PTAB

IPR2021-00099

ByteDance Ltd v. Triller Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Systems and Methods for Creating Music Videos Synchronized with an Audio Track
  • Brief Description: The ’429 patent describes a method for creating a music video where a user selects an audio track, captures a plurality of video takes while the audio track plays, and synchronizes each take with the audio. The core inventive concept asserted during prosecution was starting the audio playback and the video capture for each take at substantially the same time, allowing takes to be combined into a final music video.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation by Crosland - Claims 1 and 3-10 are anticipated by Crosland under 35 U.S.C. §102

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Crosland (Application # 2013/0163963).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Crosland, which describes a system for creating "lip dub" videos, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Crosland teaches a method where users select an audio track, record multiple video clips ("takes") against segments of that track, and combine them into a master music video. Critically, Petitioner asserted that Crosland’s disclosure of initiating a recording via a "record button" that starts a countdown timer "before the audio clip and video recording begin" directly teaches the key limitation of playing the selected audio track from a "first beginning" at substantially the same time as a "second beginning" of capturing each video take. This limitation was the primary basis upon which the patent was granted.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Hozumi and Crosland - Claims 1 and 3-10 are obvious over Hozumi in view of Crosland

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hozumi (Application # 2012/0148208) and Crosland (Application # 2013/0163963).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Hozumi taught the core synchronization method of the ’429 patent. Hozumi describes a "video-audio processing method" where plural video takes are synchronized with a single audio track. It explicitly discloses that when a user instructs the system to start capturing video, the system starts outputting the audio data, thereby teaching the simultaneous start of audio playback and video capture. Crosland was cited to additionally teach the creation of a polished music video by dividing video takes into segments and allowing those segments to be played interchangeably and sequenced to form a final composite video.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the teachings of Hozumi and Crosland to improve Hozumi’s system for creating videos. Hozumi’s described "parallel reproduction mode" is suitable for only two videos and would be impractical for creating a more complex music video from multiple takes. A POSITA would therefore look to a known technique, such as Crosland’s method of segmenting and concatenating clips, to create a more versatile and aesthetically pleasing final video from Hozumi's synchronized takes.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination involved applying a known video editing technique (from Crosland) to a base video synchronization system (from Hozumi) in the same field of art to achieve the predictable result of a better-produced music video.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Beauregard and Hozumi - Claims 1-10 are obvious over Beauregard in view of Hozumi

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beauregard (Application # 2010/0183280) and Hozumi (Application # 2012/0148208).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Beauregard taught the broader method of creating a video production by synchronizing multiple video clips to a common audio track. Beauregard describes a "Lip-Sync scenario" where multiple performers record videos against the same pre-recorded song, and the system later uses audio cross-correlation to time-align the clips. While Beauregard teaches the general concept, Petitioner argued it lacks specific detail on integrating audio playback with video capture. Hozumi was introduced to supply this missing element, specifically by teaching a system that starts audio playback at substantially the same time as video capture begins.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hozumi with Beauregard to improve the efficiency and automation of Beauregard’s system. Incorporating Hozumi’s simultaneous start feature would alleviate the need for manual coordination of audio playback during recording or for complex post-production alignment using cross-correlation, thereby reducing user error and simplifying the creation process.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination represented a straightforward integration of a specific, efficiency-enhancing feature (from Hozumi) into a more general system (from Beauregard), which would predictably result in a more user-friendly and reliable video creation tool.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an alternative ground that claims 1 and 3-10 are obvious over Crosland alone (§103). Petitioner also asserted that claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7 are anticipated by Hozumi alone (§102).

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that the co-pending district court litigation was in its earliest stages, with no trial date set and no significant investment in discovery or claim construction. Petitioner further argued that it had stipulated not to use the IPR grounds or prior art in the district court action, eliminating any risk of duplicative efforts or inconsistent rulings. The petition contended that these factors, combined with the strong merits of the invalidity challenges, weighed heavily in favor of institution.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-10 of the ’429 patent as unpatentable.