DCT

2:25-cv-03635

NTECH Properties Inc v. ByteDance Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00130, E.D. Tex., 05/24/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are foreign corporations and because Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ TikTok social networking platform infringes six patents related to systems and methods for generating and providing customized audiovisual media programming.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the algorithmic selection, sequencing, and delivery of media content to users based on their data and interactions, a foundational technology for modern content-driven platforms.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with notice of the asserted patents and their alleged infringement on February 22, 2024, approximately three months prior to filing suit, a fact that may be relevant to potential claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-06-24 Earliest Priority Date (’185, ’597 Patents)
2007-06-13 Earliest Priority Date (’704, ’261, ’947, ’753 Patents)
2012-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,145,704 Issues
2014-10-28 U.S. Patent No. 8,875,185 Issues
2014-11-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,886,753 Issues
2015-12-15 U.S. Patent No. 9,215,261 Issues
2016-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 9,317,597 Issues
2017-01-01 Accused Technologies Launched
2018-03-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,923,947 Issues
2024-02-22 Plaintiff Sends Notice Letter to Defendants
2024-05-24 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,145,704 - "Method and system for providing media programming"

  • Issued: March 27, 2012

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for methods and systems to generate media programming beyond assembling tagged media elements from a library, focusing on a network architecture to deliver customized content. (’704 Patent, col. 1:18-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server architecture composed of an "aggregator" and a "publisher." The aggregator provides a user with a list of selectable media "feeds." The aggregator receives the user's selection and sends it, along with user information, to the publisher. The publisher then uses this data to assemble and provide a customized media program to the user, creating a personalized feed responsive to the user's choices and data. (’704 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-61; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture separates the user-facing presentation layer (aggregator) from the back-end content generation layer (publisher), providing a scalable model for delivering customized media streams from multiple sources to numerous individual users. (Compl. ¶¶34-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system Claim 19. (Compl. ¶52).
  • The essential elements of Claim 19 are:
    • An aggregator with a processor adapted for presenting a plurality of media streams, receiving a selection signal, and providing an output signal with selection and user data.
    • A publisher with a processor adapted to receive the aggregator's output signal.
    • The publisher processor is further adapted to, responsive to the selection and user data, access an algorithm, select a temporal sequence of media programming, and assemble the selected media stream and other media elements into that temporal sequence.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,215,261 - "Method and system for providing media programming"

  • Issued: December 15, 2015

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges the invention solves problems in generating "intuitive and personalized media programming" by overcoming prior systems' inability to automatically edit and smoothly transition between audiovisual clips tailored to a user. (Compl. ¶32).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method where an aggregator delivers a menu of media feeds to a user's device. These feeds are composed of "tagged" media elements (e.g., audio, visual) from a publisher's library. The aggregator receives the user's selection, provides the selection and client information to the publisher, and then initiates customized programming for the user. The final programming consists of media elements that correspond to the selected feed and are ordered and concatenated based on the user's information. (’261 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:41-67).
  • Technical Importance: This approach formalizes the use of tagged media elements within libraries as the basis for algorithmic content assembly, enabling more granular and data-responsive personalization of media streams. (Compl. ¶32).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method Claim 1. (Compl. ¶74).
  • The essential steps of Claim 1 are:
    • Delivering by an aggregator, to a client device, a selectable menu of media feeds from a publisher, where media elements are tagged in a library.
    • Receiving by the aggregator a selection identifying a media feed.
    • Providing by the aggregator, to the publisher, the identification of the selected feed.
    • Providing by the aggregator, to the publisher, client information.
    • Initiating by the aggregator, for display at the client device, individual customized media programming comprising selected media elements.
    • The selected media elements must correspond to the feed, be responsive to user information, and be ordered and concatenated based on the feed and user information.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,923,947 - "Method and system for providing media programming"

  • Issued: March 20, 2018
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for generating customized media programming where a publisher analyzes user information and inserts an element into the programming based on targeting criteria like positioning, frequency, demographics, or geo-targeting. The system then provides the programming to the client device and can dynamically update the inserted element based on additional user information. (Compl. ¶19, ¶97).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1. (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TikTok's system, which uses various user data points for its recommendation engine, infringes by performing this method of customized media generation and dynamic updating. (Compl. ¶¶98, 103).

U.S. Patent No. 8,886,753 - "Method and system for providing media programming"

  • Issued: November 11, 2014
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method where an aggregator delivers a list of feeds to a client, receives a selection, and a publisher then acquires that feed selection from the aggregator. The publisher collects client information from the aggregator and provides the client with customized media programming based on a "publisher-initiated feed" that is responsive to the selection and includes elements ordered and concatenated based on user information. (Compl. ¶21, ¶119).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1. (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TikTok's system, where front-end servers deliver feeds and algorithm servers generate customized streams based on user selections and data, performs the claimed method. (Compl. ¶¶120-122).

