on January 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`the motion may be heard, in the courtroom of The Honorable Jeffrey S. White, located at
`
`Courtroom 5, 2nd Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California 94612, defendant Triller, Inc.
`
`(“Triller”) will and hereby does move this Court, pursuant to the Court’s discretion, for an order
`
`staying this case pending the outcome of the three inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings being
`
`filed concurrently with this motion regarding the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,648,132 (“the
`
`’132 patent”), 9,992,322 (“the ’322 patent”), and 9,294,430 (“the ’430 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`10
`
`“three Asserted Patents”). This motion is based on this notice, the supporting memorandum of
`
`11
`
`points and authorities, the supporting declaration of Brian N. Platt (“Platt Decl.”) and exhibits
`
`12
`
`submitted therewith, the pleadings and records on file in this action, all matters of which the Court
`
`13
`
`may take judicial notice, and any other argument or evidence that may be presented in support of
`
`14
`
`this motion.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Triller seeks a stay of this litigation pending a final decision on inter partes reviews for the
`
`17
`
`three Asserted Patents.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Whether to stay this case pending the outcome of the inter partes reviews of the three
`
`20
`
`Asserted Patents in light of the judicial efficiency it would provide, the early stage of the litigation,
`
`21
`
`the simplification of issues from a stay, and the lack of undue prejudice to Plaintiffs.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Triller moves to stay this case pending the outcome of three inter partes review petitions
`
`for the three Asserted Patents in order to resolve this dispute in an efficient manner. The three
`
`IPRs will illuminate what issues should be before the Court, simplify these proceedings, and
`
`conserve judicial resources. A stay is strongly supported in view of the early stage of this litigation,
`
`the lack of prejudice to the Plaintiffs from a stay, the potential for the three IPRs to simplify the
`
`issues in this case, and the resulting reduction in the burdens imposed by this litigation on the
`
`Court and the parties. See In re Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC, Patent Litig., 385 F. Supp. 2d 1022,
`
`1023 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
`
`10
`
`All of the asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents will have been presented to the
`
`11
`
`Board for review in the IPR petitions, which are being filed concurrently with the filing of this
`
`12
`
`motion. Plaintiffs will lose their causes of action for each claim that is cancelled; as such, the three
`
`13
`
`IPRs have the potential to moot this entire action. E.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`
`14
`
`721 F.3d 1330, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2295 (U.S. 2014). Triller
`
`15
`
`respectfully requests that the Court conserve judicial resources and the resources of the parties by
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`staying this matter to allow for the completion of the three pending IPR proceedings.
`
`
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Nature and Stage of the Pleadings
`
`Plaintiffs ByteDance, Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., and TikTok, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”) filed this suit
`
`as a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement of
`
`Triller’s U.S. Patent No. 9,691,429 (“the ’429 Patent”) on October 28, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Two
`
`weeks later, having purchased the three Asserted Patents through a patent broker, Plaintiffs filed a
`
`First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on November 11, 2020. (ECF No. 9.) The FAC asserted
`
`additional causes of action related to Plaintiffs’ newly acquired patents. On January 11, 2021,
`
`Triller responded to the Complaint by moving to dismiss or stay Count One (the declaratory
`
`10
`
`judgment count) in view of parallel proceedings in the Western District of Texas. (ECF No. 33.)
`
`11
`
`The Court denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss but entered an order staying
`
`12
`
`proceedings related to Count One. (ECF No. 44.) Shortly thereafter, Triller answered the FAC
`
`13
`
`(ECF No. 45) and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on Section 101. (ECF No.
`
`14
`
`46.) Noting the inefficiency of addressing matters piecemeal, the Court stayed the remaining
`
`15
`
`counts pending resolution of the transfer issue. (ECF No. 47.) On July 7, Judge Albright granted
`
`16
`
`the Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer; as instructed by the Court, the parties filed a joint notice noting
`
`17
`
`the transfer order on July 16. (ECF No. 48.)
`
`18
`
`On August 6, 2021, the parties filed a case management conference statement (ECF No.
