Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

I'll research this case across PTAB, district court, and industry sources.

Let me verify the FWD outcome, the parallel district court case, and the newer countersuit.

Case Overview and Background

A note on posture: the case number in the metadata (IPR2024‑01307) is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court action. Genius Sports Ltd. is the petitioner here, but in the underlying infringement suit SportsCastr/PANDA is the plaintiff. This overview therefore covers both tracks.

Parties and technology. SportsCastr Inc., doing business as PANDA Interactive, is a small, New York‑based sports‑video company (founded by CEO Kevin April and CFO Andrew Schupak) that sells a consumer app (SportsCastr) and a B2B streaming platform (PANDA Studio), and markets its patented "SocketVision" architecture for "watch‑and‑bet" experiences — video enhanced with contextually matched, interactive real‑time data. It is an operating company with products, not a classic NPE/PAE, though it runs a deliberate multi‑front assertion campaign and its website lists a patent portfolio (US 10,425,697; 10,805,687; 11,039,218; 11,356,742; 11,770,591; 11,871,088; 12,389,080). Its adversaries are the two incumbents of the global sports‑data duopoly: Genius Sports Ltd. (Guernsey‑incorporated, London‑headquartered; official data/streaming partner to the NFL and other leagues, whose family of Maven Topco/Midco/Debtco/Bidco and Genius Sports Media/Technologies/UK entities appear as co‑defendants) and Sportradar Group AG / Sportradar AG. Genius is likewise an operating company, not a patent monetizer. PANDA's complaint alleges direct competition — that Genius "provides a suite of infringing video‑streaming products" and gained "significantly increased profits, revenue, market capital, and market share." The accused Genius products are LiveData, LiveTrading, Genius Trading Services, BetVision, and In‑Play MultiBet; the accused Sportradar products are emBet, Sportradar OTT, and Live Channel Trading (LCT). PANDA's infringement theory (per its complaint and interrogatory responses) maps Genius's use of a "long running socket"/WebSockets — including through the third‑party service Ably and a "Drop & Play" URL/token/DRM flow to the video player — plus separately delivered data such as the "Multibet" betting widget, onto the claimed control‑server/socket‑server architecture.

Asserted patents (all one family, sharing a single specification with priority to provisional 62/371,558, filed Aug. 5, 2016). The '687 patent (US 10,805,687, issued Oct. 13, 2020) is titled "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" — i.e., video delivered on one channel and event data pushed to many viewers from a socket dedicated to a single event on a separate channel. The '697 patent (10,425,697, issued Sept. 24, 2019) shares that title and claims broadcaster→viewer stream delivery using the same socket architecture. The '218 patent (11,039,218, issued June 15, 2021) claims rendering digital content about a sporting event together with online gaming information (the betting‑overlay claim set). The '088 patent (11,871,088) was added later to the Texas suit. In IPR2024‑01307 the challenged claims are 19–25 and 27–30 of the '687 patent (claims 27–30 include means‑plus‑function limitations); the Board's institution decision and FWD construe "socket" as a "uniquely addressable communication endpoint," while PANDA argued (and reported at the PTAB hearing) that the district court construed "event socket" as a socket dedicated to a single event.

Procedural posture and venue. PANDA filed two mirror‑image suits on Oct. 5, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap: SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑00471‑JRG, and SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23‑cv‑00472‑JRG (the latter is the lead case; the two were consolidated for pretrial purposes on Oct. 11, 2024, with each remaining active for trial). Venue matters because E.D. Tex./Marshall is a high‑volume, plaintiff‑friendly patent venue with a fast docket and Gilstrap's established patent procedures; PANDA's choice also triggered an unusual first‑to‑file fight — Sportradar had filed a declaratory‑judgment action in D. Del. (No. 1:24‑cv‑00170), which the Delaware court transferred to E.D. Tex., rejecting the "first‑to‑obtain‑jurisdiction" argument. Key milestones: Markman hearing May 9, 2025 (construction issued around late August 2025); PANDA added Sherman Act and Texas antitrust claims on Feb. 14, 2025 (Genius/Sportradar's motion to strike was denied on June 10, 2025); trial was set for Nov. 7, 2025 and later January 23, 2026. Genius simultaneously filed six IPRs on Aug. 22–23, 2024 — two per patent — against the '687 (IPR2024‑01305, ‑01307), '697 (‑01308, ‑01309) and '218 (‑01310, ‑01311). IPR2024‑01307 was instituted on Mar. 13, 2025 on all grounds (Ellis in view of Spivey; Herzog in view of Ellis and Spivey), and the Final Written Decision of Mar. 11, 2026 held all challenged claims (19–25, 27–30) unpatentable. Sibling FWDs in the '697 and '218 proceedings reached the same result (all challenged claims unpatentable; petitioner's motion to exclude denied), and the proceedings are recorded as appealed (Federal Circuit docket number not verified here).

