Sportradar US LLC et al. v. SportsCastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive

Case Overview & Background

Parties and business context. This is a declaratory-judgment action brought by the Sportradar entities—Sportradar US LLC, Sportradar Solutions LLC, and Sportradar AG (the Swiss parent operating company; Sportradar Group AG is the listed group parent but was not a party here)—against SportsCastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive ("Panda"). Sportradar is a global sports-data and technology supplier whose accused product lines were emBET (a software development kit/platform that overlays live betting odds, insights, and stats onto live video), OTT (over-the-top streaming), and Live Channel Trading (LCT) (Compl. ¶1; analysis at ai-lab.exparte.com). Panda is a Las Vegas-based operating company (founded 2016) that developed the SportsCastr ultra-low-latency interactive streaming app and evolved it into a B2B "Watch & Bet" platform; it is an operating company rather than a classic NPE, and was represented by King & Spalding in the related Texas litigation (Gaming America, Oct. 2023). Panda had previously sued Sportradar (and separately Genius Sports) in the Eastern District of Texas on October 5, 2023, asserting the same three patents (Nos. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG and 2:23-cv-00471-JRG), so the Sportradar entities filed this mirror-image non-infringement suit in Delaware on February 8, 2024 (D. Del. 1:24-cv-00170).

Patents, accused technology, and procedural posture. The three patents-in-suit share a common specification and cover low-latency delivery of a live video stream plus a separately synchronized event-data stream (scores, odds, statistics) to viewer devices over distinct Internet channels: U.S. Patent No. 10,425,697 (scalable low-latency viewing of broadcast streams with synchronized event information, issued 2019); U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687 (a "server and memory storage architecture" that, per Sportradar's own PTAB petition, "provides a video feed … and at least one data feed … over separate 'communication channels'"); and U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 (rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information). Panda's infringement theories centered on the same server/webserver/socket-server architecture Sportradar uses in emBET (e.g., PubNub socket messaging for live odds overlays). Procedurally: Judge John Campbell Barker (an E.D. Tex. judge sitting by designation in Delaware) granted Panda's motion to dismiss/transfer/stay on March 26, 2025, ordering transfer to the E.D. Tex. Marshall Division under the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) so that Judge Rodney Gilstrap could decide consolidation with the earlier Texas case (D. Del. Dkt. 23). The case was transferred April 4, 2025, but Sportradar filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice on April 9, 2025 (Dkt. 26), and Judge Gilstrap closed the case on April 14, 2025, with each party bearing its own costs (Dkt. 27). Venue mattered because the Marshall Division was where Panda's first-filed infringement suit—including Judge Gilstrap's September 17, 2024 opinion denying Sportradar's personal-jurisdiction challenge and Delaware transfer motion (2:23-cv-00472, Dkt. 57)—was already pending.

Why the case is notable. The DJ action is a classic first-to-file "race to the courthouse" skirmish embedded in a larger, closely watched dispute at the intersection of sports betting and live streaming: Panda accused both major B2B sports-data suppliers (Sportradar and Genius Sports) of copying its watch-and-bet technology, and in February 2025 escalated by adding Sherman Act and Texas antitrust claims alleging unlawful tying of official league data (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL exclusives) to the defendants' proprietary platforms (E.D. Tex. Dkts. 126–127; see also CCH order denying the motion to strike, June 11, 2025). There was substantial PTAB linkage: Genius filed six IPRs on the three patents (IPR2024-01305 through -01311), Sportradar filed "copycat" petitions seeking joinder (IPR2025-00265/266/268/269/273/275 and IPR2025-00313 through -00316), and Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied institution in all of them on discretionary grounds (June 25 and July 16, 2025) because the district-court trial was scheduled before any final written decision (e.g., IPR2025-00268, Paper 19). The broader litigation ultimately settled: Panda and Genius jointly dismissed their Texas case on February 13, 2026, Panda and Sportradar reached a confidential settlement in March 2026 (Panda dismissing with prejudice; Sportradar disclosed €35.1 million in related litigation costs including the settlement payment in its FY2025 report), and Genius later flipped to sue SportsCastr in the Southern District of New York in May 2026 over its Second Spectrum patents. One caveat: the exact title of the '687 patent is not uniformly reported across sources (PTAB summaries use shorthand descriptions), and settlement terms beyond Sportradar's €35.1 million cost disclosure are confidential, so the financial figure should be attributed to that disclosure rather than treated as an official damages award.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Sportradar US LLC et al. v. SportsCastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive, No. 2:25-cv-00335 (E.D. Tex.)

