Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`10TALES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TIKTOK INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-03868-VKD
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 206
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc. (“10Tales”) sues defendants TikTok, Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd.,
`
`ByteDance Ltd., and ByteDance, Inc. (collectively “TikTok”), alleging infringement of claim 1 of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 (“the ’030 patent”), titled “Method, System and Software for
`
`Associating Attributes within Digital Media Presentations.” TikTok now moves pursuant to Rule
`
`12(c) for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the ’030 patent is invalid because it claims
`
`ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 10Tales opposes the motion. Upon consideration
`
`of the moving and responding papers, as well as the oral arguments presented, the Court grants
`
`TikTok’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, without leave to amend.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The ’030 patent issued on October 7, 2014, and claims priority to a provisional application
`
`filed on April 7, 2003. See ’030 patent, cover page. The patent concerns technology for
`
`customizing or personalizing content based on user information. The specification describes a
`
`“method, system, and software . . . which allow for customizing and personalizing content based
`
`on a combination of a user’s demographics, psychodemographics, cognitive states, emotional
`
`states, social placement and group interaction dynamics within an online community, and/or
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`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.” Id. at 2:65-3:7. Noting the “advent of the digital
`
`era” and “threat[s] [to] advertising,” the ’030 patent describes a need “to attract individuals to
`
`content that is personally more relevant and impactful for them and which may contain an
`
`advertising message (in the form of product placement), and have them receive that message in
`
`full, as opposed to skipping over all or a portion of the message.” Id. at 1:52, 59, 2:3-7; see also
`
`id. at 1:58-61. The patent further notes an additional need “to have the ability to understand the
`
`individual’s likes and dislikes or current mood in order to adapt the message appropriately for the
`
`individual at the time that they are receiving [content],” and “to change the content of the digital
`
`media narrative based on user [information].” Id. at 2:8-11, 55-56.
`
`The claimed invention purports to provide an enriched user experience and more powerful
`
`media for content creators, such as advertisers and artists, through content that has greater impact
`
`on users. See id. at 3:63-4:14. Among the stated advantages of the claimed invention is that “it
`
`allows advertising to be inserted in subtle ways and presented in a context in which users may be
`
`able to fully engulf themselves into the lifestyle being positioned and portrayed by the brand,” and
`
`users “are much more likely to be receptive to the message presented, and less likely to skip over
`
`or fast-forward through the content including the advertising.” Id. at 4:3-7, 12-14.
`
`10Tales contends that TikTok infringes claim 1 (see Dkt. No. 124 ¶¶ 50-77 & p. 20), the
`
`sole independent claim of the ’030 patent, which recites:
`
`
`1. A system for associating user attributes with digital media asset
`attributes and creating a user specific composite digital media
`display, the system comprising:
`
`a) a server;
`
`b) a computer-readable storage medium operably connected;
`
`c) wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains one or
`more programming instructions for performing a method of
`associating user attributes with digital media asset attributes and
`creating a user specific composite digital media display, the method
`comprising:
`
`identifying a first set of digital media assets stored on the computer-
`
`2
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`readable storage medium,
`
`creating, from the first set of digital media assets, a first composite
`digital media display,
`
`presenting to the user via a display server, the first composite digital
`media display;
`
`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;
`
`selecting, based on the user attributes in the social network
`information, a second set of digital media assets, wherein the second
`set of digital media assets is associated with one or more user
`attributes found in the user social network information;
`
`monitoring the first composite digital media display for the presence
`of a trigger, wherein the trigger indicates a personalization
`opportunity in the first set of digital media assets;
`
`performing a rule based substitution of one or more of the digital
`media assets from the first set of digital media assets with one or
`more of the digital media assets from the second set of digital media
`assets to create a user specific set of digital media assets;
`
`creating, from the user specific digital media assets, a user specific
`composite digital media display; and
`
`presenting to the user via the display server, the second composite
`digital media display.
`
`’030 patent at 20:62-22:15.
`
`TikTok previously brought a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss 10Tales’s complaint on the
`
`ground that claim 1 is directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Dkt. No.
