PTAB

IPR2025-00273

Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Server and Memory Storage Architecture for Providing Multiple Feeds of Digital Content to Viewers
  • Brief Description: The ’218 patent describes a server architecture for delivering a live audio/visual feed (e.g., a sporting event) and a separate, synchronized data feed (e.g., real-time scores) to viewer client devices. The system is designed to reduce latency by using distinct servers, including a control server and a socket server, to manage and transmit the different content streams.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 12-15 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 concept of the ’218 patent: a system that transmits a primary video stream from a "content source" and a separate stream of real-time supplemental data (e.g., sports scores) from a "supplemental content source" (SCS) over different communication paths. However, Ellis was allegedly silent on the specific backend server architecture needed for low-latency delivery. Spivey was argued to supply this missing element by teaching a system with a "Live Data Server Device" (LDSD), analogous to the ’218 patent's control server, and a "Message Queue Server Device" (MQSD), analogous to the socket server. Spivey's MQSD uses websocket connections and topic queues to push live event data to clients with latency of 100 milliseconds or less.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Spivey’s low-latency server architecture with Ellis’s dual-stream content delivery system to achieve the predictable result of improved performance. Both references address the same technical problem of delivering real-time event data to multiple users. The combination represented a simple substitution of Spivey's known, more efficient backend components for the generic data source described in Ellis.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because the systems were compatible and addressed similar technical challenges, making the integration of Spivey’s websocket-based servers into Ellis's framework straightforward.

Ground 2: Claims 1-9 and 12-14 are obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herzog (Application # 2015/0163379) and Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Herzog disclosed a system for delivering multiple live video streams and associated metadata (e.g., telemetry from a car race) to a client device over separate communication paths. Herzog's system, however, used standard HTTP, which is a higher-latency "pull" protocol. Petitioner argued that Herzog’s "ERP Server" functions as a control server and its "Origin Server" could be modified to function as a socket server. Spivey was again relied upon to teach the implementation of a low-latency websocket server (its MQSD) as a known and superior alternative to HTTP-based data delivery.
    • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to replace the HTTP-based data delivery mechanism in Herzog with Spivey’s websocket-based MQSD to predictably decrease data latency, a key concern in live-streaming systems. Spivey provided a complementary solution, detailing a specific backend architecture for low-latency data transmission that was lacking in Herzog.
    • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would expect success in combining the references, as Spivey's system was designed for broad implementation with "any well-known communication techniques and protocols" and would be a natural fit to upgrade the performance of a system like Herzog's.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges by adding Herzog to the Ellis/Spivey combination (Ground 1B for claims 1-11) and Ellis to the Herzog/Spivey combination (Ground 2B for claims 10-11 and 15). These grounds argued that Herzog supplied the teaching of a webserver to facilitate client-server communication, while Ellis supplied the teaching of a third, separate real-time information stream for content like user chat.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate because it has stipulated that, if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in the parallel district court litigation.
  • Petitioner further argued that denial under §325(d) would be improper. It contended that the asserted grounds are based on new prior art (Herzog, Spivey) and new arguments not considered during prosecution. Petitioner alleged that while a related application to Ellis was before the examiner, it was not substantively considered or applied in any rejection. Therefore, the examiner committed a material error by not considering Ellis in combination with other art like Spivey and Herzog, which allegedly renders the claims obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-15 of Patent 11,039,218 as unpatentable.