Ameranth v. Ticketfly — Federal Circuit Appeal, Case 22-1690
Ameranth, Inc. appealed against Ticketfly, Inc. asserting three patents covering information management and synchronous communications systems with menu generation. The Federal Circuit docket records an AFFIRMED verdict, yet the recorded Basis of Termination is Appeal Dismissed. The appeal ran 512 days before closing.
Ameranth's three-patent Federal Circuit appeal against Ticketfly
Ameranth, Inc. filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 18 April 2022, challenging a lower-court outcome in an infringement action against Ticketfly, Inc. The three patents at issue — US8146077B2, US6871325B1, and US6384850B1 — all relate to information management and synchronous communications systems with menu generation, a technology domain Ameranth has pursued assertively across multiple proceedings. Ticketfly was represented by DLA Piper US LLP; Ameranth by Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.
The appeal closed on 12 September 2023 after 512 days. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'; the docket order states 'THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED.' These two characterisations are reported as-is from the available record — the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record and the reader should reconcile them independently.
A 512-day Federal Circuit appeal timeline is consistent with a fully-briefed merits appeal. What drove the precise procedural posture at close — including whether any collateral proceedings, jurisdictional questions, or party stipulations contributed — is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 512 days
512 days — duration of the Federal Circuit appeal from filing to close
US8146077B2, US6871325B1 & US6384850B1 — menu-generation & synchronous communications
Any company developing or deploying information management platforms, menu-generation systems, synchronous communications tools, or event and hospitality software should assess freedom-to-operate against Ameranth's patent family. The claims span both the core system architecture and specific input modalities (handwriting, voice), meaning even incremental product updates in these categories can intersect with asserted claim language.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order states 'AFFIRMED', indicating the Federal Circuit panel found no reversible error in the proceedings below — the standard applied is whether the lower court committed a legal error warranting correction. The recorded Basis of Termination, however, is 'Appeal Dismissed'. Both characterisations are drawn directly from the available record; the specific terms are not disclosed, and the two descriptions should be read as reported rather than reconciled.
Federal Circuit ruling: what the appeal outcome means for both parties
AFFIRMED at the Federal Circuit: lower decision stands
The docket order states AFFIRMED, meaning the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the decision below — the lower court's ruling on Ameranth's infringement claims is upheld. Note: the recorded Basis of Termination is 'Appeal Dismissed', which presents a distinct characterisation. Both are reported from the available record; the specific terms are not disclosed and readers should reconcile them independently.
No reversible error foundAmeranth's appeal does not advance its infringement claims
An affirmance at the Federal Circuit level means Ameranth, as appellant, did not succeed in overturning the lower-court outcome. Further appellate options at this level are exhausted. Any path forward — such as en banc rehearing or certiorari — would require additional procedural steps not evidenced in the available record.
Appellant's challenge unsuccessfulTicketfly's position from the court below is maintained
As appellee, Ticketfly benefits from the affirmance: the lower-court outcome in its favour is confirmed by the Federal Circuit. The three Ameranth patents asserted against Ticketfly do not, on the basis of this appeal record, support a finding of infringement liability at this stage. The specific terms of any underlying district court judgment are not disclosed in the available record.
Appellee's position upheldFederal Circuit affirmance raises the bar for future Ameranth enforcement
A Federal Circuit affirmance of an adverse ruling strengthens the precedent against the asserted claims in this context and signals heightened risk for patent holders pursuing similar enforcement strategies in the information management and menu-generation technology space. Companies operating in adjacent ticketing and hospitality technology sectors should monitor Ameranth's remaining portfolio activity.
Enforcement signal for the sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ameranth, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ticketfly, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard C. Weinblatt | Attorney | Counsel for Ameranth, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | Law Firm | Representing Ameranth, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Ticketfly, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ticketfly, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the hospitality-tech & menu-generation IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Ameranth's portfolio and the technology landscape around synchronous communications and menu-generation systems.
