eChanging Barcode LLC v. MLB Advanced Media L.P.

Background

eChanging Barcode LLC alleged that MLB Advanced Media L.P. infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,047,715. According to the opinion, the patent covers technology intended to prevent unauthorized duplication of credentials, such as event tickets, through screenshots or static copies. eChanging sought damages and an injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

LIVE-Fi Technology Holdings moved to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. LIVE-Fi asserted that Alan Amron, identified as eChanging’s owner, had improperly failed to cite LIVE-Fi’s patents and that MLB Advanced Media was using LIVE-Fi’s patents without permission. LIVE-Fi’s filing also raised matters the court described as unrelated to intervention.

Attorney-admission issue

The court first observed that LIVE-Fi’s lawyer, Amy Rebecca Gurvey, had not been admitted to practice before the Southern District of New York on a temporary basis. Although Gurvey claimed that a judge had admitted her in another case, the docket in that case showed that her request had not been granted. The court therefore stated that the motion could be denied on that basis alone.

Intervention as of right

Rule 24(a)(2) governs intervention as of right. It generally requires a proposed intervenor to show a timely request, an interest related to the property or transaction at issue, potential impairment of that interest, and inadequate protection by the existing parties.

LIVE-Fi identified interests involving enforcement of its patent rights, protection of trade secrets and proprietary data, and prevention of unauthorized use of its technology. The court found that LIVE-Fi did not claim to hold or ever have held an interest in the patent at issue, and did not explain how its asserted patent rights or trade secrets related to this lawsuit. The court therefore concluded that LIVE-Fi had not established a right to intervene.

Permissive intervention

Rule 24(b) allows permissive intervention when a proposed intervenor has a claim or defense sharing a common question of law or fact with the main action. LIVE-Fi identified issues involving ticketing data, the scope of its patented technologies, and contractual and regulatory obligations connected to the Live Nation-Ticketmaster merger.

The court concluded that those issues were not involved in this case. It explained that the action concerned eChanging’s allegation that MLB Advanced Media infringed the patent at issue, so the case would focus on that patent’s validity and whether MLB Advanced Media’s product infringed it. The court therefore denied permissive intervention as well.

Disposition and classification

The court denied LIVE-Fi’s motion to intervene. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at Docket 74 and, to the extent LIVE-Fi’s filings represented that it was a party, to terminate LIVE-Fi as a party to the action. The order did not decide the underlying patent-infringement allegations. Because the order resolved an ancillary procedural request without reaching the patent merits, it is classified as a procedural order.