US 11134316

US Patent 11134316B1 provides methods, systems, and computer-readable media for integrated shopping and social interaction within long-form entertainment.

Here's a concise summary:

• Title: Integrated shopping within long-form entertainment
• Assignee: Shopsee Inc.
• Inventors: Charley Pavlosky, Traci Gilland, Tony Fannin, Eric Wickens, John Patrick Wooton
• Filing Date: 2017-12-27
• Issue Date: 2021-09-28
• Abstract: The invention describes a computer-implemented method for processing video media, specifically long-form entertainment, to generate one or more interactive video layers. This processing involves associating product information with objects within video frames, thereby forming "items of interest." This product information, which can include images, names, and descriptions, can be time-sensitive and geographically targeted. The method also includes tracking these items throughout the video and assigning selectable visual indicators. Furthermore, the invention encompasses a social media layer for user interaction and a third interactive layer providing deeper immersion into the entertainment's environment, including games, bonus content, and merchandise. These interactive layers aim to provide a seamless entertainment and marketing experience, immune to ad blocking, by allowing users to purchase items or engage socially without interrupting the viewing experience.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

The patent includes multiple independent claims covering different aspects of the invention:

• Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for delivering video data that integrates two interactive layers to a user. The user can choose to turn these layers on or off. The first layer is an interactive video layer (e.g., for shopping), and the second is another interactive video layer (e.g., for social media).

  • Plain-Language Overview: A method where a system provides video content with a selectable shopping layer and a social media layer. Viewers can enable or disable these interactive layers to enhance their viewing and purchasing or social experience.

• Claim 16 (Method Claim): This claim details a method for creating and distributing the interactive shopping and social media layers. It involves receiving video media, identifying objects within it, associating product information with these objects to create "items of interest," tracking these items, and assigning selectable visual indicators. Both the interactive shopping layer and a social media layer are then provided for distribution with the video.

  • Plain-Language Overview: A method for making video content interactive by automatically or manually identifying objects in the video, linking them to product information, and tracking them. This creates a shopping layer with clickable indicators. Additionally, a social media layer is integrated, and both are distributed alongside the video.

• Claim 20 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim): This claim covers a computer-readable medium (e.g., software) that, when executed by a processor, performs the steps outlined in Claim 1. That is, it enables the generation and provision of video data with interactive shopping and social layers, allowing users to control their display.

  • Plain-Language Overview: Computer software or data stored on a medium that, when run, makes a system deliver video with an interactive shopping layer and a social media layer, allowing users to choose whether to view them or not.

• Claim 35 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim): This claim covers a computer-readable medium that, when executed by a processor, performs the steps outlined in Claim 16. Specifically, it involves the processes of receiving, processing, associating, tracking, assigning, and providing the interactive shopping and social media layers with the video media.

  • Plain-Language Overview: Computer software or data on a storage medium that, when executed, processes video to identify items, link them to product information, track them, and create clickable shopping indicators. It also includes the functionality to integrate and provide a social media layer, all delivered with the video.

• Claim 36 (Computer-Implemented System Claim): This claim describes a computer-implemented system configured to perform the actions defined in Claim 16. The system comprises a digital processing device with a processor, operating system, memory, and a computer program with software modules for receiving video, processing it to generate the interactive shopping layer (associating product info, tracking, assigning indicators), and providing both the shopping and social media layers for distribution.

  • Plain-Language Overview: A computer system, including hardware and software, designed to take video, identify items within it, link those items to product details, track them, and create a clickable shopping experience. This system also integrates a social media function, distributing both interactive layers alongside the video content to viewers.

Litigation Dockets (CAFC 2026):

As of April 26, 2026, direct dockets for US Patent 11134316 specifically before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in 2026 are not explicitly identified in the search results. However, there are ongoing related legal actions:

• District Court Cases:

  • A case, Shopsee, Inc. v. TikTok Inc., No. 7:24-cv-00333, was filed in the Texas Western District Court. This case was later transferred to the California Northern District Court as ShopSee, Inc. v. TikTok, Inc. 3:25cv07759. A jury selection and trial for this case is set for October 5, 2026.
  • Another US case, 3:26-cv-00703, was filed in the California Northern District Court.

• PTAB Cases:

  • An Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01485 (TikTok, Inc. v. ShopSee, Inc.), concerning US11134316B1 was filed on September 3, 2025, and terminated on January 16, 2026, without institution (procedural denial). The patent owner, ShopSee, Inc., had argued against institution based on factors like TikTok's delay in filing the petition after being sued and national security interests related to TikTok.

