Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Good foundation. Let me dig deeper into the parallel district court case, the parties, and the patents.

Let me verify the Director's denial rationale, the parallel Genius IPRs, and the case outcome.

Case overview and background

The parties. This IPR is a satellite of a broader patent war between two sports‑streaming rivals. The patent owner — and the plaintiff in the underlying litigation — is SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), a small, venture‑backed sports‑technology company founded in 2016 and headquartered in New York/Las Vegas (Chairman Donald Schupak; CEO Kevin April; Chief Strategy Officer Andrew Schupak). PANDA is a practicing entity, not a classic NPE/PAE: it sells the SportsCastr social streaming app and, more importantly for this dispute, the PANDA Studio "Watch & Bet" enterprise SaaS platform and its SocketVision technology, which overlays synchronized, interactive betting odds and data on live video. That matters analytically — PANDA's infringement case rests in part on its own commercial use of the patented architecture, and it pleaded objective indicia (industry praise, awards, alleged copying) in the IPRs. PANDA is represented by King & Spalding LLP (Businesswire, Oct. 2023; Nasdaq/BusinessWire antitrust announcement). The petitioner and litigation defendant is Sportradar AG (with real parties‑in‑interest Sportradar Group AG, Sportradar Solutions LLC and Sportradar US LLC), the Swiss sports‑data incumbent (NASDAQ: SRAD), headquartered in St. Gallen; it supplies live data, content, streaming and gaming/betting technology to leagues, media and sportsbooks. In the IPRs Sportradar is represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (Scott W. Cummings et al.), per the petition signature blocks.

The accused technology and the patents. PANDA's E.D. Tex. complaints accuse Sportradar's emBET, OTT and Live Channel Trading (LCT) branded products (and equivalent Genius Sports products in the companion case) of infringing a family of live‑streaming patents. Four patents are asserted in the litigation — U.S. 10,425,697, 10,805,687, 11,039,218 and 11,871,088 — the first three sharing a common specification, the '088 being a related but different family member. In one‑line sketches: the '697 claims a scalable, low‑latency architecture in which a control server retrieves event information and a socket server pushes it to viewers over a separate channel, including streams with broadcaster "video‑based commentary"; the '687 (the patent at issue here) claims a server/memory architecture with media sources, a control server, a socket server and a web server that deliver a live video feed and a separate, synchronized event‑data feed over distinct internet channels via per‑event "event sockets"; the '218 adds a coordinating webserver that hands the client device separate media‑source and socket addresses so that video and online‑gaming information can be paired; and the '088 covers composite event video streams with synchronized event information across multiple internet channels (see the court's claim‑construction opinion describing these patents, filed in IPR2024‑01310 as Ex. 1069). The '687 issued Oct. 13, 2020 to inventors Kevin April, Peter Azuolas, Philip Nicholas Schupak and Brian Silston, originally assigned to SportsCastr.LIVE, and reached the Board as claims 19–25 and 27–30, challenged on two obviousness grounds: U.S. Pub. 2014/0229992 ("Ellis") in view of U.S. Pub. 2016/0036910 ("Spivey"), and U.S. Pub. 2015/0163379 ("Herzog") in view of Ellis and Spivey (petition analysis, Ex Parte).

Procedural posture and venue. PANDA filed parallel suits on Oct. 5, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap: SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23‑cv‑00472‑JRG (lead case) and SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑00471‑JRG (member case), consolidated for pretrial purposes on Oct. 11, 2024 (Docket Alarm docket). Sportradar tried to escape Texas: it filed a declaratory‑judgment action through Sportradar US LLC in D. Del. (No. 1:24‑cv‑00170), but Judge Gilstrap denied the personal‑jurisdiction/transfer motion on Sept. 17, 2024 (Dkt. 57, rejecting the "first‑filed" Delaware argument), and the Delaware action was itself transferred to E.D. Tex. under the first‑to‑file rule and § 1404(a) by order dated Mar. 26, 2025 (CourtListener). The venue matters because Marshall/Gilstrap is one of the highest‑volume, fastest‑to‑trial patent dockets in the country and has a thin record of pre‑institution stays — precisely the facts that drove the Board's denial here. A Markman hearing was held May 9, 2025, with a claim‑construction order following later in 2025; the Second Amended Docket Control Order set jury selection for Jan. 23, 2026 and pretrial for Jan. 5, 2026 (Ex. 2039/2042).

