IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VIVID SEATS LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DIGI PORTAL LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No.: ___________ 

JURY DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY

Plaintiff Vivid Seats LLC (“Vivid Seats”) files this Complaint against Digi Portal LLC 

(“Digi Portal”), and respectfully alleges as follows: 

NATURE OF THIS ACTION

1. This is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 5,983,227; 7,171,414; 7,565,359; 8,352,854; and 9,626,342 (collectively, the 

“Asserted Patents”). 

PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Vivid Seats is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of 

Delaware with a principal place of business at 111 N. Canal St., Chicago, Illinois 60606. 

3. Upon information and belief, defendant Digi Portal is a limited liability corporation 

organized under the laws of Texas with the ability to receive mail at 101 E. Park Blvd, Suite 600, 

Plano, Texas 75074. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35, United States 

Code 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and under Title 28, United States Code, Chapter 151, §§ 2201 and 

2202, entitled Declaratory Judgments. 

5. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1338(a), 2201 and/or 2202. 

6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Digi Portal in this matter. Digi Portal has 

connected its enforcement efforts related to the Asserted Patents to this forum by, among other 

things, hiring an Illinois attorney to draft and send a licensing demand and claim charts alleging 

infringement into this forum, and utilizing an Illinois-based law firm as its litigation counsel in at 

least twenty lawsuits enforcing the Asserted Patents against others. Based on these contacts with 

Illinois and this District, Digi Portal is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. 

7. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and/or (d). 

BACKGROUND

8. On June 26, 2020, Digi Portal, through its counsel, sent a letter to Vivid Seats 

addressed to Ryan Fitts, Vice President of Legal and Government Affairs of Vivid Seats (the “Digi 

Portal Letter”). A true and accurate copy of the Digi Portal Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A, 

and is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference. 

9. In the Digi Portal Letter, Digi Portal asserts it is the owner of the Asserted Patents. 

10. In the Digi Portal Letter, Digi Portal (1) accuses Vivid Seats of infringement of the 

Asserted Patents; (2) identifies Vivid Seats’ website (“vividseats.com”) as an accused 

instrumentality; (3) outlines specific conduct attributable to Vivid Seats and alleges that conduct 

to be infringing; (4) provides claim charts asserting Digi Portal’s theory of Vivid Seats’ 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:2
infringement of the Asserted Patents; and (5) requests a response within two weeks of the 

aforementioned date of the letter. 

11. The Digi Portal Letter and claim charts accuse Vivid Seats of activities which Digi 

Portal alleges infringe the Asserted Patents, including “making, using, selling and/or offering for 

sale, as well as instructing [Vivid Seats] customers to use, [vividseats.com].” 

12. In the claim charts attached to the Digi Portal Letter, Digi Portal specifically 

identifies vividseats.com as an accused instrumentality and accuses it of infringing at least one 

claim of each Asserted Patent. 

13. In the claim chart comparing U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227 (the “’227 Patent”) to 

vividseats.com, Digi Portal accuses Vivid Seats of infringing claim 2 of the ’227 Patent. 

14. In the claim chart comparing U.S. Patent No. 7,171,414 (the “’414 Patent”) to 

vividseats.com, Digi Portal accuses Vivid Seats of infringing claims 1 and 3 of the ’414 Patent. 

15. In the claim chart comparing U.S. Patent No. 7,565,359 (the “’359 Patent”) to 

vividseats.com, Digi Portal accuses Vivid Seats of infringing claim 10 of the ’359 Patent. 

16. In the claim chart comparing U.S. Patent No. 8,352,854 (the “’854 Patent”) to 

vividseats.com, Digi Portal accuses Vivid Seats of infringing claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15 of the ’854 

Patent. 

17. In the claim chart comparing U.S. Patent No. 9,626,342 (the “’342 Patent”) to 

vividseats.com, Digi Portal accuses Vivid Seats of infringing claims 1 and 7 of the ’342 Patent. 

18. Therefore, Digi Portal has asserted each of the Asserted Patents against 

vividseats.com. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:3
19. Upon information and belief, Digi Portal has filed at least 20 federal law suits 

asserting infringement of the Asserted Patents since May of 2018. All of these cases were quickly 

dismissed except for those filed within the past month. 

