Untitled case

I'll research this case by searching for the patent number, the Federal Circuit appeal number, and related litigation records.

The patent is now identified: US 11,039,218, owned by SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive). Let me dig into the underlying litigation and the CAFC appeal.

The picture is forming: this is SportsCastr/PANDA Interactive v. Genius Sports, with a web of IPRs on the '218 patent. Let me confirm which IPR the CAFC appeal 26-1803 comes from and the FWD outcomes.

Case Overview: SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 26-1803 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties and technology. This is a Federal Circuit appeal by SportsCastr Inc., a New York-based, practicing "watch-and-bet" streaming technology company that operates under the brand PANDA Interactive and was founded in 2016 (CEO Kevin April); it is not an NPE — Stanford's NPE litigation database classifies it as a "Practicing Entity / Product company," and it sells the SportsCastr consumer streaming platform and the B2B PANDA Studio product. The appellee is Genius Sports Ltd., the London-based, NYSE-listed sports-data and betting-technology supplier (parent of BetGenius, acquirer of Second Spectrum in 2021) that serves sportsbooks, leagues, and broadcasters. The single patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218, "Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information" (issued June 15, 2021; inventors April, Azuolas, et al.; continuations of the '697/'687 family claiming priority to an August 5, 2016 provisional). Technically, the '218 patent claims delivery of a live sporting-event video stream over one channel while synchronized online gaming/betting information is pushed over a separate, event-dedicated socket ("event socket") channel via URLs/Event IDs, so the viewer device renders video and contextually matched betting data together in real time — the core "watch & bet" architecture PANDA pioneered.

Procedural posture. 26-1803 was filed May 8, 2026, and is an appeal from a PTAB inter partes review final written decision — originating case IPR2024-01311 (Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc.), which is one of two Genius Sports IPRs (IPR2024-01310 and -01311) filed August 22–23, 2024 against the '218 patent; Sportradar AG separately petitioned against the '218 patent in IPR2025-00269 and IPR2025-00273. The PTAB issued final written decisions in March 2026 (DocketAlarm lists FWD No. 47 in IPR2024-01311 dated March 13, 2026) finding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over combinations such as Ellis and Spivey, and SportsCastr timely appealed. The appeal is pending with no panel assigned and no outcome. The Federal Circuit is the exclusive forum for IPR appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c)/319, which is why venue is here. Context: the IPRs were the defensive counter-strike to SportsCastr's October 2023 willful-infringement suits against Genius and Sportradar in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division, Judge Rodney Gilstrap; No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG, member of lead case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG against Sportradar), which SportsCastr amended in March 2025 to add antitrust tying claims (Gilstrap denied the motion to strike those claims on June 10, 2025). That district litigation settled — the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss on February 13, 2026, per trade press (theigaming.eu, May 14, 2026), with terms undisclosed.

Why it matters. The case is notable for several converging reasons: (1) it sits at the center of the patent war over the convergence of live sports streaming and legalized sports betting — the PANDA patents were asserted against the two dominant sports-data incumbents, Genius and Sportradar, and the PTAB's invalidation of the '218 claims in March 2026 gutted SportsCastr's offensive position shortly before the E.D. Tex. cases settled; (2) the roles have now inverted — in May 2026 Genius Sports sued SportsCastr in the S.D.N.Y. over Second Spectrum-acquired patents (Nos. 10,769,446; 11,120,271; 11,373,405) targeting PANDA Studio, signaling the settlement only covered the earlier asserted portfolios; and (3) this is not an NPE pattern — both sides are operating companies litigating over a commercially critical feature set (in-broadcast odds, live data overlays, watch-and-bet products) as sportsbooks, leagues, and broadcasters race to monetize interactive betting content. The appeal will test whether the Board's obviousness combination theory for socket-based, multi-channel betting-data delivery survives, with a sibling appeal (No. 26-1802, filed the same day from IPR2024-01309) covering a related SportsCastr patent.

Sourcing caveats. Parties, appeal number, filing date, and originating IPR (IPR2024-01311) are confirmed via Ex Parte's CAFC docket aggregator; patent ownership, title, and family data come from the PTAB file history and PANDA exhibits (DocketAlarm); the E.D. Tex. case number, judge, and June 2025 strike ruling come from the court's published opinion (Dkt. 224, Justia); the February 2026 settlement and May 2026 SDNY counter-suit are reported only by trade press (theigaming.eu, zonadeazar.com), not primary docket text. I could not verify via PACER the exact claims held unpatentable in IPR2024-01311's FWD, the identity of all appellees (e.g., whether the USPTO Director is a party), or the current CAFC docket events beyond "pending."

