TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-001
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`
`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., TIKTOK INC., and TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BYTEDANCE INC., TIKTOK INC., AND
`TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`v.
`
`
`TRILLER, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-7572-TSH
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`
`(1) DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 9,691,429
`
`(2) INJUNCTION AGAINST TRILLER TO
`CEASE INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NOS. 9,648,132, 9,992,322, &
`9,294,430
`
`(3) DAMAGES FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs Bytedance Inc. (“BDI”), TikTok Inc. (“TTI”), and TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TTPL”)
`
`(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby bring this First Amended Complaint against Defendant Triller,
`
`Inc. (“Triller” or “Defendant”) as follows:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No 3:20-cv-07572-TSH.
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-002
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs BDI and TTI bring this action for a declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,691,429 (“the ’429 patent”). Plaintiffs TTI and TTPL also seek
`
`an injunction against Triller and damages for Triller’s past and ongoing infringement of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,648,132 (“the ’132 patent”), 9,992,322 (“the ’322 patent”), and 9,294,430 (“the ’430
`
`patent”).
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs BDI and TTI seek a declaratory judgment that they do not infringe any
`
`claim of the ’429 patent (attached as Exhibit A). Plaintiffs TTI and TTPL also seek remedies in
`
`equity and law for Triller’s past and ongoing infringement of TikTok’s patented intellectual property
`
`10
`
`as set forth below.
`
`11
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs are technology companies that provide and support a variety of mobile
`
`12
`
`software applications that enable people around the world to connect with, consume, and create
`
`13
`
`entertainment content, including via an application called “TikTok.” TikTok is a mobile software
`
`14
`
`application that millions of Americans, including many in this judicial district, use to create and
`
`15
`
`share short videos composed of expressive content.
`
`16
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Triller is the developer, distributor, and operator of an application called
`
`17
`
`“Triller” which it characterizes as “an entertainment platform built for creators.”1 Defendant Triller
`
`18
`
`has alleged that TikTok infringes the ’429 patent, which is not correct. To the contrary, it is Triller
`
`19
`
`that improperly is infringing TTPL and TTI intellectual property, including by Triller’s past and
`
`20
`
`ongoing infringement of the ’132 patent, ’322 patent, and ’430 patent, which includes acts of
`
`21
`
`infringement in this judicial district.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`Triller’s Accusations Against TikTok Are Without Merit
`
`5.
`
`On July 29, 2020, Triller filed a lawsuit against the entities TikTok Inc. and
`
`24
`
`Bytedance Ltd. in the Western District of Texas (C.A. No. 20-cv-00693) (“the Texas Litigation”)
`
`25
`
`alleging that those entities “directly and indirectly infringe the [’429] Patent by making, using,
`
`26
`
`offering for sale, selling, and importing the popular iOS and Android software application known
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 https://apps.apple.com/us/app/triller-social-video-platform/id994905763 (accessed Oct. 27,
`2020).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-003
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`
`as ‘TikTok.’” Id., Dkt. No. 1 ¶3. Triller has alleged that the “Accused Products” in that lawsuit (the
`
`“Accused TikTok Products”) are “software products [that] are available for iOS and Android hand-
`
`held or tablet devices and are distributed under the TikTok brand name.” Id., ¶14. Triller has alleged
`
`that “making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing the Accused Products” constitutes
`
`patent infringement and violates at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (c). Id. ¶34 et seq. Triller has
`
`also alleged that various training videos, demonstrations, brochures, and user guides, which are
`
`created by BDI or TTI, instruct users of the TikTok apps to infringe the ’429 patent. Id. Triller has
`
`alleged that making the Accused TikTok Products (among other acts) infringes at least claims 1, 3,
`
`4, 5, 6, and 7 of the ’429 patent. Id.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`6.
`
`Notwithstanding Triller’s allegations in the Texas Litigation, that district is not a
`
`11
`
`proper forum for a dispute concerning the Accused TikTok Products. Bytedance Ltd., a defendant
`
`12
`
`in that case, is a holding company based outside of the United States that does not have employees
`
`13
`
`or property in Texas. TTI, the other defendant in that case, has no employees or facilities in the State
`
`14
`
`of Texas and, more specifically, does not have any regular and established place of business in that
`
`15
`
`forum, and thus is not subject to venue under the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC
`
`16
`
`v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ , 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). BDI and TTI thus bring
`
`17
`
`the instant action seeking declaratory judgment in a proper forum—in the state where the relevant
`
`18
`
`parties are based, and in the judicial district where a substantial part of the events or omissions
`
`19
`
`giving rise to Triller’s alleged infringement claims have occurred and continue to occur.
