According to the opinion, Amy R. Weissbrod Gurvey, who represented herself on appeal, "purports to own several U.S. patents" that generally describe a ticketing and sports betting management system and, since at least 2006, 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 (Op. 2-3). On June 2, 2023, she filed a complaint in the Central District of California, No. 2:23-cv-04381-MEMF-E, before Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, asserting numerous causes of action (Op. 1, 3). The appellees include Live Nation Entertainment, Ticketmaster, Major League Baseball, MLB Advanced Media, Phish Inc./Live Phish, and the law firms Hinshaw & Culbertson, Baker Botts, and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, and Hampton (Op. 1).

What happened in the district court

The court's standing order required oppositions within 14 days of a motion. Ms. Gurvey did not file timely oppositions, and the court extended her deadline for most motions to February 2, 2024. She still filed no oppositions (Op. 3). On September 27, 2024, the court granted the motions to dismiss as to all appellees except Baker Botts. On March 13, 2025, it denied her motion for reconsideration and granted Baker Botts' motion, finding the claims against Baker Botts barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (Op. 3).

What the court held

A panel of Circuit Judges Stoll, Cunningham, and Stark, writing per curiam in Gurvey v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., No. 2025-1954 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2026) (nonprecedential), rejected her argument that the district court dismissed her complaint "sua sponte." The court said the district court "simply granted unopposed motions to dismiss pursuant to the district's Local Rules after giving Ms. Gurvey repeated chances to cure her failure" (Op. 4).

Citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the court held that the substantive issues she raised for the first time on appeal were not preserved and that she "waived all arguments." It noted that she describes herself as a California attorney in good standing and said her failure to respond "cannot be attributed to an oversight by an inexperienced pro se litigant" (Op. 4). She also did not challenge the Noerr-Pennington ruling for Baker Botts, so that issue was waived as well (Op. 4 n.1). The court affirmed (Op. 5).