PTAB

IPR2025-00251

Genius Sports Ltd v. SportsCastr Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Synchronized Transmission of Live Video and Event Data
  • Brief Description: The ’088 patent discloses a server architecture for distributing a live video feed of an event (e.g., sports) and a separate, synchronized data feed (e.g., scores, statistics) to multiple client devices. The system uses distinct communication channels for video and data to mitigate latency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, and Abulikemu - Claims 1-7 and 24-34 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey, with Abulikemu added for claims 2, 3, and 24-34.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellis (Application # 2014/0229992), Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910), and Abulikemu (Application # 2018/0367820).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ellis discloses the core system of the ’088 patent: providing a primary video feed and separate, supplemental real-time data feeds (e.g., scores, game summaries) for a sporting event to user equipment over distinct communication paths. However, Ellis does not explicitly teach using a socket server to deliver the supplemental data. Spivey remedies this by teaching a low-latency data delivery system using a websocket server (its Message Queue Server Device, or MQSD) to push real-time event data to client devices. For claims requiring a composite video stream, Abulikemu teaches a system that incorporates user-generated content (e.g., video commentary) with a primary broadcast feed into a composite outgoing stream.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ellis with Spivey to solve the known problem of latency in real-time data delivery. Implementing Ellis’s supplemental data feed with Spivey’s well-known, low-latency websocket server architecture would have been an obvious improvement to achieve more efficient and timely data transmission. A POSITA would further combine Abulikemu to add composite streaming functionality to the Ellis/Spivey system, a known technique to enhance user engagement and provide a more interactive viewing experience, which is a stated goal of Ellis.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references. Integrating Spivey's websocket server into Ellis's architecture was a straightforward substitution of one data delivery mechanism for a known, more efficient alternative to achieve the predictable result of reduced latency.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Herzog, Spivey, and Abulikemu - Claims 1-7 and 24-34 are obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey, with Abulikemu added for claims 2, 3, and 24-34.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herzog (Application # 2015/0163379), Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910), and Abulikemu (Application # 2018/0367820).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Herzog discloses a system for streaming multiple live video feeds and separate, time-synchronized metadata (e.g., telemetry from a car race) to mobile devices over different communication paths. Herzog's system uses HTTP polling to deliver metadata. Spivey discloses a websocket-based server architecture as a superior, low-latency alternative to HTTP polling for delivering real-time data. As in Ground 1, Abulikemu teaches generating a composite video stream by combining a main feed with user-generated video.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to improve the performance of Herzog’s system would have been motivated to replace its HTTP polling mechanism with Spivey’s websocket server. WebSocket was a well-known and technically superior alternative for real-time applications, offering lower latency and more efficient communication. This modification would be a predictable optimization. The motivation to add Abulikemu’s teachings is the same as in Ground 1: to enhance user engagement by allowing for composite streams, a known technique applied to a system already capable of handling multiple streams.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have expected success because Spivey's system is described as being compatible with any well-known communication protocol and was a complementary solution for improving data delivery in a system like Herzog's. The integration would predictably result in a more responsive system without requiring undue experimentation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under Fintiv, stating it has stipulated to the Patent Owner that it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel district court litigation if the IPR is instituted. Petitioner also contended the petition presents compelling arguments for unpatentability and was filed diligently after the ’088 patent was recently added to the litigation.
  • §325(d) Factors: Petitioner asserted that denial under §325(d) would be improper. The primary references of Herzog, Spivey, and Abulikemu are new and were not before the Examiner during prosecution. While a related application to Ellis was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement, Petitioner argued the Examiner did not substantively consider or apply it in any rejection. Therefore, the Examiner committed a material error by failing to consider the art in the combinations presented in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 24-34 of the ’088 patent as unpatentable.