DCT
1:24-cv-00211
Weissbrod Gurvey v. Hochul
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Amy R. Gurvey (New Jersey)
- Defendant: State of New York, et al. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro Se
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00211, N.D.N.Y., 05/09/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the Northern District of New York, where the defendants, including the State of New York and its various agencies and officers, are located.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that several New York State agencies infringe patents related to systems for managing electronic ticketing and distributing content from live events. These allegations are presented alongside claims of constitutional rights violations, malicious prosecution, and denial of access to courts.
- Technical Context: The technology involves systems that integrate the sale of tickets for live events with the subsequent ordering, production, and distribution of digital content, such as recordings of the event, to attendees and other consumers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint describes an extensive and contentious litigation history preceding this action. It alleges that since 2009, Plaintiff has been denied hearings on her patent infringement claims in various courts, including the New York Court of Claims and the Southern District of New York. The complaint further alleges malicious prosecution and obstruction of justice by state officials, which it claims has prevented adjudication of infringement claims against both state agencies and private companies.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-10-18 | Earliest Priority Date for ’321 and ’566 Patents |
| 2009-10-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,603,321 Issues |
| 2009 | Alleged Infringement Begins |
| 2012 | Plaintiff Alleges Notice of Infringement Was Given |
| 2022-08-02 | U.S. Patent No. 11,403,566 Issues |
| 2024-05-09 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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," Issued October 13, 2009
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty and expense of producing and distributing recordings of live performances, which left the potential for "impulse buying" by event attendees largely untapped due to technological limitations and complex royalty accounting (ʼ321 Patent, col. 2:1-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system to solve this problem by electronically linking the sale of event recordings directly to the ticketing process. It describes a data center that manages transactions, an on-site system for recording and editing the live event, and remote terminals through which a user can order and receive the content, thereby simplifying production, distribution, and royalty accounting (ʼ321 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a new and efficient revenue stream by capturing the immediate interest of event attendees and monetizing live content that was previously difficult to package and sell commercially (ʼ321 Patent, col. 2:19-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and several dependent claims (Compl. ¶49).
- Independent Claim 1 requires an apparatus comprising:
- At least one data center with a database for storing transaction data.
- At least one recording subsystem connected to the data center for recording a portion of a live event.
- At least one editor apparatus for receiving the recorded event and editing it based on a user selection.
- At least one remote terminal with means for connecting to the data center, receiving the edited content, downloading it to a user device, and transmitting purchase data.
- The complaint also lists dependent claims 2-10, which add limitations regarding the type of live event, the nature of the content, the network type, and the transaction data (Compl. ¶49).
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," Issued August 2, 2022
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the technology in the ’321 Patent, this patent addresses a similar problem in the context of a more mature digital market. The background notes the decline in retail CD sales and the rise of online subscription services, necessitating new business models for live content distribution beyond physical media (ʼ566 Patent, col. 2:57-67).
- The Patented Solution: The invention claims methods and systems for providing content and other benefits to event attendees separately from the initial admission ticket. It describes a system centered around a data center that stores event and user data and is configured to process transactions from various terminals (e.g., point-of-sale kiosks, mobile phones). This allows users to purchase or order benefits like event recordings during or after the event and receive them digitally (ʼ566 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to unbundle content from admission, creating a flexible platform to sell a variety of digital goods and services related to a live event, thereby maximizing revenue opportunities from each attendee (ʼ566 Patent, col. 4:11-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 12 and independent apparatus claim 15, as well as several dependent claims (Compl. ¶49). (Note: The complaint renumbers the claims; they correspond to issued claims 1 and 3, respectively).
- Independent Method Claim 1 (Claim 12 in complaint) requires steps of: providing a data center; storing various data types; providing terminal access; selling a ticket; receiving a separate transaction receipt from the user to order content; transmitting transaction data to the data center; generating a digital recording of the event; authenticating the user; and distributing the recording.
