Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of a Ticketing Patent Suit Against Live Nation, Ticketmaster and MLB, Holding Every Appeal Argument Waived.

The decision

On October 26, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed in Gurvey v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 2025-1954, a nonprecedential per curiam opinion by Circuit Judges Stoll, Cunningham and Stark. Amy R. Weissbrod Gurvey, the plaintiff-appellant, represented herself. She appealed orders of the Central District of California, No. 2:23-cv-04381-MEMF-E, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, granting the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court said it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1).

The defendants-appellees are Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Ticketmaster, Inc., Live Nation, Inc., Instant Live Concerts, LLC, Major League Baseball, MLB Advanced Media, Inc., Phish Inc./Live Phish, the law firms Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, Baker Botts, LLP, and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton, and Steven Schortgen, an attorney named individually as a defendant. The law firm Cowan, Liebowitz and Latman, P.C. and ten Doe defendants are also named in the caption as defendants.

The suit below

The opinion says that Ms. Gurvey "purports to own several U.S. patents which generally describe a ticketing and sports betting management system," and that since at least 2006 she has filed a series of complaints in federal and state courts alleging that various combinations of the appellees infringed her patents, conspired to do so, or conspired to deny her access to the court system. She filed this suit in June 2023. The district court's September 27, 2024 order lists 23 causes of action, including patent infringement, aiding and abetting infringement, willful infringement, racketeering conspiracy, Clayton Act damages, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, and several tort claims.

Under the district court's standing order, oppositions to motions were due 14 days after a motion was filed. According to the Federal Circuit, she did not file timely oppositions, the court extended her deadline to oppose most motions to February 2, 2024, and she still filed no opposition to any motion to dismiss. On September 27, 2024, the district court granted the motions as to every appellee except Baker Botts (ECF No. 102). That order dismissed the claims against Hinshaw & Culbertson, the Live Nation entities, Phish and the MLB entities without leave to amend, denied her application for a stay, her Rule 11 motion and her motions concerning vexatious litigants, and declined to impose pre-filing restrictions on her in that district.

On March 13, 2025, the district court denied her motion for reconsideration and granted Baker Botts' motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit noted that although she had not filed any substantive opposition to that motion, the district court addressed it on the merits and found that all claims against Baker Botts were barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Why the panel affirmed

The panel rejected her argument that the district court dismissed her complaint "sua sponte." The appellees filed motions to dismiss, and the court "simply granted unopposed motions to dismiss pursuant to the district's Local Rules after giving Ms. Gurvey repeated chances to cure her failure." The substantive issues she raised for the first time on appeal therefore were not preserved. Quoting Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., the court said it may deem waived an argument a party fails to raise before the trial court.

The panel noted that in her filings she repeatedly emphasized that she is a California attorney in good standing, and that her litigation history in this case and related New York cases shows she is well acquainted with trial court litigation. "Her failure to respond cannot be attributed to an oversight by an inexperienced pro se litigant," the court wrote, and it held that she waived her arguments on appeal. In a footnote, it held that she also waived any challenge to the Noerr-Pennington ruling for Baker Botts by not contesting it on appeal, citing Becton Dickinson & Co. v. C.R. Bard, Inc. The court found her remaining arguments unpersuasive.

What to watch next

Watch for any petition for panel or en banc rehearing and for issuance of the Federal Circuit's mandate. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.