Federal Circuit Appeal No. 26-1809

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent itself and the appeal number.

Excellent — strong leads. The patent belongs to SportsCastr/PANDA Interactive. Let me dig into the IPRs and district court litigation.

Case Overview — Federal Circuit Appeal No. 26-1809 (U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687)

Parties. The patent owner is SportsCastr Inc., d/b/a PANDA Interactive — a small sports live‑streaming/social‑video company whose marketing materials describe its "SocketVision" technology as "patent‑protected technology developed by PANDA since 2016" and list a five‑patent family (U.S. 10,425,697; 10,805,687; 11,039,218; 11,356,742; 11,770,591). (PANDA exhibit, IPR2025‑00273 Ex. 2012; Unified Patents profile). The record evidence — an active product site, product awards (Sports Tech Tokyo 2019, Yahoo! Sports Tech Awards), and press coverage — supports treating it as an operating company rather than a classic NPE/PAE, though it is asserting a portfolio rather than a single patent. On the other side are the two dominant incumbents in sports data/streaming: Sportradar AG and Genius Sports Ltd. (with Genius Sports the named IPR petitioner). Both were sued on October 5, 2023. (IPR2024‑01305 institution decision)

Technology and asserted patents. The asserted family covers low‑latency live‑event broadcasting. The '687 patent — "Systems, Apparatus, and Methods for Scalable Low‑Latency Viewing of Broadcast Digital Content Streams of Live Events, and Synchronization of Event Information with Viewed Streams, via Multiple Internet Channels" — claims a socket‑server architecture in which a dedicated "event socket" (a uniquely addressable endpoint tied to a single event) carries synchronized event information (e.g., score data) to viewer clients over an event‑information internet channel that is separate from the video stream, solving the roughly 10‑second latency and multi‑viewer sync problems of conventional streaming. Claims 1–9 were the IPR‑challenged set. The companion patents are directed to the same architecture (the '697, '218, '742 and '591 patents). The complaints target the defendants' live‑streaming and real‑time sports‑data delivery platforms; I could not verify the specific accused product names from the records available to me, so treat any product‑level detail as unconfirmed.

Procedural posture. In the district court: SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23‑cv‑00472, and SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑04771, both filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) on Oct. 5, 2023 and consolidated. The IPR transcript references "Judge Belisle" as presiding and an August 25, 2025 claim‑construction order construing "event socket" to require dedication to a single event — I could not independently verify the judge's name or the order via a second source, so that detail should be checked against PACER. Venue matters because Marshall is a high‑volume, fast‑track patent docket, and the local claim construction directly shaped the IPR fight (Patent Owner's core argument was that Spivey's "topic queues" are not event sockets because they aren't uniquely addressable or dedicated to one event). In parallel, Genius Sports filed six IPRs on Aug. 22–23, 2024 (IPR2024‑01305 and ‑01307 on the '687 patent; ‑01308/‑01309 on the '697 patent; ‑01310/‑01311 on the '218 patent), with institution in the '687 case on March 13, 2025. Sportradar filed its own IPRs on Dec. 11–14, 2024 (IPR2025‑00268, ‑00269, ‑00273, ‑00315), which received Director discretionary denials on June 25 and July 16, 2025. On March 11–13, 2026, the Board issued final written decisions in the Genius Sports cases holding all challenged claims unpatentable — in the '687 case, obviousness over Ellis + Spivey and over Herzog + Ellis + Spivey. (IPR2024‑01305 FWD; IPVerse status)

Why it's notable — and what remains unverified. Most likely, Appeal No. 26‑1809 is SportsCastr/PANDA's appeal of the '687 final written decision (IPR2024‑01305 is recorded as "Final Written Decision – Appealed," and a 2026‑series Federal Circuit number fits the March 2026 FWD). I could not confirm docket 26‑1809 or the official caption in this session, so that identification is an inference, not a verified fact — it should be checked against the Federal Circuit docket and any consolidated appeals from the companion FWDs. The case matters because it pits a small operating company against the two companies that control official sports data feeds (Genius Sports is the NFL's exclusive betting‑data distributor; Sportradar holds major‑league data rights), because the outcome of the appeal determines whether a live‑streaming "event socket" architecture is patentable subject matter over prior art like Spivey's message‑queue topics, and because it illustrates the modern multi‑front pattern: two defendants filing parallel IPR sets, joinder motions, discretionary‑denial battles under § 325(d)/Fintiv, and a district court claim construction that the Patent Owner tried (unsuccessfully) to leverage at the Board. A likely appellate issue is whether the Board correctly applied "event socket" relative to the district court's narrower August 2025 construction — but that is my assessment of the record, not a confirmed statement of the grounds on appeal. Counsel appearing in the PTAB record: Kirkland & Ellis (Todd Baker, Michael Dinnella) for Genius Sports; King & Spalding (Brian Eutermoser, Mikaela Stone) for SportsCastr/PANDA; and Scott Cummings for Sportradar. Note several substitution‑of‑counsel orders issued, so confirm current appellate counsel.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the patent and appeal number.

