Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

Petition

Petition summary

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00252](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252)
- Patent #: [11,871,088](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/11871088)
- Filed: December 6, 2024
- Petitioner(s): [Genius Sports Ltd.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/genius-sports-ltd)
- Patent Owner(s): [SportsCastr Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/sportscastr-inc) (D/B/A PANDA INTERACTIVE)
- Challenged Claims: 8-23

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: System and Method for Low-Latency Transmission of Digital Content
- Brief Description: The ’088 patent describes a server and memory storage architecture designed to reduce latency in live streaming. The system transmits a primary audio/video feed (e.g., a live sporting event) and a separate, secondary data feed (e.g., real-time scores or statistics) to user devices over distinct communication channels.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability
#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, and Abulikemu - Claims 8-23 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey and Abulikemu.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Application # 2014/0229992 (“[Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016)”), Application # 2016/0036910 (“[Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017)”), and Application # 2018/0367820 (“[Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050)”).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016) discloses the core functionality of the ’088 patent: a system that provides a primary video stream and supplemental data (e.g., sports scores) to user devices over separate communication paths for enhanced media consumption. However, [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016) does not explicitly disclose a low-latency socket server for its data delivery. [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017) remedies this deficiency by teaching a data delivery system using a websocket server (its Message Queue Server Device, or MQSD) specifically to reduce latency to milliseconds and provide real-time data. For claims requiring a composite video stream (e.g., claim 9), [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050) teaches a live streaming system that receives user commentary (audio/video) and compiles it with the primary event stream into a composite stream that is then distributed to other viewers.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016) and [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017) to solve a known problem: reducing latency in real-time data delivery. A POSITA would have found it obvious to replace [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016)’s generic supplemental content source with [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017)’s more efficient, low-latency websocket server to achieve the predictable result of improved performance. A POSITA would further combine this system with [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050)’s teachings to add composite streaming functionality, a known technique for increasing user engagement, which is a stated goal of systems like [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016).
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Integrating [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017)’s websocket server into [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016)’s internet-based architecture is a straightforward substitution of known, compatible components to achieve a predictable improvement. Likewise, adding the composite streaming taught by [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050) was a known technique for enhancing live stream platforms.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Herzog, Spivey, and Abulikemu - Claims 8-23 are obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey and Abulikemu.
  - **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Application # 2015/0163379 (“[Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015)”), [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017), and [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050).
  - **Core Argument for this Ground:**
    - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner asserted that [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015), like [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016), discloses a system for providing multiple video streams and separate metadata (e.g., car race telemetry) related to a live sporting event over different communication paths. [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015)’s system, however, relies on older technology like HTTP polling for data updates. [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017) teaches a superior websocket-based system for real-time data delivery, which was a known alternative to HTTP polling. The contribution of [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050) is the same as in Ground 1: teaching the creation and distribution of a composite stream that includes user-generated commentary.
    - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA looking to improve the performance of [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015)’s system would have been motivated to replace its less efficient HTTP-based data delivery with [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017)’s low-latency websocket server. This modification would address [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015)'s latency issues using a well-known, more advanced protocol to achieve faster, more reliable real-time data updates. The motivation to incorporate [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050)’s teachings is to add the valuable feature of composite user commentary streams, thereby enhancing user interactivity in the [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015) system.
    - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have expected success in this combination. [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017)’s system is presented as a complementary solution for backend data architecture and is protocol-agnostic, making it suitable for integration with a system like [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015). The combination represents an upgrade of a known system with a known, improved component for a predictable benefit.

## 4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- **Fintiv Factors:** Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) is inappropriate. First, Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel district court litigation. Second, Petitioner contended its invalidity arguments are "compelling," particularly as they rely on prior art ([Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015), [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017), [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050)) that was not before the examiner, or on art ([Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016)) that was never substantively considered. Finally, the Patent Owner had only recently asserted the ’088 patent, and Petitioner filed the IPR petition diligently.
- **§325(d) Factors (Advanced Bionics):** Petitioner argued that denial under §325(d) would be improper because the petition presents new prior art and arguments. The primary references of [Herzog](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1015), [Spivey](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1017), and [Abulikemu](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1050) were never presented to or considered by the Office during prosecution. Furthermore, while a related [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016) application was listed in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), the examiner never substantively analyzed it, cited it in a rejection, or discussed it in the reasons for allowance. Petitioner asserted the examiner committed a material error by not considering [Ellis](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00252/doc/1016), especially in combination with the other undisclosed art, which collectively renders the challenged claims obvious.

## 5. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 8-23 of Patent [11,871,088](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/11871088) as unpatentable under §103.

Low-latency live streaming patent challenged: 16 claims face obviousness grounds over prior art combining websocket servers & composite video streams.