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex.), appeal No. 26-1803 (Fed. Cir.)

Note on scope: the '218 patent was asserted in the E.D. Tex. action (No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG against Genius, consolidated with lead case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG against Sportradar), and 26-1803 is the CAFC appeal from the PTAB's IPR2024-01311 final written decision. The timeline below covers both the district litigation and the parallel IPR track, since the IPR outcome drove the disposition.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2023-10-05 — SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) filed two complaints in the E.D. Tex. Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap): 2:23-cv-00471-JRG against Genius Sports Ltd. and its Maven-affiliated subsidiaries (Genius Sports Media, Technologies, UK, Holdings, Group; Maven Topco/Midco/Debtco/Bidco), and 2:23-cv-00472-JRG against Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG. The original complaints asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,805,687, 11,039,218 (the patent at issue in 26-1803), and 10,425,697 under §§ 271(a)–(c), with a jury demand (2:23-cv-00471, Dkt. 1; 2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 1; complaint confirmed in the PTAB record as Genius Ex. 1014).
• 2023-10-10 — Public announcement via Business Wire; PANDA stated it was represented by King & Spalding LLP. Genius later appeared through Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Jeanne M. Heffernan, James John Lomeo, Joshua L. Simmons, Patrick Arnett) — see the Joint Claim Construction Statement filed 2024-10-08 (Dkt. 69, E.D. Tex.), also lodged as Ex. 2003 in IPR2024-01305.
• 2024-03-08 — PANDA amended its E.D. Tex. complaint to add the accused manufacturer and asserted a fourth patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088 (issued 2024-01-09) (2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 17; chronology set out in Sportradar US LLC v. Sportscastr, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-00170-JCB, Dkt. 23 at 3).
• 2024-10-15 — The court consolidated the two suits, designating the Sportradar case (2:23-cv-00472-JRG) as the lead case and the Genius case (2:23-cv-00471-JRG) as the member case (2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 72).
• 2024-10-15 — Sportradar answered and asserted counterclaims for declarations of noninfringement, invalidity, and unpatentability (2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 73); 2024-12-09 — the Genius defendants answered with similar declaratory-judgment counterclaims (per the D. Del. opinion, Dkt. 23 at 3).
• 2025-02-14 — PANDA filed a Second Amended Complaint against Sportradar (Dkt. 126) and a Third Amended Complaint against Genius (Dkt. 127), adding Sherman Act and Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act claims alleging unlawful tying of official league-data access to defendants' betting-technology platforms (2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 224 at 1–2).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss / transfer (jurisdiction). 2024-04-15 Sportradar moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer to Delaware (Dkt. 27). 2024-09-17 Judge Gilstrap denied the motion in a published memorandum opinion (Dkt. 57): PANDA made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction over Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG; the court rejected the defendants' first-to-file argument premised on the Delaware DJ action; and the § 1404(a) Volkswagen factors did not favor transfer (SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2024); CourtListener Docket 10203985).
• Parallel Delaware action. Sportradar's U.S. subsidiaries had filed a declaratory-judgment action in D. Del. (No. 1:24-cv-00170-JCB). 2025-03-26 the Delaware court transferred that action to E.D. Tex. under the first-to-file rule, noting the Texas case's claim-construction hearing was then set for 2025-05-09 and trial for 2025-11-07 (Dkt. 23).
• Scheduling / docket-control motions. 2025-03-07 Sportradar moved to extend non-patent deadlines to address the new antitrust claims (Dkt. 142), joined by Genius (Dkt. 146); 2025-03-28 the court granted up to a 75-day extension of non-patent deadlines (Dkt. 154).
• Motion to strike antitrust allegations. 2025-03-31 Sportradar moved under Rules 12(f)/15(a) to strike PANDA's antitrust paragraphs (Dkt. 158), joined by Genius (Dkt. 162). 2025-06-10 Judge Gilstrap denied the motion in a published opinion (Dkt. 224), holding the antitrust tying claims were plausibly pleaded and the motion came "[d]ays after the Court granted Defendants' request for an extension" (Justia; 2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 224).
• Stay pending IPR. No published stay order was located in my searches. The parties instead ran the IPRs in parallel (see § 7), and the cases proceeded through fact discovery, claim construction, and toward trial without a stay.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2024-10-08 — the parties filed their P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 69), with disputed terms including the '687 patent preamble ("preamble is not limiting" per PANDA; "limiting" per Genius) and the '218 patent's "event socket" terminology (Ex. 2003, IPR2024-01305).
• The Markman hearing was scheduled for 2025-05-09 (per the D. Del. transfer opinion, Dkt. 23 at 3).
• A Claim Construction Order was ultimately issued — it is cited as Ex. 1069 to Genius's Reply in IPR2024-01311 (filed 2025-08-29), confirming the district court construed claims after the May hearing. I could not retrieve the order's substantive terms (no published opinion or docket entry text surfaced in my searches), so the specific constructions adopted for "event socket" and related terms are unverified here.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-11-26 — PANDA served its Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions (mapping the '218/'687/'697/'088 claims onto Genius's LiveData, LiveTrading, BetVision, In-Play MultiBet, and socket-based data-delivery architecture, including use of Ably/WebSockets) (referenced in Genius's 2024-12-09 contentions).
• 2024-12-09 — Genius served Second Supplemental Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions identifying prior-art combinations (Ellis, Herzog, Spivey, Mitic) that it later weaponized in the IPRs (Genius Ex. 2047, IPR2025-00273 record).
• 2024-08-22/23 — Genius filed five IPR petitions (IPR2024-01305, -01307, -01309, -01310, -01311) against the PANDA family, including two petitions against the '218 patent (-01310, -01311); Genius submitted Sotera stipulations limiting its district-court invalidity defenses (see Ex. 1013/1021, IPR2024-01310) — a strategically critical step that traded PTAB estoppel for a faster Board resolution.
• 2026-04-13 — after the Sportradar settlement, Genius moved in the E.D. Tex. case to compel production of the Panda–Sportradar settlement agreement, arguing it was relevant to damages (reasonable royalty) and validity (Law360, 2026-04-13; scalejuris). The court's ruling on that motion was not located in my searches.