`
`132. Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who was then presiding over this action, initially observed that the
`
`’030 patent bore “relevant similarities to the patent in Free Stream Media Corp., v. Alphonso, Inc.,
`
`996 F.3d 1355, 1362-65 (Fed. Cir. 2021),” which concerned a patent directed at the abstract idea
`
`of targeted advertising. See Dkt. No. 156 at 5. However, noting that the parties disputed not only
`
`“the basic character of the subject matter of the claimed invention,” but also whether claim 1 of
`
`the patent “introduces technological improvements over the state of the art that were not
`
`conventional or generic at the time the patent issued,” Judge Gonzalez Rogers ultimately
`
`concluded that claim construction was required to properly adjudicate the question of whether the
`
`’030 patent claims ineligible subject matter. See id. at 5-6. In particular, she noted that 10Tales
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`“argues that Claim 1 discloses a system for analyzing how a user interacts with others in a social
`
`network to determine a user’s affinity for content and the use of a rule based algorithm to create a
`
`personalized digital media display for a particular user.” Id. at 6. Accordingly, TikTok’s Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice. Id. at 7.
`
`Upon the parties’ consent, this action subsequently was reassigned to this Court for all
`
`purposes, including trial. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Dkt. Nos. 174, 175. After holding a
`
`tutorial and a claim construction hearing (Dkt. Nos. 189, 190), the Court issued its claim
`
`construction order (Dkt. No. 204). TikTok then filed the present Rule 12(c) motion for judgment
`
`on the pleadings, arguing that claim 1 of the ’030 patent is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Rule 12(c)
`
`A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought “[a]fter the pleadings are
`
`closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). Rule 12(c) motions test the
`
`legal sufficiency of a claim. Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012). Such
`
`motions are “functionally identical” to those brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), and “the same
`
`standard of review applies to motions brought under either rule.” Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4
`
`Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
`
`Accordingly, the Court must “accept factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe the
`
`pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” but need not accept as true
`
`conclusory allegations. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th
`
`Cir. 2008). The Court may consider materials subject to judicial notice without converting a Rule
`
`12(c) motion into one for summary judgment. United States v. 14.02 Acres, 547 F.3d 943, 955
`
`(9th Cir. 2008).
`
`Judgment on the pleadings is proper when, taking all allegations in the pleading as true, the
`
`complaint does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” and
`
`the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Stanley v. Trs. of Cal.
`
`State Univ., 433 F.3d 1129, 1133 (9th Cir. 2006). “Thus, patent eligibility may be resolved at the
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`Rule 12 stage only if there are no plausible factual disputes after drawing all reasonable inferences
`
`from the intrinsic and Rule 12 record in favor of the non-movant.” Cooperative Ent., Inc. v.
`
`Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 130 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`B.
`
`Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`“Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law, based on underlying facts,” SAP
`
`Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “[b]ut not every § 101
`
`determination contains genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the § 101 inquiry,”
`
`Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (internal
`
`quotations and citation omitted). “Like other legal questions based on underlying facts, [eligibility
`
`under § 101] may be, and frequently has been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion where the
`
`undisputed facts, considered under the standards required by that Rule, require a holding of
`
`ineligibility under the substantive standards of law.” SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d at 1166 (citations
`
`omitted). As the moving party, TikTok bears the burden of demonstrating invalidity by clear and
`
`convincing evidence. See 35 U.S.C. § 282; Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95
`
`(2011).
`
`The Patent Act provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process,
`
`machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof[.]”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101. However, patent protection does not extend to claims that monopolize the “basic
`
`tools of scientific and technological work,” and it is well settled that “[l]aws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
`
`U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quotations and citation omitted). Courts must nonetheless “tread carefully
`
`in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.” Id. at 217. “At some
`
`level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
`
`phenomena, or abstract ideas.’” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`
`566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012)). “Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because
`
`it involves an abstract concept.” Id.
`
`Under the two-step framework described in Alice, the Court must first determine whether
`
`the claim at issue is “directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. If so, then at step two the
`
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`Court must “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
`
`concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Id.
`
`at 221 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs., 566 U.S. at 72-73). Specifically, the Court must
`
`determine “whether the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, contain an
`
`inventive concept, which is more than merely implementing an abstract idea using well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Chewy, Inc. v.
`
`Int'l Bus. Machines Corp., 94 F.4th 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (internal quotations and citation
`
`omitted).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`TikTok argues that the ’030 patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter because claim 1
`
`is directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one and fails to recite an inventive concept under
`
`Alice step two. Dkt. No. 206 at 2. 10Tales responds that the ’030 patent claims technological
`
`improvements for personalizing content based on information derived from how a user interacts
`
`with others in an online social network, such that it is non-abstract under Alice step one. 10Tales
`
`also argues that, in any event, the elements of claim 1, considered individually and as whole,
`
`embody an inventive concept that does not preempt the abstract idea itself under Alice step two.
