Alan Amron v. MLB
Alan Amron, echangingbarcode, LLC v. MLB, MLB ADVANCED MEDIA (MLBAM), Live Nation Entertainment (LNE), StubHub, and 30 national baseball teams and event stadiums (LNE and STUBHUB noticed as Voluntarily terminated by the Plaintiff) and Does I-X
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-02930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Alan Amron v. MLB, Judge Engelmayer left LIVE-Fi’s intervention motion pending, set an opposition deadline, and stated that oral argument was “dented.”
LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings, LLC’s request to join the pending case is affected. The existing plaintiffs and defendants are affected by the briefing schedule and by the possibility that LIVE-Fi may later be allowed to intervene, but the court had not decided that request in the provided text.
What happened
In Alan Amron, echangingbarcode, LLC v. MLB, MLB Advanced Media, and others, LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings asked to join the lawsuit. LIVE-Fi said the case could affect its patent, copyright, data, and market interests.
LIVE-Fi alleged that some defendants were using its technology without permission and that the plaintiff had failed to identify earlier LIVE-Fi patents. It also made allegations about other lawsuits, court officials, attorneys, and proceedings before the patent office and other courts.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not decide whether LIVE-Fi could intervene. The court said any opposition was due September 29, 2025, invited no reply, stated that the request for oral argument was “dented,” and said it would decide the motion on the written submissions.
The detailed version
- Alan Amron v. MLB · No. 1:24-cv-02930
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
The court received a motion from LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings, LLC seeking to intervene in the lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). The underlying case is brought by Alan Amron and echangingbarcode, LLC against MLB, MLB Advanced Media, Live Nation Entertainment, StubHub, 30 national baseball teams and event stadiums, and Does I-X. The filing states that Live Nation Entertainment and StubHub had been noticed as voluntarily terminated by the plaintiff.
LIVE-Fi’s Position
LIVE-Fi asked to intervene as of right or, alternatively, with the court’s permission, and requested permission to file a third-party complaint. It asserted that it owns or controls patents, pending patent applications, and registered copyrights involving ticketing, data transmission, event-content distribution, barcodes, ticket resale, advertising, and analytics. LIVE-Fi claimed that the lawsuit could affect its intellectual-property, trade-secret, data, market-access, and revenue interests.
LIVE-Fi alleged that MLB and MLB Advanced Media, among others, were using technology covered by LIVE-Fi’s patents without permission. It also alleged that Amron had failed to cite certain LIVE-Fi patents when applying for a patent and that this could affect enforcement or validity of Amron’s patent. The filing further alleged violations involving ticketing data, the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger, patent-office proceedings, court records, attorneys, and other litigation. These statements are allegations in LIVE-Fi’s motion; the opinion does not decide their truth.
Rule 24 Standards Asserted
For intervention as of right under Rule 24(a), LIVE-Fi argued that it had a legally protectable interest, that the case’s outcome could impair that interest, and that the existing parties could not adequately represent it. For permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), LIVE-Fi argued that its proposed claims shared common legal and factual questions with the main action and that intervention would promote efficient resolution without prejudicing the existing parties.
Court’s Action
The filing records that the court received the motion. It states that any opposition was due September 29, 2025, that no reply was invited at that time, and that the court would resolve the motion on the papers. The text says, “The request for oral argument is dented.” Because the opinion does not otherwise explain that wording, this summary reports it as written rather than treating it as a clear ruling that oral argument was denied.
The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied intervention, decide whether LIVE-Fi satisfied Rule 24, or resolve the parties’ patent, copyright, antitrust, data, or other substantive disputes. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer therefore left the intervention motion awaiting decision in the material provided.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.