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

• No trial occurred. The Genius/Sportradar consolidated cases were set for trial on 2026-02-27 (per scalejuris; the earlier 2025-11-07 setting from the D. Del. opinion was superseded). The parties settled before jury selection.
• No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee application exists; the case never reached a jury.

6. Settlement, dismissal, and appeal — final disposition

• 2026-02-13 — (i) PANDA and Sportradar filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings for 30 days to finalize a settlement; (ii) PANDA and Genius Sports filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated action, stating that "all matters in controversy between the Parties in Case No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG" had been settled (theigaming.eu, 2026-05-14; Law360, 2026-02-17; scalejuris). Terms were undisclosed and confidential.
• 2026-02-17 — trade press (Law360) confirmed the settlement and the 30-day stay request.
• The district court action was thereby resolved by settlement/dismissal, leaving the PTAB decisions as the surviving adverse rulings against PANDA's portfolio.
• 2026-05-06 — SportsCastr filed its Notice of Appeal from IPR2024-01311's FWD (Paper, P.T.A.B. docket; ipverse/greyb).
• 2026-05-08 — No. 26-1803 filed in the Federal Circuit (SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., appeal from PTAB, originating case IPR2024-01311; Ex Parte CAFC docket). A sibling appeal, No. 26-1802, was filed the same day from IPR2024-01309 (the related '687-family IPR). No panel has been assigned; the appeal is pending.
• Post-settlement coda: 2026-05-11 Genius Sports filed a new patent suit against SportsCastr in S.D.N.Y. asserting Second Spectrum-acquired patents (10,769,446; 11,120,271; 11,373,405) against PANDA Studio — confirming the February 2026 settlement covered only the previously asserted portfolios (theigaming.eu, 2026-05-14; zonadeazar, 2026-05-13).

