Edward Moss

Summary — Edward Moss (Patent Litigation)

Based on the tracked dockets, Edward Moss has appeared exclusively as plaintiff-side counsel of record — 2 of 2 tracked appearances — representing SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a Panda Interactive) in parallel patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against Genius Sports Ltd. and Sportradar Group AG / Sportradar AG (before Judge Rodney Gilstrap). The asserted patents cover interactive, ultra-low-latency live sports video streaming and synchronized data-feed architecture — technology at the intersection of media streaming and sports-betting platforms. His work in these matters is thus plaintiff-side enforcement on behalf of a patent owner asserting its own streaming/data technology, rather than defense work for operating companies.

Firm context and disambiguation. The tracked appearances are attributed to King & Spalding, which press reporting confirms represented Panda Interactive/SportsCastr in these suits. Public sources, however, also identify an Edward (N.) Moss at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP in New York — chair of Cahill's antitrust litigation group and a Chambers-ranked commercial litigator — and that attorney has entered appearances for SportsCastr/Panda in a related, later-severed antitrust case against Sportradar (No. 2:25-cv-01250, E.D. Tex.). Because the two names overlap in docket records for the same client family, I could not fully verify from web sources whether the tracked King & Spalding patent appearances and the Cahill antitrust profile are the same individual or a name-sharing colleague; the King & Spalding affiliation itself could not be independently confirmed via a firm bio within search limits.

Notable outcomes and PTAB context. In the underlying patent litigation, Judge Gilstrap denied Sportradar's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and motion to transfer to Delaware (Sept. 17, 2024), holding the Swiss defendant was subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas based on product announcements targeting "every state." Sportradar later filed roughly a dozen IPR petitions against SportsCastr/Panda patents (e.g., IPR2025-00265/-00266/-00268/-00269, -00313 to -00316, -00634/-00635), all of which available PTAB records show were discretionarily denied institution — a favorable backdrop for the patent owner — though I could not confirm Moss's individual role in the IPR briefing. The related 2025 antitrust case was stayed and dismissed by joint stipulation in early 2026 per PacerMonitor.

Bar/education. Not reliably sourced for the King & Spalding-identified attorney and therefore omitted; the Cahill namesake's credentials should not be attributed absent confirmation.