PTAB

IPR2022-00180

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 ’322 patent describes a software application for a smartphone that provides social networking functions. The functionality includes creating and editing user profiles, viewing other users' profiles, interacting with other users, sending messages, and linking user accounts.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Claims 30, 51, and 55 over Abrams, CNET Reviews, and Collins and/or Monas

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abrams (Application # 2005/0021750), CNET Reviews (2005-2006 archived webpages), Collins (Patent 5,963,951), and Monas (a 2006 book on MySpace).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Abrams, a social networking system, disclosed the core limitations of independent claim 30. Abrams taught a web-based social network where users create profiles with descriptive data, view profiles of others in their network, send messages via an internal system, and link accounts by inviting friends or confirming friend requests. Petitioner contended that Abrams’ disclosure of user devices like "cellular telephones" inherently taught the use of smartphones and wireless connections, as the described graphical user interfaces and browser functions were characteristic of smartphones of the era.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to implement the social network of Abrams using a conventional smartphone, as evidenced by CNET Reviews, which showed that smartphones with web browsers were well-known and commercially available. Furthermore, a POSITA would have found it obvious to make user profiles editable, a common feature needed for correcting errors and updating information. This was a well-known practice in contemporary social networks like MySpace, as shown by Monas, and in prior art interest-matching systems like Collins, which rewarded users for having a “recently updated their personal profile.”
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in combining these elements, as it involved implementing a known type of software (a social network) on a standard, widely available hardware platform (a smartphone) using common and expected features (editable profiles).

Ground 2: Anticipation of Claims 32, 35, and 56 by Knight 2010

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Knight (Application # 2010/0031366).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that claims 32, 35, and 56 were not entitled to their claimed May 2007 priority date. This was because the key limitations of these claims—specifically, using a multitasking/multithreaded architecture to balance demands of a DRM program and media operations (claims 32 and 56) and using "track meta-data that is formed as a separate meta-data layer" (claim 35)—were not disclosed in the priority document. Petitioner contended the earliest possible filing date for these claims was August 5, 2013. This later date rendered the Patent Owner’s own published application, Knight 2010, as invalidating prior art. Petitioner asserted that Knight, which shares a nearly identical specification and figures with the ’322 patent, anticipated claims 32, 35, and 56 by disclosing their limitations in haec verba (verbatim).
    • Key Aspects: This ground’s effectiveness hinges on successfully challenging the priority date of specific claims, thereby turning the patent owner's own intervening publication into anticipatory prior art.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claim 35 over Abrams and Khedouri

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Abrams (Application # 2005/0021750) and Khedouri (Application # 2006/0008256).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground was presented as an alternative for invalidating claim 35, which adds limitations for a "music application" that uses "track meta-data" that is "external to a music track" and "formed as a separate meta-data layer." Petitioner argued that Abrams disclosed the foundational social network. Khedouri disclosed a system for distributing digital music to portable wireless devices that functioned as a music application. Khedouri’s system used metadata (e.g., artist, song name, album) that was stored and browsed separately from the actual music files, thus teaching the "external" metadata limitation. Petitioner also argued that Khedouri disclosed a "separate meta-data layer" under any plausible interpretation, as it stored track metadata in a database (301) separate from user activity metadata (302).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to combine the systems to improve upon the known art. Abrams disclosed that user profiles could include information about favorite music, but provided no music-specific functionality. Khedouri provided a dedicated architecture for music sharing and discovery. A POSITA would have recognized the benefit of integrating Khedouri’s music-sharing features into Abrams’ social network. This would predictably enhance Abrams’ system by allowing users to not only list their favorite music but also to actively search for, browse, and listen to it, representing a known technique (adding music features) to improve a similar system (a social network) for a predictable result.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved integrating well-understood music distribution and social networking concepts, for which a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv would be inappropriate. It asserted that the related district court litigation was in its early stages, with no trial date set and no claim construction hearing scheduled. Petitioner stated its intent to file a motion to stay the litigation pending the IPR and noted the presiding judge's history of granting such stays. Petitioner argued these factors, combined with the strong merits of the petition, weighed heavily against discretionary denial.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 30-32, 35, 51, 55, and 56 of the ’322 patent as unpatentable.