DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC

Case Overview and Background

Parties and their roles. This matter originates from AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.), a patent infringement suit filed August 19, 2021, that spawned a coordinated set of inter partes review (IPR) challenges—including the case here, DraftKings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, IPR2022-01447, at the PTAB. DraftKings (now operating its legacy B2C business through DK Crown Holdings Inc., fka DraftKings Inc., per the Federal Circuit captions) is the largest U.S. online sports-betting and daily fantasy sports (DFS) operator; its accused platforms included the DraftKings DFS and Casino product offerings and associated state-licensed Crown entities (e.g., Crown NJ Gaming) that operate under the DraftKings brand (DraftKings 10-K/10-Q disclosures; RPX complaint excerpts). AG 18, LLC, doing business as Arrow Gaming, is the patent owner/plaintiff—a Denver-based entity tied to inventor Brian Frenkel, with the '498 patent originally assigned to Arrow Gaming, Inc. (Patexia/Docket Alarm records). Whether Arrow Gaming is best characterized as a pure non-practicing entity versus a small gaming-technology firm is not clearly established in the public sources reviewed, so I flag that point as unverified; what is clear is that it is not a large operating competitor of DraftKings.

Accused technology and asserted patents. Arrow Gaming alleged that DraftKings' DFS and Casino (iGaming) product offerings—the mobile apps and web platforms at draftkings.com, including DraftKings Daily Fantasy and DraftKings Casino—infringe five related patents (the "Arrow Gaming Patents"), each asserted against one or both product lines (DraftKings 10-K): (1) U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498 ("Systems and Methods for Peer-to-Peer Gaming," issued Apr. 4, 2017)—the only patent at issue in IPR2022-01447—covering networked peer-to-peer gaming systems in which a gaming server manages head-to-head player wagers and a "results calculation module" (construed by the Board as a means-plus-function element whose algorithm determines player "objectives achieved") settles outcomes and payouts; and (2)-(5) U.S. Patent Nos. 9,978,205; 10,497,220; 10,614,657; and 11,024,131, all titled "Location Based Restrictions on Networked Gaming," covering gaming systems that restrict or modify online wagering based on the player's geographic location (Federal Circuit opinions in Nos. 24-1821 and 24-2078; IPWatchdog). DraftKings answered and counterclaimed for declaratory judgments of invalidity (Nov. 10, 2021), and Arrow Gaming filed a second amended complaint adding willful-infringement allegations (Dec. 20, 2021).

Procedural posture, venue, and IPR linkage. The D.N.J. case was assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen after reallocation to the Newark vicinage (Justia docket, Aug. 24, 2021). Venue in New Jersey made sense because DraftKings' DFS and casino offerings are actively distributed and state-licensed there (via Crown NJ Gaming and DraftKings DE), making it a natural forum for a defendant-operations-based infringement case. In late August 2022 DraftKings petitioned for IPR against each Arrow Gaming patent; the PTAB instituted all of them on March 14, 2023, and the district court administratively terminated the case on April 3, 2023, with the parties agreeing to keep it stayed through appeal (DraftKings filings). In IPR2022-01447 (Panel: Judges Hoskins (author), Cocks, and Ippolito), the PTAB's Final Written Decision of March 13, 2024 found all 20 challenged claims of the '498 patent unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious. Patent owner AG 18 appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-1821), which heard argument on April 13, 2026 and affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on April 15, 2026 (per curiam: Chen, Hughes, Stoll). A sibling appeal from the related '205-patent IPR (IPR2022-01446), DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, No. 24-2078, was decided May 6, 2026, affirming the Board on the sole surviving claim (claim 18) (CAFC opinion; IPWatchdog; Akerman/Lexology).

Why the case is notable. The dispute sits at the intersection of the post-PASPA online-gambling boom and a wave of patent assertions against DraftKings: within months in late 2021, DraftKings was sued by Arrow Gaming (D.N.J.), Beteiro (D.N.J.), and Diogenes/Colossus (D. Del.). Arrow Gaming's campaign specifically targeted DraftKings' DFS and iGaming engines—core revenue products—creating exposure to damages, possible trebling on the willfulness theory, and injunctive risk had the IPRs failed (DraftKings SEC disclosures describe this risk expressly). DraftKings' response was a coordinated, five-patent IPR barrage; its near-total success—every claim asserted in the litigation invalidated by the March 2024 final written decisions, with only two unasserted claims (claim 18 of the '205 and claim 11 of the '657) surviving, and the '498 FWD affirmed on appeal—illustrates the modern playbook in which PTAB validity review, rather than district-court merits litigation, decides the fate of an NPE-style gaming-patent case. The companion 24-2078 opinion also added a notable procedural holding: an IPR petitioner cannot rescue an omitted ground with a reply-brief footnote, reinforcing that petition claim charts must be complete at filing (Netflix v. DivX line of cases).