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on the litigation

• Genius IPRs. Genius filed five petitions on 2024-08-22/23: IPR2024-01305, -01307, -01309, -01310, and -01311. IPR2024-01311 (the basis of 26-1803) challenges claims 16–30 of the '218 patent on three grounds: (1) obviousness over Ellis (US 2014/0229992) + Spivey (US 2016/0036910) — all challenged claims; (2) anticipation by Herzog (US 2015/0163379) — claims 21–22, 27–28; (3) obviousness over Herzog + Spivey — claims 16–20, 23–24, 29 (petition analysis, Ex Parte; PO Response). IPR2024-01310 is a second '218 petition; -01305/-01307 cover the '687 patent and -01309 the related patent that is the subject of sibling appeal 26-1802.
• Institution was granted; oral argument was held 2026-01-07; a panel change occurred 2025-11-07 and the Board granted counsel-withdrawal motions (Kirkland's Dinnella out; Baker/Heffernan in) on 2025-11-24.
• Final Written Decisions (March 2026). The Board issued FWDs across the family in early March 2026: IPR2024-01311's FWD (Paper 47) dated 2026-03-13 (DocketAlarm) and IPR2024-01307's FWD dated 2026-03-11. Per trade press and the prior case summary, the Board found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over Ellis + Spivey (and related combinations), rejecting PANDA's arguments that Spivey's "topic queues" were not "event sockets," that Ellis/Spivey was inoperable, and that objective indicia (long-felt need, copying, commercial success) outweighed the showing. This gutted PANDA's offensive position three weeks before the scheduled trial date (2026-02-27) and immediately preceded the February 2026 settlements.
• Sportradar IPRs. Sportradar separately petitioned against the '218 patent in IPR2025-00269 and IPR2025-00273 (filed late 2024/early 2025; the IPR2025-00273 record includes PANDA's exhibits and Genius's invalidity contentions). The Sportradar IPRs were in the pre-institution/FWD stage when the parties settled; their termination status was not confirmed in my searches.
• Effect on litigation: The Genius IPRs were filed within days of the original E.D. Tex. complaints and functioned as the defendants' primary defense; the March 2026 FWDs finding the '218 claims obvious (and the parallel -01307/-01309 FWDs on the family) preceded and materially drove the February 2026 settlement and dismissal, and now form the subject of PANDA's pending CAFC appeals (26-1802/26-1803). Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c)/319, the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the IPR FWDs.

---

Sourcing caveats

• Well-sourced (primary or near-primary): complaint date and asserted patents (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 1; Business Wire); consolidation and answer dates (D. Del. Dkt. 23 opinion reciting E.D. Tex. docket entries 72/73); the 2024-09-17 jurisdiction/transfer ruling (published Dkt. 57 opinion, CourtListener); the 2025-06-10 motion-to-strike ruling (published Dkt. 224 opinion, Justia); the 2025-02-14 amended complaints adding antitrust claims (Dkt. 224 at 1–2); IPR2024-01311 filing, institution, hearing, counsel changes, and 2026-03-13 FWD (PTAB dockets via DocketAlarm, greyb/ipverse, Ex Parte); the 2026-05-06 notice of appeal and 2026-05-08 CAFC filing 26-1803 (PTAB docket; Ex Parte CAFC aggregator); the 2026-02-13 joint dismissal/stay filings (theigaming.eu, Law360, scalejuris — trade press only).
• Less well-sourced: the exact claims held unpatentable in the -01311 FWD (only "challenged claims 16–30" and "obvious over Ellis/Spivey" per aggregators and trade press — I did not access the FWD's full text); the substance of the district court's Claim Construction Order (Ex. 1069 exists but was not retrieved); the reset of the trial date to 2026-02-27 (scalejuris, not a docket text); the outcome of Genius's 2026-04-13 motion to compel the Panda–Sportradar settlement agreement; the termination status of the Sportradar IPRs (IPR2025-00269/-00273); and whether the USPTO Director was named as an appellee in 26-1803.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff — SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

Scope clarification. The "patent infringement case" underlying this Federal Circuit appeal is SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Genius Sports Ltd., et al., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap) — the member case to lead case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG against Sportradar. SportsCastr is the plaintiff. That case was dismissed by joint stipulation in February 2026 (per trade press), so the district-court roles below are historical. The live proceeding is CAFC No. 26-1803, an appeal by SportsCastr from the PTAB's FWD in IPR2024-01311 (claims 16–30 of the '218 patent held unpatentable; FWD dated March 13, 2026; Patent Owner's notice of appeal filed at the PTAB May 6, 2026; CAFC appeal docketed May 8, 2026).

