Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties, accused technology, and patents. This matter is a PTAB inter partes review arising out of a broader patent-infringement war in the sports-data and betting industry. The petitioner, Sportradar AG (with real parties-in-interest Sportradar Group AG, Sportradar Solutions LLC, and Sportradar US LLC), is the Swiss-headquartered, publicly traded operating company that is one of the world's dominant suppliers of official sports data, odds, and betting/streaming technology. The patent owner, SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), is a Las Vegas-based practicing entity and product company (the Stanford NPE Litigation database classifies it as a "practicing entity"/"product company," not a patent-assertion entity) founded in 2016 by Donald Schupak, Kevin April, and others, with the late NBA Commissioner David Stern as a founding investor; its "watch & bet" platform (PANDA Studio) overlays live odds, in-stream betting, and interactive content on live sports video. SportsCastr accused Sportradar's products that deliver live data and content in live video streams—including its emBet in-play betting platform, OTT streaming offering, and Live Channel Trading platform—of infringing its foundational low-latency, interactive-streaming patents (complaint filed Oct. 5, 2023; amended Mar. 8, 2024, to add Sportradar AG and a fourth patent). The patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 B1 ("Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information," issued June 15, 2021; priority Aug. 5, 2016; inventors April, Schupak, Azuolas, and Silston). In one line: it claims a server/socket architecture that delivers a live sports video stream over one Internet channel and "online gaming information" (odds, scores, stats) over a separate, persistent socket-based channel, enabling a synchronized, low-latency in-stream betting/scoreboard overlay. The '218 is one member of a common-specification family also asserted in the Texas litigation—U.S. Patent Nos. 10,805,687 and 10,425,697 (low-latency delivery of live-event video with separately channeled synchronized event data), plus U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088 added by amendment.

Procedural posture and venue. The underlying infringement action is SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al., No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG, in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap—the same venue that hosted the parallel case against Genius Sports (2:23-cv-00471-JRG). Venue mattered for two reasons: (1) in September 2024, Judge Gilstrap denied Sportradar's motion to dismiss/transfer, holding the Swiss parent was subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Texas because its accused products were offered "in every state" and Delaware was not "clearly more convenient" (SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-CV-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2024)); and (2) the advanced Texas schedule drove the PTAB outcome here. This IPR (IPR2025-00273, filed Dec. 11, 2024, before APJs Barbara Parvis and John Hudalla) challenged claims 1–15 of the '218 on Ellis/Spivey/Herzog obviousness grounds. It was one of six Sportradar "copycat" petitions mirroring six Genius Sports IPRs (IPR2024-01305–01311), with motions to join and a pledge to serve as a "passive understudy" to Genius. SportsCastr (Cahill Gordon & Reindel) filed a preliminary response with a declaration from Aviel Rubin, Ph.D., and a request for discretionary denial (Paper 12); Sportradar (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner) opposed (Paper 17). On June 25, 2025, the Director issued a "Director Discretionary Decision" granting SportsCastr's request and denying institution (Paper 19), under the interim PTAB workload-management process—citing that the projected final written decision (July 8, 2026, or Mar. 6, 2026 if joined) would not precede the E.D. Tex. trial (then set for Jan. 23, 2026), that the parties had invested heavily in the district case (Markman heard May 9, 2025; fact discovery closing Aug. 2025), and that no stay was likely. The case was terminated as not instituted.

