SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple parallel searches.

I have strong initial material. Now let me verify the fifth patent ('503), the docket status, IPR outcomes, and recent developments.

Case Overview & Background: SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Parties. Plaintiff SportsCastr Inc., doing business as PANDA Interactive, is a practicing operating company (labeled a "Practicing Entity" in Stanford's NPE Litigation database) — a Delaware-registered, Las Vegas-based sports-tech firm founded in 2016 that built the consumer SportsCastr live-video social app and the B2B "PANDA Studio" Watch & Bet platform (live-streaming with in-stream odds and betting), and was an early NFL Players Association–licensed platform (Compl. ¶¶14–16; BusinessWire, Oct. 10, 2023; npe.law.stanford.edu/case/284418). It is represented by King & Spalding LLP. Defendants are Genius Sports Ltd. (Guernsey-incorporated, London-headquartered, NYSE: GENI) plus its U.K./Guernsey operating subsidiaries and Maven Topco/Midco/Debtco/Bidco holding entities — one of the two dominant suppliers of official sports data, streaming, and betting-technology infrastructure, holding exclusive NFL official-data/Next Gen Stats/betting-feed and EPL data rights and marketing the interactive "BetVision" product (Compl. ¶¶23–26; Genius 20-F/10-K; SEC Ex-99.1). Both sides are commercial competitors, not a patent-assertion entity.

Accused technology and asserted patents. The accused instrumentalities are Genius Sports' integrated live-streaming/sportsbook platform — LiveData, LiveTrading, Genius Trading Services, BetVision, GeniusLive/GeniusLive+, and in particular the In-Play MultiBet ("Multibet") widget. SportsCastr alleges that Genius delivers live-event video over one channel while transmitting betting/event data (fixtures, statistics, and bets generated by its "Pricing Engine") to the client device over a separate "long running socket"/WebSocket channel (using third-party services such as Ably), where it is synchronized and overlaid on the video (Compl. ¶¶66–82; Ex Parte complaint analysis of Dkt. 43). The asserted patents, each claiming aspects of that multi-channel, server-socket architecture, are: U.S. 10,805,687 (scalable low-latency viewing of live-event streams with event information synchronized over multiple Internet channels via media/control/socket servers); U.S. 11,039,218 (server/memory architecture with a control server periodically retrieving event info — including online gaming info — and a socket server pushing it to viewer devices via dedicated event sockets); U.S. 10,425,697 (providing multiple feeds of event-related data over separate Internet channels); U.S. 11,871,088 (synchronized transmission of live video and event data, including composite commentary streams); and U.S. 8,128,503 (an older, 2012-era system/method/software for live video/audio broadcasting). The original October 5, 2023 complaint asserted the '687, '218, and '697 patents (Dkt. 1); the '088 was added in the March 2024 amended complaint, and the '503 appears in the case's asserted-patent set (per the Stanford NPE database and case metadata), though I could not confirm from available sources the exact pleading in which it was added.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed October 5, 2023 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (JRG), the case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the parallel Sportradar suit, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (lead case). The venue matters because E.D. Tex. applies its local patent rules and fast-tracked dockets, and Gilstrap has already shown a willingness to keep foreign defendants in Marshall: in the companion Sportradar case he denied dismissal/transfer on September 17, 2024, finding specific personal jurisdiction based on products offered "in every state" (including Texas) and weighing judicial economy against transfer given the pending related case (VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, Sept. 18, 2024). The case escalated beyond patent claims: on February 14, 2025, SportsCastr filed a Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 127) adding Sherman Act and Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act tying claims, and in June 2025 the Court denied the defendants' motion to strike those antitrust allegations (Dkt. 158; Mem. Op. & Order, SportsCastr v. Sportradar, No. 2:23-cv-00472). The case is notable for (1) targeting the two dominant sports-data/betting-infrastructure providers — effectively a duopoly — in the post-PASPA Watch & Bet market; (2) a coordinated PTAB assault, with Genius IPRs IPR2024-01305–01311 and IPR2025-00251/00252 plus Sportradar IPRs IPR2025-00269/00273 challenging the same patents on Ellis/Spivey/Herzog combinations (institution granted for the '687, claims 1–9, in IPR2024-01305), and press reporting a March 2026 PTAB obviousness ruling against a SportsCastr patent; and (3) a reported reversal: press reports state the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss on February 13, 2026 after settling "all matters in controversy" (terms undisclosed), and that in May 2026 Genius Sports sued SportsCastr in the Southern District of New York over three Second Spectrum–derived patents (10,769,446; 11,120,271; 11,373,405) targeting PANDA Studio (theigaming.eu, May 14, 2026). Note: while the case metadata lists the matter as pending, those press accounts indicate the district-court litigation concluded via settlement in early 2026 — a fact I could not independently verify on PACER in this research pass.

SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex. Marshall Div.) — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Important sourcing caveat up front: The public record for the member case (No. 2:23-cv-00471) is largely docketed in the lead case (No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG), and several filings (answers, some motions, the Markman order, any stay/transfer briefing) are not freely indexed in the sources I could reach. I have flagged below where a development is confirmed by a citable document versus where the record is incomplete. Nothing below is fabricated; where a fact is not well-sourced, I say so.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2023-10-05 — Complaints filed. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) filed two parallel patent-infringement complaints in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas: No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG against Genius Sports Ltd. and nine affiliated entities (Genius Sports Media Ltd., Genius Sports Technologies Ltd., Genius Sports UK Ltd., Genius Sports Holdings Ltd., Genius Sports Group Ltd., Maven Topco/Midco/Debtco/Bidco Ltd.), and No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG against Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG. (E.D. Tex. Dkt. No. 1 in each case; confirmed in the Court's 2025-06-10 opinion: "On October 5, 2023, PANDA filed two suits against Sportradar and Genius…," SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG, Dkt. 224 at 1–2 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2025), available via Justia and CCH).
• Patents initially asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,805,687 ("'687"), 11,039,218 ("'218"), and 10,425,697 ("'697") — the "Asserted Patents" as defined in the original complaints (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 16, 18; Dkt. 224 at 1–2). The accused products were Genius' live-streaming and betting-data offerings (LiveData, LiveTrading, Genius Trading Services, BetVision, In-Play MultiBet), with the theory centered on betting data (e.g., the "Multibet" widget) transmitted to viewers over a "long running socket"/WebSockets on a separate channel from the video stream. (Complaint, Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 17–18, 66–82; BusinessWire press release, 2023-10-10.)
• Consolidation: The two cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes, with 2:23-cv-00472 designated the lead case and 2:23-cv-00471 the member case ("Pursuant to Court Order Docket Only In Lead Case," per the Ex Parte docket page for 2:23-cv-00471).
• Later-added patents: The '088 patent (U.S. 11,871,088) was added to the member case by amended pleading filed in late September 2024 (Genius' IPR petition states the '088 "has been asserted against Petitioner in SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., 2:23-cv-0471-JRG (E.D. Tex.) (member case), filed September 25, 2024"; see IPR2025-00252, Paper 1). The case metadata and the Stanford NPE Litigation Clearinghouse also list U.S. 8,125,503 ("'503") among the patents at issue; I found no public filing that confirms precisely when or how the '503 was added.
• Counsel: Plaintiff — King & Spalding LLP (Britton F. Davis, Patrick Lafferty, Ryan Schmid, et al.). Genius — Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Jeanne M. Heffernan, James John Lomeo, Joshua L. Simmons, Patrick Arnett). (Identified in the P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction Statement, E.D. Tex. Dkt. 69, and IPR filings.)
• Answers/counterclaims: Genius filed invalidity and non-infringement positions through the P.R. process (see below), but I could not confirm from public sources the specific docket date of Genius' answer or whether it asserted counterclaims. This element of the record is not well-sourced in the materials I could access.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Docket Control Orders (procedural but consequential): The Court entered a Docket Control Order (member-case Dkt. 53, 2024-09-23) setting claim-construction and trial-track deadlines, and later a First Amended DCO (lead Dkt. 93) and a Second Amended DCO (lead Dkt. 174, 2024-04-14) that extended non-patent deadlines after the antitrust claims were added.
• 2025-02-14 — Amended pleadings adding antitrust claims. On the DCO amendment deadline, PANDA filed a Third Amended Complaint against Genius (lead Dkt. 127) and a Second Amended Complaint against Sportradar (lead Dkt. 126), adding claims under the Sherman Act and the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act (TFEAA). (Dkt. 224 at 2.)
• 2025-03-07 → 2025-03-28 — Extension of deadlines. Sportradar moved to amend the DCO (Dkt. 142), Genius joined (Dkt. 146); the Court granted the motion, extending non-patent deadlines by up to 75 days (Dkt. 154). (Dkt. 224 at 2.)
• 2025-03-31 → 2025-06-10 — Motion to Strike antitrust allegations (DENIED). Genius moved under Rules 12(f)/15(a) to strike the antitrust paragraphs of the Third Amended Complaint (lead Dkt. 158); Sportradar joined (Dkt. 162). Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the motion, holding that the DCO's plain language ("It is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend pleadings prior to this deadline unless the amendment seeks to assert additional patents") permitted the new causes of action without leave. (SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group, AG, No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG, Dkt. 224 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2025-06-10), available at law.justia.com.)
• Motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR: The Second Amended DCO (Dkt. 174) contains deadlines for responses to "any Motions to Dismiss Amended Pleadings," indicating dismissal motions were contemplated or filed after the amended complaints. I did not locate any public opinion or docket entry confirming the substance or disposition of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a § 1404(a) transfer motion, or a stay-pending-IPR motion. These remain unverified in the sources available to me.

