Digi Portal LLC v. Vivid Seats LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Digi Portal LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Vivid Seats LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Chong Law Firm, P.A.
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-01011, D. Del., 07/28/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online ticket marketplace, Vividseats.com, infringes five U.S. patents related to the dynamic generation of customized web pages.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns server-side methods for efficiently generating personalized web pages for many simultaneous users, a foundational technology for customized internet services.
• Key Procedural History: The five patents-in-suit are part of a single patent family descending from a U.S. patent application filed in 1997, and they share a common specification. The complaint alleges Defendant had actual knowledge of its infringement of at least U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 as of June 26, 2020, following receipt of a notice letter.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 - “Dynamic Page Generator”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that prior art methods for generating customized web pages, such as using Common Gateway Interface (CGI) scripts, were inefficient and did not scale well to handle many users (Compl. ¶14; ’854 Patent, col. 1:42-43). These methods often required polling multiple external data servers for every user request, introducing significant delays that would deter users (Compl. ¶14; ’854 Patent, col. 1:47-58). Alternative approaches that streamed data to a user’s local machine clogged networks and resulted in outdated information (Compl. ¶15; ’854 Patent, col. 1:59-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more efficient architecture where a "user template" is generated based on a user's specific configuration information (e.g., interests, location) and stored (Compl. ¶17, 19). This template is then combined with "live data" (e.g., stock quotes, news headlines) that is held in a shared, local memory on the page server itself (Compl. ¶17; ’854 Patent, col. 4:4-11). By pre-storing the template and keeping the dynamic data local to the page generator, the system can build customized pages much faster and without making numerous external network requests for each user, allowing it to scale to many users (Compl. ¶24; ’854 Patent, col. 4:49-51). The patent also describes storing the user template in different locations (e.g., cache for frequent users, database for infrequent users) based on the frequency of user access (Compl. ¶20; ’854 Patent, col. 6:49-59).
• Technical Importance: This server architecture enabled the delivery of highly scalable, personalized web content, which was a critical development for early, large-scale customized web portals (Compl. ¶12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (method), 8 (system), and 15 (computer-readable medium), as well as dependent claims 2-3 and 9 (Compl. ¶27).
• The core elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • receiving a user request for a customized page;
  • receiving a template program that is unique to the user and based on user configuration information;
  • receiving an advertisement selected in accordance with the user demographic information;
  • executing the template program using the selected advertisement to generate the customized page; and
  • providing the customized page to the user.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims.

U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 - “Dynamic Page Generator”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’227 Patent shares an identical specification with the ’854 Patent and thus addresses the same problems of scalability and latency in generating customized web pages (Compl. ¶42; ’227 Patent, col. 1:14-18).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is the same server architecture described for the ’854 Patent, centered on combining a user-specific template with live data stored in a shared, local memory on the page server (’227 Patent, col. 3:58-67). The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the ’227 Patent, a key point of novelty was the unconventional approach of downloading real-time information into a server and using a template, as opposed to linking directly to external real-time information sources (Compl. ¶42).
• Technical Importance: As the earliest patent in the asserted family, this patent represents a foundational disclosure of the scalable architecture for personalized web content delivery (Compl. ¶41).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶43).
• The essential elements of independent claim 2 include:
  • obtaining user preferences;
  • obtaining real-time information from information sources;
  • storing the real-time information in a storage device;
  • combining the user preferences and a template to form a template program specific to the user;
  • receiving a user request for a customized page;
  • executing the template program using the real-time information from the storage device to generate the customized page; and
  • providing the customized page to the user in real-time response to the request.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414 - “Dynamic Page Generator”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued January 30, 2007.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’414 Patent shares the same specification as the other asserted patents (Compl. ¶58). The complaint highlights that its prosecution emphasized the advantages of "storing real-time information in a shared local storage device," which allows a custom page to be built entirely within the page server, eliminating time-consuming calls to other servers (Compl. ¶58). It also alleges that the concept of receiving the template program from one of at least two locations, determined by the frequency of user requests, was found to be unconventional over the prior art (Compl. ¶59).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 3 (Compl. ¶60).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement through the use of the Vividseats.com server to provide customized pages based on user preferences, such as location and events (Compl. ¶60, 61).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359 - “Dynamic Page Generator”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued July 21, 2009.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’359 Patent shares the same specification as the other asserted patents (Compl. ¶77). The complaint notes that during prosecution, the examiner focused on claim limitations requiring the execution of a user-specific template program using real-time information from a shared local storage device, combined with receiving user preferences and combining them with a generic template (Compl. ¶77).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶78).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses a computer-readable medium (e.g., server memory) containing instructions for generating customized web pages according to user preferences, such as showing events near a user's location (Compl. ¶78, 79).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342 - “Dynamic Page Generator”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342, "Dynamic Page Generator," issued April 18, 2017.
• Technology Synopsis: The ’342 Patent shares the same specification as the other asserted patents (Compl. ¶90). The infringement theory focuses on the method of responding to a user request by generating a unique template program from user-specific information and a generic global template, then executing it to create and serve a customized webpage with real-time information (Compl. ¶92, 93).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the method of generating and serving customized home and search pages on the Vividseats.com website by combining user search parameters with a generic webpage layout (Compl. ¶91, 92).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentality is the Vividseats.com website, along with its associated servers, databases, and software systems (Compl. ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The Vividseats.com website is an online marketplace for tickets to live events (Compl. ¶28, screenshot). It allows users to create accounts and provide configuration information, such as their name and location, to receive a customized experience (Compl. ¶29, 30). For example, the website can display events near a user's selected location and present targeted advertisements based on user geography and interests (Compl. ¶32, 44). A screenshot of a user's profile page shows fields for account information, saved addresses, and payment methods (Compl. ¶29, p. 14). The complaint alleges that the system stores user information and template data in multiple locations, including browser local storage and cookies, and retrieves this data from either a main server or local cache depending on access frequency (Compl. ¶31, 37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’854 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "template program," as described in the 1997-priority patent (e.g., an HTML file with placeholders), can be construed to read on the modern architecture of the accused website, which the complaint alleges uses JavaScript pages as the template program (Compl. ¶29).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the location from which a template is retrieved is "determined from the frequency of the user request" (Compl. ¶31). A point of contention may be what evidence exists to show that the Accused Instrumentality employs a specific frequency-based retrieval logic, as opposed to standard web caching mechanisms that are inherently frequency-sensitive. A screenshot of JavaScript code references "localStorage" and "document.cookie", which may be presented as evidence of a multi-location storage architecture (Compl. ¶17, p. 17).