U.S. Patent No. 9,317,597 - "Method and apparatus for efficient, entertaining information delivery"

  • Issued: April 19, 2016
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a multi-step method for providing video programming. It involves a server receiving a first request, searching databases, identifying responsive video clips and "transitional clips," and concatenating them into a first video program. After a user selects a clip from this first program, the server performs a second search based on the selection to define and present a second video program, with the process being guided by templates that consider user information and style requirements. (Compl. ¶23, ¶137).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1. (Compl. ¶134).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TikTok's request-and-response architecture for generating video feeds, including the insertion of transitional clips like advertisements and the use of algorithms (templates) based on user data, performs the claimed method. (Compl. ¶¶139-144).

U.S. Patent No. 8,875,185 - "Method and apparatus for efficient, entertaining information delivery"

  • Issued: October 28, 2014
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a method for information delivery where a system receives a user request, stores clips in memory, generates a unique stream of concatenated clips based on user viewing history, and streams them to an information display. The system can then generate new clips based on the user's selection of visual representations of the clips already displayed. (Compl. ¶25).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method Claim 1. (Compl. ¶162).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that TikTok's system for generating a unique stream of videos for a user's feed based on viewing history and user selections infringes this patent. (Compl. ¶166).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the TikTok App, the TikTok Website, and the associated back-end servers and software that support the platform (collectively, the "Accused Technologies"). (Compl. ¶42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Technologies operate as a video-sharing social networking platform where users can create, share, and watch short-form videos. (Compl. ¶43). A central feature is the algorithmic generation of video streams, or feeds, which are personalized for each user. (Compl. ¶44). The "For You" feed presents a stream of pre-selected suggestions based on an algorithm that considers user information, previous interactions with the app, location, and other variables to predict content the user will enjoy. (Compl. ¶44-45). The complaint alleges that this system uses metadata to associate video clips, including transitional clips like advertisements, to form the stream presented to the user. (Compl. ¶46). A screenshot from a Business Insider article shows the TikTok interface, highlighting the "For You" and "Following" feed tabs at the top of the screen. (Compl. p. 39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’704 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an aggregator having a memory and a processor, the processor adapted for presenting a plurality of media streams to a user... TikTok’s front-end servers, which are located in the cloud and service user webpages and mobile apps, act as aggregators. (Compl. p. 20) shows TikTok presenting a plurality of media streams via its "trending" tab. ¶56-57 col. 2:47-51
...receiving a signal having data indicative of a selection of one of the media streams... The front-end servers receive signals when a user makes a selection, for example, by creating a playlist of videos. ¶58 col. 2:51-53
...and providing an output signal including data indicative of the selection and of user data... The front-end servers send an output signal containing the user's selection and user data to TikTok’s algorithm servers. ¶58 col. 2:53-55
a publisher having a memory and a processor, the publisher processor adapted to receive the output signal from the aggregator... TikTok’s algorithm servers act as publishers, receiving the output signal from the front-end servers (aggregators). ¶58, ¶60 col. 2:56-58
...and responsive to the data indicative of the selection and of user data, access from the memory at least one algorithm for selection and sequencing of media elements... TikTok’s Recommendation Engine, which runs on the algorithm servers, is made up of algorithms that filter and select media elements based on user profile, actions, and selections. (Compl. p. 24) shows a TikTok help article describing the recommendation engine. ¶59-60 col. 2:58-62
...select a temporal sequence of media programming comprising the selected media stream and other media elements based on an output of the algorithm using the selection and the user data, assemble the selected media stream and the other media elements in the temporal sequence. The Recommendation Engine produces a weighted output, which is presented as the "For You" feed—a queue of videos based on the user's data and selections. ¶60 col. 2:62-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether TikTok's distributed cloud infrastructure, as alleged, maps onto the distinct "aggregator" and "publisher" components required by the claim. The analysis may explore whether the alleged "front-end servers" and "algorithm servers" perform the distinct functions recited for the "aggregator" and "publisher," respectively, or if their functions are more integrated than the claim language contemplates.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that creating a playlist is an example of a user "selection of one of the media streams." (Compl. ¶58). A technical question is whether selecting multiple videos for a playlist constitutes a selection of "one of the media streams" as required by the claim, or if it represents a different type of user interaction.