Important framing note: This E.D. Tex. docket number is the tail end of a case that began as a declaratory-judgment (DJ) action in Delaware and was dismissed without prejudice just five days after transfer. The substantive patent fight — claim construction, discovery, trial setting, and the ultimate settlement — played out in the parallel infringement case, SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex.), which involved the same three patents. Both are covered below and kept distinct.

---

1. Procedural origin and filing

• 2023-10-05 — SportsCastr, Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) sued Sportradar Group AG in E.D. Tex. (SportsCastr v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG), alleging that Sportradar's emBET, OTT, and Live Channel Trading (LCT) products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,805,687 ('687), 11,039,218 ('218), and 10,425,697 ('697). It filed a parallel suit against Genius Sports (No. 2:23-cv-00471). (D. Del. transfer opinion, D.I. 23; DocketAlarm copy of D.I. 23.)
• 2024-02-08 — Sportradar US LLC, Sportradar Solutions LLC, and Sportradar AG (the Swiss manufacturer) filed the DJ action in the District of Delaware, No. 1:24-cv-00170-CFC, seeking a declaration of non-infringement (not invalidity) of the '687, '218, and '697 patents as to emBET, OTT, and LCT, plus injunctive relief. The complaint identified the asserted claims as claims 19–20 of the '687, claims 1 and 4 of the '218, and claims 19–20 of the '697. (D.Del. D.I. 1; Ex Parte complaint analysis.)
• 2024-03-08 — Panda amended its E.D. Tex. complaint to add Sportradar AG as a defendant and to assert a fourth patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088. (D.I. 23 at ¶17.)
• 2024-03-15 — Panda filed its motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay the Delaware DJ action (D.Del. D.I. 11), invoking the first-to-file rule and arguing the E.D. Tex. case was first filed. (D.I. 23.)

Pleadings note: No answer or counterclaims were ever filed in the DJ action. The docket shows only the complaint, motion practice, and transfer/dismissal entries; the case was dismissed days after transfer, before any responsive pleading. (Justia docket, 2:25-cv-00335; CourtListener feed.)

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss/transfer/stay (DJ action): Panda's D.I. 11 was briefed through 2024-04-29 (reply, D.I. 21; supplemental authority filed 2024-09-18, D.I. 22). The case was reassigned in Delaware to Judge John Campbell Barker on 2024-08-01.
• 2025-03-26 — Judge Barker granted the motion in part and transferred the case to the E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, under the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), directing assignment to Judge Rodney Gilstrap so he could decide whether to consolidate with No. 2:23-cv-00472. (D.I. 23; Justia docket.)
• Parallel-case motion (E.D. Tex.): Meanwhile, on 2024-02-09, Sportradar Group AG moved to dismiss the infringement case for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer to Delaware. On 2024-09-17, Judge Gilstrap denied that motion in a memorandum opinion, finding specific personal jurisdiction over the Swiss parent and manufacturer and that Delaware was not "clearly more convenient." (IP Law Daily/Vital Law, Sep. 18, 2024, reporting SportsCastr v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2024).)
• 2025-02-14 — Panda filed a further amended complaint in the E.D. Tex. case adding two antitrust claims (tie-in/anticompetitive-access counts; "Counts V and VI"); Sportradar moved to dismiss those counts. (Sportradar FY2025 annual report, EDGAR archive 2026-03-27; IPR2025-00269 exhibit list referencing "Sportradar Motion to Dismiss Counts V and VI of the Second Amended Complaint.")
• 2024-10-15 — The Sportradar and Genius Sports E.D. Tex. cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes, with 2:23-cv-00472 designated the lead case. (D.I. 23 at ¶¶13–14.)