Why it matters. The case is notable on several fronts. First, it illustrates the limits of the "copycat petition + joinder" strategy: even identical art and a proposed Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1021) could not overcome Director-level Fintiv discretionary denial where the parallel district court trial was imminent—an early, high-profile application of the interim PTAB workload-management process. Second, the dispute fused patent and antitrust: in February 2025, SportsCastr amended to add tying claims alleging Sportradar (and Genius) leveraged exclusive NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL data deals to force sportsbooks and media companies into using their own betting technology (those antitrust claims were severed into 2:25-cv-01250-JRG on Dec. 23, 2025). Third, the market stakes are large: a small "watch & bet" pioneer asserted foundational streaming-betting patents against the two dominant sports-data suppliers, and the dispute ultimately settled—SportsCastr and Sportradar jointly moved to stay on Feb. 13, 2026 (trial then set for Feb. 27, 2026), with dismissal with prejudice filed Apr. 3, 2026; Sportradar's FY2025 annual report disclosed €35.1 million in litigation costs including the settlement payment (terms otherwise confidential). The IPR linkage was also unusually deep: all six Sportradar petitions were denied in a single Director decision on June 25, 2025, while the underlying Genius IPRs continued (the Board had instituted IPR2024-01308 on Mar. 6, 2025), and Genius later flipped roles, suing SportsCastr in the Southern District of New York in May 2026 over Second Spectrum graphics-overlay patents. Caveat: settlement terms are confidential, and the precise Director decision citation (§ 314(a) vs. § 325(d)) is not stated in the sources reviewed; the decision itself is captioned as a discretionary denial and appears on the docket as "Director Discretionary Decision Deny" (Paper 19).

SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Sportradar Group AG et al. — Key Legal Developments

Important framing note: The case in your metadata (IPR2025-00273) is a PTAB inter partes review petition, not the infringement litigation itself. The underlying infringement litigation is SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap) — lead case consolidated with the parallel Genius Sports suit (No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG). The '218 patent (U.S. 11,039,218) was one of the asserted patents in that litigation. Below is the chronology for both the litigation and the IPR.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2023-10-05 — SportsCastr (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) filed two patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas: one against Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG (2:23-cv-00472-JRG) and one against Genius Sports Ltd. and affiliates (2:23-cv-00471-JRG), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,805,687 ('687), 11,039,218 ('218), and 10,425,697 ('697). Accused products: Sportradar emBET, OTT, and Live Channel Trading (LCT). (Sportradar AG FY2025 Annual Report; Genius Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Ex. 2047 to IPR2025-00273.)
• 2024-02-08 — Sportradar US LLC, Sportradar Solutions LLC, and Sportradar AG filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of Delaware (1:24-cv-00170-CFC, Judge Colm Connolly; later reassigned to Judge John Campbell Barker) seeking declarations of non-infringement of the same patents, including the '218 (claims 1 and 4 asserted by PANDA in Texas). (CourtListener docket 68238915; D. Del. D.I. 1.)
• 2024-04-15 — The Sportradar entities moved in E.D. Tex. to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, transfer to Delaware (Dkt. 27). (SportsCastr v. Sportradar, Dkt. 57 at 2.)
• 2024-10-15 — E.D. Tex. consolidated 2:23-cv-00471 and 2:23-cv-00472 for pretrial purposes with 2:23-cv-00472 as lead case (consolidation order signed 2024-10-11); individual cases remained active for trial. The same day, Sportradar answered PANDA's amended complaint and asserted counterclaims seeking declarations of unpatentability, invalidity, and non-infringement. Genius filed its answer/counterclaims on 2024-12-09. (Ex Parte docket; D. Del. D.I. 23 opinion at 5-6.)
• 2025-02-14 — PANDA filed its Second Amended Complaint against Sportradar (Dkt. 126) and Third Amended Complaint against Genius (Dkt. 127), adding Sherman Act and Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act claims alleging defendants unlawfully tied access to official league data to use of their betting-technology platforms. (Dkt. 224 at 1-2.)