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc. (the '498 Patent Litigation)

Scope clarification

The docket you supplied (IPR2022-01447) is the PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,613,498 ('498 patent). The underlying patent infringement litigation is AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.) (Judge Kevin McNulty; Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen), which asserted the '498 patent and four related Arrow Gaming patents. I cover both tracks below. Note that DraftKings Inc. was later renamed DK Crown Holdings Inc. (appeals styled under the new name).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-08-19 — AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming filed the complaint in the District of New Jersey alleging DraftKings' DFS (daily fantasy sports) and Casino products infringed four patents. (DraftKings Form 10-K, filed 2024-02-16; Justia docket, D.N.J. No. 2:21-cv-15737.) The case was docketed as 2:21-cv-15737 and initially assigned to Judge Kugler.
• 2021-08-24 — Case reallocated from Camden to Newark and reassigned to Judge Kevin McNulty and Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen (Justia docket entry 4).
• 2021-10-12 — AG 18 filed an Amended Complaint adding a fifth patent. The asserted "Arrow Gaming Patents" became: '498 (9,613,498), '205 (9,978,205), '220 (10,497,220), '657 (10,614,657), and '131 (11,024,131) (Justia docket entry 14; DraftKings 10-K).
• 2021-11-10 — DraftKings answered and filed counterclaims, seeking (among other things) declaratory judgments that the Arrow Gaming Patents were invalid (DraftKings 10-K; also referenced in DraftKings' Massachusetts gaming license application materials).
• 2021-12-01 — AG 18 answered DraftKings' counterclaims.
• 2021-12-20 — AG 18 filed a Second Amended Complaint adding willful-infringement allegations.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2021-11-09 / 2022-01-21 — DraftKings moved to dismiss the complaint and then the second amended complaint (opposition 2022-02-22; reply 2022-03-25).
• 2022-03-07 — DraftKings filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel (opposition 2022-03-21; reply 2022-03-28) — a notable strategic motion, though I could not confirm its disposition from public sources.
• 2022-10-21 — DraftKings filed a renewed motion to dismiss.
• 2022-11-04 — DraftKings moved to stay the case pending resolution of the IPR petitions.
• 2023-04-03 — The District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB's final written decisions; the parties thereafter agreed to maintain the stay through any appeals (DraftKings 10-K, 2024-02-16; DraftKings 10-Q, 2025-11-07).

Because the case was stayed/administratively closed before the merits phase, the litigation never reached claim construction (Markman), summary judgment, trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions. No Markman order exists.

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings (dispositive here)

• 2022-08-22 to 2022-08-30 — DraftKings filed five IPR petitions challenging each Arrow Gaming patent, including IPR2022-01447 against the '498 patent (filed 2022-08-23) (GreyB/Patexia PTAB case summaries; PTAB metadata).
  • IPR2022-01442 ('220 patent); IPR2022-01445 ('131 patent); IPR2022-01446 ('205 patent); IPR2022-01447 ('498 patent); IPR2022-01448 ('657 patent).
• 2023-03-14 — PTAB granted institution on all five IPRs. In IPR2022-01447, all twenty claims (claims 1–20) were challenged and instituted (institution decision, 57 pp., Mar. 14, 2023; Patexia/GreyB summaries; patent citations in Justia patent records).
• 2023-06-07 — Patent owner AG 18 filed its response, supported by a consolidated expert declaration of Dr. Stephen H. Lane covering all five IPRs.
• 2023-12-13 — Consolidated oral hearing before APJs Josiah C. Cocks, George R. Hoskins, and Frances L. Ippolito (record of hearing transcript; DocketAlarm). Grounds in IPR2022-01447 were obviousness over combinations including Amaitis, Bryson, Obergerer, Frenkel, and Schlottmann (petitioner's demonstratives).
• 2024-03-13 — PTAB issued the Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01447 (92 pp., Judge Hoskins writing), finding all challenged claims (1–20) of the '498 patent unpatentable as obvious (GreyB; FWD citation in Justia patent records). Across the five IPRs, the Board found every claim asserted in the litigation unpatentable; the only claims not invalidated (claim 18 of the '205 patent; claim 11 of the '657 patent) had not been asserted in the NJ suit (DraftKings 10-K, 2024-02-16).

