PTAB

IPR2025-00635

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 ’088 patent describes a server architecture for delivering a live event's audio/visual feed and a separate, synchronized event data feed to multiple viewer client devices over a network. The system is designed to reduce latency in streaming live sports content and associated data.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 8-23 are obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey and optionally 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: Petitioner argued that Ellis discloses the foundational system of the ’088 patent, teaching a method for providing a primary video stream (e.g., a live sports broadcast) and a separate, supplemental data stream (e.g., scores, game summaries) to user equipment. However, Ellis does not explicitly disclose a low-latency backend architecture, such as a socket server, for delivering the supplemental data. Spivey was argued to supply this missing element by teaching a low-latency data delivery system using a control server (Live Data Server Device or "LDSD") and a socket server (Message Queue Server Device or "MQSD") that utilizes websocket connections to push real-time data to clients with minimal delay (e.g., 100ms or less). The combination thus allegedly discloses the core architecture of independent claim 8. For claims requiring composite streams (e.g., claim 9), Petitioner asserted that Abulikemu teaches a system where a user can provide their own commentary on a live video stream, which is then compiled by a central server and streamed to other viewers.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Ellis and Spivey to solve the known problem of latency in real-time data delivery for live events. Implementing Spivey's efficient websocket-based server architecture into Ellis's general framework was presented as a predictable solution to improve performance. A POSITA would further incorporate Abulikemu's teachings to enhance user engagement in the Ellis/Spivey system, a known goal in live streaming, by allowing user-generated commentary to be integrated into a composite stream.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these references because they address similar problems in the same technical field (live content delivery) and Spivey's system is described as compatible with standard network components like those in Ellis.

Ground 2: Claims 8-23 are obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey and optionally Abulikemu

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Herzog (Application # 2015/0163379), Spivey (Application # 2016/0036910), and Abulikemu (Application # 2018/0367820).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that Herzog, like Ellis, discloses a system for delivering multiple video streams and separate, synchronized metadata (e.g., telemetry from a car race) related to a live sporting event. Herzog's system, however, relies on conventional HTTP communication. Spivey was again introduced to provide a superior, low-latency data delivery mechanism. Petitioner argued a POSITA would replace or implement Herzog's Origin Server as a websocket server as taught by Spivey's MQSD. This combination allegedly discloses the core server architecture of independent claim 8, including the media sources, control server (Herzog's ERP Server), and socket server (Spivey's MQSD implemented at Herzog's Origin Server). The addition of Abulikemu was argued to render claims related to composite streaming obvious for the same reasons as in Ground 1.
    • Motivation to Combine: The primary motivation was to improve the performance of Herzog's system. A POSITA, recognizing the latency issues inherent in Herzog's architecture, would have been motivated to incorporate Spivey's well-known websocket technology as a direct and predictable improvement for real-time data transmission. Both references address providing synchronized video and event data to users, making the combination logical. The motivation to add Abulikemu was again based on improving user interactivity.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have expected success because Spivey provides a complementary backend solution designed for integration into content delivery systems like Herzog's. Modifying Herzog's system to use Spivey's websocket protocol would have been a straightforward engineering choice to reduce data latency.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Fintiv Factors: Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under §314(a), stating it has stipulated to the Patent Owner that it will not pursue the same invalidity grounds in co-pending district court litigation if the IPR is instituted. Petitioner also asserted that the petition presents "compelling" arguments for unpatentability based on prior art that was either not before the examiner (Herzog) or not substantively considered (Ellis).
  • Advanced Bionics Factors: Petitioner argued against denial under §325(d), asserting that the examiner committed a material error. It contended that Ellis was not substantively considered during prosecution, as it was merely one of 80 references listed in an IDS without further comment. Furthermore, the examiner never had the opportunity to consider the key combinations presented in the petition (Ellis/Herzog in view of Spivey and Abulikemu), which allegedly render the claims obvious.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 8-23 of the ’088 patent as unpatentable.