20. Upon information and belief, counsel located in Illinois and this District have filed 

an appearance on behalf of Digi Portal in each of Digi Portal’s 20 federal law suits asserting 

infringement of the Asserted Patents filed since May of 2018. Upon information and belief, the 

Illinois-based law firm Direction IP provides substantive enforcement counsel to Digi Portal. 

21. Upon information and belief, Digi Portal offers no products or services aside from 

its licensing of the Asserted Patents, and it exists solely for that purpose. 

22. Vivid Seats and Digi Portal have a clear conflict of asserted rights against one 

another, and an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and Digi Portal with respect to the 

Asserted Patents. 

23. As a result of Digi Portal’s actions, Vivid Seats has a reasonable apprehension of 

enforcement of the Asserted Patents against it. Therefore, Vivid Seats files this action in order to 

resolve an actual and justiciable controversy between itself and Digi Portal hereto. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The ’227 Patent) 

24. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–13 and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

25. Vivid Seats does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never 

made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a device or apparatus that infringes either 

directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’227 Patent. 

26. Furthermore, Vivid Seats does not practice or perform, and has never practiced or 

performed, any method that infringes, either directly or indirectly, or performed any acts 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:4
constituting contributory infringement of, or inducement to infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’227 Patent. 

27. As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and Digi Portal 

concerning the non-infringement of the ’227 Patent. 

28. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that vividseats.com, as well as any of Vivid Seats’ activities and undertakings related to making, 

using, selling and/or offering for sale, as well as instructing customers to use vividseats.com, have 

not infringed and do not infringe (directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid 

claim of the ’227 Patent. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of The ’227 Patent) 

29. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–13 and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

30. The ’227 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the conditions of 

patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. Specifically, the ’227 Patent does not 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

31. As set forth in detail above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and 

Digi Portal as to whether the ’227 Patent is invalid. 

32. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that the ’227 Patent is invalid. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The ’414 Patent) 

33. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12, 14, and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:5
34. Vivid Seats does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never 

made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a device or apparatus that infringes either 

directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’414 Patent. 

35. Furthermore, Vivid Seats does not practice or perform, and has never practiced or 

performed, any method that infringes, either directly or indirectly, or performed any acts 

constituting contributory infringement of, or inducement to infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’414 Patent. 

36. As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and Digi Portal 

concerning the non-infringement of the ’414 Patent. 

37. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that vividseats.com, as well as any of Vivid Seats’ activities and undertakings related to making, 

using, selling and/or offering for sale, as well as instructing customers to use vividseats.com, have 

not infringed and do not infringe (directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid 

claim of the ’414 Patent. 

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of The ’414 Patent) 

38. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12, 14, and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

39. The ’414 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the conditions of 

patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. Specifically, the ’414 Patent does not 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

40. As set forth in detail above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and 

Digi Portal as to whether the ’414 Patent is invalid. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:6
41. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that the ’414 Patent is invalid. 

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The ’359 Patent) 

42. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12, 15, and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

43. Vivid Seats does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never 

made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a device or apparatus that infringes either 

directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’359 Patent. 

44. Furthermore, Vivid Seats does not practice or perform, and has never practiced or 

performed, any method that infringes, either directly or indirectly, or performed any acts 

constituting contributory infringement of, or inducement to infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’359 Patent. 

45. As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and Digi Portal 

concerning the non-infringement of the ’359 Patent. 

46. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that vividseats.com, as well as any of Vivid Seats’ activities and undertakings related to making, 

using, selling and/or offering for sale, as well as instructing customers to use vividseats.com, have 

not infringed and do not infringe (directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid 

claim of the ’359 Patent. 

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of The ’359 Patent) 

47. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12, 15, and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:7
48. The ’359 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the conditions of 

patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. Specifically, the ’359 Patent does not 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

49. As set forth in detail above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and 

Digi Portal as to whether the ’359 Patent is invalid. 

50. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that the ’359 Patent is invalid. 

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The ’854 Patent) 

51. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12, 16, and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

52. Vivid Seats does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never 

made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a device or apparatus that infringes either 

directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’854 Patent. 

53. Furthermore, Vivid Seats does not practice or perform, and has never practiced or 

performed, any method that infringes, either directly or indirectly, or performed any acts 

constituting contributory infringement of, or inducement to infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’854 Patent. 

54. As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and Digi Portal 

concerning the non-infringement of the ’854 Patent. 

55. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that vividseats.com, as well as any of Vivid Seats’ activities and undertakings related to making, 

using, selling and/or offering for sale, as well as instructing customers to use vividseats.com, have 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:8
not infringed and do not infringe (directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid 

claim of the ’854 Patent. 

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of The ’854 Patent) 

56. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12, 16, and 18–23 of this Complaint. 

57. The ’854 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the conditions of 

patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. Specifically, the ’854 Patent does not 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

58. As set forth in detail above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and 

Digi Portal as to whether the ’854 Patent is invalid. 

59. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that the ’854 Patent is invalid. 

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 

(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of The ’342 Patent) 

60. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12 and 17–23 of this Complaint. 

61. Vivid Seats does not make use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never 

made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a device or apparatus that infringes either 

directly or indirectly, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’342 Patent. 

62. Furthermore, Vivid Seats does not practice or perform, and has never practiced or 

performed, any method that infringes, either directly or indirectly, or performed any acts 

constituting contributory infringement of, or inducement to infringe any valid and enforceable 

claim of the ’342 Patent. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:9
63. As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and Digi Portal 

concerning the non-infringement of the ’342 Patent. 

64. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that vividseats.com, as well as any of Vivid Seats’ activities and undertakings related to making, 

using, selling and/or offering for sale, as well as instructing customers to use vividseats.com, have 

not infringed and do not infringe (directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid 

claim of the ’342 Patent. 

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of The ’342 Patent) 

65. Vivid Seats hereby incorporates by reference, as if stated fully herein, each 

allegation contained in ¶¶ 1–12 and 17–23 of this Complaint. 

66. The ’342 Patent is invalid for failure to meet one or more of the conditions of 

patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. Specifically, the ’342 Patent does not 

satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

67. As set forth in detail above, an actual controversy exists between Vivid Seats and 

Digi Portal as to whether the ’342 Patent is invalid. 

68. Accordingly, Vivid Seats seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Digi Portal 

that the ’342 Patent is invalid. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Vivid Seats requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor and against 

Digi Portal as follows: 

A. Declaring that Vivid Seats does not infringe, and has not infringed, any valid claim 

of the ’227 Patent; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:10
B. Declaring that the ’227 Patent is invalid under one or more of U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 

103, and/or 112; 

C. Declaring that Vivid Seats does not infringe, and has not infringed, any valid claim 

of the ’414 Patent; 

D. Declaring that the ’414 Patent is invalid under one or more of U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 

103, and/or 112; 

E. Declaring that Vivid Seats does not infringe, and has not infringed, any valid claim 

of the ’359 Patent; 

F. Declaring that the ’359 Patent is invalid under one or more of U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 

103, and/or 112; 

G. Declaring that Vivid Seats does not infringe, and has not infringed, any valid claim 

of the ’854 Patent; 

H. Declaring that the ’854 Patent is invalid under one or more of U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 

103, and/or 112; 

I. Declaring that Vivid Seats does not infringe, and has not infringed, any valid claim 

of the ’342 Patent; 

J. Declaring that the ’342 Patent is invalid under one or more of U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 

103, and/or 112; 

K. Declaring the case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 at least as a result of Digi 

Portal’s assertion of the ’227, ’414, ’359, ’854, and ’342 Patents despite Digi Portal’s knowledge 

of their invalidity and/or Vivid Seats’ non-infringement of them, and ordering Digi Portal to pay 

Vivid Seats’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in this action; 

L. Ordering Digi Portal to pay Vivid Seats’ costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920; 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:11
M. Ordering such other and future relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Vivid Seats respectfully requests a trial by jury. 

Dated: July 9, 2020 Respectfully Submitted, 

 

 By: /Mike R. Turner/ 

 One of the Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

 VIVID SEATS LLC 

 

 Kevin C. May 

 (ARDC No. 6237636) 

 Mike R. Turner 

(ARDC No. 6297803) 

 Andrew C. Wood 

 (ARDC No. 6324865) 

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP 

 Two North LaSalle Street 

 Suite 1700 

 Chicago, Illinois 60602 

 Telephone: (312) 269-8000 

 Facsimile: (312) 269-1747 

 mturner@nge.com 

 kmay@nge.com 

 awood@nge.com 

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04042 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/20 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:12