Why the case is notable. First, it is a family‑wide validity wipeout achieved in parallel IPRs in under 18 months, with the FWDs landing just weeks after the district court trial date — the kind of race that shapes settlement leverage and post‑trial motions. Second, it illustrates dueling operating companies rather than a PAE campaign: a small streaming vendor asserting low‑latency socket/overlay patents against the two largest sports‑data providers, with the defendants counter‑asserting invalidity and (later) Genius's own patents — Genius Sports SS, LLC v. SportsCastr Inc., No. 1:26‑cv‑03900 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 11, 2026), asserting US 10,769,446, 11,120,271 and 11,383,405. Third, the PTAB record produced significant procedural precedent/practice signals: Sportradar's six "copycat" IPRs (IPR2025‑00265/266/268/269/273/275) plus four additional petitions (‑00313/314/315/316) were denied institution on June 25, 2025 under § 314(a) by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, largely because the parallel trial date preceded the projected FWD date and the parties had invested substantially in the district case — a notable discretionary denial in the post‑Fintiv‑guidance era, and a reminder that joinder‑to‑IPR strategies are not automatic. Fourth, the market context is the post‑Murphy U.S. sports‑betting boom: low‑latency live video synchronized with in‑play betting data is the commercial battleground, and PANDA's antitrust theory (that the defendants conditioned access to official league data used with their technology) shows the dispute spilling beyond patents into data‑rights competition. Finally, there is a resolution pattern: secondary reporting of Sportradar's disclosures indicates Sportradar and PANDA settled in March 2026 and PANDA dismissed its claims with prejudice.

Sourcing caveats. Grounded above: the E.D. Tex. complaints and consolidation order (Dkt. 1 in 2:23‑cv‑00471; consolidation order of Oct. 11, 2024); the Board's institution decision (IPR2024‑01307 Paper 8) and FWD (Paper 45, Mar. 11, 2026); the June 10, 2025 E.D. Tex. opinion denying the motion to strike (Dkt. 158); the D. Del. transfer opinion; and the June 25, 2025 Director discretionary‑denial decision. Genuinely unverified here: the jury verdict or final judgment in 2:23‑cv‑00471/‑00472 (I could not confirm an E.D. Tex. outcome or entry of judgment); the Federal Circuit appeal number for the FWDs; the precise panel composition of the IPR2024‑01307 FWD (the institution panel was Parvis, Hudalla and Fenick, but a panel‑change order issued in these proceedings in November 2025, and the sibling '218 FWD was decided by Dang, Jurgovan and Belisle); PTAB counsel detail (Kirkland & Ellis — W. Todd Baker, Jeanne Heffernan, and Michael Dinnella, who withdrew in Oct. 2025 — for Genius; King & Spalding, including Andrew Cochran, appearing for PANDA per Docket Alarm, and James Lomeo and Nikhil Krishnan appearing for Genius in the S.D.N.Y. action); and the Sportradar settlement, which rests on a secondary summary of Sportradar's disclosure rather than the primary filing. PANDA's status as an operating company rather than an NPE is supported by its complaint and its own product marketing; I found no source that characterizes it as a PAE.

I'll research this case across PTAB, district court, and related proceedings.

Let me dig into the parallel district court case and the PTAB outcomes.

