DCT
2:23-cv-00472
SportsCastr Inc v. Sportradar Group AG
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) (Delaware)
- Defendant: Sportradar Group, AG and Sportradar AG (Switzerland)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: King & Spalding LLP
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00472, E.D. Tex., 03/08/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts that venue is proper because Defendants are foreign entities and have committed acts of infringement in the district, purposefully directing activities toward Texas through U.S. subsidiaries, partnerships with U.S. sports leagues, and recruitment of Texas-based employees.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sports data and video streaming products infringe four patents related to systems and methods for delivering live video streams enhanced with synchronized, low-latency, and interactive data overlays.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of synchronizing live video with interactive data, such as betting odds, a critical function in the growing online sports streaming and betting industries.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendants filed a competing declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware. Plaintiff also alleges providing pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendants via letters regarding the asserted patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016-08-05 | Priority Date for ’687, ’218, and ’697 Patents |
| 2017-05-16 | Priority Date for ’088 Patent |
| 2019-09-24 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,425,697 |
| 2020-10-13 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687 |
| 2021-01-01 | Accused Product (Sportradar emBET) Launch Date (approx.) |
| 2021-06-15 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 |
| 2024-01-09 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088 |
| 2024-03-08 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687 - "Systems, apparatus, and methods for scalable low-latency viewing of broadcast digital content streams of live events, and synchronization of event information with viewed streams, via multiple internet channels"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687, “Systems, apparatus, and methods for scalable low-latency viewing of broadcast digital content streams of live events, and synchronization of event information with viewed streams, via multiple internet channels,” issued October 13, 2020.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the shortcomings of conventional video streaming, such as high latency (delay) and the difficulty of synchronizing contextual information (e.g., game stats) with the video feed across numerous viewers who may have different network conditions (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7). Prior art systems that hard-embedded data into the video stream itself increased processing delays and created licensing challenges (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a novel system architecture that separates the delivery of video content from the delivery of event information (Compl. ¶13). Video is sent via a first channel, while event information is sent via a second, separate channel originating from a socket server. The system employs a "one-to-many" socket architecture where multiple viewers of a single event connect to the same dedicated event socket, which allows for the synchronous, real-time sharing of event information that is then integrated with the video on the viewer's device (’697 Patent, col. 4:25-44; Compl. ¶¶ 11, 53).
- Technical Importance: This architectural separation improves computer network functionality by enabling scalable, low-latency, and synchronized interactive experiences for a large number of viewers, a key requirement for the emerging sports betting market (Compl. ¶63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 19 (Compl. ¶70).
- Claim 19 recites a system for providing multiple live streams for multiple sporting events, comprising these essential elements:
- A plurality of media sources configured to receive and provide the live streams to viewer client devices over first and second Internet communication channels.
- A control server configured to periodically retrieve first and second event information for the sporting events.
- At least one socket server, coupled to the control server, configured to receive the event information and transmit it to the viewer client devices over third and fourth Internet communication channels, which are separate from the video channels.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claim 20 (Compl. ¶72).
U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 - "Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218, “Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information,” issued June 15, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional sports broadcasts hard-embed informational graphics like scorebugs and betting stats directly into the video stream (Compl. ¶61). This approach is inflexible, prevents customization, and can create licensing issues for rights holders if the video feed is modified (’218 Patent, col. 28:59-65).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where graphics and effects are generated on the client device itself, separate from the video stream. A webserver provides the client device with two addresses: one for a media source to establish a video channel, and a second for a socket server to establish an event information channel (’218 Patent, col. 40:4-19; Compl. ¶108). The client device then receives the separate streams and integrates or overlays the event information (e.g., online gaming information) onto the video when it is rendered on the display (Compl. ¶62).
- Technical Importance: This client-side rendering approach allows for the delivery of unmodified video streams while enabling dynamic, user-interactive, and actionable overlays, such as clickable betting odds (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶107).
- Claim 1 recites a system for controlling viewer devices to receive digital content and event information (including online gaming information), comprising:
- A control server to periodically retrieve the event information.
- At least one socket server to receive event information from the control server and transmit it to a viewer client device.