---

A. District court — counsel of record for plaintiff SportsCastr (2:23-cv-00471-JRG)

Lead/arguing counsel — King & Spalding LLP

• Britton F. Davis — King & Spalding LLP, Denver, CO (1400 Lawrence St., Ste. 1900). Signed the parties' Joint Claim Construction Statement (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 69, filed Oct. 8, 2024; admitted as Ex. 2003 in IPR2024-01305) as counsel for Plaintiff. Later appeared for the patent owner at the December 18, 2025 PTAB hearing under a Cahill Gordon & Reindel email address (bdavis@cahill.com) — flag: the record reflects a firm move from King & Spalding to Cahill Gordon at some point in late 2025 (see § B).
• Patrick Lafferty — King & Spalding LLP (Denver), same signature block for Plaintiff.
• Ryan A. Schmid — King & Spalding LLP (Denver), same signature block for Plaintiff.

Local counsel — Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Waco, TX)

• Listed on the same JCCS signature block for Plaintiff at 400 Austin Avenue, Suite 903, Waco, TX (tel. 254-633-3011), with service e-mail wellerman@cjsjlaw.com. The individual attorney's full name is not confirmed in the sources I retrieved (the e-mail prefix suggests a "Wellerman," but I will not name an individual without a citable source).

Note on the district-court record: The published June 10, 2025 opinion denying Genius's motion to strike SportsCastr's antitrust allegations (Dkt. 224 in the lead case, 2:23-cv-00472; Dkt. 158 motion in the member case) does not identify plaintiff's counsel in the text I retrieved.

---

B. PTAB / IPR — counsel for SportsCastr as patent owner (the proceeding now on appeal)

This is the team most relevant to appeal 26-1803, since the appeal is from IPR2024-01311:

Initial patent-owner lead counsel — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York)

• Andrew J. Cochran (Reg. No. 69,620) — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 32 Old Slip, New York, NY 10005. Lead counsel for patent owner in the Genius Sports IPRs, including IPR2024-01311; served as lead on the service lists and argued the consolidated December 18, 2025 oral hearing on behalf of Patent Owner ("My name is Andrew Cochran of Cahill Gordon & Reindel on behalf of Patent Owners," Hearing Tr., IPR2024-01305/-01307/-01308/-01309/-01310/-01311, held Dec. 18, 2025, transcript dated Jan. 7, 2026).
• Colleen Tracy James (Reg. No. 52,295) — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York; backup counsel for patent owner on the IPR mandatory notices/service lists.

Interim/substituted lead counsel — King & Spalding LLP (Denver)

• Brian Eutermoser (Reg. No. 64,058) — King & Spalding LLP, 1401 Lawrence St., Ste. 1900, Denver, CO. Named lead counsel for patent owner in updated mandatory notices (e.g., IPR2025-00269, Jan. 6, 2025) and in the Board's July 9, 2025 order granting patent owner's motion to substitute lead counsel, which expressly covered IPR2024-01311 (Order, IPR2024-01307, No. 19). GreyB/ipVerse lists "Eutermoser, Brian et al." as respondent counsel for IPR2024-01311.
• Mikaela Stone (Reg. No. 70,404) — King & Spalding LLP, Denver; first backup counsel.
• Kevin J. Duffy — King & Spalding LLP; backup counsel (pro hac vice).

Oral-hearing counsel (Dec. 18, 2025)

• The consolidated hearing transcript shows Patent Owner appeared through Andrew J. Cochran and Britton F. Davis, both identified under Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (32 Old Slip, New York). This is a notable contradiction with the July 2025 substitution order naming King & Spalding's Eutermoser as lead — either the substitution was superseded, or Cahill handled the argument as/with counsel. I could not resolve this from the available sources and flag it for verification against the PTAB docket.

---

C. Federal Circuit appeal No. 26-1803 — counsel of record status

Not yet publicly confirmed. The CAFC docket aggregators (Ex Parte) list the appeal as filed May 8, 2026, from IPR2024-01311, with "Pending Judge Assignment" and no attorney names populated for either side. The Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal at the PTAB was filed May 6, 2026 (per the IPR2024-01311 docket on GreyB/ipVerse), but I could not retrieve its signature page to identify who signed for SportsCastr. No PACER access to the CAFC docket (or the PTAB notice of appeal PDF) was available in my searches. Do not treat any of the names above as confirmed counsel of record in 26-1803 itself — they are the plaintiff's/patent owner's counsel of record in the underlying proceedings, which is the best available proxy. If the CAFC docket is live, the counsel of record will almost certainly be drawn from the Cahill Gordon & Reindel / King & Spalding teams identified above.