Framing note

The case number in the metadata (IPR2024-01307) is the PTAB proceeding, not a district-court case. The infringement litigation it runs parallel to is SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) — consolidated into and tried alongside SportsCastr v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (lead case). Both are before Judge Rodney Gristrap (JRG). Below I interleave the two tracks chronologically, and flag where my sourcing is a docket excerpt/transcript rather than a full opinion.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (district court)

• 2023-10-05 — PANDA (SportsCastr) files two mirror suits in E.D. Tex./Marshall:
  • SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (member case), naming Genius Sports Ltd. plus Maven Topco/Midco/Debtco/Bidco and other Genius entities;
  • SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (lead case).
  • Asserted patents: US 10,805,687 (’687), US 11,039,218 (’218), US 10,425,697 (’697) — all sharing one specification. Jury demand. Accused products: LiveData, LiveTrading, Genius Trading Services, BetVision, In-Play MultiBet. (complaint PDF)
• 2024-09-25 (approx.) — PANDA adds US 11,871,088 (’088) to the case (referenced in the ’088 IPR petition as asserted "filed September 25, 2024" in the member case). Sourced only from the IPR petition’s mandatory-notice/background recital — verify against the amended complaint docket.
• 2024-10-15 — E.D. Tex. consolidates 2:23-cv-00471 into 2:23-cv-00472; the Sportradar case is designated the lead case. The same day, Sportradar answers PANDA’s amended complaint and counterclaims for declaratory judgment of unpatentability, invalidity, and non-infringement.
• 2024-12-09 — The Genius defendants answer and assert mirror counterclaims, and serve Genius Sports’ Second Supplemental Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions (covering the ’218, ’687, ’697 and ’088). (contentions PDF)
• 2024-11-26 — PANDA serves Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions (its apparent constructions later feed the defendants’ contentions).

Parallel declaratory-judgment action (D. Del.) → transferred

Sportradar filed a DJ action in the District of Delaware against PANDA (parent + U.S. subsidiaries), and PANDA moved to dismiss/transfer based on the first-to-file rule. Genius/Genius-side defendants also moved in E.D. Tex. to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer; the E.D. Tex. court denied that motion (finding personal jurisdiction over both Sportradar AG and Sportradar Group AG and rejecting the first-to-file-argument, citing In re Seattle SpinCo). The Delaware court then transferred its case to E.D. Tex. on first-to-file/declaratory-judgment grounds. (D. Del. opinion PDF) I could not confirm the exact D. Del. case number or opinion date.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Antitrust amendment (2025-02-14) — On the amended-pleading deadline, PANDA files a Second Amended Complaint against Sportradar (D.I. 126) and a Third Amended Complaint against Genius (D.I. 127), adding Sherman Act and Texas Free Enterprise & Antitrust Act claims to the patent counts.
• 2025-03-07 / 2025-03-28 — Sportradar moves to amend the Docket Control Order (D.I. 142), joined by Genius (D.I. 146), to accommodate the new antitrust claims; the court grants it, extending non-patent deadlines by no more than 75 days.
• 2025-03-31 — Defendants move to strike the antitrust allegations (Rule 12(f)/15(a)) (D.I. 158; Genius; joined by Sportradar at D.I. 162).
• 2025-06-11 — Opinion and Order DENYING the motion to strike. The court held the amendments were properly filed within the Docket Control Order window and allowed the antitrust claims to proceed. (opinion PDF)
• No stay pending IPR appears on the record I could retrieve. Instead, Genius took the Sotera-style route: it filed a stipulation not to pursue invalidity defenses in the district court based on grounds raised or reasonably could have been raised in its IPR petitions (exhibit list shows the Director’s Sotera memorandum as Pet. Ex. 1013, and a Genius Sports Stipulation re Inter Partes Review is in the record). This is typically done to defeat §314(a)/§325(d) discretionary denial rather than to obtain a stay.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (D.I. 69) — Parties agreed to plain-and-ordinary constructions for terms like "and/or" and "at least one of," and listed disputed terms (including "event socket"). Filed via PANDA’s IPR exhibit EX-2003. A further joint claim construction chart appears in the record dated 2025-04-08.
• Second Amended Docket Control Order (D.I. 174, filed 2025-04-14) set the claim-construction hearing for 2025-05-09 (9:00 a.m., Marshall), with mediation reporting 14 days after the CC order.
• Claim-construction order issued ~late August 2025. Confirmed indirectly: at the 2025-12-18 PTAB hearing, PANDA’s counsel stated "The District Court has determined that … the socket is dedicated to a single event … That claim construction came out, I think, at the end of August." (hearing transcript) I have not located the text of the CC order itself; treat the "dedicated to a single event" construction as sourced to counsel’s oral statement, not a written order.

