PTAB

IPR2025-00265

Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Server and Memory Storage Architecture for Real-Time Content Distribution
  • Brief Description: The ’697 patent discloses a system architecture for providing viewers with two separate but synchronized streams of content for a live event. The system delivers a primary video feed (e.g., a live sports broadcast) and at least one separate data feed (e.g., real-time scores, statistics) to viewer client devices.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Claims 1 and 7-9 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 foundational system of the ’697 patent, teaching the delivery of a primary video feed and separate, supplemental real-time data (e.g., sports scores) to user equipment over distinct communication paths. However, Ellis’s system suffered from latency. Petitioner asserted that Spivey addressed this exact problem by teaching a backend server architecture using a Live Data Server Device (LDSD) and a Message Queue Server Device (MQSD) that employed websocket connections for low-latency, real-time data delivery. The combination of Ellis’s overall system with Spivey’s efficient backend architecture allegedly disclosed the key elements of independent claim 1, including the media sources, control server (Ellis’s Supplemental Content Source or Spivey’s LDSD), and socket server (Spivey’s MQSD).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Ellis and Spivey to solve the known problem of latency in real-time data delivery systems like Ellis’s. Spivey provided a complementary solution using a known technique (websockets) to improve the performance of Ellis’s system, achieving the predictable result of reduced latency.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as it involved substituting known backend components (Spivey’s servers) into an existing system architecture (Ellis) to achieve a well-understood benefit.

Ground 1B: Claims 2-6 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey and Herzog

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellis (Application # 2014/0229992), Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910), and Herzog (Application # 2015/0163379).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the Ellis and Spivey combination by adding the teachings of Herzog. Petitioner contended that while Ellis and Spivey provided the core system, Herzog specifically taught providing multiple live video streams from the same single sporting event (e.g., different camera angles of a car race) along with associated metadata. This teaching directly mapped to the limitations of dependent claims 2-6, which required the system to provide video-based commentary from multiple broadcasters where both streams relate to the same live event.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate Herzog’s teachings into the Ellis/Spivey platform to enhance the user experience. Adding multiple video feeds from different perspectives of a single event was a known method for providing more engaging content, representing a predictable improvement for the user’s benefit.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Herzog’s system was designed for content delivery and could be readily integrated into a broader distribution platform like the one disclosed by the combination of Ellis and Spivey.

Ground 2: Claims 1-9 are obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey and Ellis

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herzog (Application # 2015/0163379), Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910), and Ellis (Application # 2014/0229992).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this alternative combination started with Herzog as the primary reference, which taught a system for transmitting multiple live video streams from a single event (e.g., a car race) and a separate metadata stream using HTTP polling. To improve Herzog’s latency, a POSITA would replace its HTTP-based data delivery with Spivey’s superior websocket-based MQSD (socket server). This combination disclosed a single-event system with low-latency data feeds. Finally, a POSITA would incorporate the teachings of Ellis to expand the Herzog/Spivey system to support multiple different live sporting events simultaneously, not just multiple streams from one event. This three-reference combination allegedly rendered all challenged claims 1-9 obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Herzog and Spivey to improve performance and reduce latency, a common engineering goal. A POSITA would then add the teachings of Ellis to expand the system’s content offerings, a straightforward business and technical motivation to attract more users.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known techniques to improve a known system and expand its functionality, which would have been well within the skill of a POSITA and yielded predictable results.

4. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

  • WebSocket as an Obvious Alternative to HTTP Polling: A central technical argument underpinning all grounds was that, at the time of the invention, WebSocket was a well-known, superior alternative to HTTP polling for applications requiring low-latency, bi-directional, real-time data communication. Petitioner argued that a POSITA, when faced with a system using HTTP polling for real-time data (like Herzog), would have found it obvious to substitute a WebSocket-based implementation (like Spivey's) to reduce latency and improve efficiency.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. Petitioner asserted that it has stipulated to the Patent Owner that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue invalidity in the co-pending district court litigation based on the grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that reasonably could have been raised. Petitioner also noted that it was not a party to any prior petitions challenging the ’697 patent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-9 of Patent 10,425,697 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.