---

D. Brief notes on experience

• Andrew J. Cochran (Cahill) — PTAB trial lead for patent owner across all six consolidated Genius Sports IPRs (including both '218-patent IPRs, -01310 and -01311); an experienced patent litigator who has handled the substantive obviousness fight over the Ellis/Spivey combination that produced the March 2026 FWDs.
• Colleen Tracy James (Cahill) — long-time PTAB/patent litigator; backup counsel on the same IPR docket.
• Brian Eutermoser (King & Spalding) — IPR specialist (Reg. No. 64,058); took over as lead patent-owner counsel in the substituted representation (July 2025) covering IPR2024-01311.
• Britton F. Davis — the principal district-court "watch & bet" litigation lawyer for PANDA in E.D. Tex. (signing the JCCS for Plaintiff); by December 2025 was appearing under a Cahill email, indicating a lateral move mid-litigation. No further pedigree verified in my sources.
• Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Waco) — established E.D. Tex. local-counsel firm; the individual name on the signature block is not confirmed from my sources.

Sourcing caveats. Confirmed items: the JCCS signature block for Plaintiff (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 69, filed 10/8/2024, reproduced as Ex. 2003 in IPR2024-01305); the PTAB mandatory-notice/service lists naming Cochran and James (Cahill) and the July 9, 2025 substitution order naming Eutermoser (K&S); and the Jan. 7, 2026 consolidated hearing transcript showing Cochran and Davis (Cahill) arguing. Unconfirmed: the identity of the CAFC 26-1803 counsel of record, the Cherry Johnson individual attorney, and the exact posture of the Cahill-vs.-K&S representation conflict in the PTAB docket as of the FWD. No sealed filings prevented access to the underlying district-court signature blocks; rather, the CAFC docket itself has not populated attorney names in the public aggregators as of today's date.

I found the E.D. Tex. attorney roster from a PTAB exhibit. Now let me verify the IPR petitioner's counsel and the CAFC appeal docket.

The CAFC docket confirms 26-1803 is SportsCastr v. Genius Sports from IPR2024-01311, and the IPR petitioner's counsel is confirmed as Kirkland & Ellis. Now let me verify the individual Kirkland attorneys' offices and check the CAFC docket for appellee appearances, plus local counsel in E.D. Tex.

Counsel of record for the defendants — SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 26-1803 (Fed. Cir.)

Threshold framing. 26-1803 is not a district-court infringement case; it is SportsCastr's appeal from the PTAB's final written decision in IPR2024-01311 (Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc., '218 patent), filed May 8, 2026, with no panel assigned yet (Ex Parte CAFC docket). The "defendant(s)" in the underlying infringement case — E.D. Tex. No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (Marshall Div., Judge Gilstrap; member of lead case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG) — are Genius Sports Ltd. and eight related entities (Genius Sports Media Ltd., Genius Sports Technologies Ltd., Genius Sports UK Ltd., Genius Sports Holdings Ltd., Genius Sports Group Ltd., Maven Topco Ltd., Maven Midco Ltd., Maven Debtco Ltd., Maven Bidco Ltd.). In the IPR and in the CAFC appeal, the same party is the petitioner/appellee, represented throughout by Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Chambers USA independently confirms: "Kirkland & Ellis LLP represented Genius Sports and its subsidiaries in a patent infringement and antitrust matter … in the Eastern District of Texas and in validity challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board."