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• 2024-09-17 — Judge Gilstrap denied Sportradar's motion to dismiss/transfer (Dkt. 57): the court found a prima facie showing of specific personal jurisdiction over the Swiss parent Sportradar AG and holding company Sportradar Group AG, rejected the first-to-file argument, and held Delaware was not a "clearly more convenient" forum under Volkswagen. (Dkt. 57; IP Law Daily, 2024-09-18.)
• 2024-03-26 (D. Del. order) — Judge Barker granted in part Panda's motion to dismiss/transfer/stay the Delaware DJ action (D.I. 11): applying the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the court transferred the case to E.D. Tex. (Marshall Div.) for assignment to Judge Gilstrap with instructions to consider consolidation with 2:23-cv-00472. The court relied on the E.D. Tex. action's earlier filing date, the Texas court's jurisdictional ruling, and the pending Markman hearing (then set for 2025-05-09) and trial (then set for 2025-11-07). (D. Del. D.I. 23, SportsCastr v. Sportradar, CourtListener opinion 10203985.)
• 2025-03-07 / 2025-03-28 — Sportradar moved to amend the Docket Control Order to address the newly added antitrust claims; the court granted the motion, extending non-patent deadlines by up to 75 days. (Dkt. 224 at 2.)
• 2025-03-31 — Sportradar (joined by Genius) moved to strike PANDA's antitrust allegations (Dkt. 158). On 2025-06-10, Judge Gilstrap denied the motion (Dkt. 224), holding that PANDA's amended complaints were timely filed under the plain language of the Docket Control Order, which permitted amendments without leave before the 2025-02-14 deadline absent assertion of new patents. (Dkt. 224, signed 2025-06-10.)
• 2025-04-04 — The transferred Delaware DJ action opened in E.D. Tex. as 2:25-cv-00335 (Judge Gilstrap). On 2025-04-09, Sportradar voluntarily dismissed it; on 2025-04-14, the court dismissed all claims without prejudice. (Justia docket, 2:25-cv-00335, Dkts. 25-27.)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2025-05-09 — The Markman hearing was held before Judge Gilstrap in the lead case (per the consolidation order and the Delaware transfer opinion). A further Markman hearing was also set for 2025-07-29 on later-filed motions (per an E.D. Tex. calendar exhibit filed in the related IPRs, Ex. 1052 to IPR2025-00269).
• The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 124 in the E.D. Tex. case), which SportsCastr submitted as Ex. 2003 in the IPR. The substantive claim-construction order's terms are not in my sources — the case settled before trial, and the IPR was denied before any PTAB construction. The pending construction issues included terms such as "control server," "socket server," and "event socket" in the '218 family.

4. Discovery Milestones of Strategic Significance

• 2024-11-26 — PANDA served its Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions. (Genius Second Supp. Invalidity Contentions, IPR2025-00273 Ex. 2047.)
• 2024-12-09 — Genius served its Second Supplemental Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions covering all four asserted patents (including the '218), expressly preserving positions pending the Markman ruling. (IPR2025-00273 Ex. 2047.)
• 2025-08 (scheduled) — Fact discovery was scheduled to close in August 2025, and the parties had made "meaningful investment" in the case (Markman hearing held; expert and fact discovery underway) — a factor the PTAB cited in denying IPR institution. (Director's Decision, Paper 19, IPR2025-00273, 2025-06-25.)
• 2026-04-13 — Post-settlement, Genius sought to compel PANDA to produce the Panda–Sportradar settlement agreement in the still-pending Genius-related proceedings, arguing it bore on damages and validity. (Law360, "SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG" case page, 2026-04-13; ScaleJuris.)

5. Trial Events & Verdict

• No trial occurred and no verdict was reached. The trial date moved from 2025-11-07 (per the 2024 consolidation order) to 2026-01-23 (per the PTAB's June 2025 decision) and finally to 2026-02-27 (per the joint stay motion). The case settled approximately two weeks before the final trial date. (ScaleJuris; CB Insights; Director's Decision at 3.)
• Because the case settled pre-trial, there were no JMOL motions, new-trial motions, or fee motions, and no appeal from a final judgment in the infringement action.

6. Settlement, Dismissal & Final Disposition

• 2026-02-13 — PANDA and Sportradar filed a joint motion for a 30-day stay of all proceedings — including the trial set for 2026-02-27 — to finalize a settlement and file dismissal papers. (Law360, 2026-02-17; CB Insights; ScaleJuris.)
• 2026-02-13 — PANDA and Genius likewise filed a joint motion to dismiss their case, representing that "all matters in controversy between the Parties in Case No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG" had been settled. (theigaming.eu, 2026-05-14; terms not disclosed.)
• March 2026 — Sportradar Group AG's FY2025 Annual Report confirmed that "the Company and its affiliates reached a settlement agreement with Sportscastr, Inc. (d/b/a PANDA) in which PANDA dismissed its litigation claims against the Company with prejudice," covering the patent claims and the added antitrust claims. Sportradar recognized €35.1 million in litigation costs, inclusive of the settlement payment to PANDA. (Sportradar FY2025 Form/Annual Report, published 2026-03-27; FAST-EDGAR archive.)
• Present posture: The Sportradar-side litigation (2:23-cv-00472) is concluded by settlement with prejudice. The Genius-side matter (2:23-cv-00471) was the subject of a joint dismissal motion in February 2026, though a discovery dispute over the Panda–Sportradar settlement agreement remained live in April 2026 — suggesting residual post-settlement proceedings in the member case. Separately, in May 2026, Genius sued SportsCastr in the Southern District of New York on a different patent portfolio (the Second Spectrum patents), which is outside the scope of this case. (theigaming.eu, 2026-05-14.)