`
`See Dkt. No. 215 at 2, 24.
`
`A.
`
`Alice Step One
`
`At step one of the § 101 analysis, courts “evaluate the focus of the claimed advance over
`
`the prior art to determine if the claim’s character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
`
`matter.” Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1361 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. “Courts must ascertain the basic character of the [claimed] subject matter
`
`without describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language
`
`of the claims that the claims would be virtually guaranteed to be abstract.” Trinity Info Media, 72
`
`F.4th at 1361 (internal quotations and citations omitted). “[W]hile the specification may help
`
`illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification
`
`must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus.” Id. (internal quotations and
`
`citations omitted).
`
`6
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`TikTok contends that claim 1 of the ’030 patent essentially is directed to the abstract idea
`
`of targeted advertising. See Dkt. No. 206 at 10; Dkt. No. 216 at 4. 10Tales responds that claim 1
`
`is directed to “a specific system for creating a more personalized set of digital media assets for a
`
`user based on retrieved user social network information,” which it says is not abstract. Dkt. No.
`
`215 at 18. As described in the specification, the ’030 patent purports to address a need to learn
`
`more about a user in order to provide a user with digital media content that is more personally
`
`relevant and impactful. See ’030 patent at 2:3-4, 8-11, 55-56; see also Dkt. No. 215 at 15
`
`(describing need addressed by ’030 patent as “the desire to learn more about the user to identify
`
`content that will have a strong impact on that particular individual.”). TikTok is correct that the
`
`specification discusses problems facing advertisers, including the need to “attract individuals to
`
`content that is personally more relevant and impactful for them and which may contain an
`
`advertising message . . . and have them receive that message in full, as opposed to skipping over
`
`all or a portion of the message.” See ’030 patent at 1:41-2:61, 3:7-17, 3:63-4:14, 6:59-61, 8:44-47,
`
`17:57-65. However, claim 1 of the ’030 patent is broader; it recites a system and software for
`
`“performing a method of associating user attributes” from “user social network information” with
`
`“digital media assets,” and then creating and presenting a personalized “composite digital media
`
`display” to the user. ‘030 patent at 20:62-22-15; see also id. 19:44-47 (“The invention is intended
`
`to cover any [digital media asset] actions that make the digital media asset video sequence 300
`
`more connected to the viewer and enhance the experience.”).
`
`The Court agrees with 10Tales that claim 1 is not limited to advertising, and that the claim
`
`is more generally directed to a system for presenting personalized digital media content to a user
`
`based on the user attributes from user social network information. However, claim 1 is limited to
`
`an abstract idea: presenting personalized content to a user based on information about the user.
`
`The patent is not directed to any improvement in computer technology or network functionality,
`
`but instead claims a long-standing and fundamental practice of personalizing content based on
`
`user attributes that spans many domains. See, e.g., Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
`
`(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (observing “that newspaper inserts had often been
`
`tailored based on information known about the customer—for example, a newspaper might
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`advertise based on the customer’s location.”); see also id. at 1370 (“Tailoring information based
`
`on the time of day of viewing is also an abstract, overly broad concept long-practiced in our
`
`society. There can be no doubt that television commercials for decades tailored advertisements
`
`based on the time of day during which the advertisement was viewed.”).
`
`As explained below, careful consideration of the claim language demonstrates that the
`
`system of claim 1 recites only generic and conventional computer components, and the method it
`
`performs is defined by purely functional elements.
`
`As 10Tales correctly observes, claim 1 is directed to a system. Dkt. No. 215 at 18.
`
`However, it does not follow, as 10Tales argues, that a system claim cannot be abstract. See id.
`
`“‘[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-
`
`idea inquiry.’” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016) (quoting In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here,
`
`the system of claim 1 recites a conventional computer system with generic components,
`
`specifically “a server” and “a computer-readable storage medium” to which the server is “operably
`
`connected,” wherein the computer-readable storage medium contains “programming instructions
`
`for performing a method.” See ’030 patent at 20:62-21:3. The specification makes clear no
`
`specialized components are contemplated by the claimed invention. See, e.g., ’030 patent at Fig.
`
`5A and 11:65-12:46 (describing a generic server as part of “context diagram” for one embodiment
`
`of the claimed system); 16:1-4 (“The software may be executed on a compatible server
`
`environment including a web server, servlet container, Structured Query Language (SQL)
`
`database and Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) driver.”); see also id. at Fig. 13 and 15:35-52
`
`(describing generic computer system “for a realization of the server”).
