DCT
2:24-cv-00269
Dynamic Ticket Systems LLC v. Ticketmaster LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Dynamic Ticket Systems LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Ticketmaster LLC (Virginia) and Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE INTERNET LAW Group; DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
- Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00269, C.D. Cal., 05/02/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendants conduct substantial business in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business there, including principal offices in Beverly Hills.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ SafeTix electronic ticketing system infringes two patents related to providing network-controlled access credentials via dynamic links.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns electronic ticketing systems designed to combat fraud and control secondary market sales by replacing static, downloadable tickets (like QR codes) with dynamic, revocable credentials managed by a central server.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-12 | Earliest Priority Date for '207 and '255 Patents |
| 2016-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,508,207 Issues |
| 2017-02-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,576,255 Issues |
| 2024-05-02 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,508,207, "Method and Apparatus for Network Controlled Access to Physical Spaces" (issued Nov. 29, 2016)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the inflexibility and security risks of traditional methods for granting temporary access to physical locations, such as providing physical keys to non-residents or requiring a property owner to be physically present to admit visitors like vendors or repair personnel (’207 Patent, col. 2:19-36).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where an "owner" can generate a "dynamic link" that provides a temporary access credential to a visitor's specific mobile device. Crucially, the visitor does not receive a permanent copy of the credential; they are given a link that can be time-limited, tied to a specific device, and revoked at any time by the system owner, thereby maintaining centralized control over access (’207 Patent, col. 3:17-23). The patent describes this as a system that can require a "two-phase commit process" before granting access, ensuring all parameters are met (’207 Patent, col. 3:28-32).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more secure and granularly controllable alternative to static credentials by severing the visitor's direct possession of the "key" and instead providing revocable, network-mediated access rights (’207 Patent, col. 6:55-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method of providing access comprising the key steps of:
- creating a credential to be used to unlock an access control device;
- identifying a device to be used to present the credential;
- defining a dynamic link to provide the credential to the device;
- enabling the dynamic link by activating it;
- presenting the credential to the access control device and the identified device via the dynamic link; and
- unlocking the access control device when the credential is presented by the identified device.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶37).
U.S. Patent No. 9,576,255, "Method and Apparatus for Network Controlled Ticket Access" (issued Feb. 21, 2017)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent applies the controlled-access concept to electronic ticketing, seeking to solve two primary problems: the ease of counterfeiting digital tickets (e.g., via screenshots of QR codes) and the inability of event issuers to control or profit from the "scalping" or secondary market resale of tickets (’255 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a ticket that is not a static bearer instrument but a "dynamic link" whose privileges are controlled by a central system. This link points to the ticket rights, allowing the issuer to control its use, prevent simple duplication, and manage its transfer or resale (’255 Patent, col. 2:32-41). The complaint notes that one embodiment of this link is an "inode," a data structure that points to the ticket's underlying data and permissions (Compl. ¶28; ’255 Patent, col. 11:53-65).
- Technical Importance: This approach gives ticket issuers technical tools to combat ticket fraud and to create and control their own secondary marketplaces, potentially recapturing revenue lost to unauthorized resellers (’255 Patent, col. 14:11-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶50).
- Independent Claim 10 recites a method performed in a ticket generating system, comprising the key steps of:
- defining the rights associated with a ticket;
- determining a device to be associated with the ticket;
- creating a dynamic link to a file that represents the ticket;
- providing the dynamic link to a ticket holder;
- wherein the ticket may be resold in a secondary market with price limits, time limits, and geographical limits defined by a ticket issuer.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶49).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies "Ticketmaster’s SafeTix ticketing management system" as the "Accused Instrumentalities" (Compl. ¶¶35, 47).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the SafeTix system is an electronic ticketing and access control system that performs methods for providing tickets and controlling access to premises (Compl. ¶¶35-36, 47-48). The system is alleged to use "dynamic links" to give the issuer control over the "who, what, where, when, and how" of ticket use, rather than having the credential reside permanently on the user's device (Compl. ¶¶19, 24-25). The complaint references Figure 11 of the '255 patent, which illustrates the architecture of an 'inode table' and its relationship to a credential database, as an exemplary structure for the claimed dynamic link (Compl. ¶29). Ticketmaster is alleged to provide APIs and support materials for third parties to integrate the accused system into their own applications (Compl. ¶¶42, 54).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'207 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| creating a credential to be used to unlock an access control device | The SafeTix system generates a digital ticket intended to be scanned for venue entry. | ¶35-36 | col. 3:35-39 |