- Independent Apparatus Claim 3 (Claim 15 in complaint) requires: a data center configured to store data and provide terminal access; a ticket issuer point-of-sale terminal configured to sell tickets and handle content transactions; and the data center further configured to record the event, generate a digital recording, authenticate the user, and distribute the recording.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses various systems operated by New York State agencies, including the NYS Thruway, EZ-Pass, the Port Authority of NY and NJ, and the NYS Gaming Commission (Compl. ¶49).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint does not provide specific technical details on the design or operation of the accused state-run systems. It alleges in broad terms that these systems infringe. For example, it alleges that NYS Thruway and EZ-Pass systems use photographs of license plates to collect tolls (Compl. Prayer ¶J) and that the NYS Gaming Commission operates through contracts with the state lottery and sports betting companies (Compl. Prayer ¶I). The complaint does not explain how these alleged functions map to the patented technology for managing and distributing content from live events.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a conventional claim chart or a detailed narrative mapping elements of the accused systems to the limitations of the asserted patent claims. It quotes claim language and makes a general allegation of infringement against the named state agencies. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’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...over a computer network | The complaint alleges that systems operated by NYS agencies facilitate transactions over a network, but does not specify how this relates to "customizable event...content." | ¶49 | col. 22:30-34 |
| at least one data center connected to the network said data center comprising a database for storing live event purchase transaction data | The complaint does not provide details on the data centers or databases of the accused state systems or the nature of the "live event" data allegedly stored. | ¶49 | col. 22:35-38 |
| at least one recording subsystem...for recording at least a portion of said live event | The complaint does not identify a specific "recording subsystem" in the accused systems or what "live event" is allegedly being recorded. | ¶49 | col. 22:39-42 |
| at least one editor apparatus...for editing the recorded live event based on the selection request | The complaint provides no allegations regarding any "editor apparatus" or user-selected editing functionality within the accused state systems. | ¶49 | col. 22:43-48 |
| said at least one remote terminal...comprising means for connecting to said data center...receiving...downloading said requested event content | The complaint does not identify the remote terminals or describe how they allegedly perform the claimed functions of receiving and downloading event content. | ¶49 | col. 22:49-60 |
’566 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of providing...content and additional benefits to...ticketholders separate from admission to an event | The complaint alleges infringement by state agencies but does not explain how their functions (e.g., toll collection) constitute providing content separate from admission to an event. | ¶49 | col. 25:1-4 |
| providing a data center...storing venue data, event data, accounting data, ticketholder...information | The complaint does not detail the data storage practices of the accused systems or how they correspond to the claimed data types. | ¶49 | col. 25:5-13 |
| selling or issuing via the ticket issuer point-of-sale terminal, a ticket... | The complaint does not identify a specific "ticket issuer point-of-sale terminal" within the state systems or describe the "ticket" being issued. | ¶49 | col. 25:14-20 |
| receiving by the ticket seller point-of-sale terminal...a receipt from the user...to order...a content recording | The complaint does not describe a transaction where a user provides a receipt to order a content recording from the accused state systems. | ¶49 | col. 25:21-28 |
| generating a digital recording of at least a portion of the event | The complaint does not explain what "event" the state systems are allegedly recording or how a "digital recording" is generated. | ¶49 | col. 25:39-42 |
| authenticating...the user...distributing to the user...the digital recording | The complaint does not specify how the accused systems authenticate users for the purpose of distributing a digital recording of an event. | ¶49 | col. 25:49-59 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The primary point of contention will be definitional. A court will need to determine if the term "live event," as used in the patents in the context of performances and gatherings, can be construed to cover the routine, transactional functions of state agencies like toll collection or lottery sales. Similarly, it raises the question of whether transactional data, such as a license plate photograph or a betting slip, constitutes "event content" as claimed.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the accused state-run systems perform the specific technical functions required by the claims. The complaint does not provide evidence that these systems include a "recording subsystem," an "editor apparatus," or a mechanism for generating and distributing digital recordings of an "event" based on user selection, as required by the asserted claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "live event" (appearing in claims of both the ʼ321 and ʼ566 patents)
- Context and Importance: The applicability of the patents to the accused instrumentalities hinges entirely on the construction of this term. The defendants will likely argue that their activities (e.g., automated toll collection) are not "live events" in any conventional sense, while the plaintiff's case appears to depend on an exceptionally broad interpretation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 of the ʼ321 Patent provides a long list of examples, including "conference, symposium, showcase, ... exhibition, demonstration, opening, travel, ... convention, address, seminar, class, lecture, or sermon." Plaintiff may argue that terms like "demonstration" or "transaction" (from claim 7) support a broader meaning beyond entertainment.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background and summary of both patents consistently frame the invention in the context of live performances, such as concerts and sporting events, where attendees would want to purchase a recording (ʼ321 Patent, col. 1:29-34; ʼ566 Patent, col. 2:57-62). The detailed list in ʼ321 Patent claim 2 consists entirely of gatherings of people for a specific presentational purpose.
The Term: "recording" (appearing in claims of both patents, e.g., "content recording," "digital recording")
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to determining if the data processed by the state agencies qualifies as the type of content the patents are intended to protect. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's theory appears to equate transactional data capture (e.g., a photo of a license plate) with the "recording" of an event for content distribution.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The ʼ566 Patent defines "Recording" as "any audio, video, or audiovisual material or data based on signals or content emanating, derived from or representative of the live event" (ʼ566 Patent, col. 6:58-62). Plaintiff may argue a license plate photo is "video...data...representative of the live event" (the toll transaction).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications of both patents overwhelmingly discuss recording in the context of capturing a performance for later replay and enjoyment, mentioning derivative works like "director's cuts" and "best of" compilations (ʼ566 Patent, col. 5:11-15). This context suggests content with entertainment or informational value, not merely administrative data.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges "aiding and abetting infringement" against various defendants (Compl. Prayer ¶B, H, I, J). However, the complaint's factual allegations focus on direct infringement by the state agencies themselves and do not provide specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for a claim of induced infringement.
Willful Infringement
- The complaint alleges that notice of infringement was provided to the defendants in 2012 (Compl. ¶1) and that defendants have continued their infringing activities despite this notice (Compl. ¶52.1). These allegations, if proven, could support a finding of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "live event" and "recording," which are rooted in the patents’ context of capturing and distributing content from live artistic or sporting performances, be plausibly construed to cover the automated, transactional data-processing functions of state agencies such as the NYS Thruway Authority or the Gaming Commission?
- A dispositive evidentiary question will be one of technical function: assuming the definitional scope can be overcome, what evidence can be produced to show that the accused state systems actually perform the specific, multi-step methods claimed in the patents, including functions such as user-selected content editing, generation of a distributable digital recording, and a transactional link between a "ticket" and a "content" purchase? The complaint currently provides no such evidence.