PTAB

IPR2025-00268

Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Distributing Live Video and Synchronized Data
  • Brief Description: The ’687 patent describes a server and memory storage architecture designed to concurrently provide viewers with a live audio/visual feed of an event and a separate, synchronized event data feed (e.g., scores, statistics) over distinct communication channels to reduce latency.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Claims 1, 8-9 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 core system of the ’687 patent: providing a primary video feed (e.g., a sporting event) and a separate, supplemental data feed (e.g., real-time scores) to user equipment over distinct communication paths. However, Petitioner contended that a system like Ellis would suffer from latency issues. Spivey was alleged to disclose a low-latency backend server architecture using a Live Data Server Device (LDSD) as a control server and a Message Queue Server Device (MQSD) as a socket server. This architecture uses websockets and topic queues to provide live event data to users in milliseconds, directly addressing the latency problem.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Ellis and Spivey because both references address the same field of real-time content delivery for live events. Petitioner asserted that Spivey provides a complementary backend solution to improve the known latency issues inherent in a system like the one disclosed by Ellis.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success in replacing Ellis’s data delivery system with Spivey’s more efficient websocket-based architecture, as it involved the simple substitution of known backend components to achieve the predictable result of reduced data-delivery latency.

Ground 1B: Claims 2-7 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 builds upon the combination of Ellis and Spivey from Ground 1A. Petitioner argued that the additional limitations in dependent claims 2-7, which relate to providing multiple video streams from the same live sporting event, were disclosed by Herzog. Herzog explicitly teaches a system for providing a user with multiple video feeds from a single event (e.g., different camera angles from a car race) along with associated metadata.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Herzog’s teachings into the Ellis/Spivey system to enhance the user experience. Petitioner contended that Herzog’s system was designed to augment content distribution systems like Ellis by providing more viewing options and richer content from a single event.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): There would have been a reasonable expectation of success, as Herzog’s teachings on providing multiple video streams are a logical and straightforward enhancement to a base system that already distributes a primary video stream.

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: This ground reconfigures the primary references. Petitioner started with Herzog’s disclosure of providing multiple video streams and a separate metadata stream for a single live event. It was argued that Herzog’s use of HTTP polling for metadata delivery was a known source of latency. Spivey was then introduced to teach replacing Herzog’s backend with a low-latency websocket-based socket server (MQSD) for efficient data distribution. Finally, to the extent Herzog was limited to a single event, Ellis was introduced to teach expanding the system’s functionality to support providing multiple different live events simultaneously.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine Herzog and Spivey to improve system performance by reducing latency, a common goal in the art. The motivation to then add Ellis’s teachings was to broaden the system's content offerings (multiple events instead of just one), a predictable and desirable enhancement to increase user engagement.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in combining these known techniques. The combination involved applying a known low-latency data delivery method (Spivey) to a known multi-stream video system (Herzog) and then scaling that system to handle multiple events using established methods (Ellis), all yielding predictable results.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) would be inappropriate. The petition noted that this is the first IPR filed by this Petitioner against the ’687 patent. To address Fintiv factors, Petitioner stated it has stipulated that if this IPR is instituted, it will not pursue invalidity in co-pending litigation based on the grounds raised herein or any other grounds that reasonably could have been raised in this IPR.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-9 of the ’687 patent as unpatentable.