`
`19
`
`50) and on August 9 the Court set a new briefing schedule for Triller’s Motion to Dismiss. (ECF
`
`20
`
`No. 51.) On August 25, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and served
`
`21
`
`infringement contentions two days later. Due to the filing of the SAC, Triller again filed its Motion
`
`22
`
`to Dismiss on September 8, 2021 (and a corrected brief on September 15, 2021). Briefing on the
`
`23
`
`Section 101 motion is now complete and the matter is set for hearing on January 28, 2022.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Triller’s Petitions for Inter Partes Review of the Three Asserted Patents
`
`On November 10, 2021, Triller filed three petitions requesting inter partes review of the
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents. (Exs. A, B, C.)1 Triller’s petitions rely on U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0021750 (“Abrams,” Ex. D), published on January 27,
`
`2005, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0008256 (“Khedouri,” Ex. E), published on
`
`January 12, 2006, U.S. Patent No. 8.572,169 (“Partovi,” Ex. F) filed on August 28, 2006 and
`
`published on February 28, 2008, and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0031366
`
`(“Knight 2010,” Ex. G), which published on February 4, 2010. Triller contends that all of the
`
`asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents are anticipated or obvious as set forth below:
`
`▪ Abrams anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 22, 26, and 31 of the ’132
`
`Patent;
`
`▪ Abrams anticipates or renders obvious claims 30, 51, and 55 of the ’322
`
`Patent;
`
`▪ Abrams and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvious claims 2, 3, and
`
`27 of the ’132 Patent;
`
`▪ Abrams and the knowledge of a POSITA render obvious claims 31, 32, and
`
`56 of the ’322 Patent;
`
`▪ Knight 2010 anticipates or renders obvious claims 3, 6, and 27 of the ’132
`
`Patent, claims 32, 35, and 56 of the ’322 Patent, and claims 1, 19, 23, 24,
`
`and 28 of the ’430 Patent.
`
`▪ Abrams in combination with Partovi renders obvious claim 6 of the ’132
`
`Patent, claim 35 of the ’322 Patent, and claims 1, 19, 23, 24, and 28 of the
`
`’430 Patent.
`
`▪ Abrams in combination with Khedouri renders obvious claims 3 and 6 of
`
`the ’132 Patent, claims 32 and 35 of the ’322 Patent, and claims 1, 19, 23,
`
`24, and 28 of the ’430 Patent.
`
`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
`
`Each of these prior art references is directed to the claimed technology of the Asserted Patents:
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 Exhibits reference the Declaration of Brian Platt in Support of Triller’s Motion to Stay Litigation
`Pending Inter Partes Review.
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`social networks. E.g., ’132 Patent at Abstract. Computer social networks became popular after
`
`the Internet was made available for public commercial use in the early 1990s. Among the earliest
`
`of computer social networks was Friendster, which is the subject of Abrams.
`
`
`
`Abrams describes a classic social network system implemented on a computerized
`
`network, which allows an end-user to create user accounts with an associated profile, view other
`
`users of the social network, and link his or her account to other users who become “friends.”
`
`Abrams, Fig. 5. Abrams was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution of the Asserted
`
`Patents. Similarly, as explained in Triller’s IPR petitions, Partovi discloses a “System, Apparatus
`
`and Method for Discovery of Music Within a Social Network.” Partovi was also not considered
`
`by the Examiner during the prosecution of the Asserted Patents. Partovi discloses:
`
`
`
`A system, apparatus, and method to assist in the discovery of music or
`other content by members of a social network. The present invention
`permits network members to network together and share information
`about their music collections and listening habits with a processing
`platform and with each other. The processing platform processes music
`library content and playback related data to produce similarity and
`compatibility measures between artists (that is, an artist-to-artist measure)
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`5
`
`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 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`and between network members (that is, a network member-to-network
`member measure). By combining the content and playback related data with
`filtering mechanisms, recommendation techniques (which may be based on
`the calculated measures), and set membership concepts, the present
`invention provides network members of the network with tools to discover
`artists and/or songs that are likely to be of interest to them.
`
`Partovi, at Abstract (emphasis added). Partovi includes an exemplary structure for its system for
`
`social music discovery as reproduced below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Partovi, Fig. 2. Partovi discloses that User A and User B operate client computers (106 in A’s
`
`case) running a web browser (hence HTTP is used), and containing a media player, a music library
`
`database and media files. A remote server 220 is part of Social Music Discovery Backend 102,
`
`which enables users to “discover” each other and form “friend-friend relationships.” Partovi also
`
`explicitly discloses that its invention might be implemented on a social network:
`
`Such services may also allow a user to publish their music listening habits
`(as determined by these web services) as an embedded resource on another
`website (such as a web page on a social network, e.g., MySpace™).
`
`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
`
`Partovi, at 2:1-5.
