The opinion
i F:1H T, log Hold:
7302 Woodstone Circle —
Princeton, NJ 08540
amyg@lve-fi.com
917-733-9981
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
a
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. : 1:24-CV-03973-AS
Plaintiffs,
v. NOTICE OF MOTION
SEEKING MANDATORY OR
PERMISSIVE JOINDER OF
LIVE-Fi® TECHNOLOGY
HOLDINGS, AS A PARTY
PLAINTIFF
ORAL ARGUMENT
REQUESTED
LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
et al., Defendants.
et Geet er ees
To: Hon. Arun Subramanian
Response to Minute Order entered July 30, 2025 (Docket #621)
Amy Weissbrod Gurvey, a California attorney-entrepreneur in good
standing, declares to the truth of the following statements in moving this Court to
grant current non-party LIVE-Fi® Technology Holdings LLC (“LIVE-Fi®”), the
right to join this lawsuit as a party plaintiff pursuant to FRCP Rules 19 and 20.
LIVE-Fi® moves for mandatory joinder or in the alternative for permissive
joinder. LIVE-Fi® interests are not being adequately represented by the named
1 .
plaintiffs. Gurvey paid $200 to appear pro hac vice as counsel for LIVE-F1® and
her application was approved by SDNY attorney regulation. The court is being
petitioned to correct unilateral detault errors on the docket. In support of LIVE-
Fi’s motion, Gurvey declares to the truth of the following statements.
I. The SONY ECF department, Supervisor Lourdes Aquino, admitted to
entry of ministerial docket errors by detault that could adversely affect defendant
LIVE-Fi®’s interests. Without notice or due process, LIVE-Fi® was entered as an
“ADR provider” when such status qualifier was never selected. In addition, an
improper email for Petitioner was entered. Petitioner’s email is anyg@live-fi.com.
Further correction of the docket errors are requested of the Court.
2. This antitrust class action was filed on May 23, 2024 by the US Dept.
of Justice and 29 plaintiff states. For fourteen years since 2010 when merger was
opposed by 19 states but conditionally granted by the DC District Court, defendant
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (LNE) and its two merged partners, defendants
Live Nation, Inc., and Ticketmaster LLC, continually and contumaciously violated
the terms of the (1) the consent decree; and (11) the competitive impact statement
both so ordered. US vy. Ticketinaster and Live Nation, 2010 WL 975407, 975408.
In a previous order denying transfer to defendants entered on 10/3/2024 (Docket
#294), this Court referred only to the consent decree.
3. Per the complaint filed in this action, defendants’ monopolistic
violations since 2010 did not just involve the unlawful tying of the right to hire
high tier artists managed by defendant Live Nation with an agreement to continue
Ticketmaster's ticketing services. Now, Ticketmaster's webpage makes the user’s
right to buy tickets with the unrestricted right to use customer data. [n 2010,
Ticketmaster contracts were limited to ticketing services. Now they include a
multitude of bonus features that enable significant revenues not shared with artists
including targeted advertising agreements with Google, Meta, Rokt and others.
End users and ticketing customers can only get access to deeper pages of the
Ticketmaster website if they sign a release for unrestricted use of their ticketing
data. During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in January 2023, defendant
LNE’s divisional president Joe Berchtold admitted that targeting advertising
revenues are not shared with artists.
{In 2003, Ticketmaster, Inc. sued Tickets.com, the ticketing system
ultimately acquired by the Commissioner of Major League Baseball to service the
thirty national baseball teams. The claims included alleged unlawful theft of
customer data, placing spiders on the Ticketmaster website to steal data, trespass to
chattels and copyright infringement. The Central District of California found that
because the Tickets.com spiders were referring all ticket orders back to
Ticketmaster, damages could not be proven as to copyright infringement.
Ticketmaster, Inc. v. Tickets.com, 2003 WL 21406289 (CACD 2003 )( Hupp, J.)
Now the data itself has become a principal asset for targeting advertising contracts.
