PTAB

IPR2025-00266

Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Server and Memory Storage Architecture for Live Event Streaming
  • Brief Description: The ’697 patent describes a server architecture for delivering a live video stream of an event (e.g., a sports game) and a separate, corresponding data stream (e.g., scores, statistics) to viewer devices. The system is designed to reduce latency by using separate communication channels for the video and data feeds.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ellis in view of Spivey - Claims 19-25 and 27-30 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 discloses the broad system architecture claimed in the ’697 patent, including providing a primary video feed and supplemental data (e.g., sports scores) to users over separate communication paths. However, Ellis’s system suffered from latency. Spivey, which is directed to solving latency in live-event data delivery, provides the specific backend components missing from Ellis. Petitioner asserted that Spivey’s Message Queue Server Device (MQSD) and Live Data Server Device (LDSD) teach the claimed socket server and control server, respectively. Spivey’s system uses topic queues and a websocket connection, which correspond to the claimed event sockets and separate data communication channel, to provide low-latency data updates.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would combine Ellis and Spivey to solve a known problem: reducing latency in real-time data delivery for systems like the one described in Ellis. Petitioner contended that Spivey provides a complementary, specific solution for the backend architecture to improve the performance of Ellis’s general system. Both references address the same field of streaming content for live events.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have had a high expectation of success because the combination involves substituting known components to achieve a predictable result. Petitioner argued it would have been a simple substitution to replace Ellis’s supplemental content server with Spivey’s more efficient LDSD and MQSD architecture to decrease data latency without altering the function of Ellis’s video delivery system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Herzog in view of Spivey and Ellis - Claims 19-25 and 27-30 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 that Herzog discloses a base system for streaming multiple video feeds and separate, corresponding meta-data for a single live sporting event (a car race). Herzog’s ERP Server functions as the claimed control server, retrieving event data, while its Origin Server delivers it to users. However, Herzog uses standard HTTP polling for data, which introduces latency. Spivey is added to provide a low-latency socket server (its MQSD) by replacing or supplementing Herzog's Origin Server. Ellis is then added to teach the modification of Herzog’s single-event system to support multiple, different live sporting events simultaneously, as Ellis explicitly discloses this functionality.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA would combine Herzog with Spivey to improve performance by replacing Herzog’s less efficient HTTP polling with Spivey’s superior websocket-based architecture for real-time data delivery. A POSA would then incorporate Ellis's teachings to expand the combined Herzog/Spivey system's functionality and commercial appeal by offering users content from multiple live events, not just multiple camera angles of a single event.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success. The combination of Herzog and Spivey is a predictable substitution of one data delivery protocol for another to reduce latency. Expanding the resulting system using Ellis's multi-event teachings would be a straightforward modification, as Herzog’s system already handles multiple data streams.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • Means-Plus-Function Limitations (Claims 27-29): The petition asserted that several challenged claims contain means-plus-function limitations. For the purposes of the IPR, Petitioner stated it adopted the structures purportedly identified by the Patent Owner in co-pending district court litigation as corresponding to the claimed functions. For example, for claim 27, Petitioner mapped the "means for retrieving... first event information" to the "Control Server" disclosed in the patent's specification and the "means for transmitting the first event information" to the "Socket Server." This strategic approach aims to use the Patent Owner's own infringement contentions to define the scope of the claims for the invalidity analysis.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. To support this, Petitioner stated it has stipulated to the Patent Owner that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue invalidity in the parallel district court litigation based on the grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that reasonably could have been raised. Petitioner contended this stipulation mitigates any concerns regarding inefficiency and the potential for inconsistent rulings that the Fintiv factors are designed to prevent.

6. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 19-25 and 27-30 of the ’697 patent as unpatentable.