`
`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 1 of 31
`
`Nathan Dooley (SBN 224331)
`COZEN O’CONNOR
`601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 370
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Tel:
`213-892-7933
`Fax: 213-892-7999
`Email: ndooley@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, SAN JOSE 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.: 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c)
`AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`
`
`October 31, 2023
`10:00 a.m.
`2 – 5th Floor
`Hon. Virginia DeMarchi
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 2 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`10Tales and the ’030 Patent .......................................................................................... 2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Digital Media Technical Field ................................................................... 3
`
`Conventional Systems in the Early 2000s ........................................................ 3
`
`10Tales’ Patented Solution ............................................................................... 3
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’030 Patent .................................................................. 6
`
`TikTok’s Denied IPR Proceeding ................................................................................. 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`III.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW ................................................................................................................ 7
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step-One ............................................................................................................ 10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`TikTok’s Alice Step-One Analysis Fails to Consider Claim 1 as a
`Whole .............................................................................................................. 11
`
`Claim 1 is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea ................................................... 15
`
`Claim Construction Confirms Claim 1 is Patent-Eligible ............................... 17
`
`The Precedent TikTok Cites is Factually Distinguishable .............................. 19
`
`B.
`
`Alice Step-Two ............................................................................................................ 20
`
`1.
`
`Claim Construction Confirms Claim 1 is Directed to an Inventive
`Concept ........................................................................................................... 24
`
`C.
`
`Claim 1 Does Not Preempt the Abstract Idea of Targeted Advertising ..................... 24
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`i
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`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 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 3 of 31
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,
`882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................9, 25
`
`Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................9
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`977 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................11
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................17
`
`Arrhythmia Research Tech., Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.,
`958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992)..................................................................................................9
`
`Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................8
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................20, 21, 23
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................9, 20
`
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc,
`955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................12
`
`Cave Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-2177-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8395 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) ............................1
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................7
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty.,
`717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................17, 20
`
`Cosmokey Sols. GmbH & Co. KG v. Duo Sec. LLC,
`15 F.4th 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................15, 18
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`ii
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 4 of 31
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................14, 15, 16, 25
`
`Diamond v. Chakrabarty,
`447 U.S. 303 (1980) .............................................................................................................1, 10
`
`Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................19
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................12, 13, 14
`
`Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.,
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................19
`
`Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
`112 F.3d 495 (Fed. Cir. 1997)....................................................................................................7
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................19
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship,
`564 U.S. 91 (2011) .....................................................................................................................7
`
`In re Morsa,
`809 Fed. App’x. 913 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................19
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Sys.,
`831 F. App’x 492 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................25
`
`Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corp., Inc.,
`No. 5:18-cv-00821-EJD, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150306 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25,
`2023) ..............................................................................................................................7, 10, 23
`
`Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010)........................................................................................8, 18, 22
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................10
`
`Tec-Sec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................12, 13, 14, 15
`
`Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S.,
`850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................9, 17, 20
`
`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
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`iii
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 5 of 31
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.,
`72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..........................................................................................11, 19
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................8, 9, 24
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc.,
`957 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282(a) .......................................................................................................................1, 7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 ................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`iv
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`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 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 6 of 31
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny TikTok’s Motion, as it has failed to carry its heavy burden here. Under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101, “whoever invents … a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition
`
`of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor.” In 1980, the
`
`U.S. Supreme Court undertook a statutory construction of § 101, and noted that “Congress intended
`
`statutory subject matter to ‘include anything under the sun that is made by man.’” Diamond v.
`
`Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 309 (1980). “[B]y defining patentable subject matter with ‘such expansive
`
`terms … Congress plainly contemplated that the patent laws would be given wide scope.’” Cave
`
`Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Truven Health Analytics, Inc., No. 15-cv-2177-SI, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`8395, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2016) (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308).
`
`This motion represents TikTok’s fourth attempt in this case to invalidate claim 1 of 10Tales’
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 (“the ’030 patent”)—which is presumed valid under § 282(a)—prior to
`
`discovery. First, TikTok filed a § 101 motion to dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Judge
`
`Gonzalez Rogers denied that motion stating that “the Court finds that claim construction can help
`
`clarify the basic character of the claimed invention and whether the alleged improvements are in fact
`
`improvements over the prior art,” and therefore, “the Court finds that it cannot, at this juncture,
`
`adjudicate the issue of whether the patent is directed to patent-ineligible ideas.” Dkt. 156 at 6.
