Amron v. Major League Baseball

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Alan Amron (Pro se) (New York)
  • Defendant: Major League Baseball, et al. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pro se
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-10576, S.D.N.Y., 12/04/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants have a regular and established place of business in the district, are registered to do business in New York, and commit alleged acts of infringement in the district through the sale and use of digital tickets for MLB teams.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Major League Baseball’s digital ticketing system, which uses a dynamically changing barcode to secure event access, infringes a patent related to credential management.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses secure digital credentialing, a commercially significant field focused on preventing fraud and unauthorized duplication of access passes, such as event tickets.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint references pre-suit correspondence, stating that Plaintiff first provided notice of alleged infringement to MLB counsel on April 7, 2023, followed by further communications in November 2023, which concluded with MLB allegedly stating it was "not interested in acquiring a license."

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2011-08-02	’715 Patent Priority Date
2015-06-02	’715 Patent Issued
2023-04-07	Plaintiff sends first email notice of infringement to MLB
2023-11-07	Plaintiff sends follow-up email to MLB
2023-11-13	Final pre-suit communication alleged between parties
2023-12-04	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,047,715 - "System and Method for Credential Management and Administration"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the risks of unauthorized use and duplication of conventional credentials like tickets, passes, and badges, particularly in an environment with transient access needs, such as sporting events (Compl. ¶13; ’971 Patent, col. 2:23-38). Static credentials, whether physical or digital, are vulnerable to counterfeiting and fraudulent use, for example, through screenshots of a digital ticket (Compl. ¶13-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized credential management system where a server distributes secure electronic credentials to portable devices, such as smartphones ('971 Patent, Abstract). The core of the solution is that the credential—a "machine discernable image" like a barcode—is "updated at periodic intervals" ('971 Patent, Abstract). A server obtains and wirelessly transmits new visual symbol information to the device for display during sequential, specified time intervals, rendering any previously captured image of the credential obsolete ('971 Patent, col. 8:59-col. 9:22; Fig. 6).
• Technical Importance: This dynamic approach aims to eliminate fraud from duplication (e.g., screenshots) by ensuring that only the live, periodically changing credential held by the authorized user is valid for entry (Compl. ¶15, 20-21).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies Claims 1 and 8 as most relevant, while alleging infringement of one or more of the 46 total claims (Compl. ¶27, 32). The infringement summary focuses primarily on elements of Claim 1.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions to perform a method.
  • Associating a first portable electronic device with a first user at a credential administration server.
  • Obtaining first visual symbol information at the server for display as a first machine-discernable image on the device during a first specified time interval (duration of 30 to 6000 seconds).
  • Initiating wireless transmission of the first visual symbol information to the device.
  • Obtaining second visual symbol information at the server for display as a second machine-discernable image during a second specified time interval.
  • Initiating wireless transmission of the second visual symbol information to the device upon expiration of the first time interval.
• The complaint reserves the right to amend its infringement analysis (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is the Major League Baseball ("MLB") electronic ticketing management system, embodied in the "Accused Ballpark app" and its "Protect the Barcode" technology (Compl. ¶32-33, 36).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the Ballpark app provides users with digital tickets for MLB games that feature a "rotating barcode" which "updates the digital barcode from a static one to a rotating one that cannot be duplicated" (Compl. ¶36a). This functionality is designed to prevent fraudulent entry using screenshots of tickets, as the barcode changes periodically (Compl. ¶33, 36a). The complaint includes a screenshot from MLB’s website and a depiction of the Ballpark app, which together describe the “Protect the Barcode technology” as a “rotating one that cannot be duplicated” and explicitly warn that screenshots are no longer valid for entry (Compl. p. 9). The system is allegedly used by all MLB teams (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 9,047,715 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
associating at a credential administration server, a first portable electronic device, identifiable by a unique identifier, with a first user and at least one of a location or a service subject to access restrictions	MLB’s ticketing system is alleged to associate a user's account and portable electronic device (via the Ballpark app) with specific digital tickets for entry into a stadium.	¶52	col. 11:13-19
obtaining first visual symbol information, at the credential administration server, for use by the first portable electronic device in iniating display of a first machine discernable image to be presented as an access credential by the first user during a first specified time interval, the first time interval being specified to have a duration of between 30 to 6000 seconds	MLB's technology allegedly configures a portable device to display a mobile ticket barcode for a specified time interval, which the complaint describes as "changing barcode every many seconds time interval."	¶47, 53	col. 11:20-28
for visible display of the first machine discernable image by the first portable device during the first time interval, initiating wireless transmission of the obtained first visual symbol information to the first portable electronic device	MLB's system is alleged to transmit visual symbol information, including event and facility details, to the portable device for display as the mobile ticket barcode.	¶49-50	col. 11:29-33
obtaining second visual symbol information, at the credential administration server, for use by the first portable electronic device in initiating display of a second machine discernable image to be presented as an access credential by the first user during a second specified time interval...; and for visible display of the second machine discernable image... upon expiration of the first time interval...	The complaint alleges that MLB's system "updates digital barcodes from static to rotating to prevent fraud," which involves "changing the barcode periodically." This implies the system obtains and provides new visual information for the barcode after the initial time interval expires.	¶33, 46-47	col. 11:34-42