---

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2024-11-26 — PANDA’s Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions; 2024-12-09 — Genius’s Second Supplemental Invalidity/SM-eligibility contentions (patent-local-rule disclosure cycle).
• 2026-04-13 — Law360 reports Genius Sports moved to compel PANDA to comply with a court discovery order requiring production of a settlement agreement PANDA reached in a similar patent suit against a different rival — a damages/valuation fight and a sign the case was still in active pretrial litigation, not tried, in spring 2026. (Law360 Sports & Betting index)

---

5. Trial events / verdict / post-trial motions

• The First Amended DCO set jury trial for 2025-11-07. The March 2025 extension of non-patent deadlines (up to 75 days) and the ongoing April 2026 discovery dispute indicate the case did not go to trial on 2025-11-07.
• I found no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial ruling, and no fee motion. Nothing in the sources I retrieved confirms a trial occurred.

---

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings (the ’687 IPRs and siblings)

Genius Sports’ six IPRs (filed 2024-08-22):

• 2016’s ’687 IPR2024-01307: challenges claims 19–25 and 27–30 on Ellis + Spivey (Ground 1) and Herzog + Spivey + Ellis (Ground 2); expert Dr. Stephen B. Wicker (Ex. 1001). The Board noted Genius ranked the ’307 petition first over the -01305 petition. GROUNDS/claims mapping confirmed in the institution decision. (institution decision)
• 2024-09-24 — Notice according the petition the filing date of 2024-08-22 (Paper 6).
• 2024-12-19 — PANDA files its Preliminary Response with the Declaration of Dr. Aviel Rubin (Ex. 2001), arguing Spivey’s "topic queues" are not "event sockets"/uniquely addressable endpoints.
• 2024-12-11 — Sportradar files "copycat" IPRs on the same patents, including IPR2025-00268/00269 and IPR2025-00315/00316 (’687), IPR2025-00265/00266 (’697), IPR2025-00273/00275 (’218), several directed at previously unasserted claims; Sportradar stated an intent to seek joinder with the Genius IPRs. Also filed: IPR2025-00251/00252 on the ’088.
• 2025-03-13 — Board institutes IPR on all grounds in the Genius IPRs. For IPR2024-01307: all challenged claims (19–25, 27–30) instituted; panel Parvis, Hudalla, Fenick (Hudalla writing).
• 2025-05-30 / 2025-06-06 — PANDA files institution-decision exhibits in the related IPRs (Ex. 2037, Ex. 2040).
• 2025-10-06 → 2025-10-15 — Genius moves to withdraw back-up counsel Michael T. Dinnella (left Kirkland & Ellis); the Board denies without prejudice because the proposed remaining back-up, Jeanne M. Heffernan, was not a registered practitioner or admitted pro hac vice, which would leave Genius without recognized back-up counsel under 37 C.F.R. §42.10(a). (Paper 25 / Paper 26.)
• 2025-12-18 — Oral hearing held for all six IPRs before APJs Dang, Belisle, and Jurgovan. Petitioner: Kirkland & Ellis (W. Todd Baker, Nikhil Krishnan, Socrates Boutsikaris). Patent Owner: Cahill Gordon & Reindel (Andrew J. Cochran, Britton F. Davis). PANDA argued (i) Spivey’s topic queues are not "event sockets," (ii) the Ellis/Spivey combination is inoperable after removal of Spivey’s LDAS, (iii) no motivation to combine, and (iv) objective indicia/copying (Genius’s 2018 emails; alleged praise). Note: the final panel differs from the institution panel.
• 2026-03-11 — Final Written Decision in IPR2024-01307 (Paper 45): all challenged claims 19–25 and 27–30 of the ’687 patent held UNPATENTABLE (obvious over Ellis + Spivey; Herzog-based grounds also resolved). The FWD addresses the "event socket"/topic-queue dispute and rejects the inoperability attack. (FWD)
• 2026-03-13 — Companion FWD in IPR2024-01310 (’218): all challenged claims 1–15 unpatentable, and Petitioner’s motion to exclude denied (Paper 47).
• 2026-05-06 — Patent Owner’s Notice of Appeal filed in -1307 (Federal Circuit). Status per PTAB trackers: "Final Written Decision – Appealed." (IPR2024-01307 docket) Presumably a consolidated appeal of the six decisions; I could not confirm the Federal Circuit appeal number or briefing status.
• ’088 IPRs — different outcome: In IPR2025-00251, the Board DENIED institution on claims 1–7 and 24–34 of the ’088 (Ellis/Spivey and Herzog/Spivey grounds). (decision) This is the one patent family member that survived the PTAB intact.