Ameranth's ongoing assertion activity across its menu-tech family
Ameranth has pursued enforcement across multiple defendants using patents anchored to early 1999–2001 priority dates. Tracking citations, continuations, and inter partes review activity across the US8146077, US6871325, and US6384850 families reveals the current enforceability perimeter and which claims have survived challenge — critical intelligence for any FTO or design-around effort.
Portfolio enforcement mappingFiling trends in synchronous communications and menu-generation systems
The menu-generation and synchronous-order-management space has seen increasing filing activity from hospitality SaaS players, POS vendors, and event-technology platforms. Understanding who is filing in adjacent claim spaces — and where white space exists relative to Ameranth's priority dates — can guide both design-around strategies and new product development.
Filing trend analysisTicketfly and Eventbrite: patent positioning in event-tech platforms
Ticketfly's IP posture in the event and venue management software space — including any patents it holds or has licensed in information management and communications — is relevant context for competitors and acquirers. Mapping Ticketfly's own filing activity reveals how defensively or offensively it is positioned relative to platform incumbents.
Defendant IP positioningInnovation gaps adjacent to Ameranth's claimed architectures
Ameranth's claims focus on synchronous menu generation and multi-modal order modification. Adjacent areas — such as AI-driven dynamic menu personalisation, real-time inventory-linked menu updates, or voice-native order management integrated with cloud POS — may represent white space beyond the scope of the asserted claims, offering filing opportunities for R&D teams in the hospitality and event-tech sectors.
Adjacent white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit infringement appeals in hospitality and menu-tech
Explore related Federal Circuit appeals involving software patent infringement claims in the information management, menu-generation, and hospitality-technology sector.
What this case signals for the hospitality-tech IP landscape
Three Ameranth patents reach the Federal Circuit — the outcome carries enforcement and portfolio intelligence implications for the broader sector.
Ameranth's multi-patent strategy signals broad assertion risk in menu-tech
Asserting three related patents covering information management and menu generation in a single action is consistent with a portfolio-enforcement strategy. Companies developing synchronous communications or menu-generation systems should map their products against Ameranth's remaining active claims.
Federal Circuit involvement raises validity and claim scope stakes
Appeals to the Federal Circuit on infringement actions involving software-implemented systems frequently turn on claim construction and patent eligibility. The outcome here — however characterised — confirms this family reached the highest patent-specialised appellate level, making it a useful benchmark for FTO analysis.
Ameranth v Ticketfly — key questions answered
Ameranth, Inc. v. Ticketfly, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 22-1690) is a Federal Circuit appeal arising from a patent infringement action. Ameranth asserted three patents — US8146077B2, US6871325B1, and US6384850B1 — covering information management and synchronous communications systems with menu generation against Ticketfly. The appeal was filed 18 April 2022 and closed 12 September 2023 after 512 days.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'. The docket order states 'AFFIRMED'. Both characterisations are drawn directly from the available record. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record, and these two descriptions should be read as reported independently rather than reconciled.
Ameranth asserted three patents: US8146077B2 (app. US11/112990), US6871325B1 (app. US10/015729), and US6384850B1 (app. US09/400413). All three cover information management and synchronous communications systems with menu generation; US6384850B1 additionally covers handwriting and voice modification of orders.
An 'Appeal Dismissed' basis of termination at the Federal Circuit level typically signals that the appeal was terminated without a full merits adjudication surviving on the record, or that a procedural disposition ended the case. In this case, the docket order separately records 'AFFIRMED'. The specific terms reconciling these two characterisations are not disclosed in the available public record.
Ameranth's three asserted patents carry early priority dates (1999–2001) and claim broad architectures covering synchronous communications, menu generation, and multi-modal order input. The Federal Circuit appeal record confirms this family has been litigated to the highest patent-specialised appellate level. Companies deploying similar systems should conduct an FTO analysis against this family, including any continuations or divisionals not directly at issue in this case.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.