DCT

2:23-cv-04381

Amy R Weissbrod Gurvey v. Live Nation Entertainment Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-04381, C.D. Cal., 02/01/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted as proper in the Central District of California because at least four of the named defendants reside or conduct business in the district, where they are accused of infringing the plaintiff's patents and copyrights and violating antitrust and unfair competition laws.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, including major entertainment companies and law firms, engaged in a multi-decade conspiracy to misappropriate her patented technology for managing live event ticketing and content distribution, and that Defendants' current ticketing and media platforms infringe her patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology relates to the digital integration of live event ticketing with the sale, production, and distribution of event-related content, such as concert recordings, creating a comprehensive digital ecosystem for monetizing live performances.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details an extensive and contentious procedural history, centered on a prior lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York in 2006. Plaintiff alleges that this prior case, which included an appeal to the Second Circuit, was marred by a conspiracy involving her former counsel and defense counsel, resulting in the suppression of discovery, concealment of conflicts of interest, and the denial of hearings on her patent claims for over a decade. The complaint also references a DOJ consent decree related to the Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger and alleges ongoing antitrust violations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-05-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’321 and ’566 Patents
2006-01-01 SDNY lawsuit filed against certain defendants (approximate date)
2007-02-20 Alleged patent issues to Legend Films with Plaintiff's invention
2008-01-01 Apple allegedly files competing patent application (approximate date)
2009-10-13 U.S. Patent 7,603,321 Issues
2010-01-25 DOJ Consent Decree for Live Nation/Ticketmaster merger
2010-04-22 Infringement complaint allegedly filed and deleted in SDNY
2011-11-01 U.S. Design Patent D647,910 S Issues
2012-02-10 Second Circuit issues remand order in prior SDNY litigation
2022-08-02 U.S. Patent 11,403,566 Issues
2023-01-24 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Live Nation/Ticketmaster
2024-02-01 Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 11403566, Issued August 2, 2022.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the large, untapped market for recordings of live performances, noting that high production costs, complex royalty accounting, and the lack of a mechanism for impulse purchases at venues have historically limited the commercialization of such content (’566 Patent, col. 1:24-2:18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system and method to provide content and other benefits to event attendees and viewers, separate from simple admission. It describes a central data center that links ticketing and admission data with the ability to order or purchase event recordings, place bets, and receive other benefits. The system uses various terminals (e.g., kiosks, mobile devices) to authenticate users and facilitate the distribution of digital content, while also managing the complex royalty accounting required. (’566 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:21-4:54).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for creating a unified digital ecosystem around a live event, expanding monetization opportunities beyond ticket sales into interactive content, merchandise, and other services (’566 Patent, col. 2:19-2:27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and apparatus claim 3 (Compl. ¶31-33; ’566 Patent, Claims 1, 3).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Providing a data center that communicates with customer and point-of-sale terminals.
    • Storing various data types (venue, event, ticketholder, accounting) in the data center.
    • Providing customer terminal access to the data center for ordering tickets, content, and other benefits.
    • Selling or issuing a ticket via a point-of-sale terminal that enables event participation.
    • Receiving a transaction at the point-of-sale terminal to order a content recording.
    • Transmitting the transaction data to the data center.
    • Recording the transaction data in the data center's data tables.
    • Recording at least a portion of the event and generating a digital recording.
    • Receiving authentication information from a user at the data center or a networked kiosk.
    • Authenticating the user based on the received information.
    • Distributing the digital recording or a redemption receipt to the authenticated user.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶43).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent 7603321, Issued October 13, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As the parent to the ’566 Patent, this patent addresses the same fundamental problem: the difficulty and expense of producing, distributing, and managing rights for recordings of live events, which leaves significant commercial opportunities unrealized (’321 Patent, col. 1:26-2:18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a networked apparatus for monetizing live events. It features a data center for storing purchase transaction data, a recording subsystem to capture the event, an editor apparatus to process the recorded content, and remote terminals (like kiosks or web interfaces) for users to order and download the customized content. The system is designed to facilitate the entire process from purchase to fulfillment. (’321 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:29-24:18; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology outlines a technical blueprint for bridging the gap between the physical experience of a live event and the digital distribution of its content, a foundational concept for modern live entertainment business models (’321 Patent, col. 2:1-2:18).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶30; ’321 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
    • At least one data center with a database for storing live event purchase transaction data.
    • At least one recording subsystem connected to the data center for recording the live event.
    • At least one editor apparatus connected to a remote user terminal for receiving and editing the recorded live event based on a user selection.
    • At least one remote terminal with means for connecting to the data center, receiving content from the editor, downloading the content, and transmitting transaction/selection data.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. D647,910 S - User Interface for a Portion of a Display Screen Targeted for Live Events or Travel