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

• Genius IPRs (first wave): Genius Sports filed six IPRs on the patent family in August 2024 — for the '218: IPR2024-01310 (claims 1-15) and IPR2024-01311 (claims 16-30); for the '687: IPR2024-01305/-01307; for the '697: IPR2024-01308/-01309. (Sportradar Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2025-00273, Paper 8, 2025-03-05.) IPR2024-01308 ('697, claims 1-9) was instituted on 2025-03-06. (Director's Decision at 3.)
• Sportradar "copycat" IPRs: On 2024-12-11, Sportradar AG filed six mirror-image petitions with motions to join the corresponding Genius IPRs: IPR2025-00273 (the case in your metadata; '218 patent, mirroring IPR2024-01310) and IPR2025-00275 ('218, claims 16-30), plus IPR2025-00265/-00266 ('697) and IPR2025-00268/-00269 ('687). Sportradar also filed a proposed Sotera stipulation (Ex. 1021) not to pursue in district court invalidity grounds raised or reasonably raisable in instituted IPRs. (Papers 8 & Ex. 1021, IPR2025-00273.)
• 2025-04-08 — SportsCastr filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Response (with the Aviel Rubin declaration, Ex. 2001) and a request for discretionary denial of institution (Paper 12); Sportradar opposed (Paper 17).
• 2025-06-25 — Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a Decision Granting Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial and Denying Institution of IPR2025-00273 and its five companion petitions (Paper 19). The denial was a § 314(a) discretionary (Fintiv-type) denial, not a merits decision. Key reasons: (1) the projected final-written-decision date (2026-07-08) would not precede the district court trial (then set for 2026-01-23); (2) even if joinder to instituted IPR2024-01308 were granted (FWD due 2026-03-06), the FWD would still likely miss trial; (3) the parties had made substantial investment in the district court case — a Markman hearing had already been held (2025-05-09) and fact discovery was closing August 2025; (4) no showing the district court would stay; and (5) risk that if the primary petitioner (Genius) settled, the Office would maintain proceedings it would not have instituted against Sportradar. IPR2025-00273 closed on 2025-06-25 with "discretionary denial" status. (Director's Decision, IPR2025-00273 Paper 19, 2025-06-25; Ex Parte/IP Verse case summaries.)
• Later Sportradar IPRs: Sportradar filed additional IPRs — IPR2025-00313 through -00316 (filed 2024-12-14) and IPR2025-00634/-00635 (filed 2025-02-24) — all of which were also discretionary denials. (IP Verse PTAB tracker, updated 2026-06-15.)
• Effect on the litigation: The PTAB's refusal to institute meant no estoppel and no stay based on the Sportradar IPRs; invalidity remained a live district court defense until settlement. Separately, in early March 2026 the PTAB issued a final written decision in a Genius IPR finding challenged claims of one SportsCastr patent unpatentable as obvious — a decision the trade press noted "weakens part of SportsCastr's offensive patent position" but which came after the parties had settled the Texas litigation. (theigaming.eu, 2026-05-14.)

---

Bottom line

The E.D. Tex. infringement litigation (including the '218 patent) was filed 2023-10-05, survived Sportradar's jurisdictional/transfer challenges (2024-09-17), was consolidated with the Genius case (2024-10-15), expanded into antitrust claims (2025-02-14), went through Markman (2025-05-09), and was settled in March 2026 with PANDA's claims dismissed with prejudice — no verdict, no post-trial motions, no appeal. Sportradar's parallel IPR on the '218 (IPR2025-00273) was denied institution on discretionary grounds on 2025-06-25, leaving the patent's validity for the district court, which never reached it because of the settlement.

