AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

Parties and accused products. Plaintiff AG 18, LLC, doing business as Arrow Gaming (Denver, CO), is a patent monetization/technology-licensing company that says it "acquires, develops and seeks opportunities to commercialize innovative technologies for the gaming industry," with a portfolio of dozens of gaming patents (per Arrow Gaming/LUSI press materials). The asserted patents trace to Arrow Gaming, Inc., whose interests were assigned to AG 18, LLC in 2020 (USPTO Assignment 52322/351); AG 18 does not appear to operate a DFS/casino business, so it functions in practice as a non-practicing licenser/assertion entity (automated databases label it "operating company," but that classification is not independently sourced). Defendants are DraftKings Inc. — the NASDAQ-listed daily fantasy sports (DFS), online sportsbook, and iGaming/casino operator, renamed DK Crown Holdings Inc. in 2024 (see Fed. Cir. captions in Nos. 24-1821 and 24-2078) — and Crown Gaming Inc., DraftKings' wholly owned holding/qualifier entity that controls the "Crown State Specific Entities" (e.g., Crown NJ Gaming Inc.) through which DraftKings holds state gaming licenses. The complaint (ECF No. 1, Aug. 19, 2021, D.N.J.) alleged that DraftKings' DFS and Casino product offerings — the draftkings.com web platform and mobile apps, including casino.draftkings.com, operated in New Jersey via DraftKings' NJ fantasy-sports permit and Crown NJ Gaming's NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement transactional waiver — infringe AG 18's patents.

Patents and procedural posture. Although the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498, DraftKings' SEC 10-K/10-Q disclosures confirm the operative amended complaints asserted five "Arrow Gaming Patents": (1) the '498 patent, Systems and Methods for Peer-to-Peer Gaming (filed June 2008, issued 2017), covering networked gaming systems in which a gaming server manages multi-player peer-to-peer contests, including means-plus-function "results calculation" logic (claims 12/17 at issue on appeal); and four continuations in the Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming family — U.S. 9,978,205, 10,497,220, 10,614,657, and 11,024,131 — covering geo-location-based restrictions, geofencing, and location-dependent wagering/game-option controls in online gaming (e.g., claim 18 of the '205 patent, on converting to non-monetary wagering). The case was filed in the Camden vicinage (1:21-cv-15737, Judge Robert B. Kugler/MJ Sharon A. King) and on Aug. 24, 2021 was reallocated to Newark as 2:21-cv-15737 and reassigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen (ECF No. 4). Venue in New Jersey rests on DraftKings' substantial regulated operations there — NJ DFS operator permit No. 130/21 and Crown NJ Gaming's casino-enterprise licensure — making the District of New Jersey a focal venue for suits against the iGaming industry. DraftKings answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgments of invalidity (ECF No. 20, Nov. 10, 2021); AG 18 later added willfulness allegations. DraftKings then filed five IPR petitions (IPR2022-01442, -01445 through -01448, Aug. 2022), the PTAB instituted all five on Mar. 14, 2023, and the district court administratively terminated the case on Apr. 3, 2023 pending IPR resolution, with the parties agreeing to keep the stay through appeal. The PTAB's final written decisions (Mar. 12–13, 2024) found every claim asserted in the litigation unpatentable; only two unasserted claims (claim 18 of the '205 and claim 11 of the '657 patents) survived.

Why the case is notable. This is one of a cluster of gaming-patent suits (alongside Beteiro in D.N.J. and Diogenes/Colossus in D. Del.) that targeted DraftKings at the height of the post-PASPA online sports-betting/iGaming boom, and it illustrates the now-standard defensive playbook: parallel IPR challenges to the entire asserted portfolio, a district-court stay, and PTAB final decisions invalidating all asserted claims — leaving only Federal Circuit appeals. Those appeals produced 2026 rulings with IPR-practice significance: in AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., No. 24-1821 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2026), the court summarily affirmed the PTAB's invalidation of the '498 patent claims (per curiam, Rule 36), and in DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 24-2078 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2026), Judges Chen, Hughes, and Stoll affirmed the PTAB's refusal to consider a new invalidity ground raised in a reply-brief footnote and rejected a "cobbled-together" collateral-estoppel theory, drawing practitioner attention (IPWatchdog, Law360, Akerman alerts). The '498 appeal thus ended in affirmance for DraftKings, the case remains administratively terminated/stayed with no merits decision, and any further district-court proceedings would be confined to the narrow, unasserted claims that survived the IPRs. One caveat: beyond the docket and SEC disclosures summarized here, few primary documents (e.g., Judge McNulty's termination order) are freely accessible, so some procedural details rest on party disclosures and docket aggregators rather than PACER text.

AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming v. DraftKings Inc. et al.

No. 1:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.), reallocated as No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J. Newark)
Patents-in-suit per the case metadata: U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498 (the "'498 patent"), "Systems and Methods for Peer-to-Peer Gaming." Note on scope: the district court pleadings actually asserted a family of five AG 18 "Arrow Gaming Patents" — the '498, '205 (9,978,205), '220 (10,497,220), '657 (10,614,657) and '131 (11,024,131) patents — so the '498 patent must be understood within that broader five-patent campaign (DraftKings FY2023 Form 10-K; DraftKings 10-Qs). The litigation never reached a merits decision in the district court; it was decided, effectively, through parallel IPRs at the PTAB and Federal Circuit appeals.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021)

• 2021-08-19 – AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming filed the original complaint against DraftKings Inc. (with jury demand), alleging that DraftKings' DFS and Casino product offerings infringed four AG 18 patents (ECF #1; AO120 patent form at ECF #3 on 2021-08-20; unicourt.com case summary; D.N.J. docket via dockets.justia.com, 2:2021cv15737/480897). Lead counsel for AG 18 was Douglas V. Sanchez of Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet (Law.com Radar).
• 2021-08-24 – Case reallocated from Camden (1:21-cv-15737) to Newark as 2:21-cv-15737 and reassigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen (ECF #4; Justia docket).
• 2021-09 to 10 – DraftKings appeared (James E. Cecchi; ECF #5, 2021-09-07), obtained extensions of its answer date, and was served (ECF #6, 2021-09-09; stipulation extending time to answer through 2021-10-13 at ECF #9, 2021-09-14).
• 2021-10-12 – AG 18 filed an Amended Complaint adding a fifth patent (ECF #14). The amended complaint asserted the '498, '205, '220, '657, and '131 patents against one or both of DraftKings' DFS and Casino offerings (DraftKings 10-K disclosures).
• 2021-11-09/10 – DraftKings moved to dismiss the complaint and simultaneously filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the Arrow Gaming Patents are invalid (ECF #20, 2021-11-10).
• 2021-12-01 – AG 18 answered DraftKings' counterclaims.
• 2021-12-20 – AG 18 filed a Second Amended Complaint adding allegations of willful infringement.

Crown Gaming Inc. defendant: the Justia docket reflects DraftKings Inc. and Crown Gaming Inc. as defendants, but my sources do not establish when Crown Gaming was added, its relationship to the DraftKings casino offering, or any separate substantive activity by it. I will flag that as an unresolved gap rather than speculate.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (2022)

• 2022-01-21 – DraftKings moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (briefed through 2022-03-25).
• 2022-03-07 – DraftKings moved to disqualify AG 18's counsel (opposition 2022-03-21; reply 2022-03-28). This motion had real strategic bite: on 2022-09-21 the court administratively terminated the pending motion to dismiss pending resolution of the disqualification motion, and on 2022-10-04 Magistrate Judge Allen denied the disqualification motion (DraftKings 10-K FY2023).
• 2022-10-21 – DraftKings filed a renewed motion to dismiss (opposition 2022-11-04; reply 2022-11-14). The court never ruled on it on the merits because of the stay that followed.
• 2022-11-04 – DraftKings moved to stay the case pending resolution of the IPR petitions it had filed against all five Arrow Gaming Patents (opposition 2022-11-23; reply 2022-12-02).
• No transfer motion, no summary judgment motion, and no § 101/eligibility dispositive ruling occurred in this case. The dispositive energy went into the PTAB rather than the district court.

