PTAB

IPR2025-00252

Genius Sports Ltd v. SportsCastr Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Transmitting Real-Time Video and Data Feeds
  • Brief Description: The ’088 patent discloses a server architecture for distributing a live video feed (e.g., a sporting event) and a separate, synchronized data feed (e.g., scores, commentary) to multiple user devices over distinct communication channels. The system is designed to reduce latency and allows for displaying the data as an interactive overlay on the video.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Obviousness over Ellis in view of Spivey - Claims 8, 11, and 12 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellis (Application # 2014/0229992) and Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Ellis disclosed the fundamental system of the ’088 patent: delivering a primary video stream (from a "content source") and a separate, real-time supplemental data stream (from a "supplemental content source") related to a live sporting event to user devices. However, Ellis did not explicitly disclose using a socket server for the data delivery. Spivey remedied this deficiency by teaching a low-latency data delivery system using a control server (LDSD) and a websocket-based "Message Queue Server Device" (MQSD), which functions as the claimed socket server, to push real-time event data to clients with minimal delay (e.g., under 100ms).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Ellis and Spivey to improve the performance of Ellis’s system. Both references address the same technical problem of delivering real-time event data to multiple users quickly. A POSA would have been motivated to replace Ellis's generic data delivery mechanism with Spivey’s specific, high-performance socket server architecture to predictably reduce latency and leverage the benefits of efficient, full-duplex websocket communications.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because implementing Spivey's server components into Ellis’s system represented a simple substitution of known elements to achieve a predictable result. The systems were compatible, as both operate over the internet to deliver live event data.

Ground 1B: Obviousness over Ellis in view of Spivey and Abulikemu - Claims 9, 10, and 13-23 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey and Abulikemu.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellis, Spivey, and Abulikemu (Application # 2018/0367820).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Ellis and Spivey by adding the teachings of Abulikemu to disclose the limitations related to creating and distributing a "composite outgoing stream." Petitioner asserted that Abulikemu taught a live streaming system where a viewer could create their own audio/video commentary on a live event. This user-generated content was sent back to a central server, compiled with the original live stream into a composite stream, and then made available for other viewers to watch.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Abulikemu with the Ellis/Spivey system to enhance user engagement and interactivity, a goal explicitly stated in Ellis. Adding the composite streaming functionality taught by Abulikemu was a known technique to improve a known system (live streaming) and would have been a predictable way to allow users to participate in, rather than just watch, a broadcast.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the Ellis/Spivey architecture already provided the necessary framework for multiple live streams. Programming this existing architecture to handle an additional composite stream from a user, as taught by Abulikemu, was presented as a straightforward engineering task.

Ground 2A: Obviousness over Herzog in view of Spivey - Claims 8, 11, and 12 are obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herzog (Application # 2015/0163379) and Spivey.

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Herzog, like Ellis, disclosed a system for delivering multiple video streams and separate, synchronized metadata (e.g., race car telemetry) for a live sporting event to user devices. Herzog’s system used separate communication paths for video and data, but relied on standard HTTP protocols. The combination with Spivey was argued to be obvious for the same reasons as in Ground 1A: Spivey’s websocket-based socket server (MQSD) provided a well-known, higher-performance alternative to the HTTP polling inherent in Herzog’s system for real-time data delivery.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Herzog and Spivey to improve the latency and efficiency of Herzog's data delivery. Faced with Herzog’s system, a POSA would have recognized the benefits of Spivey’s websocket implementation and been motivated to integrate it to achieve faster, more reliable real-time data updates for viewers. Both references are in the same field of real-time content delivery for live events.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was predictable because Spivey’s system was designed to be complementary to content delivery systems like Herzog’s and was suitable for use with any "well-known communication techniques." Replacing Herzog’s data delivery method with Spivey’s was a known design choice to improve performance.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 2B) for claims 9, 10, and 13-23 over Herzog in view of Spivey and Abulikemu, relying on the same motivation to add Abulikemu's composite streaming functionality as detailed in Ground 1B.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) (considering Fintiv factors) and §325(d) would be inappropriate.
  • Fintiv: Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel district court litigation. Further, Petitioner argued the petition presents a "compelling" case for unpatentability based on prior art (Herzog) that was never before the Examiner and other art (Ellis) that was not substantively considered during prosecution.
  • Advanced Bionics (§325(d)): Petitioner asserted the Examiner committed material error. The primary reference Ellis was listed on an IDS but never substantively analyzed or applied in any rejection. The Examiner therefore failed to appreciate its relevance, particularly when combined with Spivey and Abulikemu, which were not before the Office at all.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-23 of the ’088 patent as unpatentable.