Let me search more specifically for the patent and appeal.

I've identified the patent's owner (SportsCastr/Panda Interactive). Now let me dig into the specific litigations and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Federal Circuit No. 26-1809 — US 10,805,687: Key Legal Developments

Important sourcing caveat up front. The metadata's captions and patent number are authoritative, and I was able to confirm a great deal about the underlying dispute — but I was not able to pull the CAFC docket sheet for No. 26-1809 itself within my search budget. Everything below about the district court and PTAB proceedings is grounded in PTAB filings, docket mirrors, and secondary reporting; the identity of the specific judgment on review in 26-1809 is my reasoned inference and is flagged as such. Treat the pieces marked "unverified" as leads for a PACER/CAFC docket pull.

---

1. The patent and the parties

Authority: PTAB exhibit set (US 10,805,687 B2 as Ex. 1003), and Patent Owner's contentions describing the commercialized "SocketVision"/PANDA Studio implementations.

---

2. Chronology

2023-10-05 — Complaints filed (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Marshall Div.)

Two parallel infringement actions asserting the '687 family:

• SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
• SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (some PTAB filings render this as 2:23-cv-04772 — likely a citation variant; verify on PACER)

The complaints pleaded direct, induced, and contributory infringement (35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a), (b), (c)), willfulness, lost profits/irreparable harm, and named foreign Genius/Maven holding entities as co-defendants (Genius Sports Media/Technologies/UK/Holdings/Group and Maven Topco/Midco/Debtco/Bidco).

2024-08-22 — First wave of PTAB petitions (Genius)

Six IPR petitions filed on a rolling basis, two per patent:

• IPR2024-01305 and -01307 ('687)
• IPR2024-01308 and -01309 ('697)
• IPR2024-01310 and -01311 ('218)

Grounds centered on Ellis (US 2014/0229992) in view of Spivey (US 2016/0036910), with Herzog (US 2015/0163379) added in the dependent claims. Genius filed a "Reasons for Parallel Petitions and Petition Ranking" paper (Paper 3) explaining the two-petition structure.

2024-09-25 — '088 patent added

SportsCastr amended to assert U.S. 11,871,088 (filed as a member case in the 2:23-cv-00471 action). Genius responded with IPR2025-00251 and -00252 on the '088.

2024-10-08 — Claim construction milestone (district court)

P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed — Dkt. 69 in 2:23-cv-00471-JRG. Disputes included whether the claim 1 / claim 19 / claim 23 / claim 27 preambles are limiting (patentee: not limiting; Genius: limiting), among other terms across the shared-specification family. I could not locate a Markman order or claim construction opinion in the searches run — that remains unverified.

2024-12-11 — Second wave of PTAB petitions (Sportradar "copycat" filings)

Sportradar filed substantively parallel petitions mirroring the Genius grounds:

• IPR2025-00265 / -00266 ('697)
• IPR2025-00268 / -00269 ('687, claims 1–9 and claims 19–25, 27–30 respectively)
• IPR2025-00273 / -00275 ('218)
• Later: IPR2025-00313 / -00314 ('697 claims 1, 10–18 and 23, 24, 26) and IPR2025-00315 / -00316 ('687 claims newly asserted in the Texas case)

2025-03-13 — Institution decisions (Genius '687 IPRs)

The Board instituted IPR2024-01305 and -01307; a consolidated scheduling order issued the same day, and an institution decision also issued for the '218 IPRs.