`
`20
`
`7.
`
`BDI and TTI are the only companies based in the United States responsible for
`
`21
`
`developing, providing, and supporting the Accused TikTok Products. Triller’s actions and
`
`22
`
`allegations have created a real and immediate controversy between Triller, BDI, and TTI as to
`
`23
`
`whether the Accused TikTok Products infringe any claim of the ’429 patent. Triller’s lawsuit and
`
`24
`
`statements that “making” the Accused TikTok Products infringes the ’429 patent demonstrate that
`
`25
`
`it is highly likely that Defendant Triller will assert infringement against BDI in addition to its
`
`26
`
`previous allegations against TTI. In the meantime, the cloud of Triller’s allegations, including that
`
`27
`
`making the Accused TikTok Products infringes the ’429 patent, hangs over BDI and TTI.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-004
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`8.
`
`As set forth herein, BDI and TTI do not infringe and have not infringed the ’429
`
`patent. Therefore, an actual and justiciable controversy exists as to whether BDI and TTI’s Accused
`
`TikTok Products infringe any claim of the ’429 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to resolve
`
`the real, immediate, and justiciable controversy concerning these issues and to determine the
`
`respective rights of the parties regarding the ’429 patent. BDI and TTI respectfully seek a judicial
`
`determination that the ’429 patent is not directly or indirectly infringed by BDI and TTI, including
`
`by their products and/or services.
`
`Triller Infringes TikTok’s Patents
`
`9.
`
`Contrary to Triller’s assertions, it is Triller that is using TikTok’s innovative,
`
`10
`
`valuable, and patented functionality. Triller’s software application for the iOS operating system and
`
`11
`
`Triller’s software application for the Android operating system (collectively, the “Infringing Triller
`
`12
`
`Products”) infringe several TikTok patents, including the ’132 patent, ’322 patent, and ’430 patent,
`
`13
`
`which are owned by TTPL and exclusively licensed to TTI in the United States. The inventions
`
`14
`
`claimed and disclosed in TTPL’s multiple patents go to the heart of the Infringing Triller Products.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`TikTok
`
`Triller
`
`10.
`
`For example, the ’132 patent, ’322 patent, and ’430 patent are each titled “Method
`
`of enabling digital music content to be downloaded to and used on a portable wireless computing
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-005
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`
`device.” These patents claim a priority date of 2006, which predates the founding of Triller by nearly
`
`a decade.
`
`11.
`
`For example, TikTok owns—and Triller infringes—the invention claimed in claim
`
`30 of the ’322 patent, i.e., a “software application [that] is executable on a smartphone device … (a)
`
`in which the software application allows the end-user to, over a wireless connection, create on a
`
`remote server one or more user accounts with associated profiles for that end-user, wherein the
`
`profiles are editable; and (b) the software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless
`
`connection, view profiles created by other users of a service; and (c) the software application allows
`
`the end-user to, over the wireless connection, interact with other users of the service; and (d) the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`software application allows the end-user to, over the wireless connection, send and receive messages
`
`11
`
`to and from other users of the service; and (e) the software application allows the end-user to, over
`
`12
`
`the wireless connection, link his or her user account on the remote server to user accounts on the
`
`13
`
`remote server of other users of the same service or of other services.”
`
`14
`
`12.
`
`As a further example, TikTok owns—and Triller infringes—the invention claimed
`
`15
`
`in claim 35 of the ’322 patent, where that “software application is a music application wherein the
`
`16
`
`software application uses track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer and defines
`
`17
`
`attributes of tracks, the meta-data being external to a music track to make sharing and browsing of
`
`18
`
`track information possible without needing to distribute the related music track files.”
`
`19
`
`13.
`
`As a still further example, TikTok owns—and Triller infringes—the invention
`
`20
`
`claimed in claim 51 of the ’322 patent, where “the software application [is] such that the service
`
`21
`
`provides over a wireless connection, recommendations to the user of people, media content or any
`
`22
`
`other items which the user might like, based on the user’s viewing … history, on the viewing …
`
`23
`
`history of any other users or on any other criteria.”