4. Appeals (current posture)

• 2024-05-14 — AG 18 filed a Notice of Appeal of the '498 IPR to the Federal Circuit (DraftKings 10-K/10-Q). Appeal docketed as AG 18, LLC v. DK Crown Holdings Inc., No. 2024-1821 (Fed. Cir.), from IPR2022-01447. Counsel: Patrick J. McKeever (Perkins Coie) for AG 18; Eliot D. Williams (Baker Botts) for DK Crown/DraftKings.
• 2024-07-10 — DraftKings separately appealed the '205 IPR FWD as to claim 18 (Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2078).
• 2026-04-15 — Federal Circuit (Chen, Hughes, and Stoll) affirmed the PTAB's '498 FWD by Rule 36 judgment in No. 2024-1821 — a complete affirmance for DraftKings (CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 2026-04-15, cafc.uscourts.gov).
• 2026-05-06 — In the companion appeal (No. 2024-2078), the Federal Circuit issued a reasoned nonprecedential opinion affirming the PTAB's refusal to invalidate claim 18 of the '205 patent — of no consequence to the NJ litigation since claim 18 was never asserted (CAFC opinion, 2026-05-06).

5. Disposition and current posture

• The '498 patent's asserted claims are unpatentable, a result now final after the Federal Circuit's 2026-04-15 affirmance. The same is true for the other Arrow Gaming patents asserted in the NJ case (their IPRs were not appealed or were affirmed).
• The district court case (2:21-cv-15737) remains administratively terminated/stayed pending the IPR appeals, per the parties' stipulation (DraftKings 10-Q, 2025-11-07). As of today (2026-09-09), I found no public docket evidence of a final stipulation of dismissal, settlement, or judgment on the merits in the NJ action — the practical effect of the PTAB/Federal Circuit outcomes, however, is that AG 18's asserted infringement claims have been extinguished.
• Do not confuse this with a settlement: the partial settlement reported 2024-03-15/2024-03-18 (dismissal with prejudice of certain patent claims and IPR withdrawals) involved a separate Delaware case, Diogenes Ltd. & Colossus (IOM) Ltd. v. DraftKings (D. Del.), and did not involve the AG 18/Arrow Gaming NJ case.

6. Practical bottom line

The litigation's substantive outcome was driven entirely by the parallel IPRs: DraftKings obtained institution on all five Arrow Gaming patents (2023-03-14), the NJ court administratively terminated the case (2023-04-03), the PTAB invalidated every asserted claim (FWDs 2024-03-12/13), and the Federal Circuit affirmed the '498 result (2026-04-15). No damages, injunction, or fees were awarded, and no trial occurred.

Source notes/caveats: District-court details are drawn from the Justia docket for 2:21-cv-15737 and DraftKings' SEC filings (Form 10-K filed 2024-02-16; Form 10-Q filed 2025-11-07; earlier licensing-application reproductions of the same litigation narrative). IPR dates/grounds are from PTAB case-summary aggregators (GreyB, Patexia, DocketAlarm) and CAFC documents. I could not verify from public sources the disposition of DraftKings' 2022 motion to disqualify AG 18's counsel, nor any discovery disputes, so those items are flagged rather than asserted.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff AG 18, LLC d/b/a Arrow Gaming — AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.)

A caveat up front: the free docket sources I could reach (Justia, UniCourt, Law.com Radar) show the attorney of record on the face of the complaint and the existence of two pro hac vice admissions, but the full appearance docket (PACER) is not freely accessible. The identities/firms of the two pro hac vice attorneys could not be fully verified in this session, and I flag that below rather than guess.

1. Douglas V. Sanchez — Lead/Local Counsel of Record (filing counsel)

• Role: Attorney of record for plaintiff on the initiating and amended pleadings; the signatory on the complaint (D.N.J. Filing 1, Aug. 19, 2021: filed by AG 18, LLC, signed by "(SANCHEZ, DOUGLAS)") and on the AO120 patent form (Filing 3). UniCourt's attorney summary likewise lists only "DOUGLAS V. SANCHEZ" as plaintiff's attorney. He is a named partner of the firm, making him effectively lead counsel of record at filing, and he is the New Jersey-admitted local anchor for the out-of-state pro hac vice attorneys.
• Firm: Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet (the "Cruser & Mitchell" firm). Law.com Radar's contemporaneous report on the filing states the suit "was brought by Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet on behalf of Arrow Gaming." The firm is a New Jersey litigation firm (I did not verify the specific office city in this session; treat the address as unverified here).
• Notable experience: No biography or past-case detail for Sanchez was captured in the searches available to me. One case-specific data point is relevant context: DraftKings moved to disqualify plaintiff's counsel in March 2022, and Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen denied that motion on October 4, 2022 (per DraftKings' 10-K/10-Q litigation disclosures), so Sanchez's team survived a contested disqualification effort—but I found no public opinion text explaining the basis or the court's reasoning.