’227 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The analysis may turn on the meaning of "template program specific to the user." It raises the question of whether a generic site template that is populated with user-specific search results constitutes a "template program specific to the user" or is simply a standard dynamic webpage.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires "storing the real-time information in a storage device" and then using that information to generate the page. The technical implementation of how Vividseats.com sources, stores, and utilizes event data will be critical to determining if it meets this limitation as described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "template program"

• Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the asserted claims across all five patents. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the patent’s 1997-era disclosure, which depicts a server-side process using an HTML-like file with placeholders, covers the allegedly infringing modern web architecture of Vividseats.com, which uses technologies like JavaScript (Compl. ¶29).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The abstract describes "user preferences organized into templates stored in compact data structures," which could be argued to encompass any structured data representing user preferences used for page generation, not just a specific file format (’854 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification’s primary embodiment shows a user template as a text file containing HTML with special comment tags as placeholders for dynamic data (e.g., <!-- ad:M,85,95035,T,* 792 -->) (’854 Patent, Fig. 4). A defendant may argue the term is limited to such static, placeholder-based files rather than executable client-side scripts.

• The Term: "receiving a template program...from one of at least two locations, the location determined from frequency of the user request"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears in claims of the ’854, ’414, and ’342 patents and is characterized in the complaint as an "unconventional and non-generic method" (Compl. ¶24). Infringement of these claims will depend on whether the accused system is proven to use a frequency-based logic to select a storage location.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be argued to cover any standard architecture that utilizes both persistent storage (a database) and a more readily accessible cache, as access to a cache is inherently dependent on the frequency of requests.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification distinguishes between storing a template in a "user configuration database" for "infrequent users" and storing it "in cache" for "frequent users" (’854 Patent, col. 6:51-59). This language may support an interpretation that requires a specific, deliberate architectural decision based on a user’s access patterns, not merely the default behavior of a generic caching system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement of the ’854 Patent, asserting that Defendant provides the Vividseats.com platform to its customers with the specific intent to encourage infringement (Compl. ¶99, 101). Knowledge is alleged based on a pre-suit notice letter sent on June 26, 2020 (Compl. ¶100).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement of the ’854 Patent has been willful since at least its receipt of the June 26, 2020 notice letter. It is alleged that Defendant knew or should have known of the "unjustifiably high risk of infringement" yet continued its conduct (Compl. ¶103).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "template program," rooted in the patent's 1997 description of a server-side, HTML-like file with placeholders, be construed to cover the modern, JavaScript-based architecture of the accused website?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence demonstrates that the accused system retrieves templates from different storage locations (e.g., main server vs. local user cache) based on a specific logic determined by the frequency of user requests, as claimed, rather than through standard, incidental web caching?
• A central technical question will be one of functional operation: Does the accused system’s process of populating a generic webpage layout with filtered, user-specific data constitute the claimed act of "generating" or "forming" a "template program specific to the user," or does it represent a fundamentally different and non-infringing technical approach to dynamic content delivery?