---

7. Present posture / practical effect

• Litigation (2:23-cv-00472-JRG lead; 2:23-cv-00471-JRG member): Active into at least April 2026 (discovery/settlement-agreement production fight). No stay, no trial verdict, no JMOL/fee ruling, and no confirmed settlement or dismissal that I could verify. The Nov. 7, 2025 trial setting has evidently slipped.
• PTAB: All six Genius IPRs went to Final Written Decisions finding the challenged ’687, ’697, and ’218 claims unpatentable; all are now on appeal at the Federal Circuit (’307 notice of appeal 2026-05-06). The ’088 claims survived institution denial.
• Bottom line: If the FWDs are affirmed, PANDA’s ’687, ’697 and ’218 claims are cancelled and the corresponding district-court infringement counts (and the defendants’ mirror DJ counterclaims) largely wash out, leaving the ’088 patent claims and PANDA’s antitrust claims as the live dispute — which explains the 2026 fight over the value of a comparable settlement. The antitrust theory (Genius/Sportradar allegedly excluding a smaller rival) took on added relevance once the patent claims began falling.

---

Confidence / gaps

• Well sourced: filing dates (2023-10-05), consolidation (2024-10-15), antitrust amendment (2025-02-14), the antitrust-strike denial (2025-06-11), PTAB filing/institution/FWD dates, and the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing.
• Sourced only to a docket excerpt or counsel’s oral statement: the ’088 amendment date (2024-09-25) and the claim-construction order date/scope (~late Aug. 2025; "socket dedicated to a single event").
• Not verified: whether a Markman opinion was published, whether any dispositive motions were decided on the merits, the Federal Circuit appeal number, the Delaware case number/date, and whether mediations or license discussions occurred. I could not find a complaint-filing date for the non-PANDA-side Delaware action.
• I found no evidence of a case styled "Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr" in district court — the district-court caption runs the other way (PANDA as plaintiff), with Genius as petitioner only at the PTAB.

I'll research the counsel of record for Genius Sports Ltd. (the petitioner/plaintiff side) in IPR2024-01307 and any parallel district court litigation.

Let me dig deeper into the PTAB docket, the Final Written Decision, and the parallel district court cases.

Threshold clarification

The case as captioned — IPR2024-01307, Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) — is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district court infringement action. There is no "plaintiff" in the Rule 3 sense; the plaintiff-side party is the Petitioner, Genius Sports Ltd. ("Genius"). The Patent Owner (SportsCastr/PANDA) is the defendant-side party. Below I list the counsel of record for the Petitioner/plaintiff side, and then flag the separate, real district court infringement suits involving these parties, where the roles are reversed (PANDA sues Genius) except for a 2026 SDNY case where a Genius affiliate is the plaintiff.

Note also that IPR2024-01307 is one of six coordinated Genius petitions (IPR2024-01305, -01307, -01308, -01309, -01310, -01311) that the Board has treated with a common caption and a single counsel team. The '687 patent is challenged in two of them (-01305 and -01307).

Counsel of record for Petitioner Genius Sports Ltd. (IPR2024-01307)

All Petitioner-side counsel are at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. The Board's Paper 26 (Oct. 15, 2025) lists "PETITIONER: W. Todd Baker, Michael Dinnella, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP," and Petitioner's Dec. 5, 2025 Updated Mandatory Notices / Updated Power of Attorney carries the operative lead/back-up designation.

Former / withdrawn petitioner counsel

• Michael T. Dinnella (Reg. No. not confirmed in the record I retrieved) — was back-up counsel. He "terminated his employment with counsel for Genius, Kirkland & Ellis LLP." Petitioner moved to withdraw him (Board-authorized Oct. 6, 2025); the Board denied without prejudice on Oct. 15, 2025 (Paper 26) because withdrawal would have left Petitioner without recognized back-up counsel. Petitioner filed a renewed unopposed motion to withdraw on Nov. 11, 2025 (Paper 32) after designating substitute back-up counsel, and the Dec. 5, 2025 Updated Mandatory Notice reflects the post-withdrawal roster (Baker lead; Krishnan and Heffernan back-up).

Parallel district court proceedings (Genius-side counsel there)

The PTAB docket identifies the "Related Matters" as the E.D. Tex. Marshall Division actions filed Oct. 5, 2023:

• SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG ("the underlying litigation") — here Genius is the defendant, not the plaintiff.
• SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (consolidated for pretrial in part).

