PTAB

IPR2026-00175

DraftKings Inc v. WinView IP Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Conducting Multiple Competitions of Skill
  • Brief Description: The ’189 patent describes a method and system for allowing users to participate in multiple simultaneous competitions of skill or chance, such as fantasy sports contests, based on a single entry or performance related to a live event.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 14-15, 17, 22, 24-25, 31, and 37 are Anticipated by Hughes

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hughes (Patent 7,614,944).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hughes discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. Hughes describes a fantasy sports contest application that allows users to simultaneously participate in multiple contests, called "award leagues," corresponding to one or more live sporting events. Petitioner asserted that Hughes teaches generating and presenting a list of these award leagues for users to join. The system receives user input selecting which leagues to enter and applies a single set of event selections (e.g., a single team roster) to each of the selected leagues. Hughes explicitly discloses that users can "simultaneously participate in... award leagues at the same time" and that results and standings are determined, stored, and transmitted to the user's device separately for each league. Dependent claims related to user-generated groups, contest duration types (e.g., season-long), and promotional awards were also argued to be expressly taught by Hughes.

Ground 2: Claims 19-20 and 34-35 are Obvious over Hughes in view of Berner

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hughes (Patent 7,614,944) and Berner (Patent 5,813,913).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hughes teaches the base system of participating in multiple fantasy sports contests, as established in Ground 1. The challenged dependent claims add the limitation of "implementing a lockout to prevent input after beginning of the one or more events." Berner was asserted to cure this deficiency by disclosing a system for games of skill corresponding to a live event that implements lockouts to "prevent improper game inputs by [the] participants" after a live event has begun (e.g., after a football is snapped). Berner's lockout function, which it incorporates from another patent (Fascenda), was argued to be a well-known solution for ensuring fairness in prediction-based gaming.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Berner's lockout feature with Hughes's fantasy sports system to solve a known problem. Hughes described contest deadlines but not the mechanism for enforcing them. Berner provided a known technique to enforce such deadlines and ensure fair play by preventing users from gaining an unfair advantage by submitting predictions after an outcome is known. Both references operate in the same field of electronic gaming related to live events, making the combination a predictable improvement.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because implementing lockouts was a standard feature in electronic gaming prior to the ’189 patent. Integrating Berner's time-based input prevention into Hughes's system was argued to be a straightforward application of a known technique to improve a known system.

Ground 3: Claims 23, 25-26, 33, and 38 are Obvious over Hughes in view of Barber

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Hughes (Patent 7,614,944) and Barber (Patent 8,538,563).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Hughes provides the base multi-contest fantasy sports system. The challenged dependent claims add limitations related to wagering cash, using currency, and funding prizes with entry fees. Barber was asserted to teach these missing elements, describing a fantasy sports application that provides users with "wagering opportunities" and the ability to wager cash ("money"). Barber further disclosed using in-game points as a "currency" that could be wagered and redeemed for prizes, and a prize pool funded by "the sum of all the entry fees."
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to add Barber's wagering and currency features to Hughes's system to enhance it. While Hughes mentioned awarding prizes, it lacked detail on wagering mechanisms. Barber provided a known method for incorporating wagering, a common and desirable feature in fantasy sports. Applying Barber's known technique for monetizing a fantasy sports contest to Hughes's platform would have been a logical and predictable business-driven modification.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in this combination because both Hughes and Barber describe similar fantasy sports application architectures. Integrating Barber's cash-wagering system into Hughes's platform would involve applying a known technique to a similar system to achieve a predictable result: a more engaging and commercially viable fantasy sports contest.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-26, 31, 33-35, 37, and 38 of the ’189 patent as unpatentable.