---

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• 2024-08-02 — P.R. 4-2 preliminary constructions. Genius filed its Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence in 2:23-cv-00471 (cited in the file history of the related '088-family patent, U.S. 12,389,080; see Justia patent page).
• 2024-10-08 — Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement (member-case Dkt. 69; amended version filed in lead case). Disputed terms included whether the preambles of the '687 system/method claims are limiting (Plaintiff: not limiting; Genius: limiting), plus terms across the '687, '218, '697, and '088 patents. The parties agreed on constructions for "and/or" and "at least one of," and estimated a 3-hour Markman hearing with no live witnesses.
• Hearing: The DCOs scheduled a claim-construction hearing before Judge Gilstrap in Marshall (originally per Dkt. 53; later re-set under the amended DCOs, with the P.R. 4-5(d) joint chart due 2025-04-18). I did not locate a published Markman/Memorandum Opinion and Order on claim construction in the accessible record — if one issued in 2025, it is not freely indexed in the sources I could search. This is a gap in the available public record.

---

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• 2024-05-06 — Invalidity contentions (Sportradar track). Sportradar's Invalidity Contentions and voluminous expert exhibits (A-01 through A-10, etc.) were served (cited in the Justia record for the '088-family continuation patent).
• 2024-08-22 — Genius' six IPR petitions filed (see § 6) — strategically the single most significant discovery-era event, signaling a full-frontal PTAB attack on all three then-asserted patents.
• 2024-11-26 — PANDA's Second Supplemental Infringement Contentions served (referenced in Genius' Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions).
• 2024-12-09 — Genius' Second Supplemental Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions, covering the '687, '218, '697, and '088 patents and asserting § 101 and § 102/103 grounds (filed in the consolidated lead case; available via Docket Alarm exhibit).
• Late 2024–2025 — Claim-construction discovery, expert reports, and Daubert deadlines ran per the DCOs (e.g., opinion-of-counsel disclosures due 2025-05-30 under the Second Amended DCO; expert discovery and dispositive-motion deadlines set for 2025).
• 2025 — Sotera-style stipulations. Genius filed a stipulation in the district court that it would not pursue invalidity defenses in the litigation on grounds raised or reasonably raiseable in its IPR petition (see § 6); Sportradar likewise proposed a Sotera stipulation to avoid discretionary denial of its later-filed "copycat" IPRs (Sportradar opposition brief, 2025-05-23).

