`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 1 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-810-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`10TALES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD.,
`BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH
`PREJUDICE UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(b)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 2 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................2 
`A. 
`Procedural History ...................................................................................................2 
`B. 
`The ’030 Patent And Asserted Claim ......................................................................2 
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................3 
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................4 
`Plaintiff’s Partial Direct Infringement Allegations Fail To Meet The
`A. 
`Iqbal/Twombly Plausibility Standard and Should Be Dismissed .............................4 
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead the Pre-Suit Knowledge of the Asserted Patent
`Necessary to Sustain an Indirect Infringement Claim .............................................7 
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Raising a Plausible Inference of Egregious
`Behavior Necessary for Enhanced Damages ...........................................................8 
`Plaintiff’s Infringement Allegations Rely Upon Activities of Multiple
`Actors Without Allegations that Support Joint Infringement ..................................9 
`Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Should be Dismissed with Prejudice ..................11 
`E. 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................12 
`
`D. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 3 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Artrip v. Ball Corp.
`735 Fed. Appx. 708 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................4, 7, 11
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................1, 3, 4, 5, 8
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...........................................................................................................1, 3, 5
`
`De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp.
`No. W-19-CV-00612-ADA, 2020 WL 3528411 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2020)..............4, 6, 7, 11
`
`Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc.
`No. 6:17-CV-186 JRG-JDL, 2017 WL 9935521, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 11,
`2017) ..........................................................................................................................................4
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.
`136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016) ................................................................................8
`
`Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Booking Holdings Inc.
`775 F. App’x 674 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................5
`
`Lee v. Verizon Communs., Inc.
`837 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Lyda v. CBS Corp.
`838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................9, 10
`
`Meetrix IP, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.
`No. 1-18-CV-309-LY, 2018 WL 8261315 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018) ................................7, 8
`
`Metricolor LLC v. L’Oreal S.A.
`791 F. App’x 183 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................................4
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................3
`
`Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc.
`No. 5:19-CV-243-H, 2020 WL 5500238 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 11, 2020) ....................................4, 7
`
`U.S. ex rel. Adrian v. Regents of Univ. of California
`363 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................11
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ..............................................................................................................................2
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 4 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`35 U.S. Code § 271(b) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S. Code § 271(c)......................................................................................................................7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) ..........................................................................................3
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ....................................................................................3, 4
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030..........................................................................................1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 5 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc.’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim for relief and should be
`
`dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s original complaint likewise failed to state a claim for relief,
`
`of which Plaintiff is keenly aware from Defendants’ prior motion to dismiss explaining in detail
`
`the deficiencies in the original pleading. Yet Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not remedy
`
`these fatal flaws.
`
`Plaintiff’s vague infringement allegation fails to put Defendants on notice of how the
`
`TikTok system purportedly infringes claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,856,030 (“the ’030 patent”).
`
`Claim 1 recites a system with a server and memory, and programming instructions for performing
`
`nine different method steps. The Amended Complaint does not allege that the claimed components
`
`or method steps are present in or practiced by the TikTok system. Nor does the Amended
`
`Complaint support an inference that the TikTok system practices these method steps. Further, the
`
`Amended Complaint does not plead the requisite pre-suit knowledge necessary for indirect
`
`infringement. Nor does it allege any facts sufficient for an award of enhanced damages. Moreover,
`
`the ’030 patent specification teaches that third party actors may be necessary to assert infringement
`
`of claim 1 and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails because it does not allege joint infringement
`
`or that Defendants have any control over the relevant third parties.
`
`For at least these reasons, Plaintiff’s infringement allegations lack sufficient specificity
`
`necessary to state a claim that satisfies the “plausibility” standard set forth in Iqbal and Twombly
`
`and, accordingly, should be dismissed. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp.
`
`v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Notably, Plaintiff’s failure to adequately state a claim for
`
`relief in its Amended Complaint despite notice of these deficiencies, only confirms that Plaintiff
`
`is unable to assert a valid infringement claim. The Amended Complaint should be dismissed with
`
`prejudice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 6 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`On September 2, 2020, Plaintiff 10Tales, Inc. (“10Tales”) filed a patent infringement
`
`complaint alleging that Defendant TikTok Inc. (“TTI”) infringes the ’030 patent (the
`
`“Complaint”). See ECF No. 1. On November 20, 2020, TTI moved to dismiss the Complaint for
`
`failure to state a claim and for improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the
`
`Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. See ECF No. 24. On December 10,
`
`2020, 10Tales amended its Complaint to add three new defendants including Bytedance Inc.