March 2025 — Amended complaints add antitrust claims

Both Texas complaints were amended to add antitrust counts — tying and monopolization theories alleging that Sportradar and Genius leveraged exclusive official-league data deals (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) to force sportsbooks and media companies onto their technology platforms, excluding PANDA. PANDA Chairman Donald Schupak publicly framed the defendants' conduct as "bullying."

2025-06-25 — Sportradar petition denied (Fintiv/discretionary)

IPR2025-00268 — Director Discretionary Decision: Deny. This is a significant strategic development: the Board declined to institute against the '687 claims 1–9 on the Sportradar petition, meaning the challenged claims were tested only through the Genius IPRs.

July–August 2025 — Further discretion denials and panel changes

• IPR2025-00315: Paper 17 Panel Change Order (July 2025); Paper 18 Director Discretionary Decision Deny (July 2025); Paper 20 Notice refund approved (2025-08-05). The docket noted a projected FWD due date of 2026-08-20, which became moot on denial.
• Discretionary denials were also entered with respect to the Sportradar '686 and '425 petitions in the related AICP matter (context only — different case; do not conflate).

2025-09 to 2025-12 — PTAB merits phase on the '687

• Patent Owner's Response and expert declaration (Dr. Aviel Rubin); Petitioner's Reply and supplemental Wicker declaration; Patent Owner sur-replies filed 2025-10-03 (IPR2024-01305 and -01307).
• Disputes at the merits stage focused on whether Spivey's LDAS authentication layer defeated Genius's mapping of Spivey's MQS/topic queues to the claimed "event socket," and whether the Ellis-Spivey combination was inoperable.
• Patent Owner pressed objective indicia: copying by Petitioner, industry praise (CNBC, SBJ, Forbes), and commercial success of SportsCastr/PANDA Studio/SocketVision.
• 2025-12-18 — oral hearing on the '687 and '218 IPRs (held; transcript in the record).
• Procedural papers in the window: pro hac vice admissions (Socrates L. Boutsikaris, Kirkland & Ellis, granted 2025-12-12), motions to withdraw/substitute counsel, motions to exclude, updated mandatory notices (2025-12-05).

2026-03-11 — Final Written Decisions, '687 IPRs (adverse to PANDA)

The Board held the challenged '687 claims unpatentable in IPR2024-01305 and IPR2024-01307 (Ellis + Spivey, with Herzog on dependents). The IPverse docket mirror flags these FWDs as "Final Written Decision – Appealed," with a termination date of 2026-03-11.

2026-03-13 — Final Written Decisions, '218 IPRs

IPR2024-01310 (claims 1–15) issued a judgment determining all challenged claims unpatentable under § 318(a) and denying Petitioner's Motion to Exclude. Parallel result in -01311 for claims 16–30. The panel expressly identified SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471 (E.D. Tex.) as the parallel proceeding.

2026-05-06 — Notice of Appeal (Patent Owner)

SportsCastr filed its Notice of Appeal in IPR2024-01307 (and, on the same record, -01305), challenging the '687 FWDs. This is the most probable genesis of Federal Circuit No. 26-1809, given the ~56-day gap from the 2026-03-11 FWD (within the 63-day § 319 window) and the docket-number year.

Sportradar settlement (2025/2026 — exact date unverified)

PANDA and Sportradar settled the 2:23-cv-00472 action, including the antitrust claims. The parties jointly moved for a 30-day stay to paper the agreement and file for dismissal, with trial having been set for 2026-02-27. Terms were confidential. The Genius action was not reported as settled.

---

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings — consolidated status (asserted patents)

Litigation effect: the Board's discretionary denials (Sportradar) insulated the '687 from a second, parallel validity challenge, but the Genius FWDs wiped out all asserted '687 claims (1–9 and 19–25, 27–30) along with the '218 claims. That is close to case-dispositive for the patent side of the Texas litigation, which is presumably why the appeal — and, in parallel, the Sportradar settlement — followed in the first half of 2026.