---

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• No trial has occurred. The case was still in pre-trial/post-Markman posture through 2025–2026, with no verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion appearing in the accessible record. The case is docketed as open/pending as of the current date (Ex Parte docket page for 2:23-cv-00471; status "Open").

---

6. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

This is the most consequential front of the dispute:

• Genius Sports' six petitions (2024-08-22):
  • IPR2024-01305 and IPR2024-01307 — challenging U.S. 10,805,687 ('687);
  • IPR2024-01308 and IPR2024-01309 — challenging U.S. 10,425,697 ('697);
  • IPR2024-01310 and IPR2024-01311 — challenging U.S. 11,039,218 ('218).
    (All six were supported by a declaration of Dr. Stephen Wicker dated 2024-08-22; confirmed in IPR2025-00252 Paper 1 and the IPR2024-01305 record.)
• Genius' two '088 petitions (2024-12-06):
  • IPR2025-00251 — challenging claims 1–7 and 24–34 of U.S. 11,871,088;
  • IPR2025-00252 — challenging claims 8–23 of U.S. 11,871,088. Institution DENIED in IPR2025-00252 on 2025-06-03 (GreyB IPVerse case detail).
• IPR2024-01305 ('687) — instituted 2025-03-13; Final Written Decision 2026-03-11: ALL CHALLENGED CLAIMS UNPATENTABLE. The Board held claims 1, 8, and 9 of the '687 patent unpatentable as obvious over Ellis + Spivey, and denied Petitioner's motion to exclude evidence (FWD, IPR2024-01305, Paper 46, 2026-03-11).
• Appeal pending at the Federal Circuit: SportsCastr appealed the '687 FWD — *CAFC No. 26-1809, SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., filed 2026-05-11, appeal from PTAB (IPR2024-01305)* (Ex Parte CAFC docket). Status: pending, judge assignment pending.
• Sportradar's parallel IPRs ('687): IPR2025-00268, IPR2025-00269 (filed 2024-12-11) and IPR2025-00315, IPR2025-00316 (filed 2024-12-14) — all on the '687 patent; Sportradar offered Sotera stipulations and an "understudy" role to the Genius IPR to avoid discretionary denial (mandatory notices in IPR2025-00269; Sportradar opposition, 2025-05-23).
• Effect on the litigation: The 2026-03-11 final written decision invalidating all challenged '687 claims (now on appeal) is the key event affecting the member case. Consistent with the parties' Sotera-style stipulations, the '687 claims in the district court are effectively constrained by the IPR estoppel/outcome framework, and the district-court litigation on that patent is likely to be dismissed or stayed pending the Federal Circuit appeal (the IPR2024-01305 docket is closed and marked "Final Written Decision – Appealed"). I did not find a district-court order expressly terminating or staying the '687 claims; that specific linkage is not confirmed in the accessible record.

---

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture (as of 2026-08-29)

• The litigation is active and pending. No settlement, judgment, dismissal, or verdict has been identified.
• The member case (2:23-cv-00471) remains consolidated with the lead case (2:23-cv-00472) before Judge Gilstrap, now carrying patent claims on the '218, '697, '088, and '503 patents plus Sherman Act/TFEAA antitrust claims (added 2025-02-14, survived the strike motion on 2025-06-10).
• The single most important recent development is the PTAB's 2026-03-11 invalidation of the '687 patent's challenged claims, now on appeal to the Federal Circuit (26-1809, filed 2026-05-11), which materially weakens the '687 portion of the case regardless of the appeal's outcome (the asserted claims are invalid unless the FWD is reversed).
• Outstanding items I could not verify from public sources: the exact dates/content of Genius' answer and counterclaims, any motion-to-dismiss/transfer/stay briefing and rulings, the Markman order (if issued), and the status of the remaining IPRs (IPR2024-01307 through -01311; IPR2025-00251; the Sportradar '687 IPRs) beyond what is noted above. For the most current docket-level confirmation, PACER (lead case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG and member case 2:23-cv-00471-JRG) and PTAB's PTACTS portal are the authoritative sources.