`
`24
`
`14.
`
`As their titles suggest, TikTok’s other patents asserted in this litigation, specifically
`
`25
`
`the ’132 and ’420 patents, cover other aspects of “enabling digital music content to be downloaded
`
`26
`
`to and used on a portable wireless computing device,” which is critical functionality to Triller.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`15.
`
`As set forth herein, Triller has illegally practiced, and continues to practice and
`
`infringe claims of the ’132, ’332, and ’430 patents, all in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`5
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-006
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`PARTIES
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff BDI is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 250
`
`Bryant Street, Mountain View, California, 94041.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff TTI is a California corporation having its principal place of business at 5800
`
`Bristol Parkway, Culver City, California, 90230.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff TTPL is a Singapore Corporation having its principal place of business at 8
`
`Marina View Level 43 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore, 018960.
`
`19.
`
`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
`
`10
`
`Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2320, Los Angeles, California, 90067.
`
`11
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, and based on its allegations in the Texas Litigation, Triller
`
`12
`
`is the owner of the ’429 patent.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction
`
`21.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and the Declaratory
`
`16
`
`Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
`
`17
`
`alleged in this action at least pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
`
`18
`
`22.
`
`This Court can provide the declaratory relief sought in this Complaint because an
`
`19
`
`actual case and controversy exists between the parties within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction
`
`20
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, at least because Triller has accused the Accused TikTok Products of
`
`21
`
`infringing its patent, e.g., by suing TTI as well as others for patent infringement alleging
`
`22
`
`infringement by “making” the Accused TikTok Products.
`
`23
`
`23.
`
`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 those
`
`28
`
`
`
`products is an act of contributory infringement. Triller’s allegations against TTI and users of the
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`6
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-007
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`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, TTI, and BDI.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction
`
`25.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Triller. Triller’s principal place of business
`
`is in California. Triller’s Terms of Service state that “Triller, Inc.[’s] address is at 2121 Avenue of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the Stars Suite 2350, Los Angeles, California 90067.” See Exhibit B.
`
`11
`
`26.
`
`Triller also lists both Los Angeles and San Francisco among the locations of its
`
`12
`
`worldwide offices on its website, including at https://www.triller.co/faq/index.html:
`
`
`
`27. 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 Infringing Triller Products), and by
`
`soliciting investment and receiving funding from persons in this District to fund the creation, use,
`
`sale, and distribution of Triller’s Infringing Products. On information and belief, Triller also uses,
`
`sells, or otherwise provides Triller’s Infringing Products to a number of end users in this District,
`
`including end users who post and view videos located in this District, as shown in the exemplary
`
`screenshots below. On information and belief, Triller also induces and contributes to infringement
`
`by at least the end users of Triller’s Infringing Products in this District, including end users who
`
`post and view videos located in this district as shown in the exemplary screen shots below.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-008
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`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
`
`29.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 including because
`
`a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim presented in this Complaint occurred in this
`
`District (see 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)). Venue is also proper in this
`
`District because, on information and belief, Triller has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District, and Triller has a regular and established place of business in this District. For example, as
`
`noted above at ¶26, Triller identifies San Francisco as an office location on its website.
`
`30.
`
`In addition, the TikTok Accused Products and Triller’s Infringing Products are
`
`distributed to users in the United States 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-009
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`
`judicial District. Apple’s principal place of business is in Cupertino, California, and Google’s
`
`principal place of business is in Mountain View, California.
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF –
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of the ’429 Patent
`
`Plaintiffs BDI and TTI (the “Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs”) incorporate the
`
`allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-30 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`Neither the Declaratory Judgment 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 the Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs’ products infringe any such claim.
`
`33.
`
`By way of example, neither the Declaratory Judgment 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 the Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs and their products do not perform
`
`the method steps of “capturing a plurality of video takes” or “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 the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Plaintiffs’ products perform this method step. This is at least because the Accused TikTok Products
`
`do not provide a second “take,” meaning that the Accused TikTok products do not and cannot
`
`perform the method steps requiring a “plurality of captured video takes” or “plurality of video
`
`takes.”
`
`34.