While these district court cases and PTAB proceedings could potentially lead to appeals at the CAFC, the search results do not currently show any active CAFC dockets for US11134316 in 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 11134316 includes the following cases:

• Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

  • Case Number: 7:24-cv-00333 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not available from the provided text.
  • Current Status: US case filed in Texas Western District Court. [cite: Original Patent]

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:25-cv-07759 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not available from the provided text.
  • Current Status: US case filed in California Northern District Court. [cite: Original Patent]

• Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court

  • Case Number: 3:26-cv-00703 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Defendant(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not available from the provided text.
  • Current Status: US case filed in California Northern District Court. [cite: Original Patent]

• Jurisdiction: PTAB

  • Case Number: IPR2025-01485 [cite: Original Patent]
  • Plaintiff(s) / Petitioner: Petitioner information not provided in the snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not available from the provided text.
  • Filing Date: Not available from the provided text.
  • Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural. [cite: Original Patent]

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11134316. This proceeding, IPR2025-01485, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits. This status indicates the patent has survived an IPR attempt, which strengthens the patent owner's position against potential defendants.

IPR2025-01485 — TikTok Inc. v. Shopsee Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-03
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on procedural grounds rather than a full review of the merits.)
• Judge panel: Information regarding the specific judge panel for a discretionary denial is not typically published in the same way as for instituted trials and final written decisions. A search for the judge panel did not yield publicly available information for this specific case at this stage.
• Petition grounds: A search for specific petition grounds (claims, art, statutory basis) for IPR2025-01485 was not successful in publicly available records, as the case was discretionarily denied before reaching a full institution decision.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-12. The status indicates a "Discretionary Denial - Procedural". Discretionary denials often occur when the PTAB exercises its discretion not to institute a review, for example, under NHK Spring or Fintiv factors, or other procedural considerations, without evaluating the merits of the prior art presented. Specific reasoning is not publicly detailed in the provided structured data or general search results for this denial.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as the petition was denied institution.
• Appeal: A search for an appeal of IPR2025-01485 to the Federal Circuit did not yield any public records.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means that the claims of US11134316 were not subjected to a full PTAB review, and thus no claims were invalidated. This result favors the patent owner, making an IPR-based defense harder for other potential challengers using similar arguments or timing.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11134316 are currently UNTESTED on the merits through AIA trial proceedings. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01485, was discretionarily denied institution. This means the Board did not reach the merits of the patentability challenges presented by TikTok Inc., and therefore, no claims were sustained or canceled as a result of this proceeding. The patent's claims remain intact from a PTAB perspective.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since IPR2025-01485 was denied institution, § 315(e)(2) estoppel, which bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds raised or reasonably could have raised, may not apply as broadly as in a case that proceeds to a final written decision. However, the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial (which is not publicly detailed) would be crucial in determining any potential estoppel effects on TikTok Inc. For other defendants, prior-art grounds are largely still available, as the patent claims have not been adjudicated for patentability by the PTAB.

The fact that TikTok Inc. filed an IPR, which was then discretionarily denied, indicates that at least one significant entity has attempted to challenge the patent. The "Discretionary Denial - Procedural" status suggests the denial was not based on the unpatentability of the claims, but rather on some other procedural or policy consideration by the Board. This outcome strengthens the patent owner's position as the patent has withstood an initial challenge without its claims being evaluated.

Recommended next steps

The IPR2025-01485 proceeding for US11134316 was denied institution. No active proceedings are currently pending that would lead to further trial-stage milestones. The absence of instituted PTAB activity means that the patent claims have not been formally challenged on their merits in an AIA trial. If you are a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it implies that you would need to conduct your own prior art search and analysis to determine potential invalidity grounds, as the PTAB has not yet provided any such findings.

Inventors

• Charley Pavlosky (Shopsee Inc)
• Traci Gilland (Shopsee Inc)
• Tony Fannin (Shopsee Inc)
• Eric Wickens (Shopsee Inc)
• John Patrick Wooton (Shopsee Inc)

Original assignee

The original assignee, Shopsee Inc, appears to be an operating company whose primary line of business involves developing systems for integrated shopping within long-form entertainment. It is currently active. [cite: Original Patent]

