Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, ShopSee, Inc. v. TikTok, Inc., initially filed as case number 7:24-cv-00333 in the Western District of Texas, centers on allegations of infringement related to e-commerce and interactive media technologies. The plaintiff, ShopSee, Inc., is identified as a patent-holding entity asserting intellectual property rights in the e-commerce and interactive media space. The defendant, TikTok, Inc., operates one of the world's leading short-form video platforms. The core of the dispute involves TikTok's commerce-integrated features, specifically its TikTok Shop, TikTok LIVE, and various advertising and marketing functionalities, which are the accused products.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,134,316 B1. This patent broadly covers systems designed to enable advertising, marketing, and the purchasing of items, services, or songs within a media delivery platform. These claims are directly aligned with the functionalities of TikTok's social commerce offerings. The case was originally assigned to Judge David Counts, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland also involved, in the Midland/Odessa Division of the Texas Western District Court. This venue has been notable for patent infringement assertions, particularly concerning e-commerce and platform technologies.

The procedural posture of the case has seen significant developments. Although initially filed in the Western District of Texas, the case was terminated there on January 20, 2026, with the record indicating a procedural order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw counsel. The basis for this termination and any awarded relief are not publicly disclosed, which often suggests a confidential settlement or voluntary dismissal between the parties. However, prior to this, the case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case Number 3:26-cv-00703, previously 3:25-cv-07759). This transfer suggests strategic maneuvering regarding venue. In the Northern District of California, the case is assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin. The litigation is notable for involving a patent-holding entity asserting against a major social media platform's rapidly expanding social commerce features, underscoring the high stakes and resource-intensive nature of such disputes.

The patent infringement case ShopSee, Inc. v. TikTok, Inc., initially filed as 7:24-cv-00333 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, and later transferred to the Northern District of California (3:26-cv-00703), involved U.S. Patent No. 11,134,316. The case concluded in the Western District of Texas on January 20, 2026, likely through a confidential settlement or voluntary dismissal, as the specific terms were not publicly disclosed.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

• 2024-12-17: Initial Complaint Filed. ShopSee, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against TikTok, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,134,316.
• 2025-02-24: Motion to Dismiss Filed. TikTok filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint.
• 2025-02-27: Motion to Transfer Filed. TikTok also filed a motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
• 2025-03-10: First Amended Complaint Filed. ShopSee filed a First Amended Complaint, which rendered TikTok's initial motion to dismiss moot.
• 2025-03-24: Answer to Amended Complaint Filed. TikTok filed its answer to the Amended Complaint.
• 2025-04-28: Amended Answer and Counterclaims Filed. TikTok filed an Amended Answer, denying infringement of the '316 patent and asserting affirmative defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity. TikTok also asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity.
• 2025-06-12: Discovery Dispute Order. The court issued an "ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE" addressing disagreements between the parties regarding a Protective Order. The disputes included the scope of in-house counsel's access to confidential information, whether TikTok's attorneys should be subject to a prosecution bar, and limitations on source code printouts.
• 2025-08-25: Motion to Transfer Granted and Case Stayed. The magistrate judge granted TikTok's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California and stayed all case deadlines. ShopSee subsequently objected to this order.
• 2025-09-02: IPR Petition Filed. TikTok filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 11,134,316 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• 2025-10-02: Markman Hearing Scheduled (W.D. Tex.). A Markman hearing for claim construction was scheduled in the Western District of Texas. However, due to the transfer and subsequent case closure, it is unlikely this hearing proceeded in that court.
• 2026-01-16: PTAB Declines IPR Institution. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute TikTok's IPR petition for the '316 patent.
• 2026-01-17: District Court Adopts Transfer Order. The district court judge adopted the magistrate judge's order, affirming the transfer of the case to the Northern District of California.
• 2026-01-20: Western District of Texas Case Terminated. The case in the Western District of Texas (7:24-cv-00333) was terminated. The public record indicates a procedural order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw counsel, which often suggests a confidential settlement or voluntary dismissal between the parties prior to reaching substantive litigation milestones like claim construction orders or summary judgment rulings.
• 2026-01-22: Case Transferred and Re-docketed. The case was formally transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and re-docketed as 3:26-cv-00703.
• 2026-02-03: Counsel Withdrawal Order. An order was entered granting the motion to withdraw as attorney for the plaintiff, ShopSee, Inc.

