Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 BENING MEISHE NETWORK Case No. 23-cv-06012-SI 5 TECHNOLOGY CoO., LTD., Plaintiff, ORDER LISTING QUESTIONS FOR 6 THE PARTIES TO ADDRESS AT THE 7 Vv. APRIL 5, 2024 HEARING TIKTOK INC., et al., ° Defendants.

10 This case is set for a hearing on defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss plaintiffs third 11 amended complaint on April 5, 2024. The Court issues this order to provide the parties with advance || notice of questions that the Court would like the parties to address at the April 5, 2024 hearing.

5 13 1. For both parties: Why is plaintiff's Lanham Act claim cognizable or not cognizable under 14 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) and OTR Wheel 15 Engineering, Inc. v. W. Worldwide Servs., Inc., 897 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2018)? a 16 2. For plaintiff: Why does Slep-Tone Entm’t Corp. v. Wired for Sound Karaoke & DJ Servs., 17 LLC, 845 F.3d 1246 (9th Cir. 2017) not require dismissal of the Lanham Act claim as a 18 matter of law?

19 3. For defendants: With respect to defendants’ argument that plaintiff has failed to plead that 20 its Chinese copyrights are exempt from the registration requirement of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a), 21 can counsel point the Court to Ninth Circuit case law requiring plaintiff to plead that its 22 copyrights were first published solely in China?

24 IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated: April 2, 2024 26 x | Lf SUSAN ILLSTON 27 United States District Judge