Neal v. Sports Stats Iq LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Eddie Neal, and Joel Borgella as an interested party (Florida)
  • Defendant: Sports Stats IQ LLC, and Sylvester Butler (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: RL Drolet Patent Prosecution Services PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-21947, S.D. Fla., 01/13/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the parties residing within the district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim, including business activities and communications concerning the alleged omission of inventors, occurring in Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 10,143,908 is invalid and/or unenforceable for incorrectly naming a sole inventor and omitting true co-inventors, or alternatively, an order correcting the patent’s inventorship.
• Technical Context: The patent relates to computer-implemented methods for tracking and scoring sporting events, particularly by quantifying the performance of defensive squads using novel metrics.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of a prior application that correctly listed Plaintiff Eddie Neal as the first inventor. The dispute arises from the filing of the continuation application, which allegedly incorporated contributions from Neal and Joel Borgella but named Sylvester Butler as the sole inventor without their knowledge or consent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-06-04	Priority Date (Parent Application '388 Filed)
2015-12-31	Alleged teleconference where co-inventorship contributions were discussed (approx.)
2016-12-29	Alleged co-inventor Borgella emails graphic (later FIG. 5) to named inventor Butler
2018-02-01	Application for '908 Patent Filed
2018-12-04	'908 Patent Issued
2026-01-13	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,143,908 - *Single Squad Matchup Prediction Pool*

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Traditional scoring in sports like American football primarily credits the offensive squad for acquiring points, failing to materially account for the contributions of the defensive squad to the team's overall performance ('908 Patent, col. 1:29-35). This can lead to an incomplete assessment of a team's skill and can increase the effects of "luck or randomness" on a game's outcome ('908 Patent, col. 2:59-62).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a computer-based method and system for tracking and scoring sports performance that assigns predetermined numerical values to specific defensive actions, termed "formerly non-scoring forced possession changes" ('908 Patent, col. 20:25-35, Claim 4). These defensive scores are then integrated with traditional offensive scores, creating a more comprehensive performance metric ('908 Patent, Fig. 1). The system is also designed for use in prediction pools and fantasy sports, allowing users to make predictions based on these enhanced defensive and offensive statistics ('908 Patent, col. 4:1-10).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to create a more nuanced and empirical way to evaluate team and player performance, particularly in sports analytics and fantasy gaming, by quantifying defensive achievements that are traditionally not assigned direct point values ('908 Patent, col. 2:11-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on alleged contributions to independent claims 1, 4, and 5 (Compl. ¶42).
• Independent Claim 1: A computer-based method for quantifying a game-player's prediction skills, comprising steps of:
  • Observing a first team in a defensive role for a "formerly non-scoring forced possession change."
  • Assigning a predetermined numerical value to that event.
  • Recording the value and adding it to a sum.
  • Repeating the process for a second game involving a third and fourth team.
  • Comparing a game-player's numerical prediction of these totals to the actual totals to derive an "IQ" score.
• Independent Claim 4: A computer-based method for single squad team fantasy matchup pools, comprising steps of:
  • A game-player making a prediction of "formerly non-scoring forced possession changes where a defense prevents an offense from scoring."
  • The prediction being adjusted by various factors (e.g., win/loss accuracy, score prediction accuracy).
  • Tabulating and comparing an adjusted score to other game-players to determine a winner.
• Independent Claim 5: A process utilizing single squad matchup prediction pools, comprising:
  • Using "formerly non-scoring forced possession changes" and other stats for predictions.
  • Comparing outcomes to other squads/teams.
  • Allowing a "stat knowledge IQ difference" for players to control participation outcomes.
  • Capturing both offensive and defensive scores based on a fan's prediction, not the actual game results.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but focuses its allegations on the core concepts within the independent claims.

III. Analysis of Inventorship Dispute and Invalidity Allegations

The complaint does not allege infringement but instead seeks a declaratory judgment of invalidity and/or unenforceability based on improper inventorship of the ’908 Patent. The central allegation is that Defendant Butler, the sole named inventor, worked with Defendant Van Dam (the prosecuting attorney) to file a continuation-in-part application that omitted Plaintiffs Neal and Borgella as co-inventors despite allegedly including their inventive contributions (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 57, 66).