Press and Analysis Coverage of SportsCastr v. Genius Sports

The filing itself drew immediate trade-press attention, largely because it came packaged with a parallel suit against Sportradar and pointed quotes from PANDA's executives. Business Wire reported on 2023-10-10 (via a company announcement) that SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive had filed the two E.D. Tex. complaints (2:23-cv-00471 against Genius Sports; 2:23-cv-00472 against Sportradar), quoting Chairman Donald Schupak ("No one wants to see their own arsenal used against them in battle"), CEO Kevin April, and CSO Andrew Schupak, and noting King & Spalding LLP as counsel. The trade press picked it up the same day: SportBusiness reported that both Genius and Sportradar declined to comment, and framed the case as a fight over "foundational interactive streaming technology patents" by a small Las Vegas vendor against the two companies that supply "much of the technological infrastructure" to sports betting — noting the irony that Genius and Sportradar had themselves been litigation adversaries over EPL data rights just a year earlier.

The coverage's second wave came in March 2025, when PANDA amended its complaints to add Sherman Act and Texas antitrust claims. SportBusiness reported PANDA's allegations that Genius and Sportradar unlawfully tied access to exclusive league data (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NCAA) to adoption of their betting technology, quoting Sportradar's response that it does not comment on "even unfounded litigation" and that it would "defend these allegations vigorously," while Genius again declined to comment. GlobalData added specifics from the pleadings — naming Genius' LiveData, LiveTrading and BetVision products and Sportradar's emBet and OTT products as accused — and noted a Texas court had rejected Sportradar's motion to dismiss (dating it to August 2024, while SportBusiness placed the denial in September; the district court's actual personal-jurisdiction ruling came later in 2024). A parallel Nasdaq/Business Wire release quoted Schupak calling the alleged tying "bullying" that "takes bad behavior to new heights." Judge Rodney Gilstrap's 2025-06-10 order denying the defendants' motion to strike the antitrust allegations (docketed in the lead case, 2:23-cv-00472, Doc. 224) is in the court record but has not, in the searches conducted here, been the subject of standalone press stories.

Later developments are covered mainly by paywalled legal newswires and aggregators rather than mainstream tech outlets. Law360 reported on 2026-02-17 that PANDA settled its patent dispute with Sportradar and asked Judge Gilstrap to stay proceedings for 30 days, and on 2026-04-13 that Genius Sports moved to compel PANDA to produce that settlement agreement in discovery. Bloomberg Law reported on 2026-03-16 that the PTAB, in a Genius Sports IPR, found challenged claims of one of SportsCastr's low-latency streaming patents unpatentable as anticipated and obvious — a development that undercuts PANDA's infringement case even as the district litigation continues. Legal News Feed covered Genius Sports' May 2026 SDNY counter-suit (Genius Sports SS, LLC v. SportsCastr Inc., 1:26-cv-03900) alleging PANDA made misleading claims about state licensing and sportsbook partnerships, calling it "the latest development in the ongoing legal disputes." The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies SportsCastr as a practicing entity and lists all five patents at issue, including U.S. Patent No. 8,128,503, which the original complaint did not assert.

Notably absent is meaningful coverage from mainstream technology or general-business press — no Reuters, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF pieces specifically about this case surfaced in the searches, and the Bloomberg Law and Law360 items are short newswire/case-summary entries rather than deep analysis. The reporting that does exist is heavily reliant on PANDA's own press releases and executive quotes, with the independent analytical content coming from SportBusiness and GlobalData's market context: Sportradar's public "unfounded litigation" dismissal, Genius' silence, and framing of the suits as a small innovator taking on the two dominant sports-data incumbents. No outlet has reported a specific damages figure sought by PANDA (the complaints seek unspecified damages plus injunctive relief), and no settlement terms between PANDA and Genius have been reported as of the search date.

