DCT

2:23-cv-04381

Amy R Weissbrod Gurvey v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-04381, C.D. Cal., 02/28/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have principal places of business in Beverly Hills, California, and own, operate, service, and control ticketing services at venues located in the Central District of California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ event ticketing systems infringe patents related to integrated ticketing and live event content recording and distribution, and further alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy among the defendants to prevent the enforcement of these patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for electronically linking the sale of a live event ticket to the subsequent sale and distribution of a digital recording of that same event to attendees and non-attendees.
  • Key Procedural History: The provided motion describes a long and contentious history of litigation, primarily in the Southern District of New York, involving the same patents and parties. The motion contains extensive allegations of a conspiracy involving defendants and various state actors to prevent the Plaintiff from having her patent claims heard on the merits, including allegations of fraud and RICO violations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-05-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’566, ’321, and ’910 Patents
2009-10-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,603,321 Issues
2011-11-01 U.S. Design Patent No. D647,910 Issues
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,403,566 Issues
2025-02-28 Plaintiff's Motion to File Second Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,403,566 - "Electronic Ticket Management And Live Event Maximization System Coupling Event Ticketing, Admission Data And Placed Bets, Accessible From User Devices And Location Based Intelligent Apparatus Machines"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the "untapped" market potential for selling recordings of live concerts to the audience members who just attended the event, noting that technological limitations, high costs, and complex royalty accounting have historically prevented immediate, on-site production and distribution of such recordings (’566 Patent, col. 2:1-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a ticketing management system that electronically associates the purchase of a "ticket"—defined broadly to include admission data, payments, or even placed bets—with the right to acquire a digital recording of the corresponding live event. The system is designed to allow both event attendees and non-attendees to order and receive these recordings through various terminals and networks, while also managing the complex royalty accounting required (’566 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology proposes an integrated solution to capture the "impulse buy" market for live recordings by combining the point of ticket sale with the point of sale for a digital copy of the performance, a process previously bifurcated and logistically complex (’566 Patent, col. 2:46-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The motion asserts the patent generally but does not specify claims. The following analysis focuses on Independent Claim 1 as a representative claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Providing a data center with database servers.
    • Storing various event, venue, and ticketholder data.
    • Providing a customer terminal with access to the data center.
    • Selling or issuing a ticket via a "ticket issuer point-of-sale terminal."
    • Receiving a transaction from the customer to order a "content recording."
    • Transmitting the transaction data to the data center.
    • Recording at least a portion of the event.
    • Generating a digital recording of the event and storing it.
    • Receiving authentication information from the user (e.g., at a kiosk).
    • Authenticating the user based on the received information.
    • Upon authentication, distributing the digital recording to the user.
  • The motion does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,603,321 - "Electronic System And Method Coupling Live Event Ticketing And Interactive Entries With The Sale, Distribution And Transmission Of Event Recordings, Mastering System And Intelligent Terminal Designs"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the same core problem as the ’566 Patent: the significant logistical and financial barriers to producing and selling recordings of live events immediately after the performance, thereby missing a key market opportunity (’321 Patent, col. 2:1-13).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system and method that electronically links live event ticketing with the sale, distribution, and transmission of event recordings. The system provides for automated royalty accounting and allows for user-customized recordings, which can be edited and distributed via a network that connects a data center, a recording subsystem, and an editor apparatus accessible by a remote user terminal (’321 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This system aimed to create a new revenue stream for live events by creating a framework to manage the entire lifecycle of a live recording, from ticketing and ordering to production, rights management, and final distribution (’321 Patent, col. 2:14-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The motion does not specify claims. The following analysis focuses on Independent Claim 1 as a representative claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
    • An apparatus to facilitate the purchase of customizable event or venue content.
    • At least one data center connected to a network with a database for storing transaction data.
    • At least one recording subsystem for recording a portion of the live event.
    • At least one editor apparatus for receiving the recorded event and editing it based on a user's selection request.
    • At least one remote terminal with means for connecting to the data center, receiving the edited content, downloading it, and transmitting the user's selection request.
  • The motion does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Design Patent No. D647,910 S - "User Interface For A Portion Of A Display Screen Targeted For Live Events Or Travel"

  • Technology Synopsis: This is an ornamental design patent for a user interface on a display screen, such as a mobile device. The design depicts information related to a live event ticket, including the event name, date, seat, and price, along with a barcode element.
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the patent's figures.
  • Accused Features: The motion alleges infringement of patents for "electronic functional display screens for event ticketing and event4 content management" (Compl. p. 10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "ticketing management" systems, "software platforms," and "ticketing services" used by defendants such as Live Nation and Ticketmaster (Compl. p. 10; p. 23, ¶30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The motion alleges that defendants "own, operate, service and control ticketing services at venues located in the Central District of California" (Compl. p. 23, ¶30).
  • A specific allegation notes that prior to their merger in 2010, defendant Live Nation was "importing a ticketing system from CTS Eventim of Germany that was infringing of Petitioner's patents to compete with Ticketmaster" (Compl. p. 7, fn 2).
  • The accused functionalities are broadly described as those related to "event ticketing and event4 content management" (Compl. p. 10).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The provided motion does not contain a formal complaint with claim charts or detailed infringement allegations mapping specific claim elements to accused product features. The infringement theory is presented in a general, narrative form. The following table summarizes this general theory for one representative claim from each utility patent based on the available information.