`
`As the claimed elements of the system are merely generic, conventional components, the
`
`Court considers whether the asserted claim is directed to improvements in computer functions or
`
`capabilities, or whether it merely uses the computer components as tools to perform a method that
`
`is itself the abstract idea. See Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1362-63 (“In the context of software-
`
`based inventions, Alice/Mayo step one often turns on whether the claims focus on the specific
`
`asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an abstract
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.”) (internal quotations and citations
`
`omitted); Affinity Labs of Texas, 838 F.3d at1270 (“In addressing the first step of the section 101
`
`inquiry, as applied to a computer-implemented invention, it is often helpful to ask whether the
`
`claims are directed to ‘an improvement in the functioning of a computer,’ or merely ‘adding
`
`conventional computer components to well-known business practices.’”) (quoting Enfish, LLC v.
`
`Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Here, the method steps of claim 1 require
`
`the computer system to perform the following functions by executing programming instructions
`
`(i.e. software): identifying stored content, creating displays, presenting displays to a user,
`
`retrieving information, selecting content, monitoring a display, and performing a substitution of
`
`one set of stored content for another. See ’030 patent at 20:62-22:15. The specification confirms
`
`that all of these are routine computer functions. See ’030 patent at 4:44-49, 12:6-10; 12:17-18;
`
`12:23-37; 16:1-2; 16:16-22; 16:28-33; 20:62-22:15; Fig. 5A; Fig. 13.
`
`Citing to the allegations of its operative amended complaint, 10Tales argues that the
`
`claimed advance of the ’030 patent lies in personalizing a digital media presentation “through the
`
`social dynamics of the user as learned by the system,” “analyz[ing] how that user interacts with
`
`other users in an online social network,” and the use of “a rule based algorithm.” Dkt. No. 215 at
`
`15, 16; Dkt. No. 124 ¶¶ 58-60.1 None of these alleged “improvements” is actually claimed.
`
`First, with respect to 10Tales’s assertion that the claimed system “learns” and “analyzes” a
`
`user’s interactions with others in an “online social network” and then retrieves information derived
`
`from those interactions, claim 1 recites only “retrieving user social network information from at
`
`least one source external to the presented first composite digital media display.” See ’030 patent
`
`at 21:13-15. As construed by the Court, this element means “retrieving [information derived from
`
`a user’s interactions in an online community] from at least one source other than the presented
`
`first composite digital media display.” See Dkt. No. 204 at 17-22. In opposing TikTok’s Rule
`
`12(b)(6) motion before Judge Gonzalez Rogers, 10Tales argued that claim 1 recites an “improved
`
`
`1 Although 10Tales argues that, for present purposes, the Court must accept its allegations as true.
`10Tales’s allegations are entirely conclusory. See Dkt. No. 124 ¶¶ 58-60; see also Simio, LLC v.
`FlexSim Software Products, Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (conclusory statements are
`disregarded when evaluating a complaint under Rule 12).
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`system” in that it “retrieves social network information about the user and analyzes how that user
`
`interacts with other users in an online social network in order to determine the user’s affinity for
`
`certain digital media content.” See id. at 19:14-18, 20:4-8 (emphasis added). When Judge
`
`Gonzalez Rogers observed that the purported improvement was “not in the claims,” 10Tales
`
`argued that construction was necessary with respect to the term “retrieving user social network
`
`information from at least one source external to the presented first composite digital media
`
`display.” See id. at 20:10-21:5. However, in the claim construction proceedings before this Court,
`
`10Tales did not argue for a construction of the “retrieving” term that included “analyzing,” and the
`
`Court did not construe the term that way. See generally Dkt. No. 167 at 17, 19; see also Dkt. No.
`
`206-1 at 109.
`
`Moreover, as construed by the Court, “the term ‘user social network information’
`
`addresses the kind of information being retrieved, i.e., ‘information derived from a user’s
`
`interactions in an online community.” Dkt. No. 204 at 22. Nothing in the claim addresses how
`
`user attributes are derived from the user’s interactions in an online community or how those
`
`attributes are used to determine the user’s affinity for content. The specification is likewise silent
`
`regarding the how the system “learns” or “analyzes,” as it provides only conceptual diagrams and
`
`descriptions of the “social” aspects of personalization. See, e.g., ’030 patent at Figs. 6, 8-9, 23;
`
`13:11-36; 13:50-14:14; 20:9-37.