2. Pro hac vice attorneys — "C. Lipschutz" and "M. Shore" (full names, firms, and roles unverified)

• The docket shows that on September 23, 2021, AG 18 filed two pro hac vice motions sponsored by Sanchez:
  • Filing 10: Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice "as to M. [Shore]" (initial only in the snippet; Justia docket text references "Shore").
  • Filing 12: Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice "as to C. Lipschutz" (docket entry: "MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to C. Lipschutz (SANCHEZ, DOUGLAS)").
• Role: Presumptively out-of-state patent-litigation counsel brought in to handle the substantive patent work (their motions came ~5 weeks after filing, timed with the October 12, 2021 amended complaint that added the fifth patent).
• Firm/location: Not disclosed in the sources I could reach. I could not confirm whether these initials correspond to known patent litigators or which firm they belonged to. Do not treat "C. Lipschutz" or "M. Shore" as fully identified without a PACER look at Filings 10 and 12 or the accompanying certifications of counsel.
• Both motions appear to have been pending around the same time the case was reassigned (reallocation order, Aug. 24, 2021; Judge McNulty/MJ Allen thereafter) and before the first amended complaint was filed.

Notes and recommendations

• Defense counsel (for completeness): DraftKings was represented by James E. Cecchi (appearance filed Sept. 7, 2021) and Lindsey H. Taylor (Justia docket), of the Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello firm in New Jersey (Cecchi is a well-known NJ patent litigator), plus later-pro hac vice counsel whose identities weren't captured here. Those are defendants' attorneys, not plaintiff's.
• Verification path: To complete the record, pull PACER for 2:21-cv-15737 and review (a) Filings 10 and 12 (pro hac vice motions identifying Lipschutz and Shore's firms and sponsors), (b) the Second Amended Complaint (Dec. 20, 2021), which will carry the full signature block of plaintiff's trial team, and (c) the appearance docket entries after October 2021. All of AG 18's substantive briefs (oppositions to the motion to dismiss and to disqualification, and the opposition to the stay) would list the full team.
• Related proceedings: For the linked IPR2022-01447 and Federal Circuit appeal No. 24-1821, AG 18/Arrow Gaming was separately represented as patent owner/appellant; I did not capture that counsel roster in this session. If the user's underlying goal is a consolidated picture of Arrow Gaming's representation across the litigation, IPR, and appeal, that requires separate docket pulls (PTAB and CAFC) beyond the district-court counsel identified here.

Bottom line: The only fully verified plaintiff counsel of record is Douglas V. Sanchez of Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet (NJ). Two additional out-of-state attorneys—C. Lipschutz and M. Shore—were admitted pro hac vice in September 2021, but their full names and firm affiliations could not be verified from public sources in this session and should be confirmed on PACER before being cited.

Counsel of Record — Defendant(s)

Threshold note on "defendant" and the docket structure

The case metadata centers on the PTAB IPR (IPR2022-01447), where DraftKings Inc. is the petitioner and AG 18, LLC is the patent owner/respondent. There is no "infringement" defendant in an IPR itself — the underlying infringement action is AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.). Because the substantive question concerns the accused infringer defending Arrow Gaming's patent suit, I have treated DraftKings Inc. (now DK Crown Holdings Inc.) and its affiliated Crown entities as the "defendant(s)", and separately set out AG 18's PTAB-side counsel below in case the metadata's "Defendant(s): AG 18, LLC" was the intended referent. No appearances have been found for any other named defendant; I flag where a fact rests on a single docket entry or a firm bio rather than PACER.

Defense counsel for DraftKings / DK Crown (defendant in the D.N.J. infringement suit; petitioner/appellee in the IPR)

Eliot D. (Eliot Damon) Williams — Lead counsel / argued counsel

• Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC.
• Role: Lead counsel for petitioner DraftKings in IPR2022-01447 (signed the petition as lead counsel, Reg. No. 50,822) and argued for appellee DK Crown Holdings Inc. (fka DraftKings Inc.) in the Federal Circuit appeal of the '498 IPR, No. 24-1821, which was affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on April 15, 2026 (per curiam: Chen, Hughes, Stoll). He also argued the companion '205 appeal (No. 24-2078). Noted for leading Baker Botts' coordinated five-IPR campaign that resulted in all asserted claims of the '498 patent being invalidated.