’566 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[A method...] providing a data center comprising database servers that are in communication with a customer terminal and ticket issuer point-of-sale terminals... Defendants' use of centralized servers to manage ticketing operations across multiple venues and online platforms. p. 10; p. 23, ¶30 col. 25:52-56
selling or issuing via the ticket issuer point-of-sale terminal, a ticket or other transaction receipt to a customer or user... Defendants' systems for selling event tickets to consumers through box offices, websites, and mobile applications. p. 10; p. 23, ¶30 col. 25:4-8
receiving...a transaction from the user or customer to order at least one of a content recording and other event benefits... The motion does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. p. 10 col. 25:6-11
generating a digital recording of at least a portion of the event...and storing the digital recording...on a non-transitory computer readable medium... The motion does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. p. 10 col. 25:27-31
upon authenticating the user or customer, distributing to the user or customer...the digital recording... The motion does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. p. 10 col. 25:42-46

’321 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An apparatus to facilitate the purchase of customizable event or venue content by a person during a live event...over a computer network... Defendants' use of networked ticketing platforms to manage event sales. p. 10; p. 23, ¶30 col. 23:30-33
at least one recording subsystem connected to said at least one data center for recording at least a portion of said live event... The motion does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. p. 10 col. 23:36-38
at least one editor apparatus connected to a remote user terminal...for receiving the recorded live event...and for editing the recorded live event based on the selection request... The motion does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this specific element. p. 10 col. 23:39-43
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether the defendants' accused systems are single, integrated platforms that perform both the ticket-selling functions and the content-recording/distribution functions as required by the claims. The defense may argue their ticketing systems are functionally separate from any content distribution platforms.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the motion provide that the accused ticketing systems perform the specific functions of "generating a digital recording," "editing" it based on user requests, and "distributing" that recording as part of an integrated ticket-sale transaction? The motion appears to lack specific factual allegations on these technical steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "content recording" (’566 Patent) / "Recordings" (’321 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The definition of what constitutes a "recording" is central to the infringement analysis. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused systems are shown to create and distribute a product meeting this definition in connection with a ticket sale.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ’566 Patent specification provides a broad definition, stating a "Recording" is "any audio, video, or audiovisual material or data based on signals or content emanating, derived from or representative of the live event" and can include a wide range of content types, from concert feeds to sports competitions, stageplays, and lectures (’566 Patent, col. 6:58-65, col. 7:1-6).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue the term should be limited by the primary embodiments discussed, which focus on musical concerts and performances. The detailed description repeatedly refers to "concerts," "artists," and "single music tracks," which could be used to argue the inventors contemplated a narrower scope than the formal definition suggests (’566 Patent, col. 2:1; col. 16:55-65).

  • The Term: "ticket issuer point-of-sale terminal" (’566 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term is critical for determining where the claimed method steps must occur. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to a physical, on-site box office or if it can be construed to cover modern, distributed points of sale like a web browser or a mobile app.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a broad scope by describing how a user can access the system through various terminals, including a "personal computer, a personal digital assistant, an Internet-through-television device, a cellular telephone," implying that the "point-of-sale" is not tied to a specific physical location (’566 Patent, col. 19:33-39).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict physical kiosks and terminals at venues (e.g., Figs. 6A-6P), which a defendant might argue illustrates the inventors' intended meaning of a "terminal" as a piece of dedicated hardware at a specific location, rather than a general-purpose computer running software.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The motion does not plead indirect infringement in its traditional form. Instead, it alleges a broad "conspiratorial enterprise" among all defendants to willfully infringe the patents and prevent their enforcement (Compl. p. 9, ¶1). This suggests an allegation of coordinated, rather than induced, infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The motion explicitly alleges that the named defendants are "powerful willful infringers" and have been infringing the patents "since before the first patent issued after a seven-year delay in 2009" (Compl. p. 9, ¶1; p. 12, ¶4). The basis for willfulness appears to be alleged long-standing knowledge of the plaintiff and her patenting activities.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of system integration: does the evidence show that Defendants' accused ticketing platforms are integrated systems that perform both the ticketing functions and the content recording, editing, and distribution functions as required by the claims, or are these commercially and technically separate functionalities?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: beyond selling tickets, what proof is offered that the accused systems actually perform the subsequent claimed steps of generating, storing, authenticating, and distributing a digital recording of the live event as part of the same transactional framework?
  • A threshold procedural question will be the relationship between claims: can the patent infringement allegations be adjudicated on their technical merits, or are they inextricably linked to the extensive allegations of a multi-year conspiracy, fraud, and RICO violations, which may dominate the court's focus?