Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00634
• Patent #: 11,871,088
• Filed: February 24, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Sportradar AG
• Patent Owner(s): Sportscastr Inc. (d/b/a Panda Interactive)
• Challenged Claims: 1-7 and 24-34

2. Patent Overview

• Title: System for Low-Latency Streaming with Synchronized Event Data
• Brief Description: The ’088 patent describes a server architecture designed to reduce latency in streaming live events. The system provides viewers with both a primary audio/visual feed and a separate, synchronized event data feed containing real-time information related to the live event.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1A: Obviousness over Ellis and Spivey - Claims 1 and 4-7 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 core system of the ’088 patent, teaching a method for delivering a live video stream (e.g., a sporting event) and a separate, supplemental data stream (e.g., scores, stats) to user devices over distinct communication paths. However, Ellis does not explicitly disclose using a socket server to deliver the supplemental data with low latency. Spivey was alleged to supply this missing element, as it teaches a real-time data delivery system using a Message Queue Server Device (MQSD), which functions as a socket server, and websocket connections to dramatically reduce latency compared to conventional methods.
  • 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. Because both references address streaming content for live events, a POSITA would have been motivated to implement Spivey's low-latency websocket server architecture into Ellis’s system to improve its performance. This combination was presented as a simple substitution of a known element (Spivey’s socket server) to achieve a predictable result (reduced latency).
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success, as Spivey's system is described as compatible with various content delivery systems and would predictably enhance the real-time data delivery aspect of Ellis's framework.

Ground 1B: Obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, and Abulikemu - Claims 2, 3, and 24-34 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey and Abulikemu.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ellis (Application # 2014/0229992), Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910), and Abulikemu (Application # 2018/0367820).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the Ellis/Spivey combination from Ground 1A. It addresses claims requiring the system to receive and provide a "composite outgoing stream" that includes user-generated content (e.g., video commentary) combined with the primary audio/video feed. Petitioner argued that Abulikemu teaches this functionality, describing a live streaming system that allows for the incorporation of user-generated video and commentary into the main broadcast to enhance viewer participation.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would add Abulikemu's teachings to the Ellis/Spivey system to increase user engagement, a recognized goal in the art. Adding composite streaming functionality to a system already architected for multiple streams (per Ellis) was argued to be a known technique applied to a known system to yield the predictable result of a more interactive user experience.
  • Expectation of Success: Success was deemed predictable because the underlying architecture in Ellis already supports multiple streams, making the integration of Abulikemu’s composite streaming a straightforward engineering task for a POSITA.

Ground 2A: Obviousness over Herzog and Spivey - Claims 1 and 4-7 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 presented Herzog as a primary reference that, like Ellis, discloses a system for delivering multiple video streams and separate, synchronized metadata related to a live sporting event. Herzog's system, however, relies on HTTP polling for data delivery, which is prone to higher latency. As in Ground 1A, Spivey was argued to supply the claimed low-latency socket server functionality via its MQSD and websocket protocol, which is a known and superior alternative to HTTP polling.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA looking to improve the performance of Herzog’s system would have been motivated to replace its HTTP polling mechanism with Spivey’s more efficient websocket-based server. This modification would directly address Herzog's latency issues and provide the benefits of full-duplex communication, which were well-understood in the art.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner contended that a POSITA would have had a high expectation of success because Spivey's system is described as a complementary technology suitable for implementation in any well-known communication system, like Herzog's, to improve performance.
• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge against claims 2, 3, and 24-34 based on the combination of Herzog, Spivey, and Abulikemu, which relied on the same composite streaming rationale presented in Ground 1B.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be improper under both Fintiv and §325(d) (Advanced Bionics).
• Fintiv: Petitioner asserted that it stipulated to the Patent Owner that it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds in co-pending district court litigation if the inter partes review (IPR) is instituted. This stipulation was argued to weigh strongly against discretionary denial.
• Advanced Bionics (§325(d)): Petitioner argued that the petition raises new prior art and arguments not previously considered by the USPTO. Specifically, Herzog, Spivey, and Abulikemu were not before the examiner. Furthermore, Petitioner contended that Ellis was not substantively considered during prosecution, as it was merely listed on an Information Disclosure Statement without any analysis or application in a rejection. Therefore, the examiner committed a material error by failing to consider this art, particularly in the combinations presented in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-7 and 24-34 of the ’088 patent as unpatentable.