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent D647910 S, Issued November 1, 2011.
  • Technology Synopsis: This design patent protects the ornamental appearance of a user interface for an electronic device. The design depicts a specific graphical layout for presenting event ticket information, including fields for the event name, date, time, location, price, and a scannable barcode element.
  • Asserted Claims: Design patents contain a single claim for the ornamental design as shown and described in the patent's figures (D'910 Patent, Claim).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the user interfaces of Defendants' ticketing platforms, such as the Ticketmaster website and mobile application, infringe the patented design when displaying electronic tickets (Compl. ¶30, 105).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the digital platforms and backend systems operated by Defendants, primarily Live Nation and Ticketmaster, for ticketing, event management, and content distribution (Compl. ¶43, 80). This includes their consumer-facing websites and mobile applications, as well as associated ventures such as the alleged partnership between Live Nation and Apple's iTunes (Compl. ¶17, 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Defendants' platforms perform functions central to the patents, including selling tickets, collecting and storing customer transaction data, and using that data to facilitate the distribution of related content, such as live concert recordings (Compl. ¶17, 28, 80). Ticketmaster’s platform is described as a "carefully crafted business model that integrates other services and features into the ticketing purchasing process," using password-protected user accounts to manage access and transactions (Compl. ¶90).
  • The complaint frames the accused services within the context of Defendants' alleged market dominance, claiming they control over 85% of the U.S. concert promotion market and use this power to engage in anticompetitive practices, such as tying services and withholding ticketing data from competitors (Compl. ¶91, 94, 95).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

U.S. Patent 11,403,566 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of providing content and additional benefits... comprising: providing a data center... Defendants Live Nation and Ticketmaster operate data centers and backend infrastructure to manage their ticketing and media businesses. ¶2, ¶90 col. 25:52-56
storing venue data, event data, accounting data, and ticketholder and registrant information... Defendants' platforms are alleged to store extensive user account information, event details, and purchase transaction histories. ¶2, ¶90 col. 25:57-60
providing the customer terminal access to the data center to purchase or order tickets, place bets... The Ticketmaster website and mobile app provide users access to purchase tickets and other event-related services. ¶90 col. 25:61-64
receiving... a transaction from the user... to order at least one of a content recording... The complaint alleges that Defendants' ventures, such as with Apple iTunes, link ticket purchases to the sale of live recordings. ¶17, ¶20, ¶28 col. 25:5-10
authenticating... the user or customer using the user or customer information... The Ticketmaster platform requires users to create accounts and authenticate via password to access services and purchase tickets. ¶90 col. 25:36-40
upon authenticating the user or customer, distributing to the user or customer... the digital recording The complaint alleges that after authentication, users receive purchased content, such as concert recordings via iTunes. ¶17, ¶20 col. 25:41-45

U.S. Patent 7,603,321 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a. at least one data center connected to the network said data center comprising a database for storing live event purchase transaction data Defendants' backend systems and databases, which store all customer ticketing and purchase data. ¶2, ¶90 col. 24:1-2
b. At least one recording subsystem connected to said at least one data center for recording at least a portion of said live event Defendants' alleged infrastructure for recording live concerts and other events for commercial distribution. ¶17, ¶26, ¶28 col. 24:3-5
c. At least one editor apparatus... for receiving the recorded live event from the recording subsystem and for editing the recorded live event Systems allegedly used by Defendants or their partners (e.g., Apple) to edit and package live recordings into distributable products. ¶17, ¶20, ¶26 col. 24:6-10
d. said at least one remote terminal further comprising means for... receiving said requested event content from the editor apparatus... The consumer-facing websites and mobile applications of Defendants, which allegedly deliver produced content to end-users. ¶80, ¶90 col. 24:11-14