| identifying a device to be used to present the credential to the access control device | The SafeTix ticket is associated with a specific user's account and presented on their mobile device via the Ticketmaster application. | ¶15, ¶25 | col. 3:48-50 |
| defining a dynamic link to provide the credential to the device | The system allegedly uses a dynamic, rotating barcode that functions as a link to the access credential, which is maintained on Ticketmaster's servers. | ¶19, ¶23 | col. 4:17-20 |
| enabling the dynamic link by activating the link so that it is a valid link | The dynamic barcode is made active and valid for use only for the specific event and time window. | ¶19, ¶22 | col. 6:50-52 |
| presenting the credential to the access control device and to the identified device via the dynamic link | A user presents the dynamic barcode on their mobile device to a scanner at the venue, which acts as the access control device. | ¶15, ¶36 | col. 6:60-62 |
| unlocking the access control device when the credential is presented by the identified device | The venue's scanner validates the presented barcode and grants the user entry to the premises. | ¶36 | col. 4:10-14 |
'255 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| in a ticket generating processing system; defining the rights associated with a ticket | Ticketmaster's servers define the rights of a SafeTix ticket, such as the event, date, and seat location. | ¶47, ¶19 | col. 12:50-53 |
| determining a device to be associated with the ticket | SafeTix tickets are tied to a purchaser's mobile device through their Ticketmaster account. | ¶15, ¶25 | col. 12:61-63 |
| creating a dynamic link to a file that represents the ticket | The system allegedly creates a dynamic barcode that functions as a link to the centrally-controlled ticket file. | ¶19, ¶23 | col. 13:24-26 |
| providing the dynamic link to a ticket holder | The dynamic barcode is delivered to the ticket holder's mobile device via the Ticketmaster application. | ¶15 | col. 13:66-14:1 |
| wherein the ticket may be resold in a secondary market with price limits, time limits, and geographical limits defined by a ticket issuer | Ticketmaster operates an official fan-to-fan resale marketplace where it defines the rules and conditions for reselling SafeTix tickets. | ¶18, ¶27 | col. 14:11-15 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question for claim construction will be whether Ticketmaster's rotating barcode technology constitutes a "dynamic link" as that term is used in the patents. The defense may argue that the rotating barcode is the credential itself, merely being updated, while the patent language distinguishes between the "link" and the "credential" it provides access to (’207 Patent, cl. 1).
- Technical Questions: Factually, the case may explore the specific architecture of the SafeTix system. What evidence supports the allegation that the ticket credential "is not downloaded to the user's device" (Compl. ¶19), but is instead accessed in real-time via the barcode acting as a link? The distinction between a dynamic credential and a dynamic link to a credential will be a key technical dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "dynamic link"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in the asserted independent claims of both patents and is central to the plaintiff's infringement theory. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the accused SafeTix system's rotating barcode falls within the scope of this term. The patentability of the inventions was distinguished from prior art systems where a static credential was downloaded to a user's device (Compl. ¶¶19-20). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a functional definition, stating that because a visitor only has a "dynamic link," the underlying "key can be revoked or modified at any time" by the owner (’207 Patent, col. 3:19-23). Plaintiff may argue that any technology achieving this function of revocable, server-mediated access, including a rotating barcode, embodies a "dynamic link."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims of the ’207 patent distinguish between "defining a dynamic link" and "presenting the credential... via the dynamic link," suggesting they are distinct entities. The ’255 patent discloses a specific structure for the link, the "inode," which is a data structure that points to the credential data (’255 Patent, col. 11:53-56). A defendant may argue that this implies a pointer/data structure, and that a rotating barcode which is itself scanned as the credential does not meet this narrower, structural definition.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is alleged based on Defendants providing the SafeTix system along with instructional materials and support to partners and end-users, thereby encouraging infringing use (Compl. ¶¶40-41, 53). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the SafeTix system is a material component specifically made for this use and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶43, 55).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants’ continued infringement after having notice of the patents and their alleged infringement, with knowledge dating from "at least as early as the filing of the complaint" (Compl. ¶¶39, 44, 51, 56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "dynamic link," which the patents describe as a pathway to a credential, be construed broadly enough to read on the accused SafeTix system's rotating barcode, which may be argued to be the credential itself? The case will test whether the term is defined by its server-controlled, revocable function or by a more specific pointer-and-data structure.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the SafeTix system’s architecture align with the patents' distinction between a link and a credential? Discovery into how the SafeTix system generates, delivers, and validates its rotating barcodes will be critical to determine if it truly operates by providing a link to a credential that remains on a central server, as the plaintiff alleges.