AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc.

Case Overview and Background: AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., No. 24-1821 (Fed. Cir.)

A threshold clarification on posture. Although framed as "patent infringement litigation," No. 24-1821 is not a district court infringement case — it is a direct appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review. The underlying infringement suit is AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming v. DraftKings Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J., filed Aug. 19, 2021, before Judge Robert B. Kugler and Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King), which was administratively terminated on April 3, 2023 pending resolution of DraftKings' IPRs, with the stay maintained through the IPR appeals. This appeal, AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc. (f/k/a DraftKings Inc.), No. 24-1821 (Fed. Cir.), was brought by patent owner AG 18 on May 14, 2024 challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01447 (DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC) invalidating U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498. Note that the case metadata reflecting "pending" status is now stale: the Federal Circuit panel (Chen, Hughes, and Stoll) affirmed the PTAB under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential) on April 15, 2026, ending AG 18's challenge. (Sources: CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 24-1821, ECF Doc. 57, Apr. 15, 2026, cafc.uscourts.gov; Justia; UniCourt/Justia dockets for 2:21-cv-15737; DraftKings FY2023/FY2024 SEC filings.)

Parties, technology, and patent. Appellant AG 18, LLC, doing business as Arrow Gaming, owns the '498 patent (originally assigned to Arrow Gaming, Inc., per PTAB records); public sources do not show that AG 18/Arrow Gaming operates a gaming business itself, and its litigation posture is consistent with a patent-monetization/NPE-style holder, though I found no authoritative characterization of it as such — that point should be treated as unverified. Appellee DK Crown Holdings Inc., formerly known as DraftKings Inc., is the parent of the DraftKings daily-fantasy-sports (DFS), sportsbook, and online-casino brands and was the IPR petitioner. In the D.N.J. case, AG 18 accused DraftKings' DFS and Casino product offerings (mobile apps and websites) of infringing five patents — the '498 plus four "Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming" patents ('205, '220, '657, '131, collectively the "Arrow Gaming Patents") — with the amended complaint later adding willfulness allegations. Only the '498 patent, "Systems and Methods for Peer-to-Peer Gaming," is at issue in this appeal: it claims computer-server-based peer-to-peer wagering systems/methods in which an administration server creates location-limited lists of gaming options, matches players and wagers, initiates games, and computes results and payouts — including a "results calculation module" (construed as a means-plus-function limitation whose "corresponding structure" is an algorithm disclosed in the specification). On appeal, AG 18 argued the Board (1) misapplied its own means-plus-function construction of claim 17's results-calculation module when finding the claimed algorithm disclosed in the prior art (references referred to in the oral argument transcript as Amaitis/MIDUS-type gaming servers), and (2) erred on claim 12 by treating a gaming server's transmitting of data as satisfying the claimed receiving of data "through the communication interface," plus collateral-estoppel issues. The court affirmed without opinion. (Sources: Rule 36 Judgment; CourtListener oral-argument audio/transcript for 24-1821; DraftKings 10-K litigation disclosure, capedge.com/companiesmarketcap reproductions.)

Procedural context, venue significance, and why it matters. The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) for appeals from PTAB final written decisions — the "venue" question here is about appellate route, not district court location; DraftKings (as DK Crown Holdings) is appellee as the IPR petitioner/real party in interest, and DraftKings' counsel (Baker Botts, argued by Eliot D. Williams) appeared for the appellee while AG 18 was represented by Perkins Coie (argued by Patrick J. McKeever). This appeal is one strand of a coordinated defensive campaign: between Aug. 22 and Aug. 30, 2022, DraftKings petitioned for IPR against all five Arrow Gaming Patents; the PTAB instituted all of them on March 14, 2023, and on March 12–13, 2024 issued final written decisions invalidating every claim asserted in the D.N.J. litigation, leaving alive only unasserted claims (claim 18 of the '205 and claim 11 of the '657 patents). The April 15, 2026 Rule 36 affirmance therefore confirms that the asserted '498 claims are dead, effectively gutting the stayed infringement action's principal patent (DraftKings' SEC disclosures note the parties agreed to keep the stay through the IPR appeals). The case is notable on several fronts: it illustrates the heavy IPR-first defense mounted by a major online-gambling operator (DraftKings) against a wave of gaming-patent assertions in the fast-growing DFS/sports-betting/iGaming market (the same docket shows parallel NPE suits such as Beteiro and Colossus); it shows the risk to patent owners of forum-shifting to the PTAB, where a single adverse FWD can nullify a district court case; and it pairs procedurally with the companion appeal DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, No. 24-2078 (Fed. Cir., decided May 6, 2026), in which the Federal Circuit (Chen, J.) affirmed the Board's refusal to consider a new invalidity ground raised for the first time in an IPR reply footnote — a decision drawing practitioner commentary on Netflix v. DivX and the finality of IPR petitions (IPWatchdog, May 6, 2026; Akerman client alert, May 7, 2026). By contrast, because 24-1821 was resolved by summary Rule 36 affirmance, it sets no new precedential law on the means-plus-function/algorithm and transmit-vs-receive issues that dominated the oral argument.

AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc. — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Framing note (read first)

Case No. 24-1821 is not a district-court patent infringement suit. It is a Federal Circuit appeal of a PTAB inter partes review (IPR) final written decision — the appeal was taken "from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-01447" (U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498, the "'498 patent"). The infringement litigation is the underlying, parallel district-court case: AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming v. DraftKings Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.), assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen (reassigned 2021-08-24). That case never reached claim construction, trial, or verdict; it was administratively terminated while the parties litigated validity exclusively before the PTAB. The definitive substantive outcome came through the IPR channel and the Federal Circuit.

Present posture (as of 2026-09-09): On 2026-04-15, the Federal Circuit affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 the PTAB's decision invalidating the asserted claims of the '498 patent — a complete loss for AG 18 on the only patent at issue in No. 24-1821.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (D.N.J., 2021–2022)

• 2021-08-19 — AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming filed a patent-infringement complaint in the District of New Jersey against DraftKings (Case No. 2:21-cv-15737), alleging the DFS and Casino product offerings infringed four patents. (D.N.J. docket; Law.com Radar; DraftKings SEC filings.)
• 2021-10-12 — AG 18 filed an amended complaint adding a fifth patent. The five "Arrow Gaming Patents" were: '498 (9,613,498, Systems and Methods for Peer-to-Peer Gaming), '205 (9,978,205), '220 (10,497,220), '657 (10,614,657), and '131 (11,024,131) — the latter four being Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming patents. (DraftKings Form 10-K/10-Q narrative; dkng-20250630.)
• 2021-11-09 — DraftKings moved to dismiss the original complaint.
• 2021-11-10 — DraftKings answered and filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the Arrow Gaming Patents are invalid.
• 2021-12-01 — AG 18 answered the counterclaims.
• 2021-12-20 — AG 18 filed a second amended complaint adding willful-infringement allegations.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance (all in the D.N.J. case)

• 2022-01-21 — DraftKings moved to dismiss the second amended complaint (opposition 2022-02-22; reply 2022-03-25). (DraftKings 10-K narrative.)
• 2022-03-07 — DraftKings moved to disqualify AG 18's counsel (opposition 2022-03-21; reply 2022-03-28).
• 2022-09-21 — The motion to dismiss was administratively terminated pending resolution of the disqualification motion.
• 2022-10-04 — The magistrate judge denied the motion to disqualify AG 18's counsel.
• 2022-10-21 — DraftKings filed a renewed motion to dismiss (opposition 2022-11-04; reply 2022-11-14). This motion was never decided.
• 2022-11-04 — DraftKings moved to stay the case pending the IPR petitions it had filed (opposition 2022-11-23; reply 2022-12-02).
• 2023-04-03 — The district court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB's final written decisions — effectively the stay that governed the remainder of the case. The parties later "agreed to maintain the stay pending any appeals of the PTAB's final written decisions in the IPRs." (DraftKings 10-K, FY2023–FY2025; SEC EDGAR dkng-20241231, dkng-20250630.)

There were no motions to transfer, no summary judgment, no Markman/claim-construction proceeding, and no trial in the district court. No infringement or damages issues were ever adjudicated.