---

3. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings — the decisive track

DraftKings filed IPR petitions against each of the five Arrow Gaming Patents between 2022-08-22 and 2022-08-30:

(PTAB dockets via DocketAlarm, ipverse.greyb.com, and patent Justia file histories; all institution decisions dated 2023-03-14.)

• 2023-03-14 – PTAB instituted all five IPRs. This triggered the district court stay (below).
• 2023-06-07 / 2023-09-06 – AG 18 (Perkins Coie: Han-Wei "Harvey" Chen, Patrick McKeever) filed patent owner responses; DraftKings (Baker Botts: Eliot D. Williams) filed replies.
• 2023-12-13 – Consolidated oral hearing before Judges Cocks, Hoskins, and Ippolito.
• 2024-03-12/13 – PTAB issued final written decisions in all five IPRs, finding every claim asserted in the litigation unpatentable. Only two unasserted claims survived: claim 18 of the '205 patent and claim 11 of the '657 patent (DraftKings 10-K FY2024; 10-Qs). The '498 FWD (IPR2022-01447, 92 pages, 2024-03-13) invalidated all litigated '498 claims.

---

4. Stay / administrative termination and posture of the district case

• 2023-04-03 – Following PTAB institution, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB's final written decisions (DraftKings 10-K/10-Q disclosures). The renewed motion to dismiss was never decided; no Markman proceeding, claim-construction order, or trial date was ever reached in the district court.
• After the 2024-03 FWDs, the parties agreed to maintain the stay through any appeals of the IPR final written decisions (DraftKings 10-K FY2024).

Claim construction (Markman): None occurred in the district court. The only substantive constructions were the PTAB's Phillips-standard constructions inside the IPRs (e.g., means-plus-function "results calculation module" analysis for the '498 patent's claim 17, and "dynamically" for the '131 patent), which were litigated in the IPR hearing and appeals — not in a district-court Markman ruling.

---

5. Discovery milestones

Discovery never reached full merits phase because the case was stayed/administratively terminated at the pleading/motion stage. The strategically significant "discovery-adjacent" milestone was DraftKings' 2022 motion to disqualify AG 18's counsel (filed 2022-03-07; denied 2022-10-04), which froze the motion-to-dismiss track for months. No claim construction discovery, expert discovery, or fact-discovery milestones of record occurred before the stay.

---

6. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion ever occurred; the case never returned to the merits docket after the 2023-04-03 administrative termination.

---

7. Federal Circuit appeals and final disposition (2024–2026)

• 2024-05-14 – AG 18 filed a Notice of Appeal of the '498 IPR final written decision (IPR2022-01447) → Fed. Cir. No. 24-1821, AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc. (DraftKings Inc. having been renamed DK Crown Holdings Inc.).
• 2024-07-10 – DraftKings/DK Crown appealed the '205 IPR FWD as to surviving claim 18 → Fed. Cir. No. 24-2078, DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC (challenging only claim 18, which was not asserted in the litigation).
• 2026-04-15 – The Federal Circuit issued a summary affirmance in No. 24-1821, upholding the PTAB's invalidation of the asserted claims of the '498 patent (DraftKings Q1-2026 10-Q disclosure, as excerpted in SEC-filing repositories).
• 2026-04-28 – With the '498 patent's asserted claims now conclusively invalid, Arrow Gaming filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the district court lawsuit with prejudice (same 10-Q disclosure).
• 2026-05-06 – The Federal Circuit (Chen, Hughes, Stoll) issued a nonprecedential opinion in No. 24-2078 affirming the PTAB: DK Crown failed to prove claim 18 of the '205 patent unpatentable because its petition never asserted Ground 3 (Bryson + Schlottmann) against claim 18, its reply footnote came too late, and its cobbled-together collateral-estoppel theory failed (DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 2024-2078, decided 2026-05-06, available at law.justia.com; IPWatchdog, 2026-05-06). Because claim 18 was never asserted in the New Jersey litigation, this victory did not preserve any Arrow Gaming claim.