`
`Second, TikTok filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) seeking inter partes review (“IPR”) challenging the validity of the
`
`’030 patent claims under a preponderance of the evidence standard asserting that claim 1 was invalid
`
`as obvious over three different combinations of prior art references. But a three-judge panel of the
`
`PTAB denied TikTok’s petition, stating that TikTok failed to demonstrate that any of the prior art
`
`asserted in its petition “either alone or in combination, disclose ‘retrieving user social network
`
`information from at least one source external to the presented first composite digital media
`
`display, wherein the user social network information contains one or more user attributes,’
`
`26
`
`element [1g] in claim 1.”1 See Exhibit 1 to 10Tales’ Request for Judicial Notice (“Exhibit 1”), filed
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 All emphasis in this brief has been added unless otherwise specified.
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 7 of 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`concurrently herewith, Excerpts from Prosecution History of ’030 Patent, TikTok Inc. v. 10Tales, Inc.,
`
`IPR2021-00476, Paper No. 13, PTAB Decision Denying Institution (PTAB Aug. 13, 2021) at
`
`10Tales879. The PTAB—therefore—found that claim 1 provides an improvement over the prior art.
`
`Third, in its claim construction briefing, TikTok argued that seven of the ten disputed claim
`
`terms were indefinite under § 112—any one of which would render claim 1 invalid. But this Court
`
`disagreed with TikTok, and issued an Order construing each of the disputed terms. See Dkt. 204. In
`
`doing so, the Court found, inter alia, that claim 1 was not indefinite as being directed to two separate
`
`classes of subject matter as argued by TikTok, but instead, “claim 1 of the ’030 patent recites a system
`
`(i.e., ‘a server’ and ‘a computer-readable storage medium operably connected’) modified by functional
`
`terms describing the system’s capabilities.” Id. at 8.
`
`And now, TikTok files yet another motion to dismiss—more properly styled a motion for
`
`judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c)—asking the Court yet again to invalidate claim 1 of
`
`the ’030 patent under § 101 so that it does not need to defend 10Tales’ infringement suit.
`
`The PTO agreed that the system described in claim 1 of the ’030 patent was an improvement
`
`over prior art systems. See Exhibit 1, June 4, 2014, Notice of Allowability (App. No. 10/819,514) at
`
`10Tales848. The PTAB agreed. Id. at 10Tales879. In addition to this clear record, 10Tales’ First
`
`Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges facts that show these technological improvements and solutions
`
`described and claimed by the ’030 patent were neither conventional nor generic 18 years ago (in 2003),
`
`and they show that conventional systems were improved by the claimed method of analyzing how a
`
`user interacts with others in an online social network to create user-specific digital media content.
`
`FAC, Dkts. 28, 124 at ¶¶ 58-60. These facts defeat TikTok’s Motion, especially where, as here, the
`
`facts alleged in the complaint must be accepted as true.
`
`23
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A.
`
`10Tales and the ’030 Patent
`
`10Tales—and its founder, David Russek—pioneered innovative technology that deploys
`
`advanced storytelling using 10-second videos submitted by a network of friends that become shared
`
`experiences among the friend network. FAC at ¶ 2. 10Tales’ technology has received numerous
`
`accolades from the entertainment industry, including the Mobile Excellence Awards. Id. 10Tales’
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`2
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 8 of 31
`
`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
`
`efforts led to a portfolio of patents, including the ’030 patent. 10Tales’ solution provides technological
`
`improvements upon systems for creating an improved user-specific composite digital media display
`
`over the state of the art in 2003. Id. at ¶¶ 58-60.
`
`1.
`
`The Digital Media Technical Field
`
`The ’030 patent relates to provisioning user-specific digital media content, a field rooted in
`
`technology. The ’030 patent has been cited by other technology companies such as Apple, Google,
`
`Microsoft, IBM, Facebook, Nokia, and Qualcomm in over 220 patent applications.2
`
`2.
`
`Conventional Systems in the Early 2000s
`
`The ’030 patent describes the existing technology for providing a digital media narrative to
`
`users. Before 10Tales’ invention, the known systems had drawbacks in “attract[ing] individuals to
`
`content that is personally more relevant and impactful for them.” ’030 patent, 2:3-4.
`
`These drawbacks are described, e.g., in the context of shortcomings in ad-placement systems
`
`that were being developed during the advent of the digital era. Id. at 1:52-61. As technology was
`
`evolving, advertisers were confronted with the use of technology to avoid advertisements, e.g., by
`
`stopping pop-up ads or skipping over the ads. Id. None of these systems, however, addressed how
`
`technology could be used to understand the individual’s likes or dislikes or the individual’s current
`
`mood to more appropriately adapt the content for the individual. Id. at 2:7-11. Mr. Russek insightfully
`
`recognized that none of the existing systems could “change the content of the digital media narrative
`
`based on user demographics, psychodemographics, emotional states, affinities (cognitive, emotional,
`
`and social), self-narrating content classification, internal narrative traits preference topology, time
`
`sensitive, episodic expectation sequencing, and collective/collaborative attributes.” Id. at 2:55-61.