- At least one webserver communicatively coupled to the socket server to transmit two separate addresses to the viewer client device: a first Internet address for a media source (for video) and a first socket address for an event socket (for online gaming information).
- The complaint also asserts dependent claim 4 (Compl. ¶109).
U.S. Patent No. 10,425,697 - "Systems, apparatus, and methods for scalable low-latency viewing of broadcast digital content streams of live events, and synchronization of event information with viewed streams, via multiple internet channels"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,425,697, “Systems, apparatus, and methods for scalable low-latency viewing of broadcast digital content streams of live events, and synchronization of event information with viewed streams, via multiple internet channels,” issued September 24, 2019 (Compl. ¶48).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenge of providing synchronized, low-latency event information (like scores) and video commentary from multiple broadcasters to numerous viewers for the same live event. It discloses a system using separate channels for video and event information, with a one-to-many socket architecture ensuring all viewers receive synchronized data updates from a central source (Compl. ¶¶ 53, 56, 143).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 19 is asserted (Compl. ¶141).
- Accused Features: The emBET system's architecture, which allegedly uses separate broadcaster media sources for video and a control/socket server architecture to distribute synchronized game-related data (like scores and odds) for display as an interactive overlay (Compl. ¶¶ 143-144, 154, 161).
U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088 - "Systems, apparatus, and methods for providing event video streams and synchronized event information via multiple internet channels"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088, “Systems, apparatus, and methods for providing event video streams and synchronized event information via multiple internet channels,” issued January 9, 2024 (Compl. ¶49).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system where a webserver sends instructions to client devices to connect to two separate channels: one to a media server for an audio/video feed of a live event, and another to a socket server for corresponding digital event information. This architecture is designed to enable rendering of user-interactive features (e.g., betting overlays) and to mitigate latency between multiple client devices viewing the same event (Compl. ¶¶ 192, 224).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶192).
- Accused Features: The emBET system, which is alleged to use a webserver to instruct client devices to connect separately to a video feed and a data feed (via a socket server like PubNub) to enable synchronized, interactive overlays with betting information (Compl. ¶¶ 199, 205, 212).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- Sportradar emBet, Sportradar OTT, and Sportradar Live Channel Trading (LCT) (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 65).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are video streaming platforms that integrate live betting information with real-time broadcasts for the sports media and betting industries (Compl. ¶¶ 65-68). The complaint alleges the emBET product, for example, is a software development kit (SDK) or platform that "plugs into existing Sportradar feeds" and synchronizes video and data feeds, which are then converted into "graphical overlays" on a viewer's device (Compl. ¶194). A visual from a product brochure shows the emBET product overlaying interactive betting odds and other statistics onto a live video stream displayed on a client device (Compl. p. 28). The complaint alleges these products allow users to "seamlessly place a bet on the game they are watching while the action is taking place" (Compl. ¶66).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A) a plurality of media sources to: receive the first live stream of digital content and the second live stream of digital content | Sportradar maintains a large portfolio of video streams to power its products, and its emBET product manages these streams via an "Event Manager" that lists events loaded from Sportradar's Sports Data Service feed. | ¶¶74-75 | col. 5:3-7 |
| B) a control server to periodically retrieve, via the Internet, first event information...and second event information | The emBET software allegedly establishes "listeners," which are blocks of code that react to messages sent from a control server to receive and process event information. | ¶78 | col. 5:46-52 |
| C) at least one socket server communicatively coupled to the control server to...transmit the at least some of the first event information to the first viewer client device...via a third Internet communication channel | The Accused Products are alleged to use PubNub, a socket communication service, to transmit event data such as "live odds, insights, and stats" for overlays. Source code allegedly shows clients connect to a specific "channel" (socket) to receive this data. | ¶¶80, 83-84 | col. 5:53-56 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that Sportradar's use of a third-party service, PubNub, satisfies the "socket server" limitation (Compl. ¶83). A potential point of contention is whether a distributed, third-party Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) can be considered "at least one socket server communicatively coupled to the control server" as claimed, or if the claim requires a more integrated, discrete server architecture.
- Technical Questions: Claim 19 requires a "control server to periodically retrieve" information. The complaint's supporting evidence describes software "listeners" that "react to messages sent from the control server" (Compl. ¶78). This raises the question of whether the system's operation is a "pull" (retrieve) as claimed, or a "push" (receive) model, which may not align with the claim language.