`
`By way of further example, the Declaratory Judgment 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
`
`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
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-0010
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`
`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 the Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs’ products installed or otherwise used by
`
`end-users in a way that satisfies this claim limitation. This is at least because the Accused TikTok
`
`Products do not provide a second “take,” meaning that the Accused TikTok products do not
`
`comprise a user device with at least one processor operable to “synchronize each video take of the
`
`plurality of captured video takes” or “plurality of video takes” in the manner claimed.
`
`35.
`
`By way of example, neither the Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs nor their products
`
`infringe, induce others to infringe, or contribute to any infringement by others of, claims 17-19 of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the ’429 patent, at least because the Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs and their products do not
`
`11
`
`perform the method steps of “capturing a plurality of video takes” or “synchronizing, while the
`
`12
`
`plurality of video takes are being captured, each video take of the plurality of captured video takes
`
`13
`
`to the selected audio track, wherein synchronizing further comprises playing, from a first beginning,
`
`14
`
`the selected audio track at substantially the same time as a second beginning of capturing each video
`
`15
`
`take of the plurality of video takes; and creating a music video comprising the selected audio track
`
`16
`
`and at least a subset of the plurality of captured video takes synchronized to the selected audio track;
`
`17
`
`wherein creating comprises: displaying the subset of the plurality of captured video takes based on
`
`18
`
`the number of faces determined to be within each video take.” Nor do any end-users of the
`
`19
`
`Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs’ products perform this method step. This is at least because the
`
`20
`
`Accused TikTok Products do not provide a second “take,” meaning that the Accused TikTok
`
`21
`
`products do not and cannot perform the method steps requiring a “plurality of captured video takes”
`
`22
`
`or “plurality of video takes.”
`
`23
`
`36.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a definite
`
`24
`
`and concrete, real and substantial, justiciable controversy between Triller and the Declaratory
`
`25
`
`Judgment Plaintiffs regarding the noninfringement of the ’429 patent, including with respect to the
`
`26
`
`Declaratory Judgment Plaintiffs’ Accused TikTok Products. This controversy is of sufficient
`
`27
`
`immediacy and reality to warrant issuance of a Declaratory Judgment.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-0011
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF –
`Infringement of the ’132 Patent
`
`37.
`
`TTPL and TTI incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-36 as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`TTPL is the assignee of the ’132 patent (a true and accurate copy of which is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit C) and is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’132 patent, entitled
`
`“Method of enabling digital music content to be downloaded to and used on a portable wireless
`
`computing device.” TTI is the exclusive licensee of the ’132 patent in the United States and, as the
`
`exclusive licensee, has the right to exclude Triller from practicing the ’132 patent.
`
`39.
`
`The ’132 patent was duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on May 9, 2017.
`
`40.
`
`TTPL and TTI together have all rights to sue for and collect damages for past and
`
`ongoing infringement of the ’132 patent, as well as the right to seek an injunction for infringement
`
`of the ’132 patent.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Each claim of the ’132 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Triller has directly infringed at least claim 31 of the
`
`’132 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, including by making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States, at least the Infringing Triller Products.
`
`Charts providing non-limiting exemplary evidence of this infringement, based solely on public
`
`information after a reasonable investigation, are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F-1. TTPL
`
`and TTI reserve their rights to assert further infringement allegations, including, for example, on the
`
`basis of information about the Infringing Triller Products that TTPL and TTI will obtain during
`
`discovery.
`
`43.
`
`Triller has also infringed at least claim 31 of the ’132 patent by inducing others,
`
`including end users of the Infringing Triller Products, to infringe at least claim 31 of the ’132 patent.
`
`On information and belief, Triller takes active steps to induce infringement of at least claim 31 of
`
`the ’132 patent by others, including end users of the Infringing Triller Products, and Triller does so
`
`knowing that those steps will induce, encourage and facilitate direct infringement by others. On
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-0012
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`
`information and belief, Triller knows or should know that such activities induce others to directly
`
`infringe at least claim 31 of the ’132 patent.
`
`44.
`
`Triller also contributes to the infringement of at least claim 31 of the ’132 patent by
`
`others, including end users of the Infringing Triller Products. Acts by Triller that contribute to the
`
`infringement of others include, but are not limited to, the use, sale or provision of the Infringing
`
`Triller Products to end users of the Infringing Triller Products. The Infringing Triller Products are
`
`especially made or adapted for use to infringe at least claim 31 of the ’132 patent and are at least a
`
`material part of those claims. The Infringing Triller Products, including the functionality
`
`contributing to infringement of the ’132 patent, are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`11
`
`45.