It should also be noted that in 2021, the US Dept. of Justice sued Ticketmaster
before the EDNY for the same crimes defendant Ticketmaster perpetrated against
Tickets.com. US v. Ticketmaster, 2\-cr- 22, 24 (EDNY 2021)|
4. Both the 2010 DC District Court consent decree and competitive
impact statement set forth the preliminary conditions of merger that defendants
owed to its principal ticketing and venue competitors at that time. Ticket issuer
competitors have since skyrocketed in the market and many have been added as
interested non-parties in this lawsuit. Expressly iterated within the mandates were
certain conditions in favor of AEG (Anschutz) and Comcast including that
Ticketmaster would divest itself of its Host and Paciolan software and make that
software available to these entities so they could “get up to speed”.
5. However another mandate, tucked in between the lines [2010
Competitive Impact Statement pp. 8 line 10] precluded the merged entity from
withholding ticket data from: companies seeking to enter the merged entity's
dominant share of event venues to conduct “non-ticketing” businesses. This
provision, immediately breached, has become a gold mine in the evolving targeting
advertising market.
6. LIVE-Fi® has several “non-ticketing” businesses that are protected by
patents and priority patents pending that are violated by defendants. It should be
noted that the stated right to return to the DC District Court for enforcement of the
2010 mandates and an amended judgmen: pertained only to parties to the original
proceedings.
7. However, unique to LIVE-Fi® is that since 2010, the merged entity
has also been maliciously and willfully using without permission LIVE-Fi®’s
issued electronic ticketing, ticket resale and authenticated event content
management and distribution patents that include apparatus, utility and design
disclosures. US Patents 11403566. D647910S, 7603321. Other interested non-
parties are also using Petitioner’s patents. The relevant disclosures were in fact
suspiciously “taken out of the queue” by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO) Commissioner of Patents Wynn Coggins causing a significant
delay in prosecution at the USPTO well beyond the three-year statutory
prosecution deadlines. See, 35. USCS 154(b)(1)(B); Wreth v. Kappos, 591 F. 3d
1364 (Fed Cir. 2010). Investigation established that the delay was based on conflict
of interest violations by defendant Live Nation and Petitioner's common
practitioners at Cowan Liebowitz & Latman and Hinshaw & Culbertson of New
York City. The attorneys were put under investigation by the USPTO
Commissioner of Patents for seven years based on conflicts of interest admitted to
USPTO officers. The law is unanimous, Ze., if one intellectual property client gets
access to trade secrets or patents through the torts of a law firm both the firm and
the benefited client are liable for damages. Mindy 's Cosmetics v. Dakar, 610 F. 3d
590 □□ Cir. 2010)
8. LIVE-Fi issued patents are considered standard essential patents for
electronic mobile ticketing, ticket resale, content management and user generated
event interaction. The third patent, a continuation, 11403566, should have issued in
2009 but for the conflicts of interest Investigation against defendant LNE’s
attorneys. Defendant Live Nation’s divisional president Stephen Prendergast told
Petitioner that defendants knew of her patents, would continue to use her patents
without permission and she could sue.
9, In many instances, a patent holder that sues an entity pursuant to 35
USC $8271, 284, 285, 286 for infringement, contributory infringement and/or
willful infringement ts often countersued for antitrust violations as an alleged
monopolist. However, in the case at bar, defendant LNE is both a willful infringer
and a monopolist against LIVE-Fi®’s interests, making this case unique.
10. Investigation confirmed that since 2011, defendant LNE embarked on
a plan with five of its law firms to keep LIVE-Fi® out of the relevant US market
altogether. It was in 2010, that LIVE-Fi® filed its first complaint with the US
Dept. of Justice for unfair competition and RICO violations including before the
USPTO, a complaint that was selected for posting by the US Dept. of Justice in
March 2010. Hon(s). Aaron Hoag and Owen Kendler of the Antitrust Division.
11. Starting in or about 2007, defendant Live Nation released false and
misleading press releases to the international market. The releases fraudulently
stated that defendant owned a “monopoly” on distributing live concert recordings.
The releases were blatantly false. They constituted unfair competition and Lanham
Act violations against LIVE-Fi®’s interests. 15 USC $1 et seq. In fact, it was
LIVE-Fi® that owned the relevant apparatus and software patents and defendant
Live Nation owned nothing.
