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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 138 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`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
`
`10TALES, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.
`BYTEDANCE LTD., AND
`BYTEDANCE INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`PLAINTIFF 10TALES, INC.’S NON-
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO STAY FACT DISCOVERY
`PENDING RESOLUTION OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Date:
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`March 1, 2022
`2:00 p.m.
`1 – 4th Floor
`Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez
`Rogers
`
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`10TALES, INC.’S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO STAY FACT DISCOVERY
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 138 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc. (“10Tales”) respectfully submits the following response in non-
`opposition to Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd., and ByteDance Inc.’s
`(collectively “TikTok”) Motion to Stay Fact Discovery Pending Resolution of Defendants’ Motion to
`Dismiss (Dkt. 135, “Motion”), and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter Plaintiff’s
`Proposed Order submitted concurrently herewith granting TikTok’s Motion as unopposed.
`10Tales objects to TikTok’s untimely Motion effectively granting itself the relief that it
`purportedly seeks from the Court. As stated in TikTok’s Motion, “[u]nder Patent Local Rule 3-4 (a),
`and this Court’s schedule, Defendants are required to produce by January 27, 2022, ‘[s]ource code,
`specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show
`the operation of any aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent
`claimant in its Patent L.R. 3-1(c) chart.’” Motion at 3. Two days before that deadline, TikTok filed
`the present Motion, seeking to modify its Patent L.R. 3-4(a) obligation.
`Under Patent L.R. 1-3, “[t]he Court may modify the obligations or deadlines set forth in these
`Patent Local Rules,” but “[i]n advance of submission of any request for a modification, the parties
`shall meet and confer for purposes of reaching an agreement, if possible, upon any modification.”
`Patent L.R. 1-3 (emphasis added). TikTok did not request a meet and confer with 10Tales on its
`requested modification, but instead filed its Motion—just two days before the deadline it wanted to
`modify.
`10Tales further objects to TikTok conflating its request to stay fact discovery with its request
`to modify its obligations under the Local Patent Rules. 10Tales should be permitted to pursue fact
`discovery, and to the extent the Court enters a stay, TikTok’s responses to any discovery requests (and
`satisfaction of its Patent L.R. 3-4(a) obligations) should become immediately due upon the later of:
`(i) the Court’s resolution of TikTok’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 132); and (ii) the due date for
`responding to any discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`Finally, 10Tales objects to TikTok’s characterization of the harm they would suffer by
`disclosing their source code, which carries out the features accused of infringement in the Accused
`Instrumentality. TikTok’s complaints cannot be reconciled with TikTok’s well-publicized creation of
`“Transparency and Accountability Centers,” opening in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Dublin,
`1
`4:21-cv-03868-YGR
`10TALES, INC.’S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO STAY FACT DISCOVERY
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 138 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`Ireland, where “visitors can review source code and learn how our application’s algorithm operates,”
`particularly here, where 10Tales’ access to TikTok’s source code will be subject to the protections set
`forth in a Protective Order. See https://www.tiktok.com/transparency/en-us/, last accessed February 4,
`2022.
`
`Notwithstanding, in an effort to avoid burdening the Court with further motions practice,
`10Tales does not object to the stay of any due dates for TikTok’s discovery responses until resolution
`of TikTok’s Motion to Dismiss.
`
`Dated: February 8, 2022
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`
`/s/ Andrew Hutchison
`Barry Golob
`Thomas Fisher
`Andrew M. Hutchison
`THE DAVIS FIRM PC
`William E. Davis, III
`Rudolph (Rudy) Fink IV
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`10Tales, Inc.
`
`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
`
`3:21-cv-03868-YGR
`2
`10TALES, INC.’S NON-OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO STAY FACT DISCOVERY
`
`