IPR linkage and why the case is notable. Sportradar's six petitions (filed Dec. 11, 2024: IPR2025‑00265/00266 on the '697, 00268/00269 on the '687, and 00273/00275 on the '218) were expressly "copycat" petitions filed with motions for joinder to the six earlier Genius Sports IPRs (IPR2024‑01305/01307, 01308/01309, 01310/01311), backed by a Sotera stipulation and an agreement to act as "understudy"; IPR2025‑00269 specifically sought joinder to IPR2024‑01307. On June 25, 2025, Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart — exercising the new "Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management" regime announced in her Mar. 26, 2025 memorandum — granted PANDA's discretionary‑denial requests and denied institution in all six cases (Paper 19 in IPR2025‑00269). The rationale was that even with joinder the projected final written decision (Mar. 6, 2026 against IPR2024‑01307; July 8, 2026 if tried standalone) would likely post‑date the Jan. 23, 2026 trial, that the parties had already invested heavily in the district court case, that no stay was likely, and that the Office should not be obliged to maintain a proceeding for Sportradar if the Genius petitioner settled out. This was one of the earliest applications of the Acting Director's revised discretionary‑denial framework to joinder‑based "copycat" petitions — Cleary Gottlieb flagged it as part of a June 25, 2025 batch in which "in all five decisions where the Acting Director has applied this analysis, the petitions have been denied" (Cleary alert, July 7, 2025). A refund of fees was requested July 30, 2025 and approved Aug. 5, 2025. In the district court, PANDA escalated by adding antitrust claims (Sherman Act/TFEAA) alleging that Sportradar and Genius tie exclusive official league data to their own betting technology; defendants' motion to strike those allegations was denied June 10, 2025 (Dkt. 224). The case then resolved: on Feb. 13, 2026 the parties jointly moved for a 30‑day stay to finalize a settlement ahead of trial (reported as set for Feb. 27, 2026), and in March 2026 Sportradar's annual report discloses that PANDA dismissed its claims with prejudice, with €35.1 million of litigation costs (inclusive of the settlement payment) recognized in other operating expenses for the year ended Dec. 31, 2025 (Sportradar annual report excerpt; Law360 case page). Net effect: the '687 (and the rest of the family) survived the IPR challenge untouched because the challenge was never instituted, and the validity fight was ultimately bought out rather than adjudicated.

Sourcing notes / open items. The June 25, 2025 decision is quoted from the Acting Director's opinion as filed in IPR2025‑00273/00268 (identical text across the six cases); the Board panel listed on the docket is APJs Barbara Parvis and John Hudalla, with the institution decision issued by the Acting Director. I could not independently confirm the exact date of the district court claim‑construction order (the order appears in the record as Ex. 1069, filed Aug. 29, 2025), the precise revised trial date in early 2026 (the docket order says Jan. 23, 2026 while February 2026 press reporting says Feb. 27), or the exact filing/priority dates of the '687 application; those points should be verified against PACER/PTAB dockets if precision is required.

I'll research the district court docket and parallel PTAB proceedings before drafting.

Good corroboration on the settlement. Now let me dig into the docket chronology, Markman outcome, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me check the fate of the instituted Genius IPRs, the separate Sportradar petition IPR2025-00316, and the district court's final disposition.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could verify the post-settlement status of the instituted Genius IPRs and IPR2025‑00316. Here is the development chronology and outcome, with the gaps flagged.

---

Key legal developments & outcome — SportsCastr/PANDA litigation

Scope note. The "litigation" here is the E.D. Tex. case in which the '687 patent was asserted, not the IPR itself (the IPR's own chronology is covered in the case-overview section and summarized in Part D below). The lead case is SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23‑cv‑00472‑JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), consolidated for pretrial with No. 2:23‑cv‑00471‑JRG (v. Genius Sports Ltd.). Two corrections to the earlier sections are flagged in Part F.