12. What is true is that in 2005, defendant Live Nation acquired a third-
party inventor's recording gadget, Griner US Patent No. 6614729, that only
pertained to certain expedited recording technologies that allowed two recording
functions to operate simultaneously. When the Griner patent issued in 2005, CD
burning was at 52X and the disclosed system was less efficient than the norm. The
issued disclosure therefore had no utility, a requirement for a patent. In 2007, the
Griner patent was invalidated by the USPTO on application of the Electronic
Frontier Foundation. Thereafier, defendant Live Nation spent over 10 years
attempting to revive the patent and was never successful and upon belief engaged
in fraud before the USPTO in that attempt. Upon belief Prendergast left the
company. Important is that the patent never gave defendant a “monopoly” on
distributing live concert recordings as was alleged proving LIVE-Fi®’s treble
unfair competition claims. Nonetheless, the hype allowed defendant LNE to induce
certain veteran artists including Madonna, Jay-Z and Shakira to leave their
respective record labels. In essence, defendant became a live record label and
unfairly and fraudulently competed with LI VE-Fi’s business including by using
its patents without permission.
13. However. this is not the full extent of defendant’s anticompetitive
practices, malicious fraud and bad faith. In 2008, defendant Live Nation hired
New York State court attorneys dually serving at Hinshaw & Culbertson’s NY
office including J. Richard Supple. Defendant LNE’s USPTO trademark lawyers at
Cowan Liebowitz & Latman of NYC also hired Hinshaw and Culbertson and
Supple. By order entered April 21, 2016, Supple was caught red handed by the
Appellate Division First Dept. entering fraudulent and forged documents into state
court files at 41 Madison Avenue that were never ordered served on Petitioner.
i4. In 2008, investigation revealed that defendant Live Nation via Supple
and Baker Botts attorney Steven Schortgen conspired that Supple would enter NYS
files and enter fraudulent and forged documents into those files. At the same time,
Schortgen of Baker Botts filed fraudulent SDNY jurisdictional papers that
defendant Live Nation “had no New York contacts” and could not be compelled to
answer Petitioner’s claims for unfair competition and patent infringement before
the SDNY. AT the same time Supple secured an unlawtul ex parte stay of patent
discovery that was overturned by the Second Circuit in 2012 as abuse of discretion,
462 Fed. Appx. 26. Then it was confirmed that the USPTO investigation against
the other Cowan lawyers had been opened by the Commissioner of Patents.
15. In 2012, it was also confirmed that Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion
papers and infringement complaint had vanished from the SDNY docket.
1202. In 2024, a SDNY clerk Dionisio Figueroa was convicted of taking
bribes for 18 years in exchange for deleting docket entries. Petitioner's
infringement complaint was never allowed reinstatement by Magistrate Henry
Pitman, who is no longer serving on this court. Thereafter no infringement claim
was ever allowed a hearing in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. This matter
is now before the US Supreme Court on a petition for writ of mandamus but has
nothing to do with LIVE-F1i®’s antitrust claims. Docket #24-7441.
lo. In 2025, the smoking gun was discovered. It was revealed that since
2018, for seven years. a NYS OCA attorney Shawn Kerby was writing ex parte
secret letters to the Federal Circuit not to hear Petitioner’s arising under patent
appeals to orders of the SDNY denying infringement hearings. Petitioner was
never served with Kerby’s ex parte profters in violation of ABA Rule 2.9 on
Ex parte Communications.
6
17. Unknown to Petitioner, three arising under patent appeals under the
exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit were transferred back to the
2d Circuit since 2018. The Second Circuit that has no power, authority or
jurisdiction to hear patent appeals to claims that arise under patent statutes.
Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, Cl. 2; Havwood v. Drown, 556 US 729 (2009). 18-
2076; 20-1620, 23-134. The three appeals have since been reinstated to the
dockets pending determination by the US Supreme Court (Docket #24-744 1).
