PTAB

IPR2025-00314

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 Types of Content to Viewer Client Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’697 patent describes a server architecture for delivering a live video stream of an event (e.g., a sporting event) and at least one separate, synchronized data feed (e.g., scores, statistics) to viewer devices over distinct communication channels. The system is designed to reduce latency by separating the video and data feeds, allowing for features like a real-time scoreboard overlaid on the live video.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Ellis and Spivey - Claims 23 and 24 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 ’697 patent: providing a primary media content stream (video) and a separate "supplemental content" stream (e.g., real-time sports scores) to user devices over separate communication paths. Petitioner contended that Ellis taught all elements of claim 23 except for the specific backend server architecture (e.g., the socket server).
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that Spivey addressed the known problem of latency in live-event data delivery systems like the one in Ellis. Spivey taught a low-latency backend architecture using a "Message Queue Server Device" (MQSD) and websockets to broadcast data from a live event to users in milliseconds. A POSITA would combine Spivey’s efficient backend with Ellis's general system to predictably improve the data delivery speed and reduce latency, which was a known goal in the art.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involved substituting a known, more efficient data delivery subsystem (from Spivey) into a compatible system (from Ellis) to achieve the predictable result of lower latency.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Herzog, Spivey, and Ellis - Claims 23 and 24 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 provided an alternative base system that disclosed delivering live video and separate, time-synced metadata (e.g., car race telemetry) to user devices over different communication paths. Herzog's "ERP Server" functioned as the claimed control server, retrieving metadata, while its "Origin Server" delivered it to users. As with the Ellis-based ground, Petitioner argued this combination met the limitations for the control server and data transmission.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation to add Spivey was the same as in Ground 1: to replace Herzog’s less efficient HTTP-based data delivery with Spivey’s low-latency websocket-based MQSD, which would function as the claimed socket server. A POSITA would incorporate Ellis to enhance Herzog’s system by adding specific functionalities taught by Ellis, such as providing separate feeds for sports scores and user commentary (chat), thereby improving the user experience with more content options.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination was presented as a predictable integration of complementary technologies. A POSITA would expect success in upgrading Herzog’s data delivery protocol with Spivey's well-known websocket alternative and adding the types of sports-related data feeds explicitly contemplated by Ellis.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted that claim 26 is obvious over the combination of Ellis, Spivey, Kellicker (Application # 2017/0250882), and Phillips (Application # 2015/0127845). This ground built upon the Ellis/Spivey combination by adding Kellicker and Phillips to teach specific server architectures recited in claim 26, such as a plurality of media sources including RTMP and WebRTC servers, and a hierarchical HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) caching server Content Delivery Network (CDN). A parallel argument was made that claim 26 is also obvious over the combination of Herzog, Spivey, Ellis, Kellicker, and Phillips.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial under Fintiv. Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue invalidity in co-pending district court litigation on the grounds raised in the petition or any other grounds that reasonably could have been raised. Petitioner also asserted there is no "significant relationship" between it and a petitioner in prior IPRs against the same patent family.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 23, 24, and 26 of the ’697 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.