Sourcing caveats: Settlement terms are confidential; the precise scope of the remaining Genius-side docket after February 2026 is only partially documented in my sources; and the substantive claim-construction order was not available to me. All other dates above are tied to docket entries, the PTAB Director's Decision, court opinions, or contemporaneous trade-press reports cited inline.

Important framing note

IPR2025-00273 is not a patent infringement case — it is an inter partes review before the PTAB. In that proceeding, Sportradar AG is the petitioner (the party your metadata labels "Plaintiff") and SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a Panda Interactive) is the patent owner (the party labeled "Defendant"). The "plaintiff" in the underlying infringement suit is actually SportsCastr, which sued Sportradar in the Eastern District of Texas (SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al., No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG). I address both below so the answer is useful either way.

The IPR was denied institution by discretionary denial on June 25, 2025 (Director's Decision, Paper 19), and the proceeding was terminated. The related E.D. Tex. litigation was reportedly settled and dismissed with prejudice around March 2026.

---

1. Counsel for Sportradar AG — the "plaintiff"/petitioner in IPR2025-00273

Counsel of record are identified in Sportradar's Power of Attorney (Paper 1, Dec. 11, 2024) and Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 8, Mar. 5, 2025), all from Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (BCLP):

No in-house counsel appears of record in the PTAB filings; representation was exclusively outside counsel.

---

2. If you meant the actual plaintiff in the infringement suit (SportsCastr Inc.)

In SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al., 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex. — Marshall Div.), the plaintiff SportsCastr Inc. is represented by:

• Andrew J. Cochran (Reg. No. 69,620) — lead counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York (32 Old Slip). Substituted as lead PTAB counsel for the SportsCastr family of IPRs in May 2025 (IPR2025-00316 Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel).
• Colleen Tracy James (Reg. No. 52,295) — backup counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York.
• Prior counsel: Brian Eutermoser (lead) and Mikaela Stone (backup) were withdrawn and substituted out by Board order (June 17, 2025).

---

3. Counsel for Sportradar as defendant in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement action

If your "plaintiff(s)" reference is meant to capture Sportradar's litigation team in the underlying Texas case, the record (Exhibit 1021, Sportradar's proposed Sotera stipulation, filed in IPR2025-00273) shows:

• David A. Roodman, Nick E. Williamson, and George G. Brell — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis (One Metropolitan Square, 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600).
• Michael C. Smith — local counsel, Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, TX (113 East Austin Street); a veteran E.D. Tex. patent litigator.

---

Sourcing caveats

• Attorney names/roles come from the PTAB record (DocketAlarm copies of Paper 1 Power of Attorney, Paper 8 Updated Mandatory Notices, and the June 25, 2025 Director Discretionary Decision) and the IPR2025-00316 substitution order — all publicly available PTAB filings.
• I did not independently verify individual attorney bios beyond Scott Cummings' Legal 500 profile; role labels for Walden and Fabiani are taken directly from the mandatory notices (both designated backup counsel; Walden's city is inferred from the BCLP signature block listing him under the 1155 F St., N.W., Washington, D.C. address).
• No filings are sealed that would affect these disclosures; the case is closed (discretionary denial, June 25, 2025), and the underlying district court case was settled and dismissed with prejudice per March 2026 reports.

Important framing note

The matter in your metadata — IPR2025-00273 — is not a patent infringement case; it is an inter partes review before the PTAB (Sportradar AG as petitioner vs. SportsCastr Inc., d/b/a PANDA Interactive, as patent owner/respondent). The petition was not instituted; the Board entered a discretionary denial and the case was terminated on June 25, 2025 (DocketAlarm/Gaeflex tracker; ai-lab.exparte.com, status "Discretionary Denial," termination date 06/25/25). I therefore give you both (a) counsel of record for SportsCastr — the party in the "defendant/respondent" posture in the IPR — and (b) counsel for the actual defendants (Sportradar) in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement action, in case that is what you need.

