Alan Amron v. MLB
Alan Amron, echanginebarcode, LLC v. MLB, MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM), Live Nation Entertainment (UNI), Inc., merged with Ticketmaster, LLC, StubHub, Inc., and 380 National Baseball Teams and Stadiums, and Does I-X.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-02930
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Alan Amron v. MLB, Judge Engelmayer denied Amy Weissbrod Gurvey’s reconsideration motion and directed her to refrain from future filings in the case.
Amy Weissbrod Gurvey’s attempt to intervene in the patent-infringement case was rejected, and she was directed to refrain from future filings in that case. The existing plaintiffs and defendants were not required to litigate Gurvey’s proposed claims in this action.
What happened
Alan Amron, echanginebarcode, LLC v. MLB, MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM), Live Nation Entertainment (UNI), Inc., merged with Ticketmaster, LLC, StubHub, Inc., and 380 National Baseball Teams and Stadiums, and Does I-X concerns proposed intervenor Amy Weissbrod Gurvey’s effort to join a patent-infringement lawsuit. She sought reconsideration of an earlier order denying her request to intervene.
Gurvey argued that the court had overlooked her permission to practice temporarily in another case, that her patent interests were not adequately protected by the government, and that Amron’s patent was unenforceable because of alleged failures to disclose earlier patent information. She also raised allegations about the Patent Office, other lawsuits, and related companies.
Judge Engelmayer denied the reconsideration motion, explaining that Gurvey’s arguments about intervention in antitrust matters did not change the court’s analysis of whether intervention was proper in this patent dispute. The court apologized for an earlier mistake about Gurvey’s temporary admission to practice in another case but said that fact did not affect the intervention decision. It also directed Gurvey to refrain from future filings in this case.
The detailed version
- Alan Amron v. MLB · No. 1:24-cv-02930
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The opinion addresses Amy Weissbrod Gurvey’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying her request to intervene in the plaintiffs’ patent-infringement lawsuit. Intervention is a procedure allowing a nonparty to join an existing case when specified legal requirements are met. Gurvey identified herself as a patent holder and proposed intervenor and sought to participate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24.
Gurvey argued that the court had overlooked the fact that she had been permitted to practice temporarily in another Southern District of New York case. She also argued that the government could not adequately protect her patent interests, that the plaintiff’s patent was unenforceable because of alleged failures to disclose prior art to the Patent Office, and that her patent-related interests were connected to antitrust and administrative proceedings. Her requested relief included permission to intervene, a declaration that the plaintiff’s patents were unenforceable, a stay, and injunctive relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the strict standard for reconsideration. Under that standard, reconsideration generally requires the moving party to identify controlling law or important information that the court overlooked. The court held that Gurvey’s citations to cases involving intervention in antitrust proceedings did not change its analysis of whether intervention was appropriate in this patent dispute.
The court acknowledged and apologized for an earlier misstatement concerning Gurvey’s admission to practice temporarily in another case. It nevertheless held that her admission there did not affect the reasoning in the earlier order about intervention under Rule 24. The opinion also noted that Gurvey had been warned in another case that repeated filings could lead to sanctions or a filing ban, and that another court had criticized repeated litigation of the same issues.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the motion for reconsideration. The court also directed Gurvey to refrain from future filings on the docket of this case. The opinion did not grant her requested intervention, declaratory judgment, stay, or injunctive relief. The docket number and some dates in the supplied opinion text appear corrupted by transcription or optical-character-recognition errors.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.