DCT
2:25-cv-04909
Duzy Iod LLC v. ByteDance Ltd
Key Events
Amended Complaint
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., 12/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant TikTok Inc.'s established place of business and acts of infringement within the district, as well as a forum selection clause in a non-disclosure agreement designating Los Angeles County courts for related matters.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' TikTok in-video shopping feature infringes two patents related to interactive, 'shoppable' video overlays that allow users to purchase items without leaving the video stream.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of monetizing video content on social media platforms by integrating e-commerce directly into the viewing experience, aiming to increase user engagement and transaction conversions.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that prior to the lawsuit, Plaintiff and Defendant TikTok Inc. engaged in discussions under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in 2021, during which Plaintiff disclosed its proprietary technology. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subsequently ceased communications and launched the accused functionality. The complaint also notes that one of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 10,334,320, successfully underwent an ex parte reexamination, a Patent Office proceeding that reconsiders a patent's validity in light of prior art.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-19 | U.S. Patent No. 10,334,320 Priority Date |
| 2019-06-25 | U.S. Patent No. 10,334,320 Issue Date |
| 2019-10-25 | U.S. Patent No. 11,653,066 Priority Date (Application Filing Date) |
| 2020-09-17 | NDA signed between Duzy and TTI |
| 2021-01-XX | Duzy allegedly discloses confidential information to TTI |
| 2021-02-22 | U.S. Patent No. 10,334,320 Reexamination Certificate Issued |
| 2021-08-24 | Defendants launch accused in-app shopping feature with Shopify |
| 2023-05-16 | U.S. Patent No. 11,653,066 Issue Date |
| 2025-12-15 | 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,” issued June 25, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes prior art video systems where user interaction was limited and often disruptive. Specifically, to purchase a product shown in a video, a viewer had to leave the viewing experience and "go directly to a linked third party sales website to transact." (’320 Patent, col. 2:62-66). These systems also relied on "timeline dependent cue point triggers" that would "push" advertisements to viewers at specific moments, interrupting the viewing experience (Compl. ¶¶32-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a video player system that uses a "fully independent video overlay" that is "timeline detached" to create a seamless, non-disruptive shopping experience (’320 Patent, col. 13:16, 13:46). This overlay allows a user to interact with "cue objects" (e.g., products shown in the video) and complete a purchase "wholly within said video player and overlay" at any point in time, without being redirected to an external site and without interrupting the video stream (Compl. ¶¶32, 34; ’320 Patent, Abstract).
- Technical Importance: This technology aimed to shift interactive video from an advertiser-driven "push" model to a user-initiated "pull" model, thereby increasing user engagement and the commercial potential of video content (Compl. ¶¶50, 3:24-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, as amended by the Reexamination Certificate (Compl. ¶¶86, 87).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A video player with a processing device and screen.
- Software configured to enable viewers to interact with pre-enabled "cue objects" within the video stream.
- Pre-enablement occurs by configuring a "fully independent video overlay" defined by API keys linking products via a commerce platform API.
- The overlay is implemented through an embedded player on a media partner's platform.
- The "fully independent video overlay is timeline detached."
- The player is further configured to display a proprietary cue object and enable purchase "at any point during video stream play."
- The purchase process is implemented "wholly within said video player and overlay," eliminating linking to third-party purveyor sites.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,653,066 - “Interactive Digital Media Playback And Transaction Platform,” issued May 16, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The invention addresses the technical problem of integrating e-commerce into a video stream without disrupting the video playback or requiring users to navigate to external websites, a process that creates inconvenience and reduces "on platform time" (Compl. ¶¶37, 39).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing software instructions. When executed, these instructions configure an "application programming interface (API) overlay" that is "independent of the timeline of the video player video content" (’066 Patent, Abstract, col. 17:4-10). This API overlay can load APIs from various e-commerce partners and process a transaction associated with an item in the video, all in response to user interaction and without disrupting playback (’066 Patent, col. 18:8-12; Compl. ¶38). Figure 3 of the patent illustrates the method, from receiving video content to executing a purchase transaction (’066 Patent, col. 10:38-40).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a software architecture for creating a scalable, non-disruptive, in-video commerce ecosystem that can integrate multiple vendors (Compl. ¶40).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent Claim 16 (Compl. ¶122).
- Essential elements of Claim 16 include:
- A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with executable instructions.