Assignment timeline

• 2018-01-23 (executed) / recorded 2018-01-23 — Reel 045761/0074
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WOOTON, JOHN PATRICK, PAVLOSKY, CHARLEY, FANNIN, TONY, GILLAND, TRACI, WICKENS, ERIC
  • Assignee: SEETV GLOBAL, INC.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. ROUSE, 11451 KATY FREEWAY SUITE 440, HOUSTON, TEXAS, UNITED STATES, 77079
  • Context: Transfer from individual inventors to a company.
• 2021-07-21 (executed) / recorded 2021-07-21 — Reel 057991/0950
  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: SEETV GLOBAL, INC.
  • Assignee: Shopsee, Inc.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. ROUSE, 11451 KATY FREEWAY SUITE 440, HOUSTON, TEXAS, UNITED STATES, 77079. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Name change of the assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11134316
    2017 : Filed by Shopsee Inc
    2018 : Assigned to SeeTV Global Inc
    2021 : Name change to Shopsee Inc
         : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While the initial transfer is from individuals to SEETV GLOBAL, INC., and subsequently to Shopsee, Inc. via a name change, there is no explicit evidence within the provided text that these entities are shell companies (e.g., no products, registered-agent address, single-purpose LLC). The patent abstract and descriptions suggest the assignee is involved in developing and deploying the described technology.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the named assignees (Shopsee Inc, SEETV GLOBAL, INC.) match the provided list of known asserters or entities typically identified by Unified Patents or RPX.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Brent E. Rouse of 11451 Katy Freeway Suite 440, Houston, Texas, United States, 77079 is listed as the correspondent for both the 2018-01-23 assignment to SEETV GLOBAL, INC. [cite: 045761/0074] and the 2021-07-21 change of name to Shopsee, Inc. [cite: 057991/0950].
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are only two recorded transfers, one being a name change, over a period of several years.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The earliest recorded litigation case is 7:24-cv-00333, filed in 2024. The last recorded assignment/name change was on 2021-07-21 [cite: 057991/0950], more than six months prior to the known litigation. However, specific filing dates for all litigation cases are not provided in the prompt.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for any of the entities in the assignment chain.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no information in the provided text to suggest a privateering arrangement.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. While the presence of a repeat correspondent (Brent E. Rouse) across the assignment chain is a weak signal, there is insufficient concrete evidence to confidently classify this as an NPE pattern. The original assignee appears to be an operating company, and there's no strong indication of shell entities or known asserters in the chain. More information regarding the business activities of SEETV GLOBAL, INC. and Shopsee, Inc. beyond what is in the patent document would be needed for a more definitive assessment, as well as more precise litigation filing dates.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US11134316

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 11134316

This section identifies and describes the most relevant prior art cited against US Patent 11134316, focusing on potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For a claim to be anticipated, every element of the claimed invention must be identically disclosed in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently.

The patent 11134316 itself lists prior art keywords as "video," "user," "media," "interactive," and "layer," which broadly define the technical domain. The prosecution history of US11134316 was notably lengthy, involving multiple rounds of rejections and responses, and two examiner interviews, suggesting a thorough consideration of prior art during examination.

The provided patent text for US11134316 does not include a direct list of "References Cited" from the USPTO. However, the litigation document for IPR2025-01485 mentions specific prior art references that TikTok Inc. apparently used in its petition, although the IPR was discretionarily denied. These references are "Ohliger" and "Veepio." While the full citations and detailed descriptions of these specific prior art documents are not provided within the patent text, their mention in the context of an IPR challenge indicates their potential relevance.

Based on the information available, a detailed analysis of the most relevant prior art would require access to the full "References Cited" section from the USPTO record for US11134316, as well as the content of the "Ohliger" and "Veepio" references. Without this, a comprehensive anticipation analysis for specific claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is not feasible.

General Principle of Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated, and thus not patentable, if the invention was patented, described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. To anticipate a claim, a single prior art reference must disclose every element of that claim, arranged as in the claim.

To provide a precise prior art analysis for US11134316, the full USPTO record would need to be consulted to identify all cited prior art.

I am unable to perform an obviousness analysis of US patent 11134316 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the following reasons:

1. Missing Claims: The provided patent text does not include the legally binding claims of US11134316. While "Embodiment" and "Aspect" descriptions are present, these describe features of the invention rather than defining the scope of protection as claims do. An obviousness analysis critically depends on the specific language of each independent and dependent claim to compare it against prior art.
2. Missing Specific Prior Art References: The "Prior art keywords" ("video," "user," "media," "interactive," "layer") and the "Prior art date" (2016-12-28) are provided, but no specific prior art documents (e.g., patent numbers, publication identifiers, academic papers) are listed. To conduct an obviousness analysis, specific prior art references are necessary to identify elements taught by each reference and to formulate a motivation to combine them.

Without the actual claims of the patent and specific prior art references, it is not possible to identify combinations of prior art that would render the claims obvious, nor to explain the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine them.