`
`3.
`
`10Tales’ Patented Solution
`
`10Tales’ invention solves the drawbacks of those then conventional systems. 10Tales
`
`reimagined the provisioning of personalized digital media content. It improved upon the technical
`
`aspects of conventional systems such as ad placement systems with its teachings: by first analyzing
`
`how a user interacts with others in an online social network to determine that user’s affinity for certain
`
`
`2 See https://patents.google.com/patent/US8856030B2/en?oq=8856030, “Cited By,” last accessed
`October 2, 2023.
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`3
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 9 of 31
`
`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
`
`digital media content; and then teaching the use of a rule-based algorithm to use this information to
`
`create a user-specific composite digital media display unique to that user. FAC at ¶¶ 58-60. The
`
`improvements described and claimed in the ’030 patent reflect technological improvements over the
`
`state of the art at the time. Id. The technological improvements and solutions described and claimed
`
`in the ’030 patent were neither conventional nor generic at the time of the invention. Id. Instead, the
`
`invention claimed in the ’030 patent involved novel and nonobvious approaches to the problems and
`
`shortcomings prevalent in the art at the time. Id. The inventions claimed in the ’030 patent cover
`
`more than just the performance of some well-understood, routine, and/or conventional activities
`
`already known to the industry prior to the’030 patent. Id.
`
`The ’030 patent describes a system for “customizing and personalizing digital media content
`
`based on a combination of the user’s demographics, psychodemographics, cognitive states, emotional
`
`states, social placement and group interaction dynamics within an online community, and/or affinity
`
`for certain content elements (images, sounds, segments, graphics, video, text, dialog), self provided
`
`narrating content, internal narrative traits preference topology, and expectation level and temporal
`
`spacing of assets within the narrative.” ’030 patent, 2:66-3:7. The system personalizes the digital
`
`media content based not only on information provided to the system by the user, but also
`
`through the social dynamics of the user as learned by the system. Id. at 3:24-32; 4:15-23. By way
`
`of example, the system may identify attributes related to an individual’s dynamics within the
`
`community and the potential for content to be defined within that dimension. Id. at 8:1-6. These and
`
`other attributes are correlated with attributes of the digital media assets to match the assets to an
`
`individual in order to provide the highest level of impact. Id. at 7:56-59.
`
`The correlation of a user’s attributes with specific digital media assets is accomplished through
`
`rule-based techniques such as summing the number of matching attributes, identifying key attributes,
`
`or providing a true/false test for one or more assets. Id. at 7:56-62. Relative weighting schemes may
`
`also be incorporated to give preference to or emphasize certain attributes. Id. at 7:62-64. The ’030
`
`patent describes a number of algorithms through which the correlation is achieved. For example,
`
`artificial intelligence techniques based on look-up tables, neural networks, and fuzzy logic can be
`
`applied to determine the best digital media assets to present to a particular user based on the system’s
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`4
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 10 of 31
`
`stored attributes for that user. Id. at 15:17-34.
`
`The ’030 patent describes a digital media asset personalization system—as depicted in Figure
`
`5A—that includes a server 590 that develops the personalized digital media presentation from content
`
`531 and a digital asset repository 541. The ’030 patent describes that the server executes software
`
`algorithms that access user profile attributes 561 and online community user attributes 521 to
`
`determine digital media assets that will have a strong impact on that user. Id. at 12:17-30; 15:10-34.
`
`The ’030 patent also describes the types of social network information that may be stored and
`
`inform the algorithms used to determine which assets will have a strong impact on the user. Such
`
`social network information can include, inter alia, groups the user is affiliated with, a user’s on-line
`
`personality or alter ego, how others perceive the user, the user’s involvement with other users in a
`
`social network, and the user’s relationships with other users. Id. at 13:50-62.
`
`The ’030 patent describes how the system identifies a digital media presentation based on the
`
`available user profile information. Separate from that digital media presentation, the system
`
`determines if the presentation should be changed to present other digital media assets that will result
`
`in the user feeling more personally connected to the digital media presentation based on the system’s
`
`identification of digital media assets based on the user’s updated profile information, including the
`
`user’s social network user profile information. Id. at 17:17-18:3. Such personalization of the digital
`
`media presentation may be based on collaboration with other users by, e.g., sharing digital media
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`content with other users. Id. at 19:58-66.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Claim 1 is directed to this new type of personalized digital media presentation system that
`
`identifies digital media content based not only on information about the user—and from the user—
`
`itself, but also on social network user profile information that the system learns based on the user’s
`
`interactions within an online community. Id. at 20:62-22:15 (claim 1).