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused system’s functionality meets the claim requirement of the server "obtaining" and "transmitting" new "visual symbol information" for each successive barcode display. The complaint also alleges that the system transmits "generation instructions" for the device to "locally generate" a barcode (Compl. ¶48), a feature explicitly recited in dependent Claim 8. This raises the question of whether the functionality falls under the scope of independent Claim 1, dependent Claim 8, or if the two are mutually exclusive under the doctrine of claim differentiation.
  • Technical Questions: Discovery will likely focus on the precise technical mechanism of the "Protect the Barcode" feature. Does the MLB server transmit the complete data for each new barcode image at every interval, or does it send a one-time set of instructions, an algorithm, or a cryptographic key that enables the Ballpark app to generate the sequence of barcodes locally on the device? The answer to this technical question will be critical for determining infringement of the asserted claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "obtaining... visual symbol information, at the credential administration server"
• Context and Importance: This term appears twice in Claim 1, once for the first time interval and again for the second. Its construction is critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute may turn on whether the server must actively generate and transmit the data for each new barcode, or if it can send a single set of instructions that empowers the local device to generate the sequence of barcodes.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 recites the server "obtaining" and "initiating wireless transmission of" the visual symbol information for both the first and second intervals separately. This repetition could support an interpretation that the server performs this action for each new symbol.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a process where an administrator schedules an event and associates users, after which the system pushes updates ('715 Patent, Fig. 6). More significantly, dependent Claim 8 adds the limitation of "transmitting a generation instruction to the first portable electronic device... to locally generate a corresponding bar code." The existence of this more specific, dependent claim could be used to argue that the broader, independent Claim 1 does not cover local generation and instead requires the server to send the fully-formed symbol information.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis is that MLB allegedly encourages infringement by distributing the Ballpark app and providing instructions to teams, partners, and end-users on how to use the dynamic barcode system, including public-facing statements that screenshots are no longer valid for entry (Compl. ¶36a, 39-41).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint pleads that MLB was made aware of the ’715 patent and the alleged infringement via an email on April 7, 2023, and subsequent communications, but continued its allegedly infringing activities (Compl. ¶37-38, 43).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope and construction: Does the language of independent Claim 1—requiring a server to "obtain" and "transmit" visual symbol information for each new time interval—read on a system that may send a one-time instruction for the portable device to locally generate a sequence of changing barcodes, a feature that is specifically described in dependent Claim 8?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: What is the specific data flow and architecture of MLB's "Protect the Barcode" technology? The determination of whether the server transmits fully-formed barcode data for each refresh, or if the client-side app generates the rotating codes based on an initial instruction, will be dispositive for the infringement analysis.