3. Parallel PTAB IPRs (the decisive forum)

• 2022-08-22 to 2022-08-30 — DraftKings petitioned for IPR against each of the five Arrow Gaming Patents. The IPR on the '498 patent — IPR2022-01447, DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC — was filed 2022-08-23, challenging claims 1–20. (greyB/IPVerse; Patexia; USPTO PTAB.)
• 2023-03-14 — PTAB instituted IPR in all five proceedings (institution decision in IPR2022-01447, 57 pages, dated 2023-03-14). (Justia patent citations; DraftKings 10-K.)
• 2023-06-07 — AG 18 filed patent-owner responses; 2023-09-06 — DraftKings filed replies.
• 2023-12-13 — Consolidated oral hearing before APJs Josiah C. Cocks, George R. Hoskins, and Frances L. Ippolito for IPRs 01442, 01445, 01446, 01447, and 01448 (hearing transcript on Docket Alarm). The FWD in IPR2022-01447 was authored by APJ Hoskins. (Patexia.)
• 2024-03-12/13 — PTAB issued final written decisions in all five IPRs finding every claim asserted in the litigation unpatentable. In the '498 IPR, the FWD was entered 2024-03-13 (92 pages) and invalidated the challenged claims. Only claim 18 of the '205 patent and claim 11 of the '657 patent survived, and neither had been asserted in the D.N.J. suit. (DraftKings 10-Q/10-K; Patexia — decision date 2024-03-13; the related '205 FWD is cited at DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. IPR2022-01446, 2024 WL 1075310 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 12, 2024).)

Claim construction in the IPR channel: The only meaningful claim-construction event was the Board's construction in the '498 FWD of the "result calculation module" in claim 17 as a means-plus-function limitation whose corresponding structure included an algorithm (including steps "for determining the objectives achieved by the player and the competitors") drawn from the specification and Figure 6. AG 18 did not challenge that construction on appeal; it argued the Board failed to apply its own construction to the prior art (the Amaitis/MIDUS references). (CAFC oral-argument transcript, CourtListener audio No. 104248.)

4. Federal Circuit appeals

• 2024-05-14 — AG 18 filed its notice of appeal of the '498 IPR FWD, opening No. 24-1821, AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., fka DraftKings Inc. (DraftKings had been reorganized; appellee is DK Crown Holdings Inc., formerly DraftKings Inc.). (Case metadata; DraftKings 10-K: "On May 14, 2024, Arrow Gaming filed a Notice of Appeal of the IPR directed to the '498 Patent.")
• 2024-07-10 — DraftKings filed a separate appeal of the '205 IPR FWD as to the sole surviving claim 18, opening No. 2024-2078, DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC. (DraftKings 10-K.)
• Briefing/argument in 24-1821: Patrick J. McKeever (Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego) argued for AG 18; Eliot D. Williams (Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC) argued for DK Crown. Panel: Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges. Oral argument was heard in early 2026 (audio posted on the CAFC website and CourtListener; the exact hearing date is not confirmed in the sources retrieved). AG 18's arguments at oral argument concerned (i) claim 17's means-plus-function "results calculation module" and whether the Board failed to apply its own construction to the prior art, and (ii) claim 12's "receiving data about the game ... through the communication interface" limitation, which AG 18 argued the Board conflated with the prior art's transmitting function. (CourtListener audio transcript.)
• 2026-04-15 — The Federal Circuit entered judgment AFFIRMING the PTAB's '498 FWD under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential; per curiam, Chen/Hughes/Stoll; CAFC Doc. 57). (CAFC Rule 36 Judgment page; Justia: AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., No. 2024-1821 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2026).) No opinion was issued, so the appeal did not generate substantive precedent.
• 2026-05-06 — In the parallel appeal 2024-2078, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision upholding claim 18 of the '205 patent, holding the Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider a new invalidity theory raised only in a reply-brief footnote, and rejecting DraftKings' collateral-estoppel argument. (Fed Circuit Blog, Opinions & Orders — May 6, 2026; DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 2024-2078 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2026) (Chen, J.); Akerman/Lexology summary.) That case is related but not the subject of No. 24-1821.

5. Settlement, final disposition, and practical outcome

• No settlement of the '498 claims is reported. The decisive events were the PTAB invalidation and the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 affirmance.
• Effect on the D.N.J. infringement action: Because the PTAB found all of the claims of the '498 patent asserted in the litigation unpatentable and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-04-15, AG 18's infringement claims based on the '498 patent are foreclosed (35 U.S.C. § 315(e) estoppel and final invalidity). The D.N.J. case (2:21-cv-15737) was administratively terminated on 2023-04-03 and the parties had stipulated to maintain the stay through the appeals; as of the sources reviewed, no post-affirmance order reopening or dismissing the D.N.J. matter has been identified (the DraftKings SEC narrative through the FY2025 Form 10-K, which described both appeals as pending, predates the 2026-04-15 affirmance).
• Outcome of No. 24-1821: Affirmed in favor of DK Crown Holdings Inc. (DraftKings). AG 18 lost the appeal; the '498 patent's invalidated claims are not revived. The only surviving claims anywhere in the Arrow Gaming IPR campaign — claim 18 of the '205 and claim 11 of the '657 — were not asserted in the infringement suit and were the subject of DraftKings' separate, unsuccessful appeal (2024-2078) on claim 18 of the '205.