A. 2023–2024: filing, pleadings, and the jurisdiction fight

B. 2025: antitrust escalation, Markman, and the dispositive‑motion runway

• 2025‑02‑14 — PANDA's operative pleadings. On the DCO's amended‑pleadings deadline, PANDA files its Second Amended Complaint against Sportradar (Dkt. 126) and Third Amended Complaint against Genius (Dkt. 127), both re‑titled "for Patent Infringement and Federal Antitrust and State Law Violations." The new counts are Sherman Act § 1/§ 2 and Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (TFEAA) claims premised on tying: exclusive official league data allegedly conditioned on customers buying Sportradar's/Genius's own betting‑technology platforms.
• 2025‑03‑07 / 2025‑03‑28 — DCO extended for the antitrust claims. Sportradar moves to amend the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 142) for more time; Genius joins (Dkt. 146); the court grants it on 03‑28‑2025, extending the non‑patent deadlines by up to 75 days (while the patent deadlines, including Markman, stayed on track).
• 2025‑03‑31 — motion to strike the antitrust allegations (Dkt. 158). Genius (joined by Sportradar, Dkt. 162) moves under Rules 12(f)/15(a) to strike the new antitrust paragraphs, arguing the amendments were untimely and that the DCO's "no leave needed" clause did not authorize new causes of action.
• 2025‑04‑14 — Docket Control Order revised (Dkt. 174), resetting the back end of the case.
• 2025‑05‑09 — Markman hearing held in Marshall before Judge Gilstrap.
• 2025‑06‑10 — Dkt. 224: motion to strike DENIED. The court held the controlling DCO's language ("[i]t is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend pleadings prior to this deadline unless the amendment seeks to assert additional patents") did permit PANDA to add the Sherman Act/TFEAA counts without leave, and declined to follow In re Katrina Canal Breaches. The antitrust claims therefore survived into the pretrial phase — a significant strategic win for PANDA. Justia Dkt. 224; PDF
• 2025‑08‑25 — Claim construction order issues. Gilstrap construed the key term "event socket" as requiring a socket dedicated to a single event — a construction PANDA used affirmatively in the PTAB to argue the prior art's "topic queues" cannot meet the limitation. The order was later filed in the PTAB record as Ex. 1069 (Aug. 29, 2025). (IPR2024‑01305/-01307 hearing transcript, 12/18/2025)
• 2025 fall — dispositive‑motion / pretrial schedule. Under the Second Amended Docket Control Order (PTAB Ex. 2039/2042), the amended deadlines included: pretrial disclosures 11/07/2025, motions in limine and objections 12/05/2025, joint pretrial order 12/19/2025, pretrial conference 01/05/2026, and jury selection 01/23/2026 (moved from 11/07/2025). Summary‑judgment and Daubert responses were due 11/07/2025. No substantive SJ, JMOL, new‑trial or fee ruling surfaced in the public record — the case resolved before any of those were decided.

C. 2026: settlement and dismissal

• 2026‑02‑13/17 — settlement stay request. With trial looming, PANDA and Sportradar settled and jointly asked Judge Gilstrap to stay all activity in the case for 30 days while the agreement was finalized and dismissal papers filed. Law360's case page dates the report 2026‑02‑17 ("Sports technology company Panda Interactive has settled its patent dispute with its rival Sportradar and asked a Texas federal judge to stay all activity in the case for 30 days"); trade coverage states trial had been set to commence February 27, 2026. (Law360 case page; IIPLA reprint, 2026‑02‑17; ScaleJuris summary) The terms were not disclosed.
• 2026‑03 — dismissal with prejudice. Sportradar's annual‑report disclosure (picked up 2026‑03‑27) recites: the Oct. 5, 2023 suit; the amendment adding Sportradar AG and a fourth patent; the Feb. 14, 2025 amendment adding two antitrust claims; and that "in March 2026 the company and its affiliates completed a settlement agreement with PANDA, in which PANDA dismissed its claims with prejudice." (annual‑report summary, 2026‑03‑27)
• Net disposition: no trial, no jury verdict, no JMOL/§ 285 ruling, no appeal. The '687 (and the other asserted patents) were never adjudicated — the validity and infringement fights were bought out, and the only substantive merits ruling that survived was the August 2025 claim construction.

D. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

1. The instituted Genius IPRs (the real merits track).

• IPR2024‑01305 (claims 1–9 of the '687) and IPR2024‑01307 (claims 19–25, 27–30 of the '687), filed by Genius Sports Ltd., filing date accorded 2024‑09‑24; companion petitions ‑01308/‑01309 on the '697 and ‑01310/‑01311 on the '218.
• 2025‑03‑13 — institution granted in the '687 IPRs on all challenged claims and all grounds (Ellis/Spivey and Herzog/Ellis/Spivey), over PANDA's non‑institution arguments and over PANDA's secondary‑considerations evidence. IPR2024‑01307 institution decision
• 2025‑05‑06 — panel change (Judge Bisk replaces Judge Fenick) (order); the oral hearing was held 2025‑12‑18 before APJs Thu A. Dang, Stephen E. Belisle and Jon M. Jurgovan (transcript entered 2026‑01‑07), consolidated across the six '687/'697/'218 IPRs. The central issue was whether Ellis/Spivey and Herzog/Spivey render obvious the claimed "socket server"/"event socket" arrangement, with PANDA leaning heavily on the August 2025 district‑court construction of "event socket." Petitioner's counsel included Kirkland & Ellis (W. Todd Baker, Nikhil Krishnan, Socrates Boutsikaris) and Cahill Gordon (Andrew Cochran, Britton Davis); PANDA was represented by King & Spalding.
• Final written decisions were calendared for roughly 2026‑03‑13 (one year from institution). Whether the FWDs issued before, or the proceedings were terminated in light of, the March 2026 settlement is the single biggest open item — I could not verify it within my search budget. The Dec. 18, 2025 hearing shows the merits were fully briefed and argued, so the Board had the case under submission when the parties settled.

2. Sportradar's "copycat" IPRs (denied). Filed 2024‑12‑11 with joinder motions: IPR2025‑00265/00266 ('697), 00268/00269 ('687), 00273/00275 ('218). PANDA filed a discretionary‑denial request under Acting Director Stewart's 2025‑03‑26 workload‑management memo (noted in its April 2025 preliminary response, e.g. IPR2025‑00269). On 2025‑06‑25 the Acting Director denied institution in all six, reasoning (inter alia) that even with joinder the FWD would post‑date the district‑court trial, that the parties had invested substantially in the litigation, that no stay was likely, and that the Office should not have to maintain a proceeding for Sportradar if Genius exited. Fee refunds were requested 07‑30‑2025 and approved 08‑05‑2025. Effect: no PTAB estoppel attached to Sportradar and no stay was entered in Texas based on these petitions.

3. IPR2025‑00316 (Sportradar, '687). A separate Sportradar petition directed to '687 claims not challenged by the Genius IPRs (i.e., previously unasserted claims), per the updated mandatory notices filed in that proceeding (PTABS document). Its institution status as of the settlement is unverified.

4. The '088 IPRs. In the Dec. 18, 2025 hearing, PANDA's counsel referenced IPRs "against the '088 Patent" in which the Board denied institution on the merits (failure to show the added web server performed the claimed orchestrator functions / increased latency). That is a separate proceeding on the fourth asserted patent; the case numbers were not stated in the transcript excerpt I retrieved and should be confirmed.

5. Net effect of the PTAB track on the litigation. Because the only instituted challenges went to final hearing but (apparently) not to a pre‑settlement FWD, and because the Sportradar petitions were discretionarily denied, the litigation was never stayed and no statutory estoppel matured. The practical crossover ran the other way: the district court's "event socket = dedicated to a single event" construction did the heavy lifting in the PTAB, and the IPR denials removed the biggest invalidity pressure on the '687 before the case settled.

E. Posture today (2026‑09‑25)

The E.D. Tex. case is closed by settlement and dismissal with prejudice (March 2026); no appeal was taken and no judgment on the merits exists. The '687 patent's validity remains unadjudicated. The related Genius case (2:23‑cv‑00471) — consolidated only for pretrial — is a separate matter whose disposition I did not verify; PANDA's settlement as reported was with Sportradar, and the Genius defendants were still in the case as of the June 2025 antitrust ruling.