---

4. The pending Federal Circuit appeal — No. 26-1809

• Most probable posture (inference): SportsCastr/PANDA's appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 319/141 from the 2026-03-11 FWDs in IPR2024-01305 and IPR2024-01307, holding the '687 claims unpatentable over Ellis + Spivey (+ Herzog). Notice of appeal 2026-05-06; FWD-to-notice gap consistent with the statutory window; the docket mirror labels those FWDs "Appealed."
• Alternative posture (should be checked): a consolidated appeal spanning the '687, '697, '218, and/or '088 FWDs (all four patents share a specification and identical prior art, and PANDA filed appeal notices across the family), or, less likely, an appeal from the E.D. Tex. Genius action if a judgment was entered there.
• Verification needed: the CAFC docket sheet (nature of proceeding, appellee — almost certainly Genius Sports Ltd. — and the certified PTAB record), plus whether the appeal was docketed as 26-1809 alone or as a lead appeal with consolidated companion numbers.

---

5. Present posture (as of 2026-09-25)

1. PTAB: Final adverse judgments on the '687 and '218; appeal pending.
2. Federal Circuit: No. 26-1809 pending; briefing schedule and any Rule 28(j) notices not verified.
3. E.D. Tex.: Sportradar action settled/dismissed (confidential terms; 30-day stay requested); Genius action status unverified — with all asserted '687 claims invalidated by the Board, the parties' positions in Texas are materially altered pending appeal.
4. Counsel of note: Genius represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP (W. Todd Baker; Socrates L. Boutsikaris; Jeanne M. Heffernan; Joshua L. Simmons; Patrick Arnett — the latter two admitted pro hac vice in E.D. Tex.). Patent Owner's PTAB counsel includes Brian Eutermoser; Sportradar's petition counsel includes Scott Cummings.

---

6. Gaps I could not close — recommended follow-ups

• CAFC No. 26-1809 docket sheet (parties, appealed-from tribunal, briefing order, oral argument date).
• Whether 26-1809 covers only the '687 FWDs or the whole family.
• The Markman/claim construction order in 2:23-cv-00471/-00472 (if any) — the topic was fully briefed via the 2024-10-08 P.R. 4-3 statement.
• Trial dates, summary judgment, and JMOL activity in the Genius action, and the exact date and terms structure of the Sportradar settlement/dismissal.
• Whether the Board's FWDs on the '697 and '088 also issued and were appealed (which would suggest consolidation in 26-1809).
• Any § 325(d) or Fintiv-style discretionary-denial briefing that may bear on the appeal's scope.

If you can supply the PACER/CAFC docket pulls for 26-1809 and for 2:23-cv-00471-JRG, I can convert items 1–5 above from inference to certified chronology.

I'll research counsel for the plaintiff/patent owner (SportsCastr/PANDA Interactive) across the district court, PTAB, and Federal Circuit filings.

Good leads on the district court side. Now let me pin down the plaintiff's full counsel team, including any appellate counsel for the Federal Circuit appeal.

Key confirmation: the ex parte docket shows 26-1809 = SportsCastr Inc v. Genius Sports Ltd, appeal from IPR2024-01305, filed 05/11/2026 — so the appellant (plaintiff/patent owner) is SportsCastr. Let me now pin down the appellate team and verify each district court attorney's firm.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff/Patent Owner — Appeal No. 26‑1809

Threshold point: who the "plaintiff" is here

Appeal No. 26‑1809 is now confirmed (not merely inferred) to be the patent owner's appeal from the PTAB:

• Caption: SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., CAFC No. 26‑1809
• Appeal from: IPR2024‑01305 (U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687)
• Filed: 05/11/2026

Source: Ex Parte CAFC docket page, https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/cafc/26-1809/sportscastr-inc-v-genius-sports-ltd. So the appellant/plaintiff-side party is SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), and the appellee/defendant is Genius Sports Ltd. The one-line "attorney" field on that page rendered blank, so I could not verify the Federal Circuit attorney-of-record entries from the sources available to me (see "Gaps" below). The team below is reconstructed from the PTAB record from which the appeal arises, the consolidated E.D. Tex. docket, and firm-confirmation sources.

A. PTAB / appellate team (the counsel who will carry 26‑1809)

Because the appeal is from IPR2024‑01305, the attorneys of record in that IPR are the natural candidates for the Federal Circuit brief. Counsel changed mid‑2025 — this corrects the earlier case summary.

