PTAB

IPR2015-01932

Front Row Technologies LLC v. MLB Advanced Media LP

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Allocating Seats for a Ticketed Event
  • Brief Description: The ’872 patent describes systems and methods for allocating seats for ticketed events, particularly for seating groups of people in open seats that may be scattered throughout a venue. The invention focuses on determining a "best unassigned seat" and then finding a grouping of available seats around it to accommodate a purchaser's request.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Silberschatz and Brett - Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-22 are obvious over Silberschatz in view of Brett.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silberschatz (European Patent Publication EP 1091308) and Brett (Application # 2002/0023041).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the sole feature that allowed the claims to issue after reexamination—that the definition of the "best unassigned seat" is set by a "ticket seller"—was rendered obvious by the combination of Silberschatz and Brett. Petitioner asserted that Silberschatz taught nearly every element of the claims, including a ticket processing system that determines a best grouping of seats based on constraints set by a ticket purchaser. Brett was alleged to supply the missing element by teaching ticketing systems where a ticket seller (e.g., event employees) pre-ranks seat locations. Brett also taught an auction system where a ticket purchaser becomes a ticket reseller, thereby blurring the distinction between the two roles.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine the automated seat selection algorithm of Silberschatz with the seller-defined seat ranking of Brett. Petitioner contended the roles of "ticket purchaser" and "ticket seller" were well-known to be interchangeable in the art, especially in the context of secondary ticket markets and reselling, which Brett disclosed. Therefore, modifying Silberschatz’s system to allow a seller, instead of a purchaser, to define the "best seat" would have been an obvious design choice to serve different business models.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success because combining the known concept of seller-defined seat quality with an automated selection system was a straightforward application of existing technologies to a known business need.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Silberschatz, Brett, and Austin - Claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-22 are obvious over Silberschatz and Brett in further view of Austin.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Silberschatz (European Patent Publication EP 1091308), Brett (Application # 2002/0023041), and Austin (WO 02/069078).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Silberschatz and Brett by adding Austin. Petitioner argued that Austin explicitly taught that it was well-known in the industry for a ticket broker (a type of ticket seller) to define which seats are the best available. Austin further disclosed using ticket selling devices (e.g., kiosks, computers, personal digital assistants) that could pre-select seats based on "prestored best-available seats" criteria, which could be set by a seller.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Austin's teachings to further automate the seller-defined system of Silberschatz and Brett. Austin demonstrated the common industry practice of brokers defining best seats and using automated devices to do so, providing a clear reason to implement this functionality in the base system to create a more robust and commercially conventional ticketing platform.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was merely the implementation of a known business practice (brokers defining best seats) on a known automated platform, ensuring a predictable and successful result.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on the core combination of Silberschatz and Brett in further view of Nakfoor (Application # 2003/0093387), Gathman (Application # 2003/0069764), and Nestor (WO 01/71669). These grounds relied on similar theories, arguing that Nakfoor taught secondary markets where purchasers become sellers, Gathman taught an electronic system determining the "best unsold seat" from a master list, and Nestor taught a ticket exchange where a reseller could define the best seat, all of which would have made the claimed invention obvious to a POSITA.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "ticket seller": Petitioner argued this term was central to the dispute and should be construed as "any device, entity, or person that sells a ticket and can define the best seat." This construction was based on the specification's single mention of the term and was broad enough to encompass automated systems, ticket brokers, and venue owners, as taught in the prior art. The core of Petitioner's case rested on demonstrating that the prior art disclosed this broad definition of a "ticket seller" setting the best seat criteria, contrary to the Examiner's narrow finding during reexamination.
  • "best unassigned seat": Petitioner proposed this term be construed as "a seat that is unassigned and that is best according to a definition set or adjusted by the ticket purchaser or the ticket seller." This construction, taken directly from the patent's specification, highlighted that the patent itself contemplated both purchasers and sellers defining the best seat, which Petitioner argued undermined the patentability of claims hinging solely on the "ticket seller" limitation.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1, 3-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 20-22 of the ’872 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.