F. Corrections / open items to carry forward

1. Claim‑construction date — now resolved. The earlier section listed the Markman order date as unverified ("later in 2025"). The PTAB hearing transcript confirms it issued 2025‑08‑25 and was filed in the IPR record as Ex. 1069 on 08‑29‑2025. Update the main summary accordingly.
2. Trial date — contradiction unresolved. The Second Amended DCO sets jury selection 2026‑01‑23, but the February 2026 settlement reporting says trial was set for 2026‑02‑27. Most likely the trial was continued again after the DCO; the Jan. 23 date in the DCO and the Feb. 27 date in press coverage are both sourced, and I could not reconcile them.
3. Settlement‑stay motion date. The earlier section said 2026‑02‑13; Law360 indexes the reporting at 2026‑02‑17. Both can be true (motion filed 02‑13, reported 02‑17), but only the 02‑17 press date is directly sourced here.
4. The €35.1M litigation‑cost figure from the prior section (Sportradar's FY2025 other operating expenses) is consistent with the annual‑report summary I found but I could not independently re‑verify the number; treat as sourced‑but‑unconfirmed.
5. Unverified: (a) whether FWDs issued in IPR2024‑01305/01307 before termination; (b) IPR2025‑00316's status; (c) the '088 IPR numbers; (d) whether the Genius case settled on the same terms; (e) whether any § 285 / fee motion was filed post‑dismissal. These require a PACER/PTAB docket pull.

I'll research this before drafting. Note upfront: this is an IPR, not a district court infringement action, so "plaintiff" is ambiguous — the party that initiated the IPR is Sportradar AG (petitioner), while the plaintiff in the underlying infringement suit is SportsCastr/PANDA. I'll pin down counsel on both sides and flag which is which.

Now let me pin down the specific attorneys, their firms, and roles on both sides.

Threshold point — "plaintiff" in an IPR

The case in the metadata is IPR2025-00269, an inter partes review at the PTAB. An IPR has no "plaintiff"; the two sides are Petitioner and Patent Owner. So the question resolves to which party you mean:

• The party that initiated this proceeding (= Sportradar AG, Petitioner) — functionally the "plaintiff" side of IPR2025-00269.
• The plaintiff in the underlying patent-infringement action — SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap), where PANDA is the plaintiff.

I've set out both below, because your prior sections use both framings and the two sets of counsel are entirely different firms.

---

A. If "plaintiff" = Petitioner Sportradar AG (the party that filed IPR2025-00269)

Counsel of record per the Petitioner's Power of Attorney (Paper 1, Dec. 11, 2024) and Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 8, Mar. 5, 2025) — all Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (BCLP):

Service address for the whole team: SportradarIPR@bclplaw.com. Note the typo in Paper 1, which captions the proceeding "IPR2024-00269."

Sources: Petitioner's Power of Attorney, IPR2025-00269 Paper 1; Updated Mandatory Notices, Paper 8; Ex. 1050 Walden Declaration.

(Sportradar's separate E.D. Tex. and Delaware litigation team is different — David A. Roodman, Nick E. Williamson, George G. Brell of BCLP St. Louis, plus local counsel Michael C. Smith of Scheef & Stone, Marshall, TX. Those three BCLP litigators appear in the Sotera stipulation, Ex. 1021, not as IPR counsel of record.)

---

B. If "plaintiff" = PANDA / SportsCastr (plaintiff in the underlying infringement case)

PANDA's representation changed hands in 2025, and the change is the single most important thing to flag relative to your earlier summary (which states flatly that "PANDA is represented by King & Spalding LLP").

B-1. District court (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00472) — King & Spalding

Confirmed by King & Spalding's own press releases, K&S-signed filings, and the court's Jan. 2026 trial calendar (Ex. 1052):

B-2. The 2025 switch: PANDA's IPR counsel of record is now Cahill

• Initially, PANDA's PTAB counsel was Brian Eutermoser (Reg. No. 64,058, lead) and Mikaela Stone (Reg. No. 70,404, back-up), with a Kevin J. Duffy who "was never admitted pro hac vice."
• On June 17, 2025, the Board granted an unopposed motion to substitute in Andrew J. Cochran (Reg. No. 69,620, lead) and Colleen Tracy James (Reg. No. 52,295, back-up), both of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Washington, D.C. (acochran@cahill.com, ctracyjames@cahill.com). The substitution request (May 16, 2025) expressly covered IPR2025-00269 along with the other eleven Sportradar/PANDA IPRs, and the June 25, 2025 Acting-Director decisions list Cochran and James as Patent Owner's counsel.

