throbber

`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 112 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 2
`
`Andrew M. Hutchison (SBN 289315)
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Tel:
`415-593-9625
`Fax: 415-692-3514
`Email: ahutchison@cozen.com
`
`Barry Golob (Pro Hac Vice)
`Thomas J. Fisher (Pro Hac Vice)
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`1200 19TH Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Tel:
`202-912-4800
`Fax: 202-861-1905
`Email: bgolob@cozen.com
`
`tfisher@cozen.com
`
`William E. Davis, III (Pro Hac Vice)
`Rudolph (Rudy) Fink IV (Pro Hac Vice)
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Tel:
`903-230-9090
`Fax: 903-230-9661
`Email: bdavis@davisfirm.com
`
`rfink@davisfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`10TALES, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`10TALES, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`21
`
`
`
`v.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`BYTEDANCE LTD., AND
`BYTEDANCE INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No.: 3.21-cv-03868-YGR
`
`NOTICE OF DECISION DENYING
`INSTITUTION OF DEFENDANTS’
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`3:21-cv-03868-YGR
`NOTICE OF DECISION DENYING INSTITUTION OF
`DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 112 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc. hereby notifies the Court that on August 13, 2021, the PTAB issued its
`
`Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review, denying Defendants’ Petition for IPR. IPR2021-
`
`00476, Paper 13, Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review – 35 U.S.C. § 314 (“PTAB
`
`Decision,” attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s July 22, 2021, Order (Dkt. No. 111), the parties will file a Joint Status
`
`Report regarding the PTAB Decision and its impact on Defendants’ motion to stay (Dkt. No. 96) on
`
`or before August 27, 2021.1
`
`
`
`Dated: August 18, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Andrew M. Hutchison
`Andrew M. Hutchison
`Barry Golob
`Thomas Fisher
`
`THE DAVIS FIRM PC
`William E. Davis, III
`Rudolph (Rudy) Fink IV
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`10Tales, Inc.
`
`
`1 Plaintiff is awaiting Defendants’ input for the joint status report. Defendants have informed Plaintiff
`that they are still reviewing the PTAB Decision, and will provide their input consistent with the Court’s
`deadline.
`
`
`1
`
`3:21-cv-03868-YGR
`NOTICE OF DECISION DENYING INSTITUTION OF
`DEFENDANTS’ PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`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
`
`

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