Identified Points of Contention

  • Architectural Questions: A potential point of contention for the ’321 Patent is whether Defendants' integrated digital platforms contain a distinct "recording subsystem" and "editor apparatus" as structurally required by claim 1, or if these functions are performed by a monolithic system. The court will have to determine if the claim requires physically or logically separate components.
  • Functional Questions: For both patents, a key question is whether the complaint provides sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that Defendants' systems functionally "couple" or "associate" ticketing with content sales in the specific manner claimed. While the complaint alleges this occurs (e.g., the iTunes venture), the defense may argue that any connection is merely marketing-related and does not meet the integrated data processing and authentication steps required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"editor apparatus" (’321 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the ’321 Patent hinges on identifying a corresponding "editor apparatus" within the accused systems. The definition of this term will determine whether a general-purpose server performing editing software functions meets the limitation, or if a more specialized or distinct hardware component is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, defining the apparatus by what it does: "for receiving the recorded live event... and for editing the recorded live event" (’321 Patent, col. 24:8-9). This language may support an interpretation that any component performing these functions, regardless of its specific form, qualifies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures, particularly Figure 1, depict the "Editor Apparatus" as a distinct block, separate from the "Data Center" and "Digital Recording" components. This graphical separation may be used to argue that the claim requires a structurally or at least logically distinct module, not merely a software process running on a general server that also performs other functions.

"authenticating... the user or customer" (’566 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This step is crucial to the claimed method, as it gates the final distribution of content. The dispute will likely center on what level of authentication is required. Is a simple website login sufficient, or does the patent require authentication tied more directly to the specific ticket or transaction data?
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites authenticating "using the user or customer information, placed bet information or other transaction data or ticket information" (’566 Patent, col. 25:38-40). The use of "or" suggests multiple, alternative bases for authentication, which could support a broader reading that includes standard user account logins.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes linking content distribution directly to the ticket purchase to enable impulse buys and unique delivery methods tied to a specific venue or seat (’566 Patent, col. 2:46-52). This context may support a narrower construction requiring the authentication step to be based specifically on data from the ticket transaction itself, rather than a general user account login.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges aiding and abetting infringement against multiple defendants (Compl. ¶106). The law firm defendants, Cowan Liebowitz and Hinshaw & Culbertson, are accused of aiding and abetting their clients (e.g., Live Nation) by using their positions and alleged misconduct to delay the issuance of Plaintiff’s patents, thereby providing the clients with "lead time" to develop and deploy infringing systems (Compl. ¶24, 75).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on purported pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶107). It claims that Live Nation's president met with the plaintiff and stated that "her patents could be used by anyone, Live Nation would continue to use them, and Plaintiff could sue" (Compl. ¶20). This allegation, if proven, suggests direct knowledge of the patents and an intent to infringe. The overarching narrative of conspiracy and misappropriation further supports the claim of willfulness.

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary linkage: The complaint presents a vast and complex narrative of conspiracy, fraud, and legal misconduct spanning two decades. A key challenge for the court will be to determine whether the plaintiff can substantiate this narrative with sufficient technical evidence to prove patent infringement, distinctly from the multitude of surrounding tort and antitrust claims.
  • A second core issue will be one of architectural correspondence: Can the patent claims, which describe specific system architectures with discrete functional components (e.g., an "editor apparatus"), be construed to read on the defendants' large-scale, integrated, and organically evolved digital platforms, or does a fundamental mismatch exist between the claimed invention and the accused instrumentalities?
  • A final critical question involves the interplay of legal claims: The case intertwines patent infringement with serious allegations of fraud, conspiracy, and abuse of process. The court will face the complex task of disentangling these issues and determining to what extent the non-patent allegations are admissible as context for willfulness, versus being separate causes of action that could complicate or even overshadow the core technical infringement analysis.