The case
The case is DiStefano Website Innovations, LLC v. ByteDance Ltd., No. 5:25-cv-10578-EKL (N.D. Cal.). The defendants named in the order are ByteDance Ltd., ByteDance Inc., ByteDance Pte. Ltd., TikTok Ltd., TikTok, Inc., TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC, and Heliophilia Pte. Ltd. As the order describes the amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants own and operate three applications, TikTok, CapCut, and Lemon8, that infringe its patents.
According to the order, the plaintiff first sued in the Western District of Texas, No. 1:24-cv-00763, and dismissed that complaint on October 29, 2024. It then sued in the Eastern District of Texas, No. 2:24-cv-00874, which granted the defendants' unopposed motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California on November 10, 2025. The amended complaint, filed March 12, 2026, added ByteDance Inc., TikTok, Inc., and TikTok USDS Joint Venture LLC as defendants.
The patents and claims
U.S. Patent 11,763,316 B2 is titled "Server System Configured to Provide Graphical User Interface for Modifying Web Pages to Include Hyperlinks" and issued September 19, 2023. Its claim 1 recites a method performed by a server system that receives a user's selection and editing of a web asset for a first website, receives the user's selection of a previously created second website, and modifies the first website to include a hyperlink to the second website and the second website to include "a reciprocal second hyperlink to the first web site."
U.S. Patent RE45,971 E is titled "Developing Electronic Documents Providing E-Commerce Tools" and was reissued April 12, 2016, as a reissue of U.S. Patent 7,996,259. Its claim 4 recites a method "of establishing a reciprocal arrangement between a first website and a preexisting second website," in which functional marketing elements on each site direct users to the other site. Claim 8 recites a similar method for a first web page and a second web page.
The ruling
The court analyzed independent claims 4 and 8 of the '971 patent and claim 1 of the '316 patent, and concluded that the independent and dependent claims at issue "require performance of the same basic process" and should rise or fall together. At Alice step one, it found that the claimed advances in both patents "focus on an abstract idea: reciprocal arrangements between websites, which is a form of cross-marketing," and wrote that "two physical shops could also enter a reciprocal arrangement to promote each other's businesses." It distinguished DDR Holdings and Core Wireless as cases directed to improvements in computer functionality.
At step two, the court found that the claims invoke generic computer components to implement reciprocal arrangements "without describing how any element would be used in an innovative way." It held that the use of one computer system rather than multiple computers "does not represent an advance in computer capabilities," and that the amended complaint's allegations of unconventionality "merely repeat legal conclusions." Because the claims fail both steps based on the intrinsic evidence, it held that amendment would be futile. The court did not reach the defendants' issue preclusion argument, and it denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply.
The judgment, entered November 6, 2026, is in favor of the defendants on the claims for infringement of both patents and states that the plaintiff "shall take nothing by its complaint."