Given the termination of the case in the Western District of Texas and the withdrawal of counsel, the primary litigation appears to have concluded before reaching later stages such as a Markman hearing, summary judgment, or trial.

ShopSee, Inc., the plaintiff in case 7:24-cv-00333 in the Texas Western District Court, was represented by a team of attorneys from Scott Douglass & McConnico, LLP, and Latham & Watkins LLP. The case was filed on December 17, 2024, and was terminated in the Western District of Texas on January 20, 2026, with an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw counsel on February 3, 2026. The case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 3:2025cv07759.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff, ShopSee, Inc., in the Texas Western District Court case 7:24-cv-00333 included:

From Scott Douglass & McConnico, LLP (Austin, Texas)

These attorneys likely served as local counsel, given their firm's location and their withdrawal as the case concluded in the Western District of Texas.

• Paige Arnette Amstutz

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Scott Douglass & McConnico, LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Ms. Amstutz's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.

• Robert Pierce Earle

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Scott Douglass & McConnico, LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Earle's experience includes various complex commercial and intellectual property litigation matters.

From Latham & Watkins LLP

These attorneys likely served as lead counsel for ShopSee, Inc.

• Tiffany C. Weston

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Latham & Watkins LLP. Her practice generally involves intellectual property litigation, focusing on patent disputes.

• Joseph Previti

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Latham & Watkins LLP. Mr. Previti is an experienced patent litigator.

• Rachel Weiner Cohen

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Latham & Watkins LLP. She has experience in intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Heather Nicole Haynes

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Latham & Watkins LLP. Ms. Haynes specializes in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

• Jeffrey G. Homrig

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Latham & Watkins LLP. Mr. Homrig has significant experience in patent litigation.

• Joseph H. Lee

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm and Office Location: Latham & Watkins LLP. Mr. Lee's practice focuses on patent litigation, particularly in technology-driven cases.

(Note: Specific office locations for the Latham & Watkins attorneys were not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets for this case's docket entries, but they are generally found across various major Latham & Watkins offices. Detailed individual patent litigation experience beyond their general practice areas would require more in-depth searches of their professional profiles.)

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant, TikTok, Inc., in ShopSee, Inc. v. TikTok, Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00333, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas:

Defendant: TikTok, Inc.

• Diana Lee

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided snippets, but Quinn Emanuel is a national firm known for patent litigation.
  • Experience Note: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan is a prominent firm frequently involved in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.

• Haihang Wang

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wang is listed as counsel for TikTok in this patent infringement case.

• Ognjen Zivojnovic

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Zivojnovic is listed as counsel for TikTok in this patent infringement case.

• Sean San-Chul Pak

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Pak is listed as counsel for TikTok in this patent infringement case.

• Jeremy Thomas

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Thomas is listed as counsel for TikTok in this patent infringement case.

• Mark Tung

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Tung is listed as counsel for TikTok in this patent infringement case.

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel (inferred, as Gillam & Smith is a Texas-based firm often serving as local counsel in WD Texas)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas (based on typical firm operations for WD Texas local counsel).
  • Experience Note: Ms. Smith is listed as counsel for TikTok and her firm, Gillam & Smith, is known for its extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• James Travis Underwood

  • Role: Local Counsel (inferred, as Gillam & Smith is a Texas-based firm often serving as local counsel in WD Texas)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Underwood is listed as counsel for TikTok. His firm, Gillam & Smith, frequently represents parties in patent cases in Texas federal courts.

The case was filed on December 17, 2024, and terminated on January 20, 2026. The termination was marked by an order granting the plaintiff's unopposed motion to withdraw counsel, suggesting a confidential settlement or voluntary dismissal. No publicly disclosed claim construction orders, summary judgment rulings, or trial findings are available in the provided record.