The complaint alleges that Neal and Borgella conceived of and contributed specific, substantive material that was incorporated into the independent claims (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 42, 73). Key alleged contributions include:

• Conceptual Framework and Terminology: The complaint asserts that Neal and Borgella conceived, developed, and provided "central claim language elements" and "coined terms used in the claims," along with their definitions and technical substance, for the specification (Compl. ¶¶ 34, 41).
• Specific Claim Elements: The complaint specifically points to sub-element D of independent claim 4, which recites a game-player making a "prediction of formerly non-scoring forced possession changes where a defense prevents an offense from scoring," as containing substantive and non-trivial material conceived by Neal and Borgella (Compl. ¶¶ 72-73).
• Illustrative Figures: The complaint alleges that FIG. 5 of the '908 Patent, which illustrates the "Enhanced Score Game Logic," was conceived, developed, and provided by Neal and Borgella (Compl. ¶¶ 35-36). A graphic alleged to be identical to FIG. 5 was purportedly emailed by Borgella to Butler on December 29, 2016, and subsequently "copied and pasted directly into the ‘908 patent application" (Compl. ¶¶ 37-39). The complaint provides an image from the patent publication, described as FIG. 5, which depicts a table correlating an "Accuracy Rate In Enhanced Game Play" with a "Weighted Value Formula" for calculating game scores (Compl. ¶35, Exhibit J).

These allegations form the basis for the plaintiffs' claims that they are true co-inventors under 35 U.S.C. §116 and that their omission was intentional and deceptive, potentially rendering the patent invalid or unenforceable (Compl. ¶¶ 92-93).

IV. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While this is not an infringement action, the definition of certain terms may be central to determining whether the alleged contributions of Neal and Borgella were significant enough to qualify them as co-inventors.

• The Term: "formerly non-scoring forced possession change"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in all independent claims and represents the core concept of assigning a score to a defensive action that traditionally does not generate points. The inventorship dispute may hinge on who first conceived of this specific method of quantifying defensive performance and the specific events that fall under this definition (e.g., a forced punt, a turnover on downs). Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint identifies the "prediction aspect of this sub element" as a "substantive and specific contribution to claim 4" by Neal and Borgella (Compl. ¶73).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 4 itself provides a broad, non-limiting list of examples, including "a turnover, a fumble recovery, an interception, a forced quarterback turnover sack, forcing a punt, a safety, a touchback, a fourth down non-conversion" ('908 Patent, col. 26:15-22). This suggests the term is meant to be an open-ended category.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the concept in the context of an "offensive role fail[ing] to produce points from a possession change," which could be argued to limit the term to situations where an offense had a clear scoring opportunity that was thwarted by the defense ('908 Patent, col. 18:20-22). The definition in claim 1, "the first scoring event is only a formerly non-scoring forced possession change," could also be used to argue for a more constrained reading ('908 Patent, col. 25:15-17).

V. Other Allegations

The complaint pleads two primary counts in the alternative.

• Correction of Inventorship (35 U.S.C. §256): As an initial claim, the complaint asks the court to correct the inventorship of the ’908 Patent to add Eddie Neal and Joel Borgella as co-inventors (Compl. ¶¶ 81-91). This claim is based on the allegation that they made "significant and original contributions" to the conception of at least one claim and were omitted without their consent (Compl. ¶¶ 88-89). This remedy presumes the omission was not made with deceptive intent.
• Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and Unenforceability (28 U.S.C. §2201): Pleaded in the alternative, the complaint seeks a judgment that the ’908 Patent is invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct (Compl. ¶¶ 92-98). The basis for this claim is the allegation that Defendant Butler, with knowledge of Neal's and Borgella's contributions, intentionally misrepresented material information to the USPTO by submitting an inventor's oath claiming he was the sole inventor "with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO" (Compl. ¶¶ 93-94). This alleged violation of the duty of candor, if proven, could render the entire patent unenforceable.

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case appears to be a dispute over ownership and recognition rather than a typical infringement conflict. The outcome will likely depend on the court’s resolution of two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of inventive contribution: What is the legal threshold for conception, and do the alleged contributions of Neal and Borgella—providing specific claim language, developing the logic for FIG. 5, and conceiving of the predictive aspects of defensive scoring—rise to the level of joint inventorship for at least one claim of the ’908 Patent?
2. A second critical question will be one of deceptive intent: If Neal and Borgella are found to be co-inventors, was their omission from the patent application an inadvertent error correctable under §256, or was it an intentional and material misrepresentation to the USPTO made with the specific intent to deceive, which could render the patent wholly invalid and unenforceable for inequitable conduct?