This aligns with the Campbell/Davis move from K&S to Cahill — i.e., PANDA's patent-litigation partners relocated and took the PTAB work, while King & Spalding (Lafferty, Wood, Sarkar) appears to have continued on the district-court case. I'd characterize that as a well-supported inference, not a documented firm-by-firm division of labor.

Sources: Board order substituting counsel, June 17, 2025; June 25, 2025 discretionary-denial decision listing both sides' counsel; Global Legal Post, Cahill hires K&S trio, Apr. 30, 2025; Law.com, Apr. 30, 2025; K&S PANDA/Skillz matter descriptions.

B-3. Other plaintiff-side appearances (E.D. Tex. calendar) — firm affiliations unverified

Judge Gilstrap's Jan. 20–26, 2026 calendar (Ex. 1052) lists the following as "representing SportsCast Inc. (Plaintiff, Counter Defendant)": Robert M. Cooper, Ross E. Elfand, William David Ellerman, Hope Garrison, Brett Aaron Mangrum, Edward Moss, Ari B. Rafilson, and Mark Douglas Siegmund, in addition to Campbell, Davis, Lafferty, Sarkar and Wood. I could not confirm the firm affiliations of these eight from the retrieved sources; they may be K&S personnel, pro hac vice counsel, PANDA in-house staff (not identified as counsel), or local counsel. Treat this list as a docket-of-record roster, not verified firm attributions.

B-4. Local counsel — an unresolved conflict to flag

I found a direct conflict in the sources on local-counsel alignment:

• The E.D. Tex. calendar lists Gregory Phillip Love (Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC) as representing SportsCastr (Plaintiff).
• PacerMonitor's page for the 2025 antitrust case (Sportscastr v. Sportradar Group, 2:25-cv-01250) lists Gregory Phillip Love among the attorneys appearing for Sportradar AG.

I cannot reconcile those two on the present record, so I am not asserting him as plaintiff's local counsel. By contrast, Michael C. Smith (Scheef & Stone, Marshall, TX) is unambiguously defendants' local counsel (he signed the Sotera stipulation "Attorneys for Defendants Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG").

---

C. Gaps / caveats

• No in-house counsel identified for either party on the public docket; PANDA's Chief Strategy Officer Andrew Schupak is a named inventor, not counsel.
• IPR2025-00269 specifically: the counsel-substitution order I located was entered in the sibling proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-00316) on June 17, 2025, eight days before 00269 was terminated. The request covered 00269, and the six June 25 decisions use Cahill as Patent Owner's counsel, so Cahill is the best-supported IPR counsel of record for PANDA — but I did not retrieve a 00269-specific substitution order.
• Nothing here is sealed; all filings cited are public (PTAB dockets via Docket Alarm, PTACTS, PACER/PacerMonitor, Ex. 1050/1052, and the Board's June 2025 orders).
• I hit the research-tool budget before verifying each individual name in ¶ B-3 and the Love conflict; those are the items to re-check against PACER's attorney list for 2:23-cv-00472 if precision matters.

D. Corrections to the earlier sections

1. Refinement (not outright error): "PANDA is represented by King & Spalding LLP" is correct for the district court case, but PANDA's PTAB counsel of record is Cahill Gordon & Reindel (Cochran/James), substituted in June 2025 after the K&S-to-Cahill partner move — the earlier section should not be read to say K&S is PANDA's IPR counsel.
2. Scale of the IPR family: the pacer/PTACTS records show PANDA's counsel-substitution request spanned twelve Sportradar/PANDA IPRs (00265, 00266, 00268, 00269, 00273, 00275, 00313, 00314, 00315, 00316, 00634, 00635) — broader than the six Dec. 11, 2024 copycat petitions described earlier, indicating follow-on Sportradar petitions filed later in 2025.
3. The petition Power of Attorney contains a caption typo ("IPR2024-00269") — minor, but worth noting for citation accuracy.

I'll research counsel of record on both sides, focusing on the "defendant"/patent-owner side per the case metadata, and also the litigation-side alignment.

Good initial hits. Let me pin down the patent-owner's PTAB counsel (who they are and where) and the Sportradar defense side.

Now the substituted PTAB lead/backup counsel, plus Sportradar's defense-side litigation counsel.