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceeding occurred in the DJ action (2:25-cv-00335) — it was dismissed before any scheduling order issued.
• In the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement case, a Markman hearing was held on 2025-05-09 before Judge Gilstrap, and the court had issued orders limiting asserted claims and prior art. (Director's discretionary-denial decision, IPR2025-00273, Paper 19 at 6, June 25, 2025.) No public substantive claim-construction ruling from this case has been located in the sources reviewed; the settlement intervened before any published opinion.

---

4. Discovery milestones (strategic significance)

• In the DJ action: none — no discovery commenced before dismissal.
• In the parallel case: The PTAB record shows the parties made "meaningful investment" in the district court case, including fact discovery scheduled to close in August 2025, extensive infringement/invalidity contentions, and source-code-driven theories (e.g., Panda's reliance on PubNub as the claimed "socket server"). (IPR2025-00273, Paper 19 at 6; Genius Sports' Second Supplemental Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions, Dec. 9, 2024.) Sportradar also proposed a Sotera stipulation (not to pursue invalidity grounds raised or reasonably available in instituted IPRs) in connection with its IPR strategy. (IPR2025-00273, Ex. 1021.)

---

5. Final disposition of the DJ action (2:25-cv-00335)

• 2025-04-04 — Case transferred into E.D. Tex. as No. 2:25-cv-00335, assigned to Judge Gilstrap; all pending Delaware motions deemed moot under E.D. Tex. Local Rule CV-7(j). (D.I. 25; Justia docket.)
• 2025-04-09 — Sportradar voluntarily filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice (D.I. 26).
• 2025-04-14 — Judge Gilstrap accepted the dismissal without prejudice; each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees; all pending requests denied as moot; case closed. (D.I. 27; Justia docket.)

The practical effect: once the DJ action reached Marshall, the parties had no need for a duplicative case because the mirror-image infringement suit was already pending before Judge Gilstrap — so Sportradar withdrew it without prejudice.

---

6. Trial events and settlement in the parallel infringement case

• Trial was set for 2026-01-23 under the E.D. Tex. docket control order in effect as of June 2025 (per the PTAB's discretionary-denial decision), later continued to 2026-02-27. (IPR2025-00273, Paper 19; CBInsights; ScaleJuris.)
• 2026-02-13 — Panda and Sportradar filed a joint motion to stay all proceedings for 30 days to finalize a settlement; Panda and Genius Sports likewise filed a joint motion to dismiss their portion of the consolidated case as settled. (CBInsights; TheIGaming, May 14, 2026; Law360 reported the stay request on 2026-02-17.)
• March 2026 — Sportradar and Panda completed a settlement agreement; Panda dismissed its claims with prejudice. Sportradar disclosed €35.1 million in litigation costs, inclusive of the settlement payment to Panda, in its FY2025 financial statements. (Sportradar Group AG annual report, EDGAR archive 2026-03-27.) Terms were confidential. No trial occurred; no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions; no appeal is identified in any source reviewed.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and their effect

• Genius Sports IPRs (instituted): Genius filed six IPRs against the three patents-in-suit plus the '088 (IPR2024-01305, -01307 ('687); -01308, -01309 ('697); -01310, -01311 ('218)). The Board instituted all six on 2025-03-06. (Director's decision, IPR2025-00273, Paper 19 at 4–5.)
• Sportradar "copycat" IPRs (denied): On 2024-12-11, Sportradar AG filed six parallel IPRs — IPR2025-00265, -00266, -00268, -00269 ('687, claims 19–25, 27–30), -00273 ('218, claims 1–15), -00275 ('218, claims 16–30) — each with a motion for joinder to the corresponding Genius IPR. (IPR2025-00273 mandatory notices; IP Verse/GreyB.)
• 2025-06-25 — Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart granted Panda's requests for discretionary denial and denied institution in all six Sportradar IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Key reasons: the E.D. Tex. trial was scheduled for 2026-01-23, so a final written decision (projected July 2026, or March 2026 if joined) would not precede trial; the parties had made meaningful investment (Markman hearing 2025-05-09, fact discovery through August 2025); and there was no indication Judge Gilstrap would stay the case. Fee refunds were approved 2025-08-05. (IPR2025-00273, Paper 19; Ex Parte PTAB pages for IPR2025-00269/00273.)
• Genius IPR outcomes: In IPR2024-01310 (the '218 patent), the Board's Final Written Decision found claims 1–15 unpatentable (PTACTS records). Around 2026-03-05, the PTAB also ruled challenged claims of a SportsCastr patent unpatentable as obvious in another Genius IPR (Bloomberg Law) — consistent with the March 2026 FWDs on that track.
• Effect on the litigation: The Sportradar IPRs were an unsuccessful flanking strategy — the Director's denial kept all validity issues in the district court, where the case proceeded to the eve of trial and then settled (March 2026) before any verdict. The Genius IPR invalidity findings (post-dating the settlement negotiations) weakened Panda's portfolio but did not alter the disposition of the settled cases.