`
`
`
`6
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`And as Triller’s IPR petitions explain, Khedouri—which was considered by the Examiner,
`
`but not in combination with Abrams—describes a system for distributing digital audio and video
`
`from a remote server over the Internet to portable wireless devices, and for allowing device users
`
`to share that content and information about it within a computerized social network. See Khedouri,
`
`¶ 6. The system disclosed in Khedouri “consists of a portable wireless audio and/or video player
`
`apparatus” that “is able to function as a standalone device to generate, search and obtain new audio
`
`and/or video digital data files…wirelessly over the Internet, without the need to use an intervening
`
`device, such as a desktop or laptop computer that temporarily stores the content data files to be
`
`transferred to the portable device.” Khedouri, ¶ 14. Its figures illustrate a portable player device:
`
`Khedouri, Figs 2, 6. Khedouri further discloses that the device may retrieve audio/video content
`
`and associated metadata over a wireless internet connection. See id. ¶¶ 3, 13, 19, 41, 52, 63, 126.
`
`Lastly, Triller’s IPR petitions rely on Knight 2010, which is the Applicants’ own disclosure
`
`and therefore shares common figures and written description with the Asserted Patents. Some of
`
`the asserted claims in the Asserted Patents claim later-added subject matter that is not entitled to a
`
`priority date before August 5, 2013. Knight 2010 is an intervening publication that contains that
`
`later-added subject matter and therefore invalidates claims in the Asserted Patents containing that
`
`subject matter.
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`7
`
`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 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Triller’s IPR petitions challenge all asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents.
`
`C.
`
`Relationship Between Plaintiffs and Triller
`
`TikTok claims nearly 1-billion average monthly users. See Thanks a billion!, available at
`
`https://newsroom.tiktok.com/en-us/1-billion-people-on-tiktok (last visited: Oct. 28, 2021). The
`
`SAC does not allege that competition from Triller threatens TikTok’s dominant market position.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under Section 18(b) of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), the following four factors should
`
`be considered by the district court when deciding whether to grant a stay:
`
`(A) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in
`question and streamline the trial;
`(B) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;
`(C) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the
`nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving
`party; and
`(D) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of
`litigation on the parties and on the court.
`
`VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting AIA
`
`§ 18(b)(1)). These factors are similar to the factors applied when a court evaluates a motion to
`
`stay in light of inter partes review or reexamination by the PTO. The fourth factor was added “in
`
`order to ease the movant’s task in demonstrating the need for a stay.” E.g., Cellwitch, Inc. v. Tile,
`
`Inc., No. 19-cv-1315 JSW, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020); citing GT Nexus, Inc. v. Inttra, Inc.,
`
`No. 11-cv-2145 SBA, 2014 WL 3373088, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2014).
`
`The determination of whether to grant a stay is soundly within the Court’s discretion in
`
`managing its own docket. See, e.g., Finjan, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1032, 1035
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2015) (citing Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). And
`
`although this Court is under no obligation to stay proceedings pending an outcome of parallel
`
`litigation before the PTAB, “judicial efficiency and the desire to avoid inconsistent results may,
`
`after careful consideration of the relevant factors, counsel in favor of a limited stay, even before
`
`the PTAB has acted on a petition for IPR.” Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., No. 13-cv-04613 BLF,
`
`2014 WL 6068407, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2014). “Indeed, some courts in this district have
`
`recognized ‘a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay proceedings pending the outcome
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`of USPTO reexamination or reissuance proceedings.” Finjan, 139 F. Supp. 3d at 1035 (citing
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 11-cv-02168 EJD, 2011 WL 4802958, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Oct. 11, 2011)). Each of these four factors is addressed below.
`
`A.
`
`Simplification of Issues.
`
`The first factor, whether the outcome of the IPR will simplify the issues in the litigation—
`
`whether by helping the Court determine patent validity or potentially eliminating the need to try
`
`infringement—strongly favors a stay in this case. Slip Track Sys., Inc. v. Metal Lite, Inc., 159 F.3d
`
`1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (justifying a stay pending reexamination where “the outcome of the
`
`reexamination would be likely to assist the court in determining patent validity and, if the claims
`
`10
`
`were canceled in the reexamination, would eliminate the need to try infringement issues.”).
`
`11
`
`Triller’s three IPRs seek cancellation of all asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents; as such,
`
`12
`
`these three IPRs have a significant potential to simplify, or moot entirely, this litigation. E.g.,
`
`13
`
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 1022, 1025–28 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (stay
`
`14
`
`justified because cancellation of claims would moot litigation and IPR would simplify issues
`
`15
`
`before the court). As this Court has noted, a stay pending IPR outcome can prevent inconsistent
`
`16
`
`rulings and avoid the needless waste of judicial resources. MasterObjects, Inc. v. eBay Inc., No.
`
`17
`
`16-cv-6824 JSW, 2017 WL 2181132, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2017) (“[i]nvalidation of all or
`
`18
`
`some of these claims, or even just the PTAB’s claim construction and analysis of these claims or
`
`19
`
`terms, may serve to simplify the issues and streamline future proceedings before this Court, thus
`
`20
`
`reducing the litigation burden on both the Court and the parties”); see also Cellwitch, No. 19-cv-
`
`21
`
`1315 JSW, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020) (“should it be instituted, an IPR has the potential to
`
`22
`
`significantly streamline this litigation”).