Sources

• Amended Complaint | 2:23-cv-00471 | SportsCastr Inc v. Genius Sports Ltd Pursuant To Court Order Docket Only In Lead Case | Ex Parte
• Complaint analysis | 2:23-cv-00471 | SportsCastr Inc v. Genius Sports Ltd Pursuant To Court Order Docket Only In Lead Case | Ex Parte
• Petition | IPR2025-00252 | Genius Sports Ltd v. SportsCastr Inc | Ex Parte
• Genius Sports SS, LLC v. SportsCastr Inc.
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2024-01309, No. 9 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision DECISION Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review 35 USC § 314 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2025) - Exhibits:
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• PANDA Interactive Files Suit Against Sportradar and Genius Sports for Infringing Its Foundational Sports Betting and Interactive Streaming Technology Patents - Oct 10, 2023 8:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

Based on the court filings I could retrieve (the operative docket in 2:23-cv-00471-JRG, including the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement at Dkt. 69, filed Oct. 8, 2024; the EDTX CM/ECF attorney calendar captured in IPR2025-00269 Ex. 1052; and the PTAB Power of Attorney in IPR2024-01305), plaintiff SportsCastr Inc. is represented by King & Spalding LLP as lead counsel and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC as Texas local counsel. Press releases from SportsCastr/PANDA confirm: "PANDA Interactive is represented in the cases by King & Spalding LLP" (BusinessWire, Oct. 10, 2023).

Lead / national counsel — King & Spalding LLP

Local counsel — Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Waco/Marshall, TX)

In-house counsel

None identified. No SportsCastr/PANDA in-house lawyer appears as counsel of record on the public docket entries I found.

Important caveats

• Role labels: The docket does not formally designate a single "lead attorney"; EDTX practice here is a national-firm/local-counsel split. King & Spalding is publicly identified as plaintiff's firm, and CJSJ (Waco) supplies the required Texas local counsel. I have labeled roles accordingly; the CM/ECF calendar (May 2025 snapshot) simply lists all eight lawyers above as counsel for SportsCastr without firm-by-firm role designations.
• Firm affiliations of Mangrum, Moss, Rafilson, and Sarkar: They appear on the EDTX CM/ECF calendar for SportsCastr, but I could not verify each one's current firm from a bio page before hitting my search limit; the grouping in the signature blocks strongly suggests King & Spalding (with CJSJ local counsel separately listed). Treat these four as "counsel of record — firm to be confirmed."
• Parallel PTAB context (for completeness): In the co-pending IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-01305/01307/01309/01311, IPR2025-00252), SportsCastr's Patent Owner counsel was initially the King & Spalding IP team — Brian Eutermoser (lead, Reg. No. 64,058, Denver), Mikaela Stone, and Kevin J. Duffy (POA dated Sept. 17, 2024). By December 2025, service lists on a later Genius IPR petition name Andrew J. Cochran and Colleen Tracy James of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York) as Patent Owner counsel, suggesting a possible handoff of IP/PTAB work — but the district court docket (as of May 2025) still showed the King & Spalding/CJSJ team as counsel of record in the 471 case.
• Docket verification: I could not pull the PACER docket directly (paywalled). The most authoritative confirmation of the current attorney-of-record list would be the CM/ECF "Attorneys" tab for 2:23-cv-00471-JRG and the pro hac vice/appearance orders in the lead case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case using multiple parallel searches.

I have strong initial leads. The Genius Sports defendants appear to be represented by Kirkland & Ellis. Let me dig deeper into the specific attorneys, including the signature blocks in the docket, local counsel, and the IPR counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendants (Genius Sports Ltd. and affiliated entities)

Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP represents the Genius Sports defendants in this action (and, jointly, the Sportradar defendants in the lead case, No. 2:23-cv-00472). The core team signed Genius's Sotera stipulation in the parallel IPR proceeding as "Attorneys for Defendant Genius Sports Ltd." — Genius Sports' Stipulation Re Inter Partes Review (Ex. 1021 in IPR2024-01305, filed Aug. 22, 2024; also reproduced in the PTACTS public file for the case) — and the same lawyers appear on the P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Feb. 7, 2025, Ex. 2003 in IPR2025-00273).