---

Bottom line

The DJ action (2:25-cv-00335) had a short, procedural life: filed in Delaware (2024-02-08) → transferred to E.D. Tex. on Panda's first-to-file motion (2025-03-26/04-04) → voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and closed (2025-04-09/14), with no answer, Markman, discovery, or trial in that case. The real dispute was resolved in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement case: personal-jurisdiction victory for Panda (2024-09-17), Markman hearing (2025-05-09), antitrust amendment (2025-02-14), denied Sportradar IPRs (2025-06-25), and a confidential settlement with prejudice dismissal in March 2026 on the eve of a February 2026 trial date — the same month PTAB final written decisions began invalidating challenged claims.

Source-confidence caveat: Docket entries for the DJ case (D.I. 1–27) and the PTAB Director's decision are well sourced. Details of the parallel-case trial dates, the 2026-02-13 stay motion, and the March 2026 settlement rest on secondary sources (Law360, CBInsights, ScaleJuris, TheIGaming) and Sportradar's FY2025 financial disclosure; no PACER-confirmed dismissal order in 2:23-cv-00472 was located in this search.

Counsel of Record — Sportradar Plaintiffs (Sportradar US LLC, Sportradar Solutions LLC, Sportradar AG)

A threshold note: this is a declaratory-judgment action, not a patent-infringement suit. The Sportradar entities sued SportsCastr (Panda) for a declaration of non-infringement of the '218, '687, and '697 patents (D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-00170, filed Feb. 8, 2024; transferred to E.D. Tex. as No. 2:25-cv-00335 on April 4, 2025; dismissed without prejudice per D.I. 27, April 14, 2025, Judge Rodney Gilstrap). The plaintiffs' attorneys of record appear from the docket in two tranches: Delaware local counsel (transferor court) and Marshall, Texas counsel (transferee court).

Confirmed attorneys of record for the plaintiffs

1. Michael Charles Smith — E.D. Tex. local counsel of record / lead filing attorney in the transferee court

• Firm/Location: Scheef & Stone LLP, Marshall, Texas
• Docket evidence: Filed the plaintiffs' Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice (D.I. 26, April 9, 2025) on behalf of all three Sportradar plaintiffs ("Smith, Michael" is the e-filer). He is also counsel of record for Sportradar AG in the closely related E.D. Tex. actions (PACER Monitor lists him for Sportradar AG in SportsCastr v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:25-cv-01250, and the same firm appears in lead case No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG).
• Experience note: Longtime Marshall-based patent litigator (former Texas Lawyer and E.D. Tex. bar leader) with deep experience in Judge Gilstrap's court; frequently serves as Texas local counsel for out-of-state patent litigants.

2. Anne Shea Gaza — Delaware lead/local counsel (transferor court)

• Firm/Location: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
• Docket evidence: Appeared for Sportradar AG, Sportradar Solutions LLC, and Sportradar US LLC in D. Del. 1:24-cv-00170; e-filed the plaintiffs' stipulation extending time to oppose the motion to dismiss (D.I. 13, "Gaza, Anne") and is listed on the CourtListener parties roster as representing the Sportradar plaintiffs.
• Experience note: Managing partner of Young Conaway's litigation group; veteran Delaware patent litigator with a substantial docket in the District of Delaware (e.g., Hatch-Waxman and ANDA cases).