`
`23
`
`PTAB trial statistics also indicate that it is likely to accept review and invalidate the
`
`24
`
`asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents. In 2021, the Board instituted IPRs at a rate of 59%,
`
`25
`
`and at a rate of 60% in the electrical/computer patent category. (Platt Decl., Ex H at 8.) For IPRs
`
`26
`
`proceeding to a final written decision, approximately 59% found all claims unpatentable and an
`
`27
`
`even higher 79% found some or all claims unpatentable. (Platt Decl., Ex. H at 11.) This evidence
`
`28
`
`of the statistically likely invalidation of the asserted claims of the three Asserted Patents further
`
`
`
`9
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`supports a stay. See Karl Storz Endoscopy-Am. Inc. v. Stryker Corp., No. 14-cv-00876 RS, 2015
`
`WL 13727876, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2015) (granting stay before institution based on statistical
`
`likelihood of success for petitions addressing all patents-in-suit); Chrimar Sys. Inc. v. Ruckus
`
`Wireless, Inc., No. 16-cv-00186-SI, 2016 WL 5403595, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2016) (high
`
`rates of invalidation in IPR contributed to potential for simplification of issues and favored stay).
`
`In addition, should any claims of the three Asserted Patents survive IPR they may have
`
`been narrowed or amended before the Board, which will alter the scope of this litigation. The
`
`Court will also have the benefit of the Board’s claim construction. See Oyster Optics, LLC v.
`
`Ciena Corp., No. 17-cv-05920 JSW, 2018 WL 6972999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2018) (holding
`
`10
`
`that the Board’s “rulings may also clarify claim construction positions for the parties, raise estoppel
`
`11
`
`issues, and encourage settlement.”). In addition, statements made by the Plaintiffs in the IPR
`
`12
`
`proceedings will add to the file histories of the three Asserted Patents and may further limit the
`
`13
`
`scope of the claims. See, e.g., Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`
`14
`
`2017) (“[S]tatements made by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether before or after
`
`15
`
`an institution decision, can be considered for claim construction and relied upon to support a
`
`16
`
`finding of prosecution disclaimer.”).
`
`17
`
`Finally, should the Board issue a final written decision finding less than all of the claims
`
`18
`
`unpatentable, Triller would be estopped in this litigation from asserting grounds for invalidity that
`
`19
`
`were raised or reasonably could have been raised, which would likely narrow the scope of this
`
`20
`
`litigation. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). The fact that Triller’s petitions have not yet been instituted does
`
`21
`
`not negate the benefits of potentially simplifying the issues in this litigation. Courts in this district
`
`22
`
`have repeatedly granted motions to stay pending institution. See, e.g., Oyster, 2018 WL 6972999,
`
`23
`
`at *2 (granting stay before IPR institution); Uniloc USA v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Case No.
`
`24
`
`18-cv-6737 JST, 2019 WL 1905161, at *4 (N.D. Cal. April 4, 2019) (same); Finjan, 139 F. Supp.
`
`25
`
`3d at 1037 (same); Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 13-cv-4202 SI, 2014 WL
`
`26
`
`261837, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2014)) (same); MasterObjects, 2017 WL 2181132, at *3 (same);
`
`27
`
`Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 14-cv-04275-EDL, 2015 WL 12778777, at *5 (N.D.
`
`28
`
`Cal. Oct. 29, 2015) (same); Fisher-Price, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc., No. 17-cv-3745-PJH, 2017
`
`
`
`10
`
`TRILLER’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING IPR
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-7572-JSW
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-07572-JSW Document 69 Filed 11/11/21 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`WL 5153588, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) (same). In each of these cases, the courts balanced
`
`the benefits of the stay prior to institution against the potential benefits of the IPR. E.g., Cellwitch,
`
`No. 19-cv-1315 JSW, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020) (“[Plaintiff’s] concern regarding the
`
`premature nature of [Defendant’s] stay request is obviated by the relatively short time frame by
`
`which the PTAB must issue its decision as to whether to institute an IPR.”).
`
`The most efficient progression of this litigation—avoiding the potential for inconsistent
`
`judgments—lies in a stay. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01356-EJD,
`
`2014 WL 116340, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2014) (noting that a stay allows for invalidity “to be
`
`determined once” in the IPR as intended by the AIA). Because a stay will simplify the issues
`
`10
`
`before this Court, this factor weighs heavily in favor of a stay pending the outcome of the IPR.
`
`11
`
`12
`