Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc.
3:23-cv-06012
| N.D. Cal. | Sep 2, 2025Background:
- Meishe (Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co.) sued TikTok/ByteDance entities for copyright infringement and DTSA trade-secret misappropriation over source code used in Meishe mobile video-editing apps; case reassigned to N.D. Cal.; FOAC alleges five asserted software versions.
- Meishe originated as a Video 360 unit within Xin Ao Te (XAT); Meishe’s app evolved from XAT’s Dunhuang code; XAT executed a written October 2015 copyright transfer to Meishe and later submitted a 2021 declaration (and a July 24, 2025 agreement) asserting a February 2015 rights transfer.
- Material witness/declarant issues: CTO Liang Jian made a December 2024 declaration denying Dunhuang code reuse but later at deposition admitted some Dunhuang code overlap; Meishe produced Dunhuang code late in discovery.
- Meishe’s pre-suit comparison relied on decompiled object code and an internal spreadsheet; defendants sought production of those materials during discovery; production was delayed and partially redacted.
- Experts disagree sharply on (a) whether Meishe owns rights to Dunhuang-derived code, (b) how much of Meishe’s asserted code is protectable, and (c) whether defendants’ code copies constitute infringement; parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment and motions for sanctions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of copyrights & trade secrets | Meishe: XAT transferred all IP (via oral agreement, Oct 2015 deed, later XAT statements); Chinese courts and post-filing XAT–Meishe agreement confirm Meishe ownership | Defs: No admissible evidence of a pre-2015 transfer of IP; oral-transfer theory unsupported | Court: Grants summary judgment to Meishe on ownership; finds record (incl. XAT statements, Chinese judgments, licensing) establishes Meishe owns asserted copyrights and trade secrets |
| Registration / Publication (U.S. work question) | Meishe: Foreign work exemption applies; object-code distribution to app stores does not necessarily publish source code in U.S. | Defs: Object code distribution is publication of the program; some versions were effectively published in/accessible to U.S. users, making U.S. registration required | Court: Holds as matter of law that object-code publication = publication of source code; genuine factual disputes about where several versions were first published preclude summary judgment except v2.5.4 (deemed U.S. work and unregistered) — claims for v2.5.4 dismissed for lack of U.S. registration |
| Copyrightability / protectable expression (analytic dissection, merger, scènes à faire) | Meishe: source code is literal copying; extrinsic/intrinsic test need not be resolved before trial; broad protection applies | Defs: Much of Meishe code is unprotectable (ideas, scènes à faire, merger); analytic dissection should be addressed now | Held: Court declines to decide copyrightability at summary judgment; disputed facts (expert disagreement) make these issues for the jury; denies summary judgment on infringement |
| Trade-secret misappropriation (knowledge, protection, extraterritorial reach) | Meishe: Defendants had access/use; U.S. acts by defendants permit extraterritorial relief; Meishe took reasonable secrecy measures | Defs: Acquisition lawful (reverse engineering/independent derivation), Meishe failed to protect secrets adequately, extraterritorial relief not warranted without domestic misappropriation | Held: Genuine disputes of material fact exist on misappropriation, knowledge, and secrecy measures; summary judgment denied; extraterritorial damages not resolved at this stage |
| ByteDance Ltd. vicarious liability | Meishe: ByteDance Ltd. controls subsidiaries and is vicariously liable | Defs: ByteDance Ltd. is a Cayman holding company lacking operational control | Held: Grants summary judgment for defendants — ByteDance Ltd. dismissed (no evidence it had right/ability to supervise alleged conduct) |
| Sanctions for discovery misconduct | Defs: Seek terminating/evidentiary sanctions for late/discrepant disclosures (oral-transfer evidence, Dunhuang code, decompiled comparisons) | Meishe: Errors or late discoveries; produced disputed materials; no prejudicial harm warranting termination | Held: Court denies terminating/evidentiary sanctions; finds problematic conduct but insufficient prejudice or willfulness to justify dismissal; some credibility concerns noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden allocation)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue of material fact standard)
- Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002) (relation between source code and object code)
- Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (copyright registration prerequisite principles)
- Skidmore as Tr. for Randy Craig Wolfe Tr. v. Led Zeppelin, 952 F.3d 1051 (extrinsic/intrinsic substantial-similarity framework)
- DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (derivative-work protection limits)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (vicarious copyright liability elements)
- United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (corporate separateness/parent liability principles)