3. Robert M. Vrana — Delaware local counsel (transferor court)

• Firm/Location: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
• Docket evidence: E-filed the returned summons (D.I. 8) and the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statements for the Sportradar plaintiffs (D.I. 18/19); listed on the CourtListener parties roster alongside Gaza.
• Experience note: Delaware litigator handling patent and commercial cases before Judge Connolly/Barker in the transferor court.

Not confirmed on this specific docket (flagged, not asserted)

• David A. Roodman — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (St. Louis) is counsel of record for Sportradar AG in the parallel E.D. Tex. cases (No. 2:25-cv-01250; No. 2:23-cv-00472) and BCLP is the likely substantive national patent counsel for Sportradar across this dispute. However, I could not confirm a BCLP appearance in this specific DJ docket (2:25-cv-00335) from the available docket excerpts — the only e-filers visible on the transferor/transferee dockets are Gaza, Vrana, and Smith. If BCLP entered an appearance, it would be on PACER entries not captured in the public excerpts reviewed.
• No in-house counsel appeared on the public docket for the Sportradar plaintiffs; none should be assumed.

Practice pointer for this case

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice just ten days after transfer (D.I. 26 filed April 9, 2025; D.I. 27 closing order April 14, 2025, each party bearing its own fees), the operative "counsel of record" for the plaintiffs at the moment of disposition was Michael C. Smith (E.D. Tex.) plus the Young Conaway attorneys (D. Del.). If you need the full attorney roster (including any BCLP attorneys who may have appeared in D. Del. without being the e-filer), the definitive source is the PACER docket for 1:24-cv-00170 (D. Del.) and 2:25-cv-00335 (E.D. Tex.), which are not fully reflected in the free public sources I could reach.

Sources: Justia docket for 2:25-cv-00335 (D.I. 23, 26, 27); CourtListener docket/parties for 1:24-cv-00170; Docket Alarm D. Del. docket (D.I. 23 transfer order); PACER Monitor case summary for 2:25-cv-01250; E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00472 opinions (Dkt. 224).

I'll research the counsel of record for SportsCastr, Inc. in this case.

I have initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the docket and counsel details.

I have good leads. Now let me verify the ED Texas docket counsel entries and the full King & Spalding team.

Based on my research, here is what I can verify regarding counsel of record for defendant SportsCastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive in Sportradar US LLC et al. v. SportsCastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive, No. 2:25-cv-00335 (E.D. Tex.).

Procedural context (important caveat)

This case is the Eastern District of Texas continuation of the Delaware declaratory-judgment action, Sportradar US LLC v. SportsCastr, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00170 (D. Del., Judge Connolly, later Judge Barker). It was transferred to E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division, Judge Rodney Gilstrap) on April 4, 2025 (Dkt. 25), and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed it without prejudice on April 14, 2025 (Dkt. 26–27), with each party bearing its own fees. Because the case was closed ten days after transfer, the defendant's counsel of record are the attorneys who appeared in the Delaware action and carried over on transfer; there were no new ED Tex. appearances or substantive defendant filings after transfer. No filings are sealed, but the ED Tex. docket itself reflects no post-transfer activity by defense counsel beyond the transfer-in.

Defendant's counsel of record

1. Michael J. Flynn — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)

• Role: Lead Delaware/transferee counsel for defendant (listed as "LEAD ATTORNEY" for SportsCastr on the CourtListener parties page for 1:24-cv-00170).
• Experience: Partner in Morris Nichols' IP Litigation Group; Chambers-ranked in Delaware IP (Band 2, 2026); 350+ IP cases since 2025 per his firm bio; past work for C.R. Bard (Gore v. Bard jury verdict), Bloomberg/Charles Schwab (summary judgment win), Symantec, Thermo Fisher, Roku, Peloton, and others; admitted to the Federal Circuit. He signed the defendant's reply brief in support of the motion to dismiss/transfer/stay (D.I. 21).