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`5
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 11 of 31
`
`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
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution History of the ’030 Patent
`
`The PTO addressed the eligibility of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution to its
`
`satisfaction. The original method claims were rejected in the first Office Action as being directed to
`
`non-statutory subject matter. Exhibit 1, September 30, 2008, Non-Final Rejection at 10Tales727. In
`
`response, 10Tales amended the claims, and argued that amended claims 1-4 were directed to statutory
`
`subject matter, but the PTO maintained its rejection under § 101. Exhibit 1, March 2, 2009,
`
`Amendment at 10Tales740-44; May 27, 2009, Final Rejection at 10Tales755.
`
`In response to the Final Rejection, 10Tales cancelled the pending claims and presented two
`
`new system claims. Exhibit 1, November 25, 2009, Amendment at 10Tales773-74. In response, the
`
`PTO withdrew its § 101 rejections and issued a Notice of Allowability, allowing the claims that
`
`issued as claims 1 and 2 in the ’030 patent. Exhibit 1, June 4, 2014, Notice of Allowability at
`
`10Tales847-49. The Examiner provided the following statement as to the Allowable Subject Matter:
`
`4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art,
`Srinivasan et al., does not teach or suggest, retrieving user social network information
`from at least one source external to the presented first composite digital media display,
`wherein the user social network information contains one or more user attributes.
`Herz … teaches this limitation, but the prior art does not teach or suggest adding this
`teaching from Herz to the teachings of Srinivasan et al. Srinivasan et al. gets user attribute
`information by asking the users. The prior art does not teach or suggest that the benefits of
`going to social networks to get user attribute information would outweigh the costs.
`
`Id. at 10Tales848 (emphasis in original, footnote omitted).
`
`C.
`
`TikTok’s Denied IPR Proceeding
`
`The PTAB also confirmed that the ’030 patent was not a predictable combination of existing
`
`elements. On February 9, 2021, TikTok filed a petition with the PTAB seeking IPR of claims 1 and
`
`2 of the ’030 patent. TikTok Inc. v. 10Tales, Inc., IPR2021-00476, Paper No. 1 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2021).
`
`In its petition, TikTok argued that the claims of the ’030 patent were unpatentable as obvious under
`
`three different grounds asserting technical patents directed to systems for presenting digital media. Id.
`
`The PTAB denied institution of the IPR. Exhibit 1 at 10Tales874-95.
`
`The PTAB concluded that TikTok failed to demonstrate in its petition that any of the asserted
`
`patent references “either alone or in combination, disclose ‘retrieving user social network
`
`information from at least one source external to the presented first composite digital media
`
`
`
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`6
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 12 of 31
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`display, wherein the user social network information contains one or more user attributes,’
`
`element [1g] in claim 1.” Id. at 10Tales879 (emphasis added).
`
`TikTok filed a Request for Rehearing of the PTAB’s decision denying institution. On
`
`December 5, 2022, the PTAB denied TikTok’s Request, reiterating that TikTok “failed to show
`
`Reisman discloses ‘retrieving user social network information … wherein the user social network
`
`information contains one or more user attributes.’” See Dkt. 203.
`
`III. APPLICABLE LAW
`
`Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—
`
`a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the
`
`Court “must accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the pleadings in the light
`
`most favorable” to 10Tales. Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corp., Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00821-EJD,
`
`2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150306, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023) (citation omitted). TikTok’s motion
`
`may only be granted if, “after assessing the complaint and matters for which judicial notice is proper,
`
`it appears ‘beyond doubt that [10Tales] cannot prove any facts that would support [its] claim for
`
`relief.’” Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, 233 F.Supp.3d 799, 805 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (quoting Morgan v. County
`
`of Yolo, 436 F.Supp.2d 1152, 1155 (E.D. Cal. 2006)). Patents and their file histories are considered
`
`matters of public record, and are suitable for judicial notice. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp.,
`
`112 F.3d 495, 497 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (taking judicial notice of the entire Board of Patent Appeals
`
`and Interferences record because, among other reasons, the record is a public record and “thus capable
`
`20
`
`of accurate and ready determination by resort to unquestionable sources.”).3
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A U.S. patent is presumed valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282(a), thus TikTok bears the burden
`
`of establishing invalidity under § 101 by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd.
`
`P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011); CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty., 717 F.3d 1269, 1284 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013), aff’d on other grounds, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); see also Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d
`
`1306, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (rejecting district court’s conclusion that patents were presumed valid but
`
`not presumed patent eligible). To defeat this presumption, TikTok must prove that “the only plausible
`
`reading of the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility.”
`
`
`3 10Tales has filed a Request for Judicial Notice concurrently with its Opposition.
`
`7
`5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(C) AND 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 215 Filed 10/03/23 Page 13 of 31
`
`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
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1