- The instructions cause a processing device to:
- Configure an API overlay that is independent of the video player's timeline and video content file.
- The API overlay is configured by loading APIs from chosen e-commerce partners to operate without disruption of video playback.
- Generate the API overlay with an interactive portion to receive user interaction corresponding to an item.
- Receive the user interaction via the interactive portion.
- In response to the interaction, process a transaction associated with the item via the API overlay.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the TikTok platform, specifically its "shoppable video player" and associated in-app commerce features, sometimes referred to as TikTok Shop (Compl. ¶¶86, 122).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the TikTok platform allows users watching video content, including live streams, to interact with on-screen elements like a shopping bag icon or a product banner (Compl. ¶¶88, 90). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows a banner for a "NUISK" camera overlaid on a live video stream (Compl. p. 32). Tapping such an element allegedly launches an interactive overlay within the video player. This overlay allows users to browse product details, select options, add items to a cart, and complete a purchase using integrated payment methods, all while the underlying video continues to be accessible (Compl. ¶¶92, 95). The complaint positions this functionality as a "copy-cat version" of Plaintiff's technology, launched after confidential business discussions, and alleges it is a critical component of Defendants' strategy to monetize their platform (Compl. ¶¶10, 64).
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 comprising at least one processing device and a screen controlled by software ... that generates a video stream displayed on said screen | The TikTok app runs on devices like smartphones which have processing devices and screens, and the app's software generates a video stream on the screen. | ¶87 | col. 13:6-9 |
| ...configured to enable end viewers to interact with cue objects pre-enabled within said video stream... | TikTok's video stream includes pre-enabled cue objects, such as a "Buy" button within a banner or an orange shopping bag icon, that users can tap to interact with. | ¶88 | col. 13:10-13 |
| ...pre-enablement occurs in, and by configuring, a fully independent video overlay... defined by... API keys that link said products or services via a commerce platform API... | The shoppable menu in TikTok is alleged to be a fully independent overlay configured via a proprietary editing platform. The overlay is defined by products (e.g., a camera) made available for purchase via API keys that link to a payment processor. | ¶¶89-90 | col. 13:26-32 |
| ...implementation of the overlay is carried out through an embedded player deployed via code to a media partners platform... | Defendants provide the TikTok platform, which integrates the overlay and associates it with cue objects like the "Buy" button. | ¶91 | col. 13:33-39 |
| ...wherein said fully independent video overlay is timeline detached... | The TikTok video overlay is alleged to be always present and accessible while the video is playing, not dependent on a specific time cue in the stream. | ¶91 | col. 13:40-41 |
| ...implemented wholly within said video player and overlay, eliminating all direct, real-time linking or transfer of context... to any third party purveyor site... | A user can purchase a product without leaving the TikTok app while the video continues to play uninterruptedly. A screenshot shows the in-app checkout screen (Compl. p. 39). | ¶95 | col. 13:58-63 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the proper construction of "fully independent video overlay." The complaint suggests this means the overlay can exist without the video and vice-versa (Compl. ¶90). Defendants may argue that a natively integrated feature like TikTok's is not "fully independent" in the manner required by the patent.
- Scope Questions: The meaning of "timeline detached" will likely be contested. Plaintiff's theory appears to be that this means the interactive elements are always available, not tied to a specific timestamp (Compl. ¶91). A counterargument could be that the overlay is still fundamentally tied to the video's lifecycle (e.g., it appears when the video starts and disappears when it ends), and thus is not entirely "detached" from the timeline.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the purchase to be "implemented wholly within said video player and overlay." The complaint focuses on the user-facing experience of not leaving the app (Compl. ¶95). However, the dispute may focus on the back-end implementation and whether API calls to external e-commerce (e.g., Shopify) or payment platforms mean the transaction is not "wholly within" the claimed player and overlay.