U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A) a control server to periodically retrieve, via the Internet, the first event information germane to the first sporting event | The complaint points to source code for the Accused Products that allegedly shows "listeners" and an "event dispatch system" used to receive and display live items like scores and online gaming information based on controlling instructions. | ¶112 | col. 39:53-56 |
| B) at least one socket server...to transmit at least some of the first event information, including the online gaming information, to at least a first viewer client device...via a first event information Internet communication channel | The emBET product allegedly uses a Content Management tool to control game-related data overlays, including betting data. Source code is alleged to confirm that clients connect to an "event socket" to receive this information. A code snippet shows an "eventDispatcher" function that processes a "program-status-updated" message (Compl. p. 50). | ¶¶113-114 | col. 40:4-14 |
| C) at least one webserver...to transmit, to the first viewer client device: a first Internet address of a first media source...and a first socket address of the first event socket | The emBET product is described as having two components, an SDK and a Platform, both of which overlay a data feed onto a video feed. This functionality is alleged to require that video and data feeds be provided to the client on different communication channels, which are then synchronized. | ¶¶116-117 | col. 40:15-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claim requires "at least one webserver" to transmit both a media source address and a socket address. A potential issue is whether the Accused Products' architecture, which may involve multiple servers and services in a complex backend, performs this specific dual-transmission function from a single logical "webserver" as contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Accused Products use a webserver to transmit two distinct addresses (one for video, one for the socket)? The complaint alleges this is a necessary technical feature for the product to function as described (Compl. ¶116), but the direct evidence cited for this element relates to general product descriptions rather than specific architectural details of address transmission.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "socket server"
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the claimed architecture. The infringement theory depends on mapping this term to third-party services like PubNub (Compl. ¶83). The viability of the infringement case may turn on whether such a distributed, third-party service meets the definition of a "socket server" as understood in the context of the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the socket server as facilitating communication of event and chat information, allowing multiple client devices to connect to dedicated sockets for a given live stream or event (’697 Patent, col. 20:1-10). This functional language may support an interpretation that is not limited to a specific physical implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figures in the patent family depict the "Socket Server(s)" as a discrete architectural block within the plaintiff's overall system, distinct from external providers (’697 Patent, Fig. 2). This could support an argument that the term refers to a component within the patented system's control, not a contracted third-party service.
The Term: "control server to periodically retrieve...event information"
- Context and Importance: The claim language specifies an active, periodic "retrieval" of data. The complaint's infringement theory, however, is supported by evidence of software "listeners" that "react" to incoming messages (Compl. ¶78), which could be interpreted as a passive "push" model. The definition of "retrieve" will be critical in determining whether this element is met.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's overall objective is to ensure low-latency synchronization of event data (’697 Patent, col. 4:25-44). An argument could be made that "retrieve" should be construed broadly to mean "obtain," with the specific "pull" vs. "push" mechanism being an implementation detail not critical to the invention.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain and ordinary meaning of "retrieve" implies an active fetching of information initiated by the control server. A defendant may argue that a system based on passively "listening" for and "reacting" to pushed data from an external source does not perform a "retrieval" action as claimed.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing the Accused Products along with advertising, technical support, and instructions that encourage customers to use the products in their intended, infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 92-94, 125-127).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents since at least the filing of the initial complaint, as well as affirmative pre-suit notice letters sent in 2023. It also alleges general communications between the parties' executives dating back to 2018 (Compl. ¶¶ 89, 103, 136, 173, 254).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of architectural equivalence: can the system architecture described in the patents, which depicts discrete "control server" and "socket server" components, be construed to read on the accused system's alleged use of third-party, cloud-based services like PubNub for socket communications?
- A key question of claim construction will be definitional scope: does the claim term "retrieve," which implies an active data pull, cover the accused system's alleged operation, described in the complaint using "listeners" that "react" to pushed data messages?
- A primary evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate that the specific commercial versions of Sportradar emBet, OTT, and LCT fully implement the architecture and data-flow models described in the publicly available source code and marketing materials cited throughout the complaint?