Sources: PTAB hearing transcript, IPR2024‑01305/-01307/-01308/-01309/-01310/-01311 (Dec. 18, 2025), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01305/Genius_Sports_Ltd._v._SportsCastr_Inc/01-07-2026-Board/Other__Hearing_transcript-45-Other__Hearing_transcript/; Board order granting withdrawal/substitution, IPR2025‑00316 et al. (June 17, 2025), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00316/Sportradar_AG_v._SportsCastr_Inc._%28d-b-a_PANDA_Interactive%29/docs/06-17-2025-Board/Order__Other-15-Order__Granting_Unopposed_Motion_to_Withdraw_and_Substitute_Counsel___37_CFR_4210.pdf; IPR2024‑01307 Paper 35 (Nov. 24, 2025) (service on "CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP, acochran@cahill.com, ctracyjames@cahill.com" for Patent Owner); Cahill firm announcement (Apr. 30, 2025), https://www.cahill.com/news/firm-news/2025-04-30-cahill-adds-leading-tech-ip-team-of-three-partners-including-new-practice-chair/.

Correction to the earlier case summary (important)

The prior section listed "King & Spalding (Brian Eutermoser, Mikaela Stone) for SportsCastr/PANDA" as PTAB counsel. That is now stale. The Board granted withdrawal of Mr. Eutermoser (lead) and Ms. Stone (backup) and substituted Cochran (lead) and Tracy James (backup) of Cahill, in every pending IPR. Kevin J. Duffy was never admitted pro hac vice and is not counsel of record. If you are tracking the appellate appearance, King & Spalding should be dropped for SportsCastr's side.

B. District court (E.D. Tex.) plaintiff's counsel of record

The appeal arises from the consolidated Marshall Division litigation: Lead Case 2:23‑cv‑00472‑JRG (SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive v. Sportradar Group AG, et al.) and Member Case 2:23‑cv‑00471‑JRG (v. Genius Sports Ltd., et al.), consolidated Oct. 15, 2024, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The E.D. Tex. CM/ECF calendar captured in a PTAB exhibit lists the following as appearing for "SportsCastr Inc. (Plaintiff, Counter Defendant)":

Sources: E.D. Tex. CM/ECF "Calendar of Events," reproduced as Exhibit 1052 in IPR2025‑00269, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00269/Sportradar_AG_v._SportsCastr_Inc._%28d-b-a_PANDA_Interactive%29/05-23-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1052-EDTX_Calendar_of_Events/; PANDA's reply in the Delaware DJ action (Apr. 29, 2024), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--24-cv-00170/Sportradar_US_LLC_et_al_v._Sportscastr_Inc._d-b-a_Panda_Interactive/docs/21.pdf; Thomson Reuters/IP Law Daily summary (Sep. 18, 2024), https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-e-d-tex-swiss-company-must-face-infringement-suit-in-texas-over-sports-video-streaming-technology/ipm0105ebb3e321594a7a8b22c900d5c25ab0; PacerMonitor docket header, 2:25‑cv‑01250, https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62027231/.

C. In-house counsel

No in-house counsel has been identified in any filing I could access. SportsCastr/PANDA's principals appearing in the record are Kevin April (CEO) and Andrew Schupak (CFO) — business executives, not counsel of record. The IPR cost/settlement correspondence also shows the Patent Owner was represented exclusively through outside counsel.

D. Verification gaps and cautions

1. Federal Circuit attorney entries not retrieved. The Ex Parte CAFC page for 26‑1809 (filed 05/11/2026) shows no attorney names, and I could not open PACER for the Federal Circuit in this session. Treat the appellate appearance as unconfirmed; the Cahill team (Cochran/Tracy James/Davis/Chan) is the strong likelihood given it argued the underlying FWD at the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing and holds the Patent Owner power of attorney.
2. Possible companion appeals. Only 26‑1809 (from IPR2024‑01305) was verified. Given final written decisions issued Mar. 11–13, 2026 in six consolidated Genius IPRs, check for 26‑1810 and higher covering IPR2024‑01307/‑01308/‑01309/‑01310/‑01311, and whether the court consolidated them under 26‑1809.
3. Counsel attrition/transition. The three‑partner team (Campbell, Davis, Garcia Chan) moved from King & Spalding to Cahill in April 2025. Lafferty, Wood, Moss, Rafilson, Sarkar, and Mangrum may or may not have moved with them, and their current firms are unverified. Best practice: pull the live E.D. Tex. docket sheet for 2:23‑cv‑00472 for the current "Attorneys" tab.
4. No sealed-filing issue identified for counsel, but I could not confirm whether any recent appearance/substitution orders post‑date the May 2025 CM/ECF calendar snapshot.
5. Correction to the earlier section on the district judge: the earlier summary cited "Judge Belisle" for the district court's claim‑construction order. Stephen E. Belisle is a PTAB Administrative Patent Judge who sat on the panel for the Genius IPRs (with Judges Dang and Jurgovan). The district court claims construction in 2:23‑cv‑00472 was handled by Judge Rodney Gilstrap (case suffix "-JRG"). These are different jurists and the earlier note conflated them.
6. For contrast, the appellee's side (Genius Sports) is Kirkland & Ellis LLP — W. Todd Baker (lead), Jeanne M. Heffernan, Nikhil R. Krishnan, Socrates L. Boutsikaris — with Michael T. Dinnella withdrawn as backup counsel (Nov. 24, 2025). Sportradar's side is Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (David A. Roodman, Nick E. Williamson, George G. Brell; Scott W. Cummings in PTAB) and Michael C. Smith of Scheef & Stone as local counsel.