Present posture: As of 2026-09-09, the district court docket should reflect dismissal (AG 18 moved on 2026-04-28 for voluntary dismissal with prejudice following the 2026-04-15 summary affirmance), though I was unable to confirm the entry of the dismissal order itself from my search results. The pre-2026 "stayed/administratively terminated" status in the case metadata predates these 2026 events. Net outcome: no liability, no damages, no injunction; all asserted Arrow Gaming patent claims were invalidated in the IPRs, and AG 18 capitulated by seeking dismissal with prejudice.

---

Sourcing notes and caveats

• Docket/pleading dates: D.N.J. docket via dockets.justia.com (case 2:2021cv15737/480897); unicourt.com case summary; Law.com Radar.
• Litigation narrative and dates (MTD, disqualification motion, IPR filings, institution, FWDs, appeals, 2026 dismissal motion): DraftKings Inc. SEC Forms 10-K (FY2022–FY2025) and 10-Q (through Q1-2026), which contain a detailed litigation description under "AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming."
• PTAB dates and documents: DocketAlarm and ipverse PTAB dockets; patent Justia file histories (institution decisions 2023-03-14; FWDs 2024-03-12/13).
• Federal Circuit: DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 2024-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2026-05-06) (law.justia.com; IPWatchdog); the 2026-04-15 summary affirmance in No. 24-1821 is sourced only to DraftKings' periodic-report description and could not be independently verified against a PACER/Federal Circuit citation in my searches.
• The timing and theory of Crown Gaming Inc.'s joinder as a defendant, and the order granting AG 18's 2026-04-28 voluntary dismissal, were not verifiable from the sources retrieved; both are flagged rather than assumed.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming

Based on the available public record (docket aggregators, PTAB filings, and Law.com Radar), the plaintiff's representation has had two identifiable phases. I could not pull the full PACER docket or the complaint's signature block before hitting search limits, so what is confirmed is flagged below with its source; nothing below is invented.

1. Douglas V. Sanchez — NJ filing/local counsel of record

• Role: Attorney of record who filed the complaint and signed the initial docket filings (local counsel role for the New Jersey district court action).
• Firm/Office: Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet (New Jersey–based firm; per Law.com Radar, the suit was "brought by Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet on behalf of Arrow Gaming"). Office location not separately confirmed in the retrieved materials.
• Evidence: UniCourt and the Justia docket both list "DOUGLAS V. SANCHEZ" as Plaintiff Attorney, with Docket #1 (complaint, filed 8/19/2021) entered as "(SANCHEZ, DOUGLAS)" (dockets.justia.com/docket/new-jersey/njdce/2:2021cv15737/480897); Law.com Radar card "AG 18, LLC v. Draftkings Inc." (2:21-cv-15737, filed 8/19/2021).
• Experience note: No publicly retrieved source links Sanchez to patent litigation experience; his appearance is consistent with a New Jersey local-counsel role (the case was reallocated to Newark, D.N.J., before Judge Kevin McNulty/MJ Jessica S. Allen). Notably, this firm was not the patent lead — see below.

2. Stephen S. Roche — lead patent counsel (district litigation / PTAB phase one)

• Role: Designated lead counsel for AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming in the coordinated PTAB IPRs arising from this very case; identified in AG 18's Mandatory Notices as "Lead Counsel … Stephen S. Roche, U.S. Reg. No. 52,176."
• Firm/Office: Setter Roche Smith & Shellenberger LLP, 1860 Blake Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202.
• Evidence: AG 18's Mandatory Notices filed 9/13/2022 in IPR2022-01442 (DocketAlarm copy of the PDF), which expressly identify the co-pending litigation as "AG 18, LLC v. Draft Kings Inc, Case No. 2-21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.)" and list Roche as lead counsel for the patent owner.
• Caveat: I could not independently confirm from the retrieved record whether Roche formally entered an appearance in the district court itself (as opposed to the PTAB). However, the PTAB notices tie his representation to the '15737 litigation, and DraftKings' March 7, 2022 "motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel" (denied October 4, 2022) suggests the plaintiff's substantive patent team (not just local counsel) was actively litigating. Confirming Roche's district-court appearance requires the PACER attorney docket or the complaint signature page.
• Experience note: Roche is a registered patent litigator (Reg. No. 52,176) at a Denver IP litigation boutique; he was AG 18's lead in the DraftKings IPRs until replaced (below). No further case history was retrieved.

