District Court, W.D. Texas, 2022

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

Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.
District Court, W.D. Texas · Decided September 14, 2022
Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION BEIJING MEISHE NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., Case No. 6:21-CV-504-ADA-DTG Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. TIKTOK INC., TIKTOK PTE. LTD., BYTEDANCE LTD., and BYTEDANCE INC., Defendants.

ORDER ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2022 DISCOVERY DISPUTE HEARING This Court, having considered the parties’ discovery disputes, hereby ORDERS the following: A. Defendants’ Request Regarding General Interrogatory Defendants’ request for Plaintiff to supplement its response to Defendants’ Interrogatory No. 1, regarding identification of Plaintiff’s trade secrets with particularity is DENIED. As the Court held at the hearing, Plaintiff has identified its trade secret with more particularity than the trade secrets identified in InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Global HolLdings, Inc., 978 F.3d 653 (9th B. Defendants’ Request Regarding Plaintiff’s Source Code and Copyright Registrations Defendants’ request is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to provide an updated chart correlating source code to copyright registration deposit material by September 27, 2022. To the extent necessary, Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement its production of source code by September 27, 2022.

C. Plaintiff?s Request for Production of Defendants’ Source Code Plaintiff's request to compel inspection of Defendants’ source code is GRANTED.

Defendants are ORDERED to provide for inspection its source code as represented in correspondence with Plaintiff and source code related to audio and video editing for TikTok versions 8.3.1, 8.4.0, 8.5.0, 19.1.3, 22.7.4, and 25.3.4 by September 20, 2022 at an agreed upon location. Plaintiff's request to compel inspection of Defendants’ entire code base is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE at this time. Defendants’ request for a protective order contained in its Motion for More Definite Statement Under Rule 12(e) (Dkt. No. 113) is DENIED in line with the above ruling.

SO ORDERED this 14th day of September, 2022.

HON. DEREK / xf UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.