ShopSee, Inc. v. TikTok Inc.

Background

This patent-infringement case concerns ShopSee’s U.S. Patent No. 11,134,316, titled “Integrated Shopping Within Long-Form Entertainment.” The patent describes interactive video layers that let users view information about items, services, or songs while watching video, and that can include social interaction with other viewers without taking the user away from the video.

ShopSee alleged that TikTok infringed at least Claim 18. TikTok moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that Claims 1 through 19 were not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A judgment-on-the-pleadings motion may be granted when the pleadings show no disputed material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Representative Claim

TikTok argued that Claim 1 represented the relevant claims. The court treated Claim 1 as representative because ShopSee did not provide meaningful reasons why Claims 17 and 18 had materially distinctive limitations. The court therefore analyzed Claim 1 exclusively.

Patent Eligibility

Section 101 allows patents for certain inventions, but excludes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. Under the two-part test established by the Supreme Court in Alice, the court first asks whether the claims are directed to an excluded concept. If they are, the court asks whether the claim includes an “inventive concept”—an element or combination that adds significantly more than the excluded concept itself.

At the first step, the court held that Claim 1 was directed to an abstract idea. The claim described receiving video, processing it to create interactive layers, generating video data containing those layers, and distributing information about items, services, or songs. The court characterized these functions as collecting, processing, organizing, and presenting existing information using generic computer components.

The court rejected ShopSee’s argument that the patent specifically improved streaming technology by reducing interruptions and eliminating the need for a second screen. It found that Claim 1 did not describe a specific improvement to computer operation or a sufficiently detailed implementation. Instead, the claim generally described adding information to video without disrupting the ongoing video.

At the second step, the court held that the patent did not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. The claim did not identify an unconventional algorithm, protocol, or technique, and its description of processing merely repeated the claim language. The court also held that it could not consider ShopSee’s expert declaration at the Rule 12(c) stage because the motion was generally limited to the pleadings and incorporated materials.

Disposition and Amendment

The court granted TikTok’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the ’316 Patent failed the two-part patent-eligibility test. The court found amendment futile as a matter of law as to the first step because the claim was directed to an abstract idea. However, it could not determine that amendment would be futile as to the second step because ShopSee might develop additional factual support for its alleged inventive concept.

The court therefore granted ShopSee leave to file a further amended complaint concerning inventiveness. The amended complaint was due by September 11, 2026. The court stated that no additional parties or claims could be added without the court’s permission or TikTok’s agreement.