`
`(“BDI”), Bytedance Ltd. (“BDL”) and TikTok Pte. Ltd. (“TTPL”). See ECF No. 28 (the
`
`“Amended Complaint”). On January 27, 2021, Defendants BDI, BDL, and TTPL joined the
`
`portion of Defendant TTI’s motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.1 See ECF No. 46.
`
`Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim based on the
`
`very arguments that Plaintiff has been on notice of for months, since at least the filing of TTI’s
`
`motion to dismiss the original complaint.
`
`B.
`
`The ’030 Patent And Asserted Claim
`
`Plaintiff alleges that the TikTok system infringes claim 1 of the ’030 patent, entitled
`
`“Method, System and Software for Associating Attributes Within Digital Media Presentation”:
`
`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:
`
`
`1 For purposes of this litigation only, Defendants have withdrawn their challenges based on lack
`of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 7 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`identifying a first set of digital media assets stored on the computer-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, cl. 1.).
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`To avoid “a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted
`
`as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Twombly, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing
`
`Iqbal, 550 U.S. at 570). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint provide
`
`a defendant with fair notice of the plaintiff’s claim and the grounds relied upon. This obligation
`
`requires more than conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action. Id.,
`
`at 555 (citations omitted). “On a motion to dismiss, courts are not bound to accept as true a legal
`
`conclusion couched as a factual allegation,” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
`
`of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. at 678.
`
`In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, regional circuit law applies. OIP Techs.,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In the Fifth Circuit, courts apply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 8 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`the Twombly-plausibility standard, and “may dismiss a direct-infringement claim under Rule
`
`12(b)(6) where the plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege the manner of the defendant’s infringement
`
`with specificity.” Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc., No. 5:19-CV-243-H, 2020 WL
`
`5500238, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Sep. 11, 2020); see also Lee v. Verizon Communs., Inc., 837 F.3d 523,
`
`533 (5th Cir. 2016). Conclusory or partial allegations of infringement are insufficient. To survive
`
`dismissal, a plaintiff must “provid[e] facts sufficient to create a plausible inference that each
`
`element of the claim is infringed by the accused products.” Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc., No.
`
`6:17-CV-186 JRG-JDL, 2017 WL 9935521, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017).
`
`Failure to address a limitation is an appropriate ground for dismissal. See Metricolor LLC
`
`v. L’Oreal S.A., 791 F. App’x 183, 188 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`No. W-19-CV-00612-ADA, 2020 WL 3528411, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2020) (Holding the
`
`complaint failed where the plaintiff did not “include even a short written description of how the
`
`accused instrumentalities meet the ‘coupling’ limitation.”).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Partial Direct Infringement Allegations Fail To Meet The
`Iqbal/Twombly Plausibility Standard and Should Be Dismissed
`
`Plaintiff’s factual allegations are very sparse, an issue that has been detailed to them in the
`
`prior motion to dismiss and letter to counsel, yet Plaintiff refuses to articulate a plausible claim of
`
`infringement—because it cannot. The Amended Complaint’s paragraphs 56 through 66 set out
`
`the entire explanation for how the TikTok system purportedly infringes. Even when read in a light
`
`most favorable to Plaintiff, it is so lacking in specificity that one cannot infer the manner in which
`
`the TikTok system allegedly infringes claim 1. The alleged facts do not expressly or inferentially
`
`support a plausible claim for direct infringement, and thus, the Amended Complaint should be
`
`dismissed. See Artrip v. Ball Corp., 735 Fed. Appx. 708, 714 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 9 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Direct infringement “requires that all the steps of a claimed
`
`method be performed by or attributable to a single entity.” Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Booking
`
`Holdings Inc., 775 F. App’x 674, 677 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). The Amended Complaint
`
`fails to meet this standard.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegation fails to identify at least the following claim limitations in the TikTok
`
`system, and they cannot be inferred from the Amended Complaint. Claim 1 requires far more than
`
`selecting digital media assets and presenting a user specific digital media composite—it at least
`
`requires substituting a digital media asset from a first set of digital media assets with a digital
`
`media asset of a second set. Indeed, claim 1 recites both a “system for associating user attributes
`
`with digital media asset attributes,” and several method steps for creating multiple digital media
`
`composite displays, as well as “performing a rule based substitution.” (’030 patent, claim 1.)