1. IPR / appellate team (the counsel who will defend the FWD on appeal)

These are the attorneys of record for Genius Sports in IPR2024-01311 (the originating proceeding), per the petitioner's updated designation of counsel filed Dec. 5, 2025 (PTACTS record) and the consolidated oral-hearing transcript of Dec. 18, 2025 (IPR2024-01307, DocketAlarm Ex. 44):

• W. Todd Baker — Lead counsel for petitioner/appellee; expected lead appellate counsel. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C. (Reg. No. 45,265). He presented the oral argument for Genius in all six consolidated IPRs (‑01305/‑01307/‑01308/‑01309/‑01310/‑01311) and signed the IPR papers; senior IP litigator with a substantial PTAB/ITC/district-court trial record.
• Nikhil R. Krishnan — Backup counsel. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago (Reg. No. 68,879); at the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing with Baker.
• Jeanne M. Heffernan, P.C. — Backup counsel (pro hac vice in the IPRs). Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Austin (Reg. No. —, admitted pro hac vice before the Board). Also of record for the Genius entities in the E.D. Tex. case (see below).
• Socrates L. Boutsikaris — Backup counsel / LEAP practitioner. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.; granted LEAP participation for the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing across all six IPRs (PTAB order, Dec. 12, 2025).
• Michael T. Dinnella (Reg. No. 82,580) — Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Austin; appears in the IPR record alongside Baker/Heffernan (PTACTS petition file), though his precise role in IPR2024-01311 is less clearly documented than the others.

2. District-court defense counsel of record (underlying infringement case)

From the E.D. Tex. CM/ECF calendar of events (captured in PTAB IPR2025-00269 Ex. 1052, dated ~May 8, 2025), the following attorneys of record represented the Genius Sports entities (consolidated defendants) in 2:23-cv-00471/‑00472:

• Jeanne Marie Heffernan — Kirkland & Ellis (Austin).
• Samuel Carno Leifer — Kirkland & Ellis (Boston). Confirmed by his Kirkland bio (litigation partner; patent, complex commercial, and appellate work; former D.C. Circuit clerk for Judge Randolph) and by a Law360 attorney-page entry listing "Sportscastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive v. Genius Sports Ltd. et al, Texas Eastern" among his matters (Dec. 2025).
• James John Lomeo — Kirkland & Ellis (office not independently verified this session; listed on the E.D. Tex. docket for the Genius entities).
• Kevin M. Neylan, Jr. — Kirkland & Ellis (office not independently verified this session; listed for the Genius entities).
• Guy Ruttenberg — Kirkland & Ellis (office not independently verified this session; listed for Genius Sports Ltd. and the Genius entities).
• Joshua L. Simmons — Kirkland & Ellis (office not independently verified this session; listed for the Genius entities).

All six appear only for the Genius Sports/Maven defendants (not Sportradar), so this is the complete K&E defense roster on the district-court docket as of mid-2025. The Genius in-house legal department (London/NYSE-listed) is not publicly docketed by name and I found no named in-house counsel of record.

3. Caveats and gaps

• CAFC appearances not yet confirmed. The public Ex Parte docket for 26-1803 shows the case pending with no judge assigned and no attorney roster; I could not verify via PACER which attorneys have formally entered appearances for the appellee in the Federal Circuit. Based on the IPR record, the appellee's brief will almost certainly be signed by the K&E team (Baker, Krishnan, Heffernan, Boutsikaris). If the USPTO Director (Kathi Vidal, whose term runs through the filing period) intervenes as an appellee under 35 U.S.C. § 319, the Solicitor's office would separately appear — I found no evidence of that on the docket.
• Local counsel. E.D. Tex. local rules require district counsel for out-of-district firms; K&E's Austin office (Heffernan, Dinnella) appears to satisfy that function in the underlying case, but I could not confirm a separately designated Texas local counsel from the sources retrieved.
• Office locations for Lomeo, Neylan, Ruttenberg, and Simmons are drawn only from the E.D. Tex. docket listing; their K&E office addresses were not independently confirmed within this search session, so treat those as unverified rather than invented.
• The E.D. Tex. case was dismissed by joint stipulation in February 2026 (trade press), so the live "defense counsel" engagement is now the IPR/CAFC track — i.e., the Kirkland team above.

Bottom line: The defendants (Genius Sports Ltd. and subsidiaries) are represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP — lead IPR/appellate counsel W. Todd Baker (Washington, D.C.), with Nikhil Krishnan (Chicago), Jeanne Heffernan (Austin), and Socrates Boutsikaris (Washington, D.C.); the E.D. Tex. defense roster adds Samuel Leifer (Boston), James Lomeo, Kevin Neylan, Guy Ruttenberg, and Joshua Simmons (all K&E). No separate non-Kirkland counsel of record for the defendants was found.