DCT
2:25-cv-04909
Duzy Iod LLC v. ByteDance Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: DUZY IOD LLC d/b/a DUZYTV (New Jersey)
- Defendant: ByteDance Ltd. (Cayman Islands); TIKTOK LTD. (Cayman Islands); TikTok Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gardella Alciati; SML Avvocati P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-04909, C.D. Cal., 05/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant TikTok Inc.'s established place of business and acts of infringement within the district. The complaint also cites a non-disclosure agreement in which parties consented to jurisdiction in Los Angeles County courts for related matters.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ TikTok App, specifically its in-video shopping features, infringes a patent related to "shoppable video" technology that was allegedly developed by Plaintiff and disclosed to Defendants under a non-disclosure agreement.
- Technical Context: The technology enables users to purchase products displayed in a video directly within the video player's interface, without being redirected to an external website, aiming to increase e-commerce conversion rates on video-centric platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,334,320, survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding, resulting in an amended set of claims issued via a Reexamination Certificate. The complaint alleges a detailed history of pre-suit interactions, including the signing of a non-disclosure agreement, multiple technical demonstrations by Plaintiff to Defendants, and partnership negotiations that Plaintiff claims ultimately led to Defendants launching a "copy-cat" version of the technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-19 | ’320 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-06-25 | ’320 Patent Issue Date |
| 2020-09-17 | Non-Disclosure Agreement signed by Duzy and TikTok Inc. |
| 2021-01-01 | Duzy allegedly demonstrates its solution to TikTok |
| 2021-02-22 | ’320 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2021-08-24 | TikTok and Shopify announce accused in-app shopping feature |
| 2025-05-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,334,320 - "Interactive Digital Platform, System and Method for Immersive Consumer Interaction with Open Web Video Player"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10334320, issued June 25, 2019.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the limitations of prior art interactive video systems. It notes that such systems often rely on "timeline dependent cues" (e.g., an advertisement appearing at a specific moment) or require the user to leave the primary viewing experience by redirecting them to a "linked third party sales website to transact," which disrupts the user experience (ʼ320 Patent, col. 2:42-44, 62-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system for a seamless "interactive on demand" experience. It employs a "fully independent video overlay" that is "timeline detached," meaning the user can initiate interaction at any point, not just at pre-set times ('320 Patent, col. 3:4-11; Compl. ¶62). A user can select a "cue object" (a product in the video) and complete the entire purchase transaction "wholly within said video player and overlay," which is intended to eliminate the disruptive need to visit a third-party website to complete a purchase (ʼ320 Patent, col. 4:18-23; Compl. ¶62, citing Ex. A, Reexamination Certificate, claim 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach seeks to solve the "long-felt need in the video streaming industry" for a convenient way for users to shop while watching a video, thereby increasing user engagement time and commercial opportunities without diverting users away from the platform (Compl. ¶33).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 of the ’320 Patent, as amended by the Reexamination Certificate (Compl. ¶62).
- The essential elements of asserted independent claim 1 include:
- A video player with a user interface enabling interaction with "cue objects pre-enabled" within a video stream.
- A "fully independent video overlay" that is "timeline detached."
- The overlay is created via an "editing platform" using "API keys" to link products from a "commerce platform API."
- The system allows for on-demand viewer interaction "at any point in time" and "without video stream disruption."
- An "interactive payment handler module" that performs the purchase transaction "wholly within said video player and overlay."
- Crucially, the system eliminates "all direct, real-time linking or transfer of context, frame and/or control of said video player to any third party purveyor site."