Bottom line: For 26‑1809, the plaintiff/appellant SportsCastr (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) is represented by Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, with Andrew J. Cochran as lead, Colleen Tracy James as backup, and Britton F. Davis and Chris C. Campbell also on the matter; below, the plaintiff's team also included King & Spalding (Lafferty, Wood, and others) and Marshall/Dallas local counsel Mark D. Siegmund and Gregory P. Love. The Federal Circuit appearance itself remains unverified against PACER.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants/appellees, starting with the Federal Circuit docket and the underlying district court dockets.

Key finding: *26-1809 is SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., filed 05/11/2026, an appeal from PTAB IPR2024-01305* — so the appellee/defendant-side party is Genius Sports. Let me now pin down counsel of record in the appeal and in the underlying E.D. Tex. cases.

Now let me confirm the Federal Circuit appellee appearances in 26-1809 and the E.D. Tex. counsel of record (including any consolidation of companion appeals).

Correction to the prior section, up front

The earlier summary flagged the identity of Appeal No. 26-1809 as an inference. That inference is now confirmed: the Federal Circuit docket entry for 26-1809 reads "SportsCastr Inc v. Genius Sports Ltd," filed 05/11/2026, "Appeal From: PTAB," "Originating Case: IPR2024-01305" (Ex Parte CAFC docket 26-1809). That resolves the open item — but it also changes the answer to this task in an important way, which I address first.

---

1. Who is the "defendant" here, and why it matters for this task

Appeal 26-1809 arises from IPR2024-01305, in which the only parties were:

• Petitioner / Appellee: Genius Sports Ltd.
• Patent Owner / Appellant: SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive

So in the Federal Circuit appeal itself, the party adverse to the patent owner is Genius Sports Ltd. Sportradar AG is not a party to 26-1809 — its parallel IPRs (IPR2025-00265/‑00266/‑00268/‑00269/‑00273/‑00313/‑00314) were discretionarily denied institution, so there is no Sportradar FWD to appeal (IPR2025‑00269 docket).

Sportradar is a defendant in the underlying consolidated E.D. Tex. infringement litigation, however. Because the request is for "counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this patent infringement case," I've covered both defendant groups below, clearly separated, and flagged which one is actually in the appeal.

---

2. Federal Circuit (26-1809) — appellee counsel: not yet verified

I could not retrieve the entry of appearance in 26-1809. The aggregated Federal Circuit record I could reach shows the appeal's opening data (filed 05/11/2026, from IPR2024‑01305, "Judges: Pending Judge Assignment," "Appeal Outcome: —") but lists the Appellee attorney field as empty, and the underlying PACER page for 26‑1809 is paywalled (Ex Parte CAFC 26-1809). I will not name appellate counsel as a matter of record on that basis.

What the record does support:

• Under Fed. Cir. R. 47.3, each counsel had to file an Entry of Appearance within 14 days of the Notice of Docketing (the court's standard docketing notice language: "The following filings are due within 14 days of this notice: Entry of Appearance"). Appeal filed 5/11/2026 ⇒ EOA was due roughly late May 2026, so counsel should be on the docket as of today (2026‑09‑25) — but I could not confirm it.
• The same Kirkland & Ellis team that was petitioner's counsel at the Board is the presumptive appellee team, since Kirkland has represented Genius in both the IPR and the district court on these patents. The Kirkland attorneys who acted for Genius in the '687 proceedings are named in the record (see §3 and §4). Treat the specific appellate lineup as unconfirmed, not as established.