`
`Without addressing claim 1’s elements, Plaintiff baldly concludes that the “‘For You’ feed does
`
`precisely what is claimed by the system of the ’030 patent and constitutes an act of direct
`
`infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’030 patent.” Amended Complaint, ¶ 61. A patent
`
`infringement claim cannot stand on such a conclusory and threadbare allegation. See Iqbal, 556
`
`U.S. at 678.
`
`“First” and “Second” “Composite Digital Media Display.” Claim 1 requires creating
`
`“a first composite digital media display” (second method limitation), creating a “user specific
`
`composite digital media display” (eighth method limitation), and displaying “a second composite
`
`digital media display” (ninth method limitation). Out of these three distinct limitations, the only
`
`one even referenced in the Amended Complaint is the “user-specific composite digital media
`
`display,” which Plaintiff equates to the TikTok “For You” feed. See Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 58,
`
`60, 62-63. As such, Plaintiff necessarily fails to tie the first or second composite displays to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 10 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`“For You” feed or any other aspect of the TikTok system. By failing to allege the presence of
`
`either the first or second “composite digital media display,” the Amended Complaint fails to state
`
`a claim. De La Vega, 2020 WL 3528411, at *6.
`
`“Monitoring . . . for the Presence of a Trigger.” Claim 1 also requires “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.” As just explained, the Amended
`
`Complaint fails to point to, or even mention, a “first composite digital media display.” This alone
`
`prevents the Amended Complaint from alleging that any aspect of the TikTok system “monitor[s]”
`
`such a first composite digital media display “for the presence of a trigger.” The Amended
`
`Complaint fails to allege how the accused TikTok system “monitor[s]…for the presence of a
`
`trigger.” Indeed, nowhere does the Amended Complaint mention “monitoring” or “trigger.”
`
`Moreover, even a cursory review of the claim limitation shows that “monitoring the first composite
`
`digital media display for the presence of a trigger” infers that the first composite digital media
`
`display must include at least one trigger. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint equally fails to allege
`
`how, who, or what creates the trigger, or where it is found, in the accused TikTok system. Such
`
`blatant disregard for this limitation, and the pleading requirements, should not be excused.
`
`Plaintiff’s insufficient claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
`
`be granted.
`
`“Performing a Rule Based Substitution.” Claim 1 further requires “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.” Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to explain
`
`which “assets” are substituted, how they are substituted, or when the substitution occurs. Instead,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 11 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Plaintiff vaguely alleges that the “recommendation system . . . select[s] specific video clips . . . to
`
`include in the user-specific feed,” and uses “rule based algorithms to select the video clips to
`
`include in the user’s “For You” feed.” Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 63, 64. At best, the Amended
`
`Complaint merely alleges that certain videos are selected, but never alleges that any “rule based
`
`substitution” of those videos is performed.
`
`By failing to even mention a majority of the claim terms in the Amended Complaint,
`
`Plaintiff necessarily “does not identify [all limitations] in the context of the accused instrumentality
`
`and/or describe how each operates. Because Plaintiff does not include even a short written
`
`description of how the accused instrumentalities meet [these] limitation[s], his [Amended]
`
`[C]omplaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” See De La Vega, 2020 WL
`
`3528411, at *6. Moreover, the facts alleged, even when read in Plaintiff’s favor, are insufficient
`
`to infer that the TikTok system practices each and every limitation in claim 1. Plaintiff has failed
`
`to put Defendants on notice of the manner for which the TikTok system purportedly infringes and,
`
`accordingly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should be dismissed. See Soar Tools, LLC, 2020 WL
`
`5500238, at *5; Artrip, 735 Fed. Appx. at 714.