Petitioner's separate appeal to an order of the Central District of California was in
fact properly transferred by the Ninth Circuit to the Federal Circuit. 25-2026. [tis
to be determined if this appeal will also be prejudiced by the crimes of NYS court
officers that included attorneys dually serving at Hinshaw & Culbertson. Kerby’s
fraudulent letters are per se defamatory and unprivileged. They say said that
Gurvey was “disbarred” in New York when Gurvey is not admitted in NYS and
has never been disbarred. The State of New York has no jurisdiction over
Gurvey in the capacity of an attorney. The crimes of defendant LN’s attorneys with
NYS officers of the courts are not protected by immunity. They constitute
wrongful state action and RICO corruption warranting treble damages.
18. In addition, the documents thus far discovered are forgeries. They
affixed the signature of a 2002 NYS attorney grievance committee (AGC) chief
counsel Paul Curran to documents found manufactured by Supple since 2011.
Curran died of cancer in 2007. The Appellate Division First Dept. found in its
order entered April 21, 2016 that Supple as defendant LNE’s attorney and agent
was the manufacturer, making defendant LNE jointly and severally liable for
Petitioner’s damages and RICO ex parte fraud. The forgery crimes warrant
disbarment of the attorneys. US v. Reich, 479 PF. 3d 179 (2d Cir. 2007).
19. These are only some of the monopolistic crimes that continue to be
perpetrated by defendant LNE against the public and its competitors.
20. Further investigation confirmed that former USPTO Commissioner of
Patents Wynn Coggins and the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline
accepted ex parte documents from defendant LNE’s attorneys that were never
ordered served on Petitioner and substantially contributed the delay of issuance and
enforcement of Petitioner's patents. ABA Rule 2.9 on Ex parte Communications.
Petitioner has moved for both a patent term adjustment and extension of patent
term on issued and pending patents and an investigation as to defendant LNE’s role
in delaying issuance of her patents before the USPTO.
21. Unauthorized use of Petitioner's patents and delayed patents pending
continues by defendant L.NE and by other interested non-parties parties added to
this lawsuit.
22. SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products,
Ct. 954 (2017) entitles Petitioner to recover six years of relate-back
infringement damages and damages against defendant LNE from the date of any
filed infringement complaint. The first infringement complaint was filed before
this Court in 2010 after the merger mandates were so ordered and the complaint
was “somehow” unilaterally deleted by crimes from the SDNY docket.
23. Petitioner’s continuation patent that issued on August 2, 2022 (Gurvey
US Patent No. 11403566) was anticipated in the original operative complaint filed
in 2010. It was required to be given a hearing in 2023 by this Court against
defendant LNE as a named defendant. Anza Technology v. Mushkin, 934 F. 3d
1359 (Fed Cir. 2019). The complaint was not given hearing, and in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the motion papers were returned. The patents remain in
term and fully enforceable.
24. The name “Amy Rebecca Gurvey” has been improperly added to the
service list as amy@gurvey.name. This is not the correct email for Petitioner. The
correct email is amyg@live-fi.com.
25. FRCP Rule 19 provides as follows:
“(1) Required Party. A person who is subject to service of process and
whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction must be
joined as a party 1f:
(A) In that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among
existing parties: or
(B) That person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and 1s
so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may:
(i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to
protect the interest; or
(ii)leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring
double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of
the interest.
(2) Joinder by Court Order. Ifa person has not been joined as required, the
court must order that the person be made a party...”
LIVE:-Fi® therefore claims that it must be joined as a party to this action.
WHEREFORE, based on the above authorities, LIVE-Fi® Technology
Holdings prays that it be joined as a party plaintiff in this lawsuit either by order
granting mandatory or permissive joinder, that California attorney Amy Weissbrod
Gurvey be granted pro hac vice status to appear for LIVE-Fi® for all purposes in
this lawsuit, and that the ministerial docket error entered by default listing LIVE-
Fi® as an ADR provider be vacated. /
August 1, 2025 Yours et if
Princeton, NJ [ ) _
( phe
IED for the reasons stated in the letters filed AMY R. WEISSBROD GURVEY
by both plaintiff and defendants at — Pro Hac Vice California attorney
Nos. 632 and 633. If LIVE-Fi wishes to file “ LIVE-Fi® Technology Holdings, LLC
against the defendants, it may do so, if amyo@live-fi.com
Princeton, NJ 08540
of Court is respectfully directed to PH 917-733-9981
the motion at ECF No. 622.
Subramanian, U.S.D.J.
22, 2025