Also unverified: whether the companion FWDs (IPR2024‑01307, ‑01308, ‑01309, ‑01310, ‑01311) produced separately numbered appeals that have been consolidated with 26‑1809. The '307 FWD was also appealed (Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal, May 6, 2026, per the IPR2024‑01307 docket), which is what one would expect to yield a related 26‑18xx number and a possible consolidation motion. I could not confirm the consolidation.

---

3. E.D. Tex. — counsel for the Genius Sports defendants (verified from filed papers)

Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (no separate Texas "local counsel" firm appears for Genius; Kirkland's Austin office serves that function). Source: P.R. 4‑3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑00471‑JRG (E.D. Tex.), signed and filed Feb. 7, 2025, styled "Attorneys for Defendants Genius Sports Ltd., 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., and Maven Bidco Ltd." (Joint Claim Construction Statement); same four names on Genius Sports' Stipulation Re Inter Partes Review in the same case (stipulation).

---

4. E.D. Tex. — counsel for the Sportradar defendants (verified from filed papers)

Lead firm: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (St. Louis), with local counsel: Michael C. Smith, Scheef & Stone (Marshall, TX). Source: same P.R. 4‑3 Joint Claim Construction Statement, signed "Attorneys For Defendants Sportradar Group AG And Sportradar AG."

Sportradar's PTAB-side counsel: Sportradar's updated § 42.8 mandatory notices in IPR2025‑00273 state that backup counsel was updated "to identify Alexander Walden as backup counsel of record" (Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices). I could not verify Walden's firm or office from the retrieved text, and I could not verify the earlier summary's attribution of "Scott Cummings for Sportradar" to any filing — treat both as unresolved. Note also that Sportradar's IPRs were all denied institution, so it has no pending PTAB representation in this family.

---

5. Cross-check against the prior section (no contradictions; two clarifications)

• The prior section's PTAB attributions are corroborated: the IPR2024‑01305 institution decision names "For PETITIONER: W. Baker, Michael Dinnella, Kirkland & Ellis LLP" and "For PATENT OWNER: Brian Eutermoser, Mikaela Stone, King & Spalding LLP" (institution decisions). The Dec. 18, 2025 hearing appearances were W. Todd Baker, Nikhil R. Krishnan, Socrates L. Boutsikaris (Kirkland & Ellis) for Genius (hearing transcript).
• Clarification worth carrying forward: the prior section lists "Kirkland & Ellis (Todd Baker, Michael Dinnella)" and "Scott Cummings for Sportradar" as PTAB counsel. For the defendants' counsel-of-record question, the fuller verified roster is the table above: Kirkland & Ellis for Genius (with Baker as PTAB lead, Reg. No. 45,265; Nikhil R. Krishnan, Reg. No. 68,879, as backup; Heffernan and Dinnella, Reg. No. 82,580, Austin; Boutsikaris pro hac vice), and Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner + Scheef & Stone for Sportradar in district court — a firm the earlier section did not identify.

---

6. Explicit gaps — do not treat these as findings

1. Federal Circuit appellee entries of appearance in 26-1809 — not retrieved; PACER 26‑1809 is paywalled and the aggregated docket shows the appellee attorney field blank. Verify via PACER (Cafc) or by calling the Federal Circuit Case Management section at (202) 275‑8055.
2. Whether 26-1809 is consolidated with appeals from the other five Genius FWDs — the '307 FWD was appealed (May 6, 2026 notice), but I could not confirm companion numbers or a consolidation order.
3. Appellate counsel for Genius specifically — presumptively Kirkland & Ellis (Baker/Krishnan/Boutsikaris/Heffernan) given continuity across the IPR and district court, but this is an inference, not a docket fact.
4. In-house counsel — no in-house attorney appeared in any filing I retrieved for either defendant; none should be named.
5. Boutsikaris' admission: he was granted pro hac vice at the Board and approved as the LEAP practitioner for the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing with 15 extra minutes of argument (LEAP approval) — a good indicator of who to expect on the appellate briefs, but not proof of a Federal Circuit appearance (Federal Circuit admission is separate and I did not verify it).