`
`By way of at least this Amended Complaint, Triller knows of the ’132 patent and
`
`12
`
`performs acts that Triller knows, or should know, induce, and/or contribute to the direct
`
`13
`
`infringement of the ’132 patent.
`
`14
`
`46.
`
`TTPL and TTI have been irreparably harmed by Triller’s infringement of the ’132
`
`15
`
`patent and will continue to be harmed unless and until Triller’s infringement is enjoined by this
`
`16
`
`Court.
`
`17
`
`47. Moreover, by its actions, Triller has injured TTPL and TTI and is liable to TTPL and
`
`18
`
`TTI for infringement of the ’132 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. TTPL and TTI are entitled to
`
`19
`
`damages as set forth in at least 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF –
`Infringement of the ’322 Patent
`
`48.
`
`TTPL and TTI incorporate the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-47 as though fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`TTPL is the assignee of the ’322 Patent (a true and accurate copy of which is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit D) and is the owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’322 patent, entitled
`
`“Method of enabling digital music content to be downloaded to and used on a portable wireless
`
`computing device.” TTI is the exclusive licensee of the ’322 patent in the United States and, as the
`
`exclusive licensee, has the right to exclude Triller from practicing the ’322 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-0013
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`50.
`
`The ’322 patent was duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on June 5, 2018.
`
`51.
`
`TTPL and TTI together have all rights to sue for and collect damages for past and
`
`ongoing infringement of the ’322 patent, as well as the right to seek an injunction for infringement
`
`of the ’322 patent.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Each claim of the ’322 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Triller has directly infringed at least claim 30 of the
`
`’322 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, including by making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States, at least the Infringing Triller Products.
`
`10
`
`Charts providing non-limiting exemplary evidence of this infringement, based solely on public
`
`11
`
`information after a reasonable investigation, are attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F-2. TTPL
`
`12
`
`and TTI reserve their rights to assert further infringement allegations, including, for example, on the
`
`13
`
`basis of information about the Infringing Triller Products that TTPL and TTI will obtain during
`
`14
`
`discovery.
`
`15
`
`54.
`
`Triller has also infringed at least claim 30 of the ’322 patent by inducing others,
`
`16
`
`including end users of the Infringing Trilling Products, to infringe at least claim 30 of the ’322
`
`17
`
`patent. On information and belief, Triller takes active steps to induce infringement of at least claim
`
`18
`
`30 of the ’322 patent by others, including end users of the Infringing Trilling Products, and Triller
`
`19
`
`does so knowing that those steps will induce, encourage and facilitate direct infringement by others.
`
`20
`
`On information and belief, Triller knows or should know that such activities induce others to directly
`
`21
`
`infringe at least claim 30 of the ’322 patent.
`
`22
`
`55.
`
`Triller also contributes to the infringement of at least claim 30 of the ’322 patent by
`
`23
`
`others, including end users of the Infringing Triller Products. Acts by Triller that contribute to the
`
`24
`
`infringement of others include, but are not limited to, the use, sale or provision of the Infringing
`
`25
`
`Triller Products to end users of the Infringing Triller Products. The Infringing Triller Products are
`
`26
`
`especially made or adapted for use to infringe at least claim 30 of the ’322 patent and are at least a
`
`27
`
`material part of those claims. The Infringing Triller Products, including the functionality
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`Case No. 3:20-cv-07572-TSH
`
`

`

`TRILLER EXHIBIT 1029-0014
`
`Case 3:20-cv-07572-TSH Document 9 Filed 11/11/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`
`contributing to infringement of the ’322 patent, are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`56.
`
`By way of at least this Amended Complaint, Triller knows of the ’322 patent and
`
`performs acts that Triller knows, or should know, induce, and/or contribute to the direct
`
`infringement of the ’322 patent.
`
`57.
`
`TTPL and TTI have been irreparably harmed by Triller’s infringement of the ’322
`
`patent and will continue to be harmed unless and until Triller’s infringement is enjoined by this
`
`Court.
`
`58. Moreover, by its actions, Triller has injured TTPL and TTI and is liable to TTPL and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`TTI for infringement of the ’322 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. TTPL and TTI are entitled to
`
`11
`
`damages as set forth in at least 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15