3. Perkins Coie LLP team — lead/back-up counsel after November 2022 substitution (PTAB record)

• Miguel Bombach — substituted as lead counsel for AG 18 in the IPRs (Perkins Coie LLP, 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300, San Diego, CA). San Diego-based Perkins Coie IP partner with an active PTAB/patent-litigation practice.
• Douglas Sawyer — back-up counsel (Perkins Coie, 110 N. Upper Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL).
• Fareid Asphahani — back-up counsel (Perkins Coie).
• McKenzie Chen / Han-Wei Chen — back-up counsel (Perkins Coie).
• Patrick McKeever — later listed among AG 18's PTAB counsel (service list in Baker Botts' 10/11/2023 oral-hearing request for IPR2022-01445).
• Evidence: AG 18's Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel (11/28/2022) and Updated Power of Attorney (11/22/2022) in IPR2022-01442 (DocketAlarm PDFs); Baker Botts' Request for Oral Hearing service list (PTACTS).
• Caveat: These appearances are documented in the PTAB proceedings (IPR2022-01442 et al.), not in retrieved district-court docket entries. It is likely they assumed the substantive patent-counsel role after the district case was administratively terminated (April 3, 2023) and while the '498-patent IPR appeal was pending (Arrow Gaming noticed its appeal of the '498 IPR on May 14, 2024), but their formal entry in the district docket is unverified here.

Not plaintiff's counsel (for disambiguation)

• James E. Cecchi (Carella Byrne Cecchi et al., Roseland, NJ) — defense local counsel; Notice of Appearance for DraftKings filed 9/7/2021 (Docket #5).
• Lindsey H. Taylor — listed on the Justia docket for DraftKings (defense).
• Andrew Wilson / Eliot D. Williams (Baker Botts) — DraftKings' PTAB (petitioner) counsel, not plaintiff's counsel.

Gaps / items needing PACER verification

1. Complaint signature block — not retrieved; it would confirm who signed alongside Sanchez and whether Roche (or another patent firm) was co-counsel from day one.
2. Docket #12 (filed 9/23/2021): "MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to C…" — the public snippet truncates the movant's name; this is very likely a plaintiff-side out-of-state patent attorney (e.g., Roche or a Perkins Coie predecessor), but the name could not be confirmed before search limits were reached.
3. Post-stay counsel — the case is administratively terminated pending the Federal Circuit appeal of the '498 IPR; no merits decision has been reached, and no district-court counsel-of-record update after 2022 was retrievable from the public sources consulted.

If you need the definitive CM/ECF attorney list, the most efficient next step is pulling the PACER docket report for 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.), which will show every notice of appearance, pro hac vice order, and the current counsel list for AG 18.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and defense counsel for both the district court case and related IPRs.

I found Baker Botts representation in the IPRs and Federal Circuit appeal. Now let me identify the district court defense counsel of record in D.N.J.

Counsel of Record for Defendants — AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., No. 1:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.)

Important sourcing caveat

I was unable to pull the full PACER docket or the D.N.J. attorney-appearance entries directly, and the public docket snapshots I retrieved (Justia, UniCourt, Law.com Radar) mostly date from the case's opening week. At the time of filing (Aug. 19, 2021), Law.com Radar reported: "Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant." No complete, current list of defense attorneys of record on the D.N.J. docket was confirmed in my searches. The names below are those I could verify from firm materials, PTAB records, and the Federal Circuit opinion in the closely-linked appellate/IPR phase of this same dispute — not from a docket-sheet retrieval of the district court case itself. I have flagged each item's evidentiary basis accordingly and have not invented any attorneys.

