On Wednesday, ByteDance Inc. and TikTok Inc. filed a patent suit seeking declaratory relief from an accusation that they infringed on Triller, Inc.’s short-form video technology patent. The suit follows Triller’s Jul. 29 patent infringement action against the companies. That Western District of Texas complaint alleged that Beijing-based ByteDance, and its subsidiary TikTok, overstepped by using patented stitched-together short-form videos synched to audio technology.
In the declaratory action, TikTok explained that they are technology companies that provide and maintain mobile software applications that enable people to create and connect with one another via entertainment content. Their most well-known application is TikTok, used by millions of Americans, “to create and share short videos composed of expressive content.” They state that defendant Triller provides a namesake application characterized as an entertainment platform for “creators.”
The companies allege that not only is Triller’s choice of forum improper in its July complaint, its infringement allegations are baseless. The plaintiffs claim that they do not infringe on claims 1-19 of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,691,429 (the ’429 patent), registered by Triller in June 2017.
The plaintiffs provide three examples of how neither they nor their products infringe or induce others to do so. The first example explains that the plaintiffs’ products do not infringe upon claims 1-10 because they “do not perform the method step of ‘synchronizing each video take of the plurality of captured video takes with the selected audio track while each video take of the plurality of video takes is being captured, wherein synchronizing further comprises playing, from a first beginning, the selected audio track at substantially the same time as a second beginning of capturing each video take of the plurality of video takes.’”
The second example, relating to their non-infringement of claims 11-16, states that the companies’ products do not infringe because they “are not a ‘user device, comprising . . . at least one processor operable to: … synchronize each video take of the plurality of captured video takes to the recorded audio track as each video take of the plurality of video takes is being captured, wherein synchronizing further comprises playing, from a first beginning, the selected audio track at substantially the same time as a second beginning of capturing each video take of the plurality of video takes.’”
The final example explains that the plaintiffs and their software applications do not infringe on the ‘429 patent’s 17-19 claims because, among other things, their products “do not perform the method step of ‘synchronizing, while the plurality of video takes are being captured, each video take of the plurality of captured video takes to the selected audio track, wherein synchronizing further comprises playing, from a first beginning, the selected audio track at substantially the same time as a second beginning of capturing each video take of the plurality of video takes; and creating a music video comprising the selected audio track and at least a subset of the plurality of captured video takes synchronized to the selected audio track; wherein creating comprises: displaying the subset of the plurality of captured video takes based on the number of faces determined to be within each video take.’”
The plaintiffs request that the court resolve the disagreement by issuing a judicial determination that the plaintiffs and their products neither directly nor indirectly infringed upon the ’429 patent.
ByteDance Inc. and TikTok Inc. are represented by Fish & Richardson P.C.
