PTAB

IPR2022-00179

Triller Inc v. TikTok Pte Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method Of Enabling Digital Music Content To Be Downloaded To And Used On a Portable Wireless Computing Device
  • Brief Description: The ’132 patent is directed to a social network implemented on a portable wireless computing device. The invention enables a user to perform social networking functions such as creating a user account and profile, viewing other users' profiles, interacting with other users, sending and receiving messages, and linking accounts on a remote server.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Abrams - Claims 1, 22, 26, and 31 are anticipated by, or in the alternative obvious over, Abrams.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abrams (Application # 2005/0021750).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Abrams, which describes a social networking system accessible by user devices, discloses every limitation of independent claims 1 and 31. Abrams teaches user devices that can be "cellular telephones," which are portable wireless computing devices. The software application is the web browser on these devices. Petitioner asserted that Abrams explicitly discloses all recited social networking functions: creating user accounts with profiles, viewing profiles of other users, interacting via messaging and bulletin boards, and linking user accounts through friend requests. For dependent claims 22 and 26, Petitioner argued Abrams discloses providing user recommendations based on search criteria and degrees of separation, and that communication via cellular telephones inherently uses wireless communication technology.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): As an alternative, Petitioner argued that any minor differences would have been obvious modifications. For example, if the browser in Abrams were not considered inherently embodied on non-transitory storage, it would have been obvious to do so to avoid reinstalling it on every power-up.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Abrams and POSITA Knowledge - Claims 2 and 27 are obvious over Abrams in view of the general knowledge of a POSITA.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abrams (Application # 2005/0021750) and the knowledge of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) regarding multitasking, as evidenced by Java Threads (a 1999 textbook).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that claims 2 and 27 depend from claim 1 and add the requirement of using a "multitasking" or "multithreaded" architecture to balance the computational demands of network access and the user interface. While Abrams discloses a system with both network access and a user interface, it does not explicitly disclose using multitasking to balance them.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued that in 2006-2007, multitasking and multithreading were common, well-known techniques for improving application performance, particularly for graphical user interfaces and network operations. A POSITA implementing the social network of Abrams would have been motivated to use these conventional techniques to ensure a responsive user interface while the application simultaneously handled network requests. This was a standard design choice, not an inventive step.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as multitasking was a fundamental and widely implemented technique in software development, particularly with platforms like Java, which was favored for mobile applications at the time.

Ground 3: Anticipation over Knight 2010 - Claims 3, 6, and 27 are anticipated by, or in the alternative obvious over, Knight 2010 due to an invalid priority claim.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Knight 2010 (Application # 2010/0031366).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground is predicated on a priority date argument. Petitioner asserted that the subject matter of claims 3, 6, and 27 (e.g., multitasking for DRM/media operations, "track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer") was first introduced in a 2008 amendment and was not supported by the May 2007 PCT priority application. Therefore, these claims are only entitled to a much later effective filing date (August 5, 2013). This makes the applicants' own earlier publication, Knight 2010, intervening prior art under 35 U.S.C. §102. Petitioner then argued that Knight 2010, which shares a nearly identical specification with the ’132 patent, anticipates claims 3, 6, and 27 by disclosing all of their limitations in haec verba, including the specific multitasking architecture for DRM/media operations and the use of a separate meta-data layer.
  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Abrams with Khedouri (Application # 2006/0008256) or Partovi (Patent 8,572,169). These grounds argued it would have been obvious to combine Abrams' general social network with the music-sharing and meta-data management features of Khedouri or Partovi to provide a desirable, music-focused social networking experience.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. Key reasons included that Petitioner would imminently file a motion to stay the co-pending district court litigation, a motion the presiding judge regularly grants. Furthermore, no trial date had been set, very little investment had been made in the litigation, and the merits of the invalidity grounds presented in the petition were strong.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-3, 6, 22, 26, 27, and 31 of the ’132 patent as unpatentable.