6. Strategic observations

• The case is a textbook example of the IPR-first defense: DraftKings never had to litigate infringement or damages. Five parallel IPRs (01442, 01445, 01446, 01447, 01448) plus a successful stay/administrative termination of the district court neutralized the entire five-patent portfolio.
• The only procedurally notable district-court skirmish (the counsel-disqualification motion, denied 2022-10-04, and the renewed Rule 12(b)(6) motion, left undecided) became moot once the case was administratively terminated.
• AG 18's single issue on appeal — the Board's treatment of the means-plus-function "results calculation module" structure — was decided summarily under Rule 36, suggesting the panel found no substantial-evidence or legal error warranting explanation. The final word for the '498 patent is invalidity, entered 2026-04-15.

Sources: CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 2026-04-15 (cafc.uscourts.gov; Justia); IPVerse/greyB and Patexia records for IPR2022-01447; D.N.J. docket 2:21-cv-15737 (Justia); DraftKings SEC filings (Form 10-K FY2023–FY2025 and 10-Q filings, EDGAR) describing the Arrow Gaming litigation and IPRs; CAFC oral-argument audio/transcript (CourtListener No. 104248); Fed Circuit Blog and Akerman/Lexology summaries of No. 2024-2078 (2026-05-06). Caveats: the exact date of the 24-1821 oral argument and any post-2026-04-15 district-court docket activity were not confirmed in the retrieved sources.

Threshold clarification — what this docket actually is

Despite the question referring to a "patent infringement case," No. 24-1821 is not an infringement action. Per the case metadata and the Federal Circuit's own judgment, it is an appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01447 (DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC), in which the Board invalidated claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498. AG 18, LLC (patent owner below) is the appellant; DK Crown Holdings Inc., f/k/a DraftKings, is the appellee. There is no district-court "plaintiff/defendant" structure on this docket. If you are separately looking for counsel in a parallel district-court infringement suit between these parties, that is a different docket and not the one identified here.

One more status note: the metadata says "pending," but the appeal has in fact concluded. The Federal Circuit entered a Rule 36 judgment AFFIRMING the Board on April 15, 2026 (Case 24-1821, Doc. 57; per curiam panel of Chen, Hughes, and Stoll). Nothing is sealed, and counsel of record appeared openly.

Counsel of record for AG 18, LLC (appellant / "plaintiff" in the caption)

The judgment identifies the appellate team for AG 18 as follows (all Perkins Coie LLP — now branded Ashurst Perkins Coie following the firm combination reflected in current bar/lawyer listings):

1. Patrick John McKeever — Lead counsel / argued the appeal

• Firm/Office: Perkins Coie LLP (Ashurst Perkins Coie), San Diego, CA (11452 El Camino Real, Ste. 300); USPTO Reg. No. 66,019.
• Role: Argued for appellant AG 18 before the Chen/Hughes/Stoll panel; also served as lead counsel for AG 18 as patent owner in the underlying IPR2022-01447 (per the Feb. 7, 2025 updated lead/back-up counsel notice to the PTAB).
• Experience: Longtime patent litigator who helped launch Perkins Coie's San Diego office (now its leader per Law360 Pulse); handles district court, ITC (HTC, Microsoft, Netflix, Hulu, Roku representations), and high-stakes IPR work; recognized in Patexia's IPR litigation reports.

2. Andrew (Andy) T. Dufresne — Counsel of record (appellate specialist)

• Firm/Office: Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI (33 E. Main St., Suite 201).
• Role: Listed on the appellate judgment as also representing appellant AG 18; his role centered on appellate briefing/strategy (he did not argue in this case).
• Experience: Former Federal Circuit law clerk and board member of the Federal Circuit Bar Association; PhD in molecular genetics/microbiology; Chambers-ranked (Band 3, IP Litigation, Wisconsin); regularly briefs and argues patent appeals at the Federal Circuit, including Hatch-Waxman and PTAB-related appeals.

3. Jonathan Irvin Tietz — Counsel of record

• Firm/Office: Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC.
• Role: Listed on the appellate judgment as also representing appellant AG 18; added as back-up counsel to AG 18 in the underlying IPR in the Feb. 2025 notice. Notably, he argued for AG 18 in the sibling appeal, DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 24-2078 (Fed. Cir., decided May 6, 2026), involving the related '205 patent.
• Experience: DC-based patent litigator concentrating on appellate and PTAB advocacy in the gaming/software space.