Thomas Chisman Martin — Backup/arguing team counsel

• Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC.
• Role: Listed on the CAFC 24-1821 briefing/appearance (also on 24-2078). Baker Botts IP litigation partner.

Jamie Roy Lynn — Backup/arguing team counsel

• Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC (listed on the 24-1821 and 24-2078 Federal Circuit appearances).

Andrew David Wilson — Backup counsel

• Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Washington, DC.
• Role: Baker Botts' public bio affirmatively lists "AG 18, LLC v. DRAFTKINGS INC., 2-21-cv-15737 (DNJ) (PTAB)" among his matters, confirming his involvement in both the district-court case and the IPRs; he took the petitioner-side deposition of patent owner's expert Dr. Stephen H. Lane in the coordinated IPRs (Aug. 2023, New York).

George Hopkins Guy III — Backup counsel

• Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto, CA (per the CAFC 24-1821 and 24-2078 appearances).

Clarke Stavinoda — Backup counsel

• Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Dallas, TX (per the CAFC 24-1821 Rule 36 judgment appearance list).

(Lori Ding, Baker Botts LLP, Houston, TX, appeared only on the companion 24-2078 '205-patent appeal and is not verified as appearing in the '498 IPR or the D.N.J. case.)

James E. Cecchi — Local/district counsel

• Firm: Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. (Roseland, NJ) — firm identification from public directories; the docket entry itself does not state the firm, so I flag that as inferential.
• Role: Filed the first defense appearance: Docket No. 5, "NOTICE of Appearance by JAMES E. CECCHI on behalf of DRAFTKINGS INC.," filed September 7, 2021, in 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.) (Justia docket). A New Jersey-licensed attorney providing local counsel presence for the out-of-state Baker Botts team; also known for class-action/consumer litigation in the District of New Jersey.

In-house counsel — Not identified. No DraftKings/DK Crown in-house attorney (e.g., from its legal or IP department) appears in the public docket snippets, IPR filings, or CAFC opinions reviewed. If an in-house lawyer signed declarations or coordinated the IPR campaign, that is not reflected in the sources retrieved and would need PACER review of the district-court appearances and the parties' mandatory notices.

Counsel for AG 18, LLC (patent owner/plaintiff — the "defendant" only if the IPR caption is being read literally)

If the intended "defendant" is AG 18 as the party adverse to DraftKings in this docket, its PTAB-side representation changed mid-case:

• Stephen S. Roche — Initial lead counsel for patent owner in the coordinated IPRs (Patent Owner Mandatory Notice, Sept. 2022; Setter Roche Smith & Shellenberger LLP, 1860 Blake St., Suite 500, Denver, CO; Reg. No. 52,176). His notice expressly cross-references the underlying AG 18, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 2:21-cv-15737 (D.N.J.) action.
• Han-Wei (Harvey) Chen — Lead counsel for AG 18 after replacement (updated Power of Attorney dated May 23, 2023): Perkins Coie LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
• Patrick John McKeever — Backup counsel and argued counsel for appellant AG 18 at the Federal Circuit in No. 24-1821 (Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego, CA); also signed the CAFC docketing appearances for the companion appeal.
• Jonathan Irvin Tietz — Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC (CAFC 24-1821 and 24-2078 briefing/appearances).
• Andrew Dufresne — Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI (CAFC 24-1821/24-2078 appearances).
• Fareid Asphahani — Backup counsel, Perkins Coie LLP (Chicago, IL office per the updated POA), 2023.

Note: AG 18's district-court plaintiff-side counsel in the D.N.J. action was Douglas V. Sanchez (Cruser, Mitchell, Novitz, Sanchez, Gaston & Zimet), per the complaint docket — relevant only to distinguish the adverse party, not the defense.

Verification caveats

• The complete D.N.J. appearance record (including Baker Botts' pro hac vice entries in 2:21-cv-15737 and any appearances for the later-added Crown-state entities) was not fully retrievable from the free docket mirrors consulted (Justia, UniCourt, Ex Parte) — those pages list only partial attorney data. PACER for 2:21-cv-15737 would be the authoritative source for the full defense appearance list, and I did not access PACER directly.
• James E. Cecchi's firm affiliation and the "local counsel" characterization rest on the docket's notice-of-appearance entry plus publicly known practice information, not on a firm-page citation.
• The in-house counsel field is simply unverified, not affirmatively absent.
• No sealed filings or un-appeared counsel issues were identified; filings in this case are not sealed.