The court's E.D. Tex. calendar of events (introduced as an exhibit) lists the following attorneys representing the Genius defendants: Jeanne Marie Heffernan, James John Lomeo, Samuel Carno Leifer, Kevin M. Neylan, Jr., Guy Ruttenberg, and Joshua L. Simmons (all Kirkland & Ellis). (Counsel shown for plaintiff PANDA in that case are King & Spalding attorneys — Brian Eutermoser, Mikaela Stone, et al. — who are the opposing side to Genius.)

Separately, there is a 2026 SDNY patent infringement action where a Genius entity is the plaintiff: Genius Sports SS, LLC v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), No. 1:26-cv-03900 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 11, 2026), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 10,769,446, 11,120,271 and 11,383,405. The complaint (Dkt. 1) and related filings were signed Jeanne M. Heffernan (Kirkland & Ellis), with pro hac vice motions for Nikhil Rama Krishnan (Dkt. 7, filing pro hac vice) and James John Lomeo (Dkt. 6). This appears to be the "patent infringement" posture in which the Genius side is affirmatively the plaintiff.

Procedural status (for context)

• Petition filed Aug. 22, 2024; institution granted Mar. 13, 2025 (Paper 8) on all grounds as to claims 19–25 and 27–30 of the '687 patent.
• Oral hearing Dec. 18, 2025 (six IPRs argued together; Judges Belisle, et al.).
• Final Written Decision issued Mar. 11, 2026 (Paper 45). Third-party trackers report the outcome as "Unpatentable" and the case status as "Final Written Decision – Appealed" (ai-lab.exparte.com). I could not independently confirm the specific claim outcomes or the Federal Circuit appeal number from a primary source in the searches above — treat those two data points as lower-confidence.

Caveats on sourcing

• The Petitioner-side roster above is grounded in primary PTAB papers on the public docket (Papers 26, 32; the Dec. 5, 2025 Updated Mandatory Notices/POA; Ex. 1068; and the Dec. 12, 2025 LEAP authorization email). Where a document is a proposed/updated filing, I've said so.
• I could not verify Michael Dinnella's registration number or confirm his current whereabouts; he appears only as a withdrawing back-up counsel.
• The SDNY docket entries I relied on come from a third-party PACER mirror (dockets.justia.com); I did not pull the underlying PACER images, so any appearance dates beyond the May 11, 2026 filings should be confirmed on PACER.
• No counsel list here is invented; anything I could not source is expressly flagged as unverified.

I'll research the counsel of record. Note at the outset that IPR2024-01307 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement action — so "defendant" maps to the Patent Owner (SportsCastr/PANDA Interactive), and I'll look for its counsel of record in the IPR as well as any parallel district court litigation.

I found important detail — there appear to be two different firms associated with the Patent Owner at different times. Let me verify and pin down the current record, plus the parallel district court litigation.

I now have a clear picture, including a mid-case change of Patent Owner counsel. Let me verify that substitution and check the attorneys' backgrounds plus the newer district court actions.

Threshold point on the framing

The case in the metadata — IPR2024-01307 — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement action. There, Genius Sports Ltd. is the Petitioner and SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) is the Patent Owner. So "defendant" as the metadata uses it maps to SportsCastr/PANDA, i.e., the Patent Owner side. I've answered on that basis, and then separately flagged the actual infringement suits below, because "defendant" flips depending on which courthouse you're standing in.

One important caveat up front: I could not pull PACER/PTAB E2E directly in this session. Everything below is grounded in the filed PTAB papers, Board orders, and docket-aggregator records that surfaced in search, with citations. Where the record doesn't disclose a fact (e.g., a firm name), I say so rather than guess.

---

1. Patent Owner (SportsCastr/PANDA) — counsel of record in IPR2024-01307

There was a mid-proceeding change of counsel, which is the single most important thing to know here.

Current counsel (as of the December 2025 oral hearing) — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

The Board's own caption block reflects this: the Oct. 15, 2025 Order (Paper 26) and the Nov./Dec. 2025 filings list "PATENT OWNER: Andrew Cochran, Colleen James — CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP" (Docket Alarm, IPR2024-01307 Paper 26). Cahill was also cc'd as PO counsel on the Dec. 12, 2025 LEAP/oral-hearing correspondence (PTAB email record).

Unverified: a ccampbell@Cahill.com address appears cc'd on the December 2025 hearing email. I could not confirm who that is or whether a third Cahill attorney entered an appearance in this IPR, so I'm not listing it as counsel of record.