Counsel of record — IPR2025‑00269

Framing note (important). The docket metadata labels SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) as the Defendant(s), which matches the IPR caption where PANDA is the Patent Owner (the "respondent" side) and Sportradar AG is the Petitioner. I therefore lead with PANDA's counsel of record in this IPR and then, because the prompt says "patent infringement case," add the counsel on the E.D. Tex. litigation side — where the roles are reversed (PANDA is plaintiff; Sportradar/Genius are the infringement defendants). I flag unverified items rather than fill them in.

---

1. Patent Owner / "Defendant" — SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

Firm: King & Spalding LLP (power of attorney filed under K&S Customer No. 154690).

Sources: PANDA's POA, IPR2025‑00269 Paper 1 (Dec. 11, 2024) (Petitioner side); POA designating Eutermoser for the '687 in the parallel Genius IPR, IPR2024‑01305 Paper 5 (Sept. 17, 2024); substitution authorization email from the Board, May 16, 2025 (listing IPR2025‑00265/266/268/269/273/275 and 313–316, 634–635); counsel listing for this docket, ipverse/GreyB ("Respondent Counsel — Cochran, Andrew et al.").

Contradiction to flag: the source trail shows two different K&S lead counsel (Eutermoser → Cochran) within the case's short life, and the Cochran/James firm affiliation is unstable in the public record — several directories still list them at King & Spalding (e.g., FindLaw, updated Mar. 2026) while an April 2026 Cahill press item lists them as Cahill partners. The substitution motion was filed by King & Spalding, so K&S was the firm of record; I could not confirm which firm Cochran/James themselves held when designated. Treat their "current firm" as Cahill, their "firm of record in this IPR" as King & Spalding.

---

2. Same client (PANDA) in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement suit — plaintiff‑side, relevant because the IPR counsel overlap

All King & Spalding; the case is SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al., No. 2:23‑cv‑00472‑JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., Judge Gilstrap) and SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23‑cv‑00471‑JRG.

---

3. Infringement‑defendant side (Sportradar AG / Sportradar Group AG) — the party that is Petitioner in this IPR

In IPR2025‑00269 and its five siblings — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP:

In the E.D. Tex. infringement suit (where Sportradar is the defendant): I could not verify the specific district‑court defense counsel names from the sources retrieved. The docket shows the defendants are represented by the same general BCLP/outside team plus local Texas counsel (the venue/personal‑jurisdiction papers at Dkt. 27 and Dkt. 36 were filed on Sportradar's behalf, and Judge Gilstrap's Dkt. 57 (Sept. 17, 2024) resolves their Rule 12(b)(2)/transfer motion), but no readable signature block identifying those lawyers appears in the material I pulled. This item should be confirmed against PACER for No. 2:23‑cv‑00472‑JRG before being relied on. Likewise, Genius Sports Ltd.'s defense counsel in the companion 2:23‑cv‑00471 case is unverified (its invalidity contentions were served by unidentified "undersigned counsel," Ex. 2047).

---

4. Net answer

• Counsel of record for the party captioned as Defendant/Patent Owner (SportsCastr d/b/a PANDA Interactive) in IPR2025‑00269: Andrew J. Cochran (lead) and Colleen Tracy James (back‑up), designated by substitution on June 17, 2025, ten days before the proceeding terminated; the firm of record is King & Spalding LLP. They replaced Brian Eutermoser (lead; K&S Denver), with Mikaela Stone (back‑up), and Kevin J. Duffy (never admitted, not counsel of record).
• PANDA's parallel‑litigation counsel (SportsCastr v. Sportradar/Genius, E.D. Tex.): King & Spalding — Christopher C. Campbell, Brit Davis, Matthew D. Wood (Austin; ex‑Gilstrap clerk), Patrick M. Lafferty, Ryan A. Schmid, plus Hope Garrison and Rahul Sarkar.
• Opposing (Petitioner / infringement‑defendant) counsel: Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner — Scott W. Cummings (lead), Frank Fabiani, Alexander Walden (all verified from PTAB filings). Sportradar's district‑court defense roster is not verified.

Sourcing gaps to verify: (i) Cochran/James firm at the time of designation (K&S per the filing; Cahill per later press); (ii) Sportradar's and Genius Sports' E.D. Tex. defense and local counsel; (iii) whether any additional K&S attorneys entered appearances in the district case after the settlement track (Feb.–Mar. 2026) that aren't reflected in the sources above.