`
`Further, Defendants have raised these issues multiple times in a prior motion to dismiss
`
`and in a pre-motion letter. Plaintiff was aware of the issues, and failed to fix the inadequacies in
`
`both the Amended Complaint and its preliminary infringement contentions. Accordingly, the
`
`Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead the Pre-Suit Knowledge of the Asserted Patent
`Necessary to Sustain an Indirect Infringement Claim
`
`“Indirect infringement under Section 271(b)–(c) requires actual knowledge of or willful
`
`blindness to the infringed patent’s existence.” Meetrix IP, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 1-18-CV-
`
`309-LY, 2018 WL 8261315, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2018). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 12 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`only alleges induced infringement pursuant to Section 271(b) and only alleges notice of the ’030
`
`patent as of September 2, 2020 when the original Complaint was filed. See Amended
`
`Complaint, ¶ 69. Therefore, “because the [Amended] [C]omplaint fails to sufficiently allege pre-
`
`suit knowledge, the pre-suit portion of the indirect-infringement claims should be dismissed.”
`
`Meetrix, 2018 WL 8261315, at *3.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Raising a Plausible Inference of Egregious
`Behavior Necessary for Enhanced Damages
`
`“The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been variously described . . . as
`
`willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—
`
`characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932, 195 L.
`
`Ed. 2d 278 (2016). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not allege a single fact that could raise a
`
`plausible inference of the egregious behavior required under Halo. Instead, Plaintiff states legal
`
`conclusions without any factual support, such as: “Defendants have known of the existence of the
`
`’030 patent, and their acts of infringement have been willful and in disregard for the ’030 patent,
`
`without any reasonable basis for believing that it had a right to engage in the infringing conduct,”
`
`Amended Complaint, ¶ 76; and “Defendants’ infringement has been, and continues to be knowing,
`
`intentional, and willful,” id. at ¶ 77. Such “[t]hreadbare recital[] of the elements of [willful
`
`infringement], supported by mere conclusory statements, do[es] not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
`
`678. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim for willful infringement and enhanced damages should be
`
`dismissed in its entirety. See Meetrix, 2018 WL 8261315, at *3-4 (dismissing plaintiff’s willful
`
`infringement claim in its entirety where “the complaint does not allege any facts raising a plausible
`
`inference of the egregious behavior required under Halo”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 13 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Infringement Allegations Rely Upon Activities of Multiple Actors
`Without Allegations that Support Joint Infringement
`
`D.
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint should also be dismissed for failing to include any
`
`plausible allegation that a single actor performs the steps of claim 1 or, in the alternative, any basis
`
`for a finding of joint infringement. In order to plead joint infringement, a complaint must plead
`
`“facts sufficient to allow a reasonable inference that all steps of the claimed method are performed
`
`and either (1) one party exercises the requisite ‘direction and control’ over the other’s performance
`
`or (2) the actors form a joint enterprise such that performance of every step is attributable to the
`
`controlling party.” Lyda v. CBS Corp., 838 F.3d 1331, 1339-40 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (dismissing a
`
`complaint that failed to adequately allege that one entity directed or controlled others). Where
`
`there are no allegations that could “form the basis of a reasonable inference that each claim step
`
`was performed by or attributable to defendants,” dismissal is proper. Id. Here, Plaintiff’s
`
`infringement allegation demonstrates that no single actor performs all the steps of claim 1.
`
`Moreover, the factual allegations included in the Amended Complaint are insufficient to support
`
`a claim for joint infringement.
`
`Given the limited and threadbare nature of Plaintiff’s infringement allegation, and what is
`
`disclosed in the specification, Plaintiff’s infringement reading appears to rely upon the acts of
`
`multiple actors. For example, claim 1 requires “presenting to the user via the display server,” both
`
`the first and second composite digital media displays, however, 10Tales fails to identify the display
`
`server in TikTok’s system. For example, it is unclear if 10Tales is alleging a server within the
`
`TikTok system presents the composite displays, or if the user’s device activating the TikTok app
`
`and presenting the videos to the user, is the display server. If the latter, then a customer’s use of
`
`the TikTok app would be required for infringement—which 10Tales has not clearly alleged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 14 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`Plaintiff also alleges the claim requires “user attributes from a social network system, such
`
`as information about content that the user shares with others, accounts the user follows, []
`
`comments the user posts,” and “when a user chooses to link or sign up for TikTok using that
`
`user’s social network . . . .” Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 63-64 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the
`
`Amended Complaint implies the users’ activity, such as linking or signing up for the TikTok app,
`
`or interacting with posts or on a social network, are required to practice claim 1.
