PTAB

IPR2026-00175

DraftKings Inc v. WinView IP Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and System for Conducting Multiple Competitions of Skill for a Single Performance
  • Brief Description: The ’189 patent discloses systems and methods for allowing a user to participate in multiple simultaneous contests of skill or chance related to a live event, such as a sporting event, based on a single set of user selections or a single entry.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 14-15, 17, 22, 24-25, 31, and 37 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 where users can simultaneously compete in multiple distinct contests, called "award leagues," that correspond to the same live sporting event. A user creates a single roster of players (a single set of event selections) which is then entered to compete in more than one award league. Hughes explicitly teaches that the application stores and separately displays results and standings for each league the user participates in, transmitted to the user's device. This system, programmed in memory on a server or user device, directly anticipates the methods and devices claimed in the ’189 patent.
    • Key Aspects: Petitioner contended that the express object of Hughes is to provide improved ways for "allowing the user to participate in multiple leagues," which mirrors the purported novelty of the ’189 patent.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Claims 19-20 and 34-35 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 asserted that Hughes taught the base system of participating in multiple fantasy sports contests simultaneously. The additional limitation in these claims is a "lockout" feature to prevent user input after an event begins or a key action occurs. Berner, which relates to electronic games of skill corresponding to live events, explicitly discloses implementing lockouts to "prevent improper game inputs" after the live event has begun (e.g., after the ball is snapped in football).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hughes and Berner to improve the fairness and integrity of the Hughes fantasy sports system. Petitioner argued that Hughes acknowledges the need for deadlines but does not specify the mechanism. Berner provides a well-known solution—a lockout—to the common problem of preventing users from gaining an unfair advantage by making predictions or trades after an outcome is known. Both references are in the electronic gaming field and address ensuring fair play.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success in implementing Berner’s known lockout technique in Hughes’s fantasy sports platform. The concept of preventing inputs after a critical event is fundamental to prediction-based games, and its implementation would be a straightforward application of known technology to improve a known system.

Ground 3: Obviousness of Claims 23, 25-26, 33, and 38 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 alleged that Hughes taught the base multi-contest fantasy sports system. The challenged dependent claims add limitations related to wagering cash, using a "currency" for participation, redeeming currency for prizes, and funding prizes through entry fees. While Hughes mentions awarding prizes, it lacks a detailed wagering mechanism. Barber explicitly discloses systems for providing wagering opportunities (for cash, points, or prizes) in conjunction with fantasy sports contests, including grouping multiple leagues into a single contest and funding prize pools from entry fees.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Hughes and Barber to add a conventional and desirable feature to the Hughes system. Petitioner contended that a shortcoming of Hughes is its lack of a described wagering mechanism. To enhance user engagement and monetize the platform—a common goal in fantasy sports—a POSITA would have been motivated to integrate a known wagering system. Barber provides exactly such a system, making it a logical and suitable reference to consult and integrate.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have reasonably expected success in this combination. Both Hughes and Barber describe similar fantasy sports application architectures. Integrating Barber's cash-wagering system into Hughes’s platform would amount to applying a known technique (wagering) to a similar, known system to achieve a predictable result (a fantasy sports game with betting).

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22-26, 31, 33-35, 37, and 38 as unpatentable.