Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 217 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`A Limited Liability Partnership
`Including Professional Corporations
`STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Cal. Bar No. 135532
`MARTIN R. BADER, Cal. Bar No. 222865
`ERICKA J. SCHULZ, Cal. Bar No. 246667
`MICHAEL J. HOPKINS, Cal. Bar No. 326621
`JAMES YOUNG HURT, Cal. Bar No. 312390
`ZACHARY M. ALPER, Cal. Bar No. 339489
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100
`San Diego, California 92130-4092
`Telephone: 858.720.8900
`Facsimile:
`858.509.3691
`Email:
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`mhopkins@sheppardmullin.com
`jhurt@sheppardmullin.com
`zalper@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok
`Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd. and ByteDance Inc.
`
`
`
`10TALES INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`October 31, 2023
`10:00 a.m.
`2 – 5th Floor
`Hon. Virginia DeMarchi
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
`PLAINTIFF 10TALES, INC.’S REQUEST
`FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT
`OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`Date:
`
`Time:
`Courtroom:
`Judge:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 10TALES’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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 217 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd., and ByteDance Inc.
`(collectively “Defendants”) file this response in opposition to Plaintiff 10Tales Inc.’s (“10Tales”)
`request for judicial notice. (ECF No. 215-2 (“Request”)). 10Tales’ Request should be denied
`because it is irrelevant 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 (ECF No. 206
`(“Motion to Dismiss”)). See Ruiz v. City of Santa Maria, 160 F.3d 543, 548 n.13 (9th Cir. 1998)
`(denying a request for judicial notice because the documents to be noticed were not relevant).
`I.
`10Tale’s Request for Judicial Notice Should be Denied as Irrelevant
`10Tales’ Request asks this Court to take judicial notice of documents from the prosecution
`history of the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 (“the ’030 patent”). 10Tales uses these
`documents from the prosecution of the ’030 patent to argue that the ’030 patent is not ineligible
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“§ 101”). See ECF No. 215. Specifically, 10Tales argues that claim 1 is
`not patent-ineligible under § 101 because during prosecution the examiner found that certain
`limitations were not disclosed by the prior art. See id. at 16, 17, 21-23. Additionally, although not
`specifically requested in its Motion for Judicial Notice, 10Tales also relies on statements made
`during the inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’030 patent in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board (“PTAB). See id. at 1,2, 6-10, 20-25. However, contrary to 10Tales’ argument, these
`documents and arguments are irrelevant to the patent eligibility question at issue in Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, 10Tales’ request for judicial notice should be denied.
`Courts in the Ninth Circuit will deny requests for judicial notice when the documents for
`which notice is requested are irrelevant. See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 548 n.13; see also Brightedge
`Techs., Inc. v. Searchmetrics, GmbH, 304 F. Supp. 3d 859, 874 n.8 (N.D. Cal. 2018). When
`assessing patent eligibility under § 101, courts utilize a test that is separate and distinct from the
`novelty and nonobviousness inquiries. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed.
`Cir. 2018) (citation omitted) (“The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from
`demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). It is irrelevant at least in part because “[a] claim for a new abstract
`idea is still an abstract idea.” Id.; see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries.”). Thus, the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 10TALES’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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 217 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`prosecution history of the ’030 patent and the PTAB’s decisions in the IPR, which allegedly
`relates to the purported novelty and nonobviousness of the ’030 patent, is irrelevant to Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss. Moreover, the PTAB used a claim construction that is different than the claim
`construction issued in this case. Therefore, the prosecution history and PTAB decisions need not
`be judicially noticed.
`Thus, for these reasons, courts in this District regularly deny requests for judicial notice of
`prosecution-related documents when deciding motions based on § 101. See Huawei Techs., Co,
`Ltd v. Samsung Elecs. Co, Ltd., No. 3:16-CV-02787-WHO, 2016 WL 6834614, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 21, 2016) (finding prosecution histories “not relevant to [the court’s] determination on the
`motion to dismiss” based on § 101 and denying the request for judicial notice); see also
`Brightedge, 304 F. Supp. 3d at 874 n.4 (denying patentee’s request for judicial notice of
`documents from Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings as irrelevant to the motion for
`judgment on the pleadings based on § 101); Two–Way Media Ltd., 874 F.3d at 1339-40 (affirming
`the district court’s decision to exclude evidence relating to novelty and obviousness as not relevant
`to “whether the claims were directed to eligible subject matter”). The same should apply here.
`II.
`Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that 10Tales’ request for
`judicial notice of excerpts from the prosecution history and the PTAB statements of the ’030
`patent (ECF No. 134-2) be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 10TALES’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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 217 Filed 10/17/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`Dated: October 17, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`
`
`By
`
`/s/ Stephen S. Korniczky
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`Martin R. Bader
`Ericka J. Schulz
`Michael J. Hopkins
`James Y. Hurt
`Zachary M. Alper
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte Ltd.,
`ByteDance Ltd. and ByteDance Inc.
`
`-3-
`Case No. 5:21-cv-03868-VKD
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 10TALES’ REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
`
`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
`
`