’261 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
delivering by an aggregator, to a client device associated with a user, a selectable menu of media feeds available from at least one publisher... TikTok’s servers, acting as aggregators, deliver selectable menus of media feeds, such as the "trending" hashtags tab shown in a screenshot. (Compl. p. 31). ¶78 col. 10:42-45
...wherein each said media feed comprises a plurality of media elements selected from audio media elements, visual media elements, and combinations thereof, and each said media element is tagged in at least one library in communication with at least one publisher... The media feeds are comprised of user-generated videos (visual and audio elements), and TikTok provides a vast music library with tagged music for users to access when creating content. ¶79 col. 4:35-39
receiving by the aggregator from the client device a selection identifying at least one of said media feeds... The aggregator receives a user selection, such as by searching a hashtag or creating a playlist. ¶80 col. 10:49-51
providing by the aggregator, to said publisher, an identification of each selected media feed; providing by the aggregator, to said publisher, client information... TikTok's system provides the user selection and user information to its algorithm, which acts as the publisher. ¶80-81 col. 10:52-56
initiating, by the aggregator, for display at the client device, individual customized media programming comprising media elements selected from one or more libraries... The system initiates customized media programming for the user, such as the "For You" feed, which is informed by the user's selections and data. ¶81 col. 10:57-61
...wherein the selected media elements (i) correspond to at least one selected media feed and are responsive to said user information, and (ii) are ordered and concatenated at least in part according to each selected media feed and said user information. The videos in the "For You" feed correspond to the user's selections and are ordered and concatenated by algorithms that use the user's information (e.g., interaction history, country, creator follows). ¶81-82 col. 10:62-67
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claim requires media elements to be "tagged in at least one library." The dispute may focus on the definition of these terms. Does the metadata associated with a TikTok video (e.g., hashtags, creator, audio used) constitute "tagging," and does the platform's vast, distributed collection of user-generated content and music constitute a "library" as contemplated by the patent?
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the relationship between media elements and user preferences in the Accused Technologies is based on discrete "tags" in a "library," as opposed to a more holistic, machine-learning-based vector analysis of content and user behavior?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’704 Patent (Claim 19):

    • Term: "aggregator"
    • Context and Importance: The claim requires a system with two distinct components: an "aggregator" and a "publisher." The definition of "aggregator" is critical to determining if TikTok's architecture, which the complaint divides into "front-end servers" and "algorithm servers," meets this structural limitation. Practitioners may focus on whether a single, integrated platform can be legally dissected to meet these claim elements.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes an aggregator functionally as a source that provides a "presentation element" (e.g., a menu of feeds) and can be implemented as a "web server providing websites to client devices." (’704 Patent, col. 3:6-12). This could support reading the term on any user-facing server component.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 1 depicts the aggregator (100) and publisher (110) as structurally separate boxes, which may suggest they must be distinct, non-integrated systems. (’704 Patent, Fig. 1). The specification also describes an embodiment where aggregator software is incorporated "locally on a user's system," distinct from a remote publisher. (’704 Patent, col. 3:10-12).

  • For the ’261 Patent (Claim 1):

    • Term: "tagged in at least one library"
    • Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a key point of novelty. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the metadata used by TikTok (hashtags, sounds, effects) qualifies as "tags" and whether its content corpus constitutes a "library." Defendant may argue that its recommendation engine uses complex vector-based associations, not the discrete "tag"-based system described.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that an "associated database containing tags and/or other identifying information may be included," suggesting a flexible definition of how content is organized and identified. (’261 Patent, col. 4:35-39).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of "individual libraries dedicated to storing media elements for different feeds," such as libraries for different genres of music. (’261 Patent, col. 4:50-53). This could support a narrower construction requiring formally structured and partitioned collections of content, rather than a single, massive database.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement across all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is that Defendants instruct and encourage users to use the Accused Technologies in an infringing manner through materials such as TikTok’s online Help Center, which provides guidance on managing feeds (e.g., "For You"), using hashtags, and creating content. (Compl. ¶¶68-69, 89-90).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but it establishes a basis for such a claim by alleging pre-suit knowledge. It states that Defendants had direct notice of the asserted patents and their alleged infringement as of February 22, 2024, via a letter from Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶50). The prayer for relief requests trebled damages, consistent with a willfulness allegation. (Compl. p. 73, ¶E).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of architectural mapping: can the "aggregator" and "publisher" architecture, described in several patents as distinct functional components, be mapped onto TikTok's allegedly more integrated, cloud-based infrastructure of front-end and algorithm servers? The case may turn on whether the court construes these terms as requiring structural separation or merely functional roles that can coexist within a single platform.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical specificity: does the metadata used by TikTok's sophisticated recommendation engine (e.g., hashtags, user interactions, video content analysis) meet the specific claim requirements of "tagging" within a "library," or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented method and the actual technical operation of the accused system?
  • A third question will relate to temporal scope and obviousness: given that the earliest patents claim priority to 2007, a central validity question will be whether the claimed inventions represented a non-obvious advance over the state of the art at that time, or whether they merely claimed the application of known network and database principles to the emerging field of personalized media.