Original counsel (Sept. 2024 – ~May 2025) — King & Spalding LLP

Per Patent Owner's Power of Attorney, Paper 5 (Sept. 17, 2024) and the May 6, 2025 Panel Change Order:

How the switch happened: King & Spalding (signed by Eutermoser) filed a Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel in the sibling IPR IPR2025-00275 (Sportradar AG v. PANDA) on May 23, 2025, asking that Andrew J. Cochran be designated lead counsel and Colleen Tracy James back-up; the Board authorized the motion by email on May 16, 2025 (IPR2025-00275 Paper 14). I did not locate the mirror substitution paper docketed in IPR2024-01307 itself within my search budget, but the Board's caption blocks flip from K&S (May 6, 2025 Panel Change Order) to Cahill (Oct. 15, 2025 Order), which confirms the substitution took effect in this proceeding too.

No in-house counsel of record. Kevin April signed the POA as CEO of SportsCastr (not as an attorney), and no in-house attorney appears on the PTAB service lists.

---

2. If you meant the accused infringer side — the parallel district court cases

There is no "defendant" in IPR2024-01307 other than the Patent Owner. But the same dispute is litigated in district court, where the alignment differs:

*a) E.D. Tex. — SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (filed Oct. 5, 2023).* Here PANDA is plaintiff and Genius Sports is the defendant. Genius's counsel of record: Kirkland & Ellis LLP — Jeanne M. Heffernan (Austin; P.C.), James John Lomeo (Austin), Joshua L. Simmons (New York), Patrick Arnett (Washington, D.C.), and for the IPRs W. Todd Baker (D.C., Reg. No. 45,265 — Petitioner's lead counsel) and Nikhil Rama Krishnan (Chicago) (Genius stipulation re IPR, 2:23-cv-471). Kirkland's PTAB team also included Michael T. Dinnella (former back-up counsel; withdrew after leaving the firm — Papers 25, 26, 32) and Socrates L. Boutsikaris (LEAP practitioner, Dec. 2025).

b) D. Del. → transferred — Sportradar US LLC v. Sportscastr, Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive, C.A. No. 24-170 (CFC). PANDA is the defendant. Its counsel: King & Spalding LLP — Christopher C. Campbell, Ryan A. Schmid, Patrick M. Lafferty (D.C.), Brit Davis (Denver), Matthew Wood (Austin) — with Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn) as Delaware local counsel. Transferred to E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap) on Mar. 26, 2025.

*c) S.D.N.Y. — Genius Sports SS, LLC v. SportsCastr Inc., No. 1:26-cv-03900 (MKY) (Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil), filed May 11, 2026.* This is a § 271 infringement action in which SportsCastr is the defendant. Appearances for SportsCastr: Katherine Anne Garceau Sobiech (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 15, May 28, 2026; filed the extension-of-time letter, Dkt. 16) and Jon M. Spanbauer (pro hac vice granted, Dkt. 19, July 7, 2026). Plaintiff Genius's counsel there is again Kirkland & Ellis (Heffernan, Krishnan, Lomeo). ⚠️ The docket snippets I retrieved do not disclose the firm name for Ms. Sobiech or Mr. Spanbauer, and I will not guess — that needs a PACER check of the S.D.N.Y. docket.

---

Bottom line

For IPR2024-01307 specifically, the counsel of record for the party the metadata labels "Defendant" (SportsCastr/PANDA Interactive, the Patent Owner) is:

• Lead: Andrew J. Cochran, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York) — current
• Back-up: Colleen Tracy James, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York) — current
• Originally Brian Eutermoser (lead), Mikaela Stone and Kevin J. Duffy (back-up), King & Spalding LLP (Denver), from September 2024 until the ~May 2025 substitution.

If instead you want the accused infringer in the parallel infringement suits, that's Kirkland & Ellis for Genius Sports (E.D. Tex. / S.D.N.Y. plaintiff side) and King & Spalding + Morris Nichols for PANDA where it appears as a district court defendant.

Caveats: (1) I could not retrieve the Final Written Decision paper itself in this session, so I have not verified the counsel block on the FWD (expected ~Feb.–Mar. 2026 following the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing); the last verified PO counsel listing is December 2025 (Cahill). (2) The S.D.N.Y. defense firm names for Sobiech/Spanbauer are unconfirmed.