No in-house attorney for AG 18, and no separate "local counsel," appeared on the Federal Circuit docket for this appeal.

Sources relied on

• CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., No. 24-1821, Doc. 57 (Apr. 15, 2026), available at cafc.uscourts.gov (and mirrored at law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-1821/).
• Justia / Federal Circuit opinion pages for companion appeal No. 24-2078 (May 6, 2026), which lists the same AG 18 team and the Baker Botts team for DK.
• PTAB power-of-attorney and updated lead/back-up counsel notices in IPR2022-01446/01447 (DocketAlarm, PTACTS) showing McKeever as lead and Han-Wei Chen (then Perkins Coie; later HT Lee Law PC), Nicholas G. Lipperd, and Jonathan I. Tietz as back-up for AG 18 below.
• Perkins Coie / Ashurst Perkins Coie attorney profiles and Law360 Pulse (McKeever office-leadership profile), Chambers USA (Dufresne), and State Bar of California records confirming McKeever's current firm affiliation.

Caveat: I could not independently verify a docket-sheet "appearance" entry (PACER) separate from the judgment's counsel listing, and I did not fabricate any additional attorneys — the three names above are the complete AG 18 team identified in the court's own disposition.

I'll research the counsel of record. Since this matter involves both the underlying D.N.J. infringement action and the Federal Circuit appeal, I'll search both dockets.

I have the appellate counsel from the Rule 36 judgment. Now let me identify the district court defense counsel of record and confirm local/in-house counsel details.

Counsel of Record for the Defense — AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc.

A scope note on "defendant." No. 24-1821 is the Federal Circuit appeal (appellee DK Crown Holdings Inc., f/k/a DraftKings Inc.), but the underlying patent infringement case is AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc. et al., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.), where the defendants were DraftKings Inc. (now DK Crown Holdings) and Crown Gaming Inc. The defense team is the same core Baker Botts group across the D.N.J. case, the five IPRs, and both Federal Circuit appeals (24-1821 and the companion 24-2078). I identify counsel at each stage below.

Appellee/defendant counsel of record — Federal Circuit appeal, No. 24-1821

The authoritative source is the Rule 36 Judgment (CAFC, Apr. 15, 2026, cafc.uscourts.gov; also Justia 24-1821-2026-04-15), which lists the appellee's counsel:

District court counsel of record — D.N.J. No. 2:21-cv-15737

The public Justia docket confirms that James E. Cecchi filed a Notice of Appearance for defendant DraftKings Inc. (D.N.J. ECF No. 5, Sept. 7, 2021). Cecchi is a New Jersey-based patent and complex-litigation lawyer; based on public knowledge (not confirmed in this search's snippets) he practices at Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello, Roseland, NJ, and his role here was NJ local/district counsel. The same docket snippet references an additional attorney beginning with "Lindsey H.…" whose full name, firm, and client-side role I could not confirm. Caveat: I could not retrieve the complete D.N.J. docket to verify every appearance for both named defendants (DraftKings Inc. and Crown Gaming Inc.), and the UniCourt/Ex Parte pages for this case do not reliably list defense-side attorney details. The Baker Botts group above (particularly Lynn, Williams, Wilson) is documented as the D.N.J. defense team through firm bios and IPR filings, but the complete D.N.J. appearance list — including any second local-counsel firm and counsel for Crown Gaming Inc. — should be verified against PACER before relying on it.

In-house counsel

No DraftKings/DK Crown in-house attorney of record was identified in any source I reviewed. If in-house counsel entered appearances (rather than merely monitoring), they do not appear in the public Rule 36 judgment or the docket excerpts located.

Bottom line: The defense was led by Baker Botts LLP, with Eliot D. Williams (Washington, DC) arguing the Federal Circuit appeal and serving as lead IPR counsel, supported by Jamie R. Lynn, Thomas C. Martin, Andrew D. Wilson (Washington, DC), George H. Guy III (Palo Alto), and Clarke Stavinoha (Dallas), plus NJ local/district counsel James E. Cecchi in the stayed D.N.J. action. Sources: CAFC Rule 36 Judgment 24-1821 (Apr. 15, 2026); Justia Federal Circuit docket 24-1821; Justia D.N.J. docket 2:21-cv-15737 (ECF Nos. 1, 5); Baker Botts attorney bios (Lynn, Wilson); IPR2022-01442 deposition transcript (Docket Alarm); companion decision 24-2078 (May 6, 2026).