`
`Additionally, the Amended Complaint is inconsistent in its identification of what
`
`constitutes direct infringement of the ’030 patent. At paragraph 65, Plaintiff alleges that merely
`
`“loading source code . . . onto computer-readable storage medi[a]” is sufficient to directly infringe
`
`claim 1 of the ’030 patent, which contradicts the requirement that the first and second composite
`
`digital media displays must be presented to the user. Conversely, paragraphs 68 and 72 allege that
`
`end users’ “use of the TikTok app and webpage infringes the ’030 patent” by “select[ing] the ‘For
`
`You’ feed, and/or access[ing] the ‘For You’ feed from a web browser.” Defendants are left to
`
`guess whether the system itself or the system when used by the end-user is what purportedly
`
`infringes the ’030 patent.
`
`Thus, if claim 1 allegedly requires human action by a third party (content creators or users),
`
`in addition to a computer system, to perform some of the methods, the Amended Complaint must
`
`also allege facts to support joint infringement. Yet, the Amended Complaint fails to even suggest
`
`that one party exercises the requisite direction or control over another, or that the actors form a
`
`joint enterprise. See Lyda, 838 F.3d at 1339. Indeed, nowhere does the Amended Complaint allege
`
`that any Defendant directs or controls the content creators, or a user to use the TikTok app, sharing
`
`posts, following other users, or post material.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 15 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Rather, the user is described as having his/her own choice to use the social network.
`
`Amended Complaint, ¶ 64 (“when a user chooses to link or sign up for TikTok using that user’s
`
`social network”) (emphasis added)). Despite implicating multiple entities to perform claim 1, the
`
`Amended Complaint alleges no facts—not even a conclusory allegation—to support a joint
`
`infringement claim. Thus, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. See, De
`
`La Vega, 2020 WL 3528411, at *5.
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Should be Dismissed with Prejudice
`
`Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint—its second bite at the apple—makes no improvement on
`
`the infringement allegations in the original complaint and should be dismissed with prejudice. “A
`
`district court does not abuse its discretion where it denies leave [to amend] after repeated failure
`
`to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.” Artrip v. Ball Corp., 735 F. App’x 708,
`
`715 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). In response to Plaintiff’s original complaint, Defendant
`
`TTI moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, clearly laying out the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s
`
`original infringement allegations. See ECF No. 24. These deficiencies were also detailed in a pre-
`
`motion letter provided to Plaintiff’s counsel prior to the first motion to dismiss. Nonetheless, the
`
`Amended Complaint’s infringement allegations are nearly identical to those in the original
`
`complaint and suffer from the same deficiencies. Plaintiff’s actions make clear that it cannot, or
`
`is unwilling to, make the amendments necessary to plausibly plead infringement. Therefore, the
`
`Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. See U.S. ex rel. Adrian v. Regents of
`
`Univ. of California, 363 F.3d 398, 404 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding district court did not abuse its
`
`discretion by refusing leave to amend because “[a]lthough the order dismissing the second
`
`amended complaint was the first time a court ruled that [plaintiff] failed to plead fraud with
`
`specificity, [plaintiff] drafted this complaint after receiving the objections raised in the []
`
`Defendants’ motions to dismiss his first amended complaint”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 16 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 16 of 17
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss this case
`
`in its entirety, with prejudice.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 2, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Stephen S. Korniczky
`Stephen S. Korniczky (admitted pro hac vice)
`Martin R. Bader (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (admitted pro hac vice)
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, CA. 92130
`T: 858.720.8900
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Jason Mueller (State Bar No. 24047571)
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`2200 Ross Avenue, 24th Floor
`Dallas, TX 75201
`T: 469.391.7402
`jmueller@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`Attorneys for TikTok Inc.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00810-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 17 of 17Case 5:21-cv-03868-VKD Document 48 Filed 02/02/21 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 2, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
`
`UNDER FEDERAL RULE 12(b)(6) was served on counsel of record in this case by electronic
`
`mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen S. Korniczky
`Stephen S. Korniczky
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`