`
`Second, with respect to 10Tales’s assertion that the claimed system relies on a “rule based
`
`algorithm” to create a personalized digital medial display, claim 1 recites “performing a rule based
`
`substitution of one or more of the digital media assets from the first set of digital media assets with
`
`one or more of the digital media assets from the second set of digital media assets to create a user
`
`specific set of digital media assets.” ’030 patent at 22:7-11. In opposing TikTok’s Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`motion before Judge Gonzalez Rogers, 10Tales argued that claim 1 requires the use of a rule based
`
`“algorithm.” See Dkt. No. 206-1 at 23:13-24:14. However, in the claim construction proceedings
`
`before this Court, 10Tales did not argue for such a construction (see Dkt. No. 167 at 21), and the
`
`Court did not construe the term that way. The Court determined that the “performing” element did
`
`not require construction, observing only that “rule based” refers to “a substitution that happens by
`
`10
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`application of a rule, rather than on the basis of some discretionary or subjective determination.”
`
`Dkt. No. 204 at 25. Indeed, 10Tales confirmed during the claim construction hearing that it did
`
`not dispute the Court’s interpretation of this element. Dkt. No. 193 at 136:16-137:1, 140:20-
`
`141:18, 143:18-22. Thus, nothing in the claim requires a particular algorithm, nor is any such
`
`algorithm described in the specification.
`
`In sum, the system of claim 1 of the ’030 patent recites generic and conventional computer
`
`components, with programming instructions for performing a method with purely functional steps.
`
`While “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware
`
`improvements can, and sometimes the improvements can be accomplished through either route,”
`
`Enfish, LLC, 822 F.3d at 1335, none of 10Tales’s asserted “improvements” demonstrates an
`
`improvement to computer functionality. See TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., 978 F.3d 1278, 1293
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“We have found claims directed to such eligible matter in a number of cases
`
`where we have made two inquiries of significance here: whether the focus of the claimed advance
`
`is on a solution to a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks or computers,
`
`and whether the claim is properly characterized as identifying a specific improvement in computer
`
`capabilities or network functionality, rather than only claiming a desirable result or function.”)
`
`(internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added). 10Tales asserts that its claimed
`
`invention “improved upon conventional systems with an improved approach to personalizing
`
`digital media content,” i.e., “claim 1 recites that specific information from a source external to the
`
`user’s digital media presentation is obtained by the system to yield a desired result—a
`
`personalized digital media presentation that will have a strong impact on the user[.]” Dkt. No. 215
`
`at 16. However, nothing in claim 1 demonstrates how that result improves the operability or
`
`capability of the recited system, beyond providing a user with personalized content using generic
`
`processes and conventional computer components.
`
`Thus, the present case is readily distinguishable from those in which the asserted claims
`
`were directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform
`
`itself. See TecSec, Inc., 978 F.3d at 1295-96 (claims “directed to improving a basic function of a
`
`computer data-distribution network, namely network security,” where claim language and
`
`11
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 223 Filed 04/02/24 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`specification described a specific method of managing access to objects using multiple levels of
`
`encryption); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims
`
`“directed to a specific technological improvement—an improved medical device that achieves
`
`speedier, more accurate, and clinically significant detection of two specific medical conditions out
`
`of a host of possible heart conditions.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys. Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304-
`
`05 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to “‘behavior-based’ approach to virus scanning” that
`
`“employs a new kind of file that enables a computer security system to do things it could not do
`
`before,” “enables more flexible and nuanced virus filtering,” and “allows access to be tailored for
`
`different users and ensures that threats are identified before a file reaches a user’s computer.”);
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`(claims directed to “a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic
`
`devices,” resulting in “an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with
`
`small screens” and “improves the efficiency of using the electronic device”); Enfish, LLC, 822
`
`F.3d at 1337-38 (claims “specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database”
`
`that “functions differently than conventional database structures” and “achieves other benefits
`
`over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory
`
`requirements.”); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257-59 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (patent “recite[d] a specific way” of creating a hybrid web page to resolve a “particular
`
`Internet-centric problem”).
`
`The ’030 patent, by contrast, more resembles the patent at issue Freestream Media Corp.
`
`and “does nothing more than implement a computer to achieve the abstract idea of providing”
`
`personalized digital media content to a user. Freestream Media Corp., 996 F.3d at 1365; see id. at
`
`1358-59, 1362 (claims reciting a system using a “relevancy mat