eChanging Barcode, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.
1:24-cv-02930
S.D.N.Y.May 30, 2025Background
- eChanging Barcode, LLC (“eChanging”), holder of U.S. Patent No. 9,047,715, sues MLB Advanced Media L.P. (“MLBAM”) for allegedly infringing its patent by using dynamic, rotating barcode technology ("Protect the Barcode") in the MLB Ballpark App.
- The '715 Patent covers a method for dynamic credential management, specifically utilizing rotating barcodes to prevent ticket fraud in the event ticketing industry.
- eChanging accuses MLBAM's app of infringing by using a rotating barcode system that updates barcodes periodically and applies time- and location-based restrictions.
- MLBAM moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the patent claims ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claiming the patent is directed to an abstract idea.
- The court’s task at this stage was to determine, accepting plaintiff’s allegations as true, whether the claims are plausibly patent-eligible or must be dismissed as facially invalid.
- The case comes on a motion to dismiss and the court evaluated patent-eligibility under the two-step framework established by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 101 Patent Eligibility (Alice Step 1) | The patent describes a specific technological improvement—dynamic rotating barcodes that enhance security. | The patent covers the abstract idea of controlling access with changing credentials, which is too broad. | The patent is not directed solely to an abstract idea; it's plausibly a technical solution. |
| § 101 Patent Eligibility (Alice Step 2) | Claims recite inventive concepts that improve prior art; there are detailed, non-conventional steps. | There is no inventive concept; the patent just automates preexisting processes. | Claims plausibly contain an inventive concept; issue unsuitable for resolution at motion to dismiss. |
| Sufficiency of Pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) | Complaint and patent sufficiently allege technical specifics and improvement over prior art. | Allegations are too general, fail to show patent-eligibility as a matter of law. | Complaint survives dismissal; facts are sufficient for plausibility. |
| Application of Repifi/Other Precedent | Distinguishable; '715 Patent improves upon mere automation by introducing a dynamically changing credential. | Repifi requires holding this patent ineligible as well since both relate to credentialing. | Repifi inapposite; the '715 Patent does more than automate—a specific technical improvement is alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (establishes the two-step test for subject matter eligibility under § 101)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (sets plausibility pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (warns against overgeneralizing claims at abstraction step)
- Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (reiterates inventive concept requirement for patent eligibility)
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (software innovations can be eligible if improving computer functionality)
- Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (software claim eligible if it meaningfully improves technology)
- Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (recognizes data storage claims as non-abstract when targeting technical improvement)