PTAB

IPR2026-00140

DraftKings Inc v. WinView IP Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method of and System for Managing Client Resources and Assets for Activities of Computing Devices
  • Brief Description: The ’883 patent describes a method for delivering content for interactive gaming on mobile, internet-connected devices. The system's purported innovation involves a server transmitting a "list of assets" required for a game, which the mobile device compares against its locally stored assets to download only those assets it does not already possess, thereby conserving network bandwidth and device storage.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-2, 5-9, 17, 20-23, 26-30, 38, 81-84, 87-91, and 99 are obvious over [Montagna](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00140/doc/1003) in view of [Lewin](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00140/doc/1004).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Montagna (Application # 2004/0242322) and Lewin (Patent 7,465,231).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Montagna taught the core concept of the ’883 patent. Montagna disclosed a gaming system where a server sends a "UI Definition" (a list of assets) to a client terminal. The client then checks its local cache for these assets and requests only the missing ones from the server to reduce download time. This mirrors the challenged claims' method of transmitting a list of assets and then a second set of non-resident assets. Petitioner contended that while Montagna taught a system for generic computing devices, Lewin explicitly taught applying a similar client-server gaming architecture to mobile devices, including cell phones. Lewin described a "client application" on a mobile device that manages the download of game content from a server, adapting to the hardware limitations of the device.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Montagna's efficient asset delivery method with Lewin's explicit teaching of mobile device gaming. Given the burgeoning mobile gaming market at the time, a POSITA would have been motivated to apply Montagna's known technique for conserving bandwidth to the known and increasingly important platform of mobile devices taught by Lewin. This combination would predictably result in an improved gaming experience on mobile devices, which was a simple application of known techniques to a similar system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references described analogous client-server architectures for game delivery. Implementing Montagna's asset-list and caching logic on a mobile device platform, as explicitly suggested by Lewin, was a straightforward integration of known software principles.

Ground 2: Claims 7, 28, and 89 are obvious over Montagna in view of Lewin, and further in view of [Mathews](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00140/doc/1007).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Montagna (Application # 2004/0242322), Lewin (Patent 7,465,231), and Mathews (Patent 6,853,973).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the combination of Montagna and Lewin to address dependent claims reciting the determination of a device's geographic location using technologies like GPS. Petitioner argued that Montagna taught customizing game menus based on user location (e.g., jurisdiction). Mathews, which Petitioner noted was expressly incorporated by reference in Montagna, taught a verification module that used various means, including GPS, to determine a user's location.
    • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was explicit, as Montagna incorporated Mathews by reference for the purpose of describing its location verification module. A POSITA seeking to implement the location-based features described in Montagna would have been directly led to Mathews to learn how to determine the user's location using GPS. This was not a combination of disparate art but the following of an explicit roadmap within the primary reference itself.
    • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because Mathews was designed as a complementary service to be integrated into gaming systems like Montagna's. Adding a known GPS location-verification module to a system that already contemplated location-based services was a predictable and routine implementation.

Ground 3: Claims 18-19, 39-40, and 100-101 are obvious over Montagna in view of Lewin, and further in view of [Zilliacus](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00140/doc/1006).

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Montagna (Application # 2004/0242322), Lewin (Patent 7,465,231), and Zilliacus (Patent 6,832,230).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addressed dependent claims that added the limitation of managing device memory by replacing or purging unused assets. Petitioner asserted that Zilliacus directly addressed memory constraints on mobile devices by teaching a method where downloaded applications could be automatically deleted. This deletion could occur after a predetermined lifetime expires or when a user needs to download a new application and lacks sufficient memory.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA implementing the Montagna/Lewin gaming system on a resource-constrained mobile device would have immediately recognized the known problem of memory management. Petitioner argued Zilliacus provided an obvious solution to this problem. A POSITA would combine Zilliacus's technique for purging old assets to improve the Montagna/Lewin system's performance over time. This amounted to implementing a known technique (automated deletion of old files) to improve a similar system and solve a well-understood problem.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success. All three references related to software for mobile or distributed systems. Implementing Zilliacus's memory management feature—essentially a routine for deleting old assets—into the Montagna/Lewin gaming application would use standard, well-known programming principles to achieve the predictable result of freeing up memory.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 1-2, 5-9, 17-23, 26-30, 38-40, 81-84, 87-91, and 99-101 of the '883 patent as unpatentable.