'066 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| configure an application programming interface (API) overlay associated with a video player that is independent of the timeline of the video player video content... | Defendants' software configures an API overlay (e.g., the shoppable banner) that is independent of the video timeline because it is always present while the video plays. | ¶124 | col. 17:4-9 |
| ...said API overlay is configured by loading relevant APIs from chosen e-commerce partners and further configured to operate without disruption of the video playback... | An API from an e-commerce seller (e.g., for 4K cameras) is loaded, and this operates without disrupting the playing of the underlying video. A screenshot depicts the shoppable banner appearing over the video (Compl. p. 49). | ¶127 | col. 17:13-19 |
| generate... said API overlay... comprises an interactive portion configured to receive a user interaction corresponding to an item... | Defendants' software generates the API overlay which includes an interactive "Buy" button configured to receive a user's tap to purchase the displayed item. | ¶128 | col. 17:20-24 |
| receiving, via the interactive portion of said API overlay, the user interaction corresponding to the item... | When a user interacts with the "Buy" button or shopping bag icon, the processing device receives an indication of that interaction. | ¶129 | col. 17:25-27 |
| ...in response to the user interaction, processing via said API overlay, a transaction associated with the item. | When a user interacts with the "Buy" button, they are able to purchase the item via the API overlay while the video continues to play. A screenshot shows the order summary page within the app (Compl. p. 50). | ¶130 | col. 17:28-30 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: Similar to the '320 patent, the meaning of an overlay being "independent of the timeline of the video player video content" will be critical. The analysis will likely focus on whether continuous availability during playback satisfies this limitation.
- Technical Questions: Claim 16 requires instructions that cause a device to "generate" the API overlay. A potential point of dispute is the technical meaning of "generate." Defendants may argue their system uses pre-configured UI elements that are merely displayed, not dynamically "generated" in the manner contemplated by the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fully independent video overlay" (’320 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement argument for the '320 patent. The degree of technical and functional separation between the "overlay" and the underlying "video player" that this term requires will be a primary focus of claim construction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification contrasts the invention with prior art that embeds interactivity into the video timeline, suggesting "independent" relates to being free from timeline-based triggers (’320 Patent, col. 3:4-11). The patent also describes the player as a "stand alone unit" that can be "layered on top of any other existing video player," which could support a broad interpretation of independence (’320 Patent, col. 4:1-2, col. 12:35-38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The modifier "fully" suggests a high degree of separation. Defendants may argue that a natively integrated feature within a single application (like TikTok) is not "fully independent," and that the term requires distinct software modules or layers, as suggested by the description of an overlay "above existing video players" (’320 Patent, col. 5:8-9).
The Term: "implemented wholly within said video player and overlay" (’320 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines the technological boundary of the claimed invention. The infringement case hinges on whether the entire accused transaction process, from user click to purchase completion, occurs "wholly within" this boundary.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts the invention with prior art that requires the viewer to leave the viewing experience and go to a "linked third party sales website to transact" (’320 Patent, col. 2:62-66). This context may support an interpretation focused on the user experience, where "wholly within" means the user is never navigated away from the video player's interface.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim recites that the transaction is "implemented" wholly within the player, not just that the user experiences it there. Practitioners may focus on this term because it points to the technical execution. A defendant could argue that if the transaction relies on back-end server calls to external commerce platforms (like Shopify) or payment processors, the implementation is not "wholly within" the player and overlay, even if the user interface remains seamless.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the TikTok platform to users with the intent that they use its features in a way that infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶109, 141). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating that the TikTok platform is a material part of the patented invention and is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶¶110, 142).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It claims that Plaintiff informed Defendant TTI of the '320 patent's existence in or around June 2021 (Compl. ¶¶9, 99, 112). For the '066 patent, knowledge is alleged from its date of issuance, based on the assertion that Defendants actively monitor Plaintiff's patent portfolio (Compl. ¶131). The willfulness claim is further supported by allegations that Defendants developed a "copy-cat version" of the technology only after receiving confidential information from Plaintiff under an NDA (Compl. ¶¶10, 64).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "fully independent video overlay" and "timeline detached," which originate in the context of layering technology onto existing video players, be construed to read on the natively integrated shopping features of a closed-ecosystem application like TikTok? The outcome of this question will likely determine the viability of the infringement claims.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical boundaries: does the accused transaction process, which involves APIs from third-party e-commerce and payment platforms, satisfy the limitation that it be "implemented wholly within said video player and overlay"? The case may turn on whether this claim language is interpreted to refer to the user-facing interface or the complete back-end technical execution of the transaction.
- The case presents a significant narrative question rooted in the breach of contract allegations. Evidence related to the pre-suit NDA, the alleged disclosure of confidential information, and the subsequent launch of the accused feature will be central not only to the contract claim but also to Plaintiff's attempt to prove willful infringement and frame the Defendants' conduct as deliberate copying.