---

A. Counsel of record for SportsCastr Inc. (patent owner / respondent) in IPR2025-00273

At filing (Power of Attorney, Jan. 3, 2025) — King & Spalding LLP

• Brian Eutermoser — Lead counsel (Reg. No. 64,058), King & Spalding LLP, Denver, CO (1401 Lawrence St., Ste. 1900). Patent trial lawyer; former lead for Motorola Mobility in St. Lawrence Communications v. Motorola Mobility (E.D. Tex.) and for Palo Alto Networks in Finjan v. Palo Alto Networks IPRs (Lexinter bio).
• Mikaela Stone — Backup counsel (Reg. No. 70,404), King & Spalding LLP, Denver, CO. Worked with Eutermoser on Federal Circuit patent appeals (e.g., BASF v. Ingevity matters).
• Kevin J. Duffy — Designated backup counsel, but never admitted pro hac vice; per the Board's later order he "is not currently counsel of record" (see below).

At termination (substituted by Board order, June 17, 2025) — Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

• Andrew J. Cochran — Lead counsel (Reg. No. 69,620), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York. Substituted as lead in the Sportradar IPRs per the Board's unopposed substitution order; IP litigator with a heavy PTAB and district-court docket.
• Colleen Tracy James — Backup counsel (Reg. No. 52,295), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York. Substituted as backup in the same order.

Source: Board Order Granting Unopposed Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel, IPR2025-00316, Paper 15 (June 17, 2025), which granted substitution of Cochran (lead) and James (back-up) across the Sportradar v. SportsCastr IPRs, and expressly noted Duffy "was never admitted pro hac vice." See also Patent Owner's Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel, IPR2025-00275, Paper 14 (May 23, 2025), and Patent Owner's POA (PTACTS, Jan. 3, 2025) appointing King & Spalding (Eutermoser/Stone).

---

B. Counsel for the defendants in the underlying E.D. Tex. infringement case (SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG, Marshall Div.)

In the district-court infringement case over the '218 patent (asserted along with the '687, '697, and '088 patents), SportsCastr is the plaintiff and Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG are the defendants. Their counsel of record (signature block on Sportradar's proposed Sotera stipulation, IPR2025-00273 Ex. 1021):

• David A. Roodman — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis, MO (One Metropolitan Square). BCLP IP litigation partner; lead among the St. Louis team on the Sportradar IPR/antitrust-adjacent defense.
• Nick E. Williamson — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis, MO. BCLP trial/IP attorney handling the Sportradar defense.
• George G. Brell — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, St. Louis, MO. BCLP IP associate/partner-level on the Sportradar matter.
• Michael C. Smith — Local counsel, Scheef & Stone, Marshall, TX (113 E. Austin St.). Longtime Eastern District of Texas local counsel for out-of-state patent defendants.

Source: "Defendants' Stipulation Re Inter Partes Review" (IPR2025-00273, Ex. 1021), signed "Attorneys for Defendants Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG."

---

C. For completeness — Petitioner's counsel in the IPR (Sportradar AG)

• Scott W. Cummings — Lead counsel (Reg. No. 41,567), Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, Washington, DC (1155 F St. NW).
• Alexander Walden — Backup counsel (pro hac vice), BCLP, New York.
• Frank Fabiani — Backup counsel (Reg. No. 75,934), BCLP, New York.

Source: Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2025-00273 (filed Mar. 5, 2025), listing lead/back-up counsel and service e-mails (scott.cummings@bclplaw.com, alexander.walden@bclplaw.com, frank.fabiani@bclplaw.com).

---

Caveats

• I could not retrieve the text of the Institution Decision itself (Paper ~14, June 25, 2025) to quote the Board's exact discretionary-denial rationale; the "discretionary denial / terminated" status is sourced from the docket trackers (ai-lab.exparte.com; gaeflex docket page listing Judges Barbara Parvis and John Hudalla). The petition had flagged the co-pending Genius Sports IPR (IPR2024-01310) and the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation, which are the typical bases for discretionary denial here.
• If your question was specifically about the Delaware declaratory-judgment action (Sportradar US LLC v. Sportscastr, Inc., 1:24-cv-00170, transferred to E.D. Tex. as 2:25-cv-00335), that case's counsel would be different from the above; let me know and I can pull the D. Del. docket separately.