2. Jack B. Blumenfeld — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)

• Role: Delaware/transferee counsel (signed D.I. 21 with Flynn).
• Experience: One of the most prominent Delaware IP litigators at Morris Nichols (Chambers Band 1 for Delaware IP historically); decades of patent, Hatch-Waxman, and Section 337-related work in the District of Delaware; regularly serves as Delaware local counsel for national patent litigation.

3. Matthew Wood — King & Spalding LLP (Austin, TX)

• Role: National counsel / pro hac vice-style co-counsel for defendant (signed D.I. 21 alongside the Morris Nichols attorneys).
• Experience: Associate in K&S's Trial & Global Disputes practice specializing in patent litigation. The K&S bio for Wood confirms: "Christopher Campbell, Brit Davis and Matthew Wood counsel Panda Interactive in a live sports betting patent dispute with Genius Sports and Sportradar before a Texas federal court."

4. Christopher C. Campbell — King & Spalding LLP (Washington, DC office at 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. NW)

• Role: Lead counsel for Panda in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement actions (No. 2:23-cv-00471 against Genius Sports; No. 2:23-cv-00472 against Sportradar Group AG), which form the predicate controversy for the DJ action. He signed Panda's initial infringement contentions (Jan. 18, 2024) in the related ED Tex. litigation.
• Experience: K&S IP trial partner; leads Panda's streaming/event-information patent enforcement campaign. (Note: a PacerMonitor listing for the later-filed related case 2:25-cv-01250 shows a "Christopher Campbell" with Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP — this may reflect a post-2024 firm move or a different attorney; I could not confirm a move within my search limits, so treat that affiliation as unverified.)

5. Brian Eutermoser — King & Spalding LLP (Denver, CO)

• Role: Lead PTAB counsel for SportsCastr as Patent Owner in the parallel IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-00316 on the '687 patent; IPR2024-01305; IPR2025-00269/00273/00275 on the '218 patent); part of the same K&S team representing Panda in the underlying dispute.
• Experience: Registered patent litigator (Reg. No. 64,058); handles the IPR defense of the three patents-in-suit against Sportradar's and Genius Sports' validity challenges.

6. Mikaela Stone — King & Spalding LLP (Denver, CO)

• Role: Backup counsel in the SportsCastr IPRs (listed as "First Backup Counsel" in the Patent Owner powers of attorney).
• Experience: K&S IP associate working on the Panda/SportsCastr patent portfolio defense.

7. Kevin J. Duffy — King & Spalding LLP

• Role: Backup counsel (pro hac vice) in the SportsCastr IPRs per the POA in IPR2024-01305.
• Experience: K&S trial lawyer on the Panda patent enforcement/defense team.

Notables

• No in-house counsel of record was identified. SportsCastr's CEO Kevin April signed corporate powers of attorney (as an officer, not as counsel).
• Gaming America (Oct. 2023) independently reported that "Panda Interactive is represented in the cases by King & Spalding LLP," consistent with the firm's district-court and PTAB filings.
• A May 2025 PTAB filing in IPR2025-00275 shows K&S substituted Andrew J. Cochran as lead counsel and another K&S attorney ("James," Reg. No. 52,295 — name truncated in the available text) as backup for the IPR phase; those substitutions post-date the district court dismissal and relate to the PTAB, not to 2:25-cv-00335.

Bottom line

For the now-closed 2:25-cv-00335, the defendant's counsel of record are Michael J. Flynn and Jack B. Blumenfeld (Morris Nichols, Delaware/transferee local counsel) and Matthew Wood (King & Spalding, national counsel), with the broader Panda team — Christopher C. Campbell, Brian Eutermoser, Mikaela Stone, Kevin J. Duffy, and Brit Davis — appearing for SportsCastr in the parallel ED Tex. infringement actions and IPRs that define the same patent dispute. If you need the exact CM/ECF attorney roster for 2:25-cv-00335, that is available on PACER (the ED Tex. docket entries 25–27), but the public record confirms no separate ED Tex. appearance by defense counsel was filed before dismissal.