- The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of additional claims (Compl. ¶82).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is Defendants' "TikTok App," also referred to as the "Accused System," specifically its in-video e-commerce functionalities like TikTok Shop (Compl. ¶18, ¶63).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the TikTok App is a mobile software application that allows users to create and view short-form videos (Compl. ¶18). The accused functionality enables users to click on icons, such as a shopping cart or product banner, displayed over a video (Compl. ¶66). This action allegedly opens an overlay window within the app that provides product information and allows the user to complete a purchase transaction without leaving the video stream (Compl. ¶64, ¶69). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows the in-app checkout interface for a pool float, which includes "Add to cart" and "Buy now" buttons (Compl. ¶64, Fig. on p. 21). The complaint alleges this functionality was introduced through collaborations with e-commerce platforms like Shopify and Walmart (Compl. ¶7, ¶8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'320 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A video player... configured to enable end viewers to interact with cue objects pre-enabled within said video stream... | The TikTok App functions as a video player where users can click on on-screen elements, like a shopping cart icon, to view and interact with products related to the video content. The complaint shows a screenshot of an overlay for a "Robotic Pool Cleaner" as an example of a cue object (Compl. ¶63, Fig. on p. 20). | ¶65-66 | col. 14:1-12 |
| ...wherein said pre-enablement occurs in, and by configuring, a fully independent video overlay... defined by products or services made available by API keys that link said products or services via a commerce platform API... | The TikTok App allegedly uses a fully independent video overlay configured via an editing platform. The complaint alleges that "API keys and content modules are used to link the product information to the video feed" and cites to TikTok's own developer documentation. | ¶67 | col. 14:26-36 |
| ...wherein said fully independent video overlay is timeline detached... | The complaint alleges the overlay is "timeline detached" because it is "always accessible through the shopping cart icon" regardless of the video's progress. | ¶68 | col. 14:40-42 |
| ...said overlay allows said viewer interaction without video stream disruption... | The complaint alleges that "videos continue playing after the user clicks the shopping cart icon to view the product information overlay." | ¶69 | col. 14:49-51 |
| ...enabled with an overlay API that comprises an interactive payment handler module configured to... perform the aggregate purchase transaction by using APIs within the viewing frame overlay on the video player... | The complaint asserts the TikTok App uses an overlay API with an "interactive payment handler module" for purchasing products. A screenshot shows an interactive payment window for a product being sold via a "LIVE flash sale" (Compl. ¶64, Fig. on p. 21). | ¶71 | col. 14:58-65 |
| ...and same implemented wholly within said video player and overlay, eliminating all direct, real-time linking or transfer of context, frame and/or control of said video player to any third party purveyor site... | The complaint alleges that TikTok's shopping features are "implemented wholly within said video player and overlay" and do not require a "direct, real-time linking or transfer of context" that would take the user outside the app to a partner site like Shopify to complete a purchase. | ¶72 | col. 14:65-15:2 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Question: The complaint's infringement theory centers on the transaction being completed "wholly within" the player. A central factual question will be the precise technical architecture of the TikTok Shop. Discovery may investigate whether backend API calls between the TikTok App and a third-party commerce platform (e.g., Shopify) to process payment and order data constitute a "transfer of context, frame and/or control" to a "third party purveyor site," even if the user-facing interface remains within the TikTok App.
- Scope Questions: The case may hinge on the construction of the phrase "eliminating all direct, real-time linking or transfer of context... to any third party purveyor site." The parties may dispute whether this limitation refers only to the user's visible experience (i.e., not being redirected to a new webpage) or if it also precludes certain types of backend server-to-server communication and control handoffs required for transaction processing.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "implemented wholly within said video player and overlay, eliminating all direct, real-time linking or transfer of context, frame and/or control of said video player to any third party purveyor site"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be the primary feature distinguishing the invention from prior art that redirects users to external sites. Its interpretation is critical, as it directly addresses the alleged point of novelty and the core of the infringement allegation against TikTok's integrated shopping feature. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of modern, API-driven integrated services could create ambiguity around what constitutes a "transfer of context or control."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (favoring patentee): The patent repeatedly contrasts its method with prior art where "the viewer leaves the viewing experience and goes directly to a linked third party sales website to transact" ('320 Patent, col. 2:62-65). This language suggests the "elimination" of transfer is focused on the user-facing experience, meaning any process that keeps the user within the original application's interface would meet the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (favoring defendant): The term "transfer of... control" could be interpreted to include backend processes. A defendant could argue that when the app sends user and payment data to a third-party processor like Shopify and waits for an authorization response, it has temporarily transferred "control" of the transaction to that "third party purveyor site," even if the UI is unchanged. The detailed description of a "solitary payment handler" that itself has pre-arranged accounts with purveyors could be argued to support a narrower architecture where the patented system, not a third party, is intended to manage the transaction logic ('320 Patent, col. 12:40-55).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the TikTok App to end-users and publishing promotional materials and instructions that encourage use of the accused shopping features (Compl. ¶84, ¶86). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the TikTok App is a material component of the patented system, is not a staple article of commerce, and is known to be especially adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶85).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on extensive allegations of pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's technology through business negotiations and demonstrations beginning in 2020, and were explicitly advised of the '320 patent's existence in July 2021, prior to the widespread rollout of the accused features (Compl. ¶35-38, ¶74).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope and technical reality: can the claim limitation requiring a transaction to be "implemented wholly within said video player and overlay, eliminating all... transfer of context... to any third party purveyor site" be construed to read on a system, like the accused TikTok App, that uses third-party APIs for backend e-commerce and payment processing while maintaining a unified user interface?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of system architecture: what is the precise flow of data and control between the TikTok App, its servers, and its e-commerce partners like Shopify during a purchase? The outcome will depend on whether this technical reality constitutes a "transfer of context, frame and/or control" as understood in the patent.
- The extensive pre-suit history of alleged disclosures under an NDA will be central, not only to the separate breach of contract claim but also to the question of willfulness. The evidence presented regarding what was disclosed and when will be critical in determining whether Defendants' alleged conduct constitutes a "copy-cat" implementation and an unjustifiably high risk of infringement.