Defense-side counsel confirmed in the broader AG 18/DraftKings proceedings (all Baker Botts LLP)

Baker Botts LLP served as DraftKings' counsel across the parallel PTAB IPRs challenging the five asserted Arrow Gaming patents (including the '498 patent at issue here), and on the resulting Federal Circuit appeal. This is the same litigation campaign against the same patents and parties, and one Baker Botts attorney's own bio expressly ties his work to the D.N.J. case:

• Andrew David Wilson — Baker Botts LLP; listed as counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 24-2078); his Baker Botts biography lists "AG 18, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC., 2-21-cv-15737 (DNJ) (PTAB)" under Related Experience, confirming his involvement spanning the district-court case number and PTAB phase. He is a high-tech/software patent litigator with substantial PTAB, ITC, and district-court experience (e.g., Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. ARRIS, Data Scape v. Teradata, ITC Section 337 investigations). (Sources: Baker Botts attorney bio; Fed. Cir. opinion; IPR deposition transcript.)

• Eliot Damon Williams — Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC; argued the appellant's (DraftKings/DK Crown's) case at the Federal Circuit in DK Crown Holdings Inc., fka DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 24-2078 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2026) — the appeal of IPR2022-01446, one of the IPRs on the Arrow Gaming patents asserted in this case. (Source: Fed. Cir. opinion, 24-2078.)

• Jamie Roy Lynn — Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC; also of record on Fed. Cir. No. 24-2078. (Source: Fed. Cir. opinion.)

• Thomas Chisman Martin — Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC; also of record on Fed. Cir. No. 24-2078. (Source: Fed. Cir. opinion.)

• Lori Ding — Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX; also of record on Fed. Cir. No. 24-2078. (Source: Fed. Cir. opinion.)

• George Hopkins Guy III — Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto, CA; also of record on Fed. Cir. No. 24-2078. (Source: Fed. Cir. opinion.)

Additional direct confirmation that Baker Botts represented the DraftKings side in the IPR phase (petitions filed Aug. 22–30, 2022; PTAB instituted all IPRs Mar. 14, 2023; final written decisions Mar. 12–13, 2024, invalidating all claims asserted in the litigation): the IPR deposition transcript in IPR2022-01442 is captioned with "BAKER BOTTS LLP — Attorneys for the Petitioner," and the reporter identifies "Andrew Wilson with Baker Botts, representing the petitioner, DraftKings." (Sources: DocketAlarm transcript of IPR2022-01442 Ex. 1068; PTACTS records; DraftKings 10-K/10-Q litigation disclosures.)

What I could not confirm — stated explicitly

• D.N.J. local counsel: Because Baker Botts has no New Jersey office and D.N.J. L. Civ. R. 101.1 generally requires local counsel for out-of-state firms, it is likely a New Jersey firm appeared as local counsel, but no local-counsel name is confirmed in any source I retrieved, and I will not guess.
• Lead counsel of record on the district-court filings themselves (e.g., who signed the Nov. 10, 2021 answer and counterclaims; the Jan. 21, 2022 motion to dismiss; the Mar. 7, 2022 motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel; the Nov. 4, 2022 motion to stay): not confirmed from public sources I could access. The substance of those filings is well documented (DraftKings 10-K/10-Q and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission application of Crown MA Gaming LLC), but the signing attorneys are not identified in those sources.
• In-house counsel for DraftKings/Crown Gaming: No in-house attorney of record is confirmed.
• Crown Gaming Inc.'s separate counsel: No separately appearing counsel for Crown Gaming Inc. (as distinct from DraftKings) was identified; based on the corporate relationship described in the complaint and DraftKings' regulatory filings, the Crown entities and DraftKings were defended in tandem, but I cannot confirm whether Crown Gaming had separate counsel of record in the D.N.J. case.

Bottom line

The defense team is most reliably documented as Baker Botts LLP (lead counsel on the IPR/Federal Circuit front of this exact dispute, with Andrew D. Wilson's bio expressly referencing the D.N.J. case number 2:21-cv-15737). For a definitive list of every attorney of record entered on the district-court docket — including New Jersey local counsel — PACER access to 1:21-cv-15737 (viewable appearances under the case's attorney list) or the court's CM/ECF report would be required; those specific entries were not retrievable through the sources available to me.