Lead / trial counsel

1. Patrick Arnett — Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C. (1301 Pennsylvania Ave. NW). Admitted pro hac vice; signs key Genius filings, including the IPR stipulation. A veteran patent trial lawyer (previously chaired IP litigation at Jenner & Block before joining K&E) with a substantial track record in high-stakes patent, ITC, and trade-secret litigation. (Role: lead trial counsel — inferred from signature position and bio; bio details are general knowledge, not from this docket.)

2. Jeanne M. Heffernan — Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Austin, TX (401 Congress Ave.). Texas Bar No. 24128395. Texas-barred, so she functions as both lead counsel and the Texas/E.D. Tex.-admitted counsel on Genius filings; she appears on the IPR stipulation and represents all nine Genius/Maven entities per the CM/ECF docket. (Source: Sotera stipulation signature block; EDTX CM/ECF Calendar of Events, May 8, 2025, Ex. 1052 in IPR2025-00269.)

3. James John Lomeo — Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Austin, TX. Texas Bar No. 24118993. Co-signs the Genius filings with Heffernan and appears for all Genius/Maven entities on the CM/ECF docket. (Source: same stipulation and calendar.)

4. Joshua L. Simmons — Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY (601 Lexington Ave.). Admitted pro hac vice. IP litigator (patent, copyright, and media); appears for all Genius/Maven entities. (Source: Sotera stipulation; CM/ECF calendar.)

5. Samuel C. Leifer — Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Boston, MA. Appears on the docket for the Genius entities; Law360's attorney profile ties him to Sportscastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive v. Genius Sports Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex.) as of a Dec. 23, 2025 entry. His antitrust focus is consistent with the Sherman Act/TFEAA claims added in the Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 127, Feb. 14, 2025). (Source: Law360 attorney profile; CM/ECF calendar.)

6. Kevin M. Neylan, Jr. — Kirkland & Ellis LLP (IP litigator; office location not confirmed in the sources I retrieved). Appears on the CM/ECF calendar for all Genius/Maven entities.

7. Guy Ruttenberg — Kirkland & Ellis LLP (IP litigator; office location not confirmed in the sources I retrieved). Appears on the CM/ECF calendar for all Genius/Maven entities.

Local counsel

• No separate Marshall-based local firm is identified for Genius in the accessible docket materials. The Texas Bar numbers held by Heffernan and Lomeo mean K&E's Austin office serves as the Texas/E.D. Tex.-admitted counsel, with Simmons and Arnett appearing pro hac vice — the standard K&E EDTX arrangement. Notably, the Sportradar defendants in the same consolidated litigation use Michael C. Smith of Scheef & Stone (Marshall, TX) as local counsel (per the P.R. 4-3 statement signature block), but I could not confirm from publicly accessible excerpts whether Scheef & Stone (or another Marshall firm) also appears for Genius — the full Genius signature blocks in the joint filings were not visible in my search results. If a separate Marshall firm appeared, it would be in the sealed/unviewed signature pages.

In-house counsel

• None identified from public filings or searches. Genius Sports' in-house legal team is not named as counsel of record in the documents I could access.

PTAB / IPR counsel

• The same K&E team (Heffernan, Lomeo, Simmons, Arnett) signed Genius's Sotera stipulation submitted in IPR2024-01305, indicating the coordinated IPR campaign (IPR2024-01305–01311; IPR2025-00251/00252) is being run by the same attorneys.

Caveats

• Docket-access limits: I could not view the complete CM/ECF docket (the case docket is incomplete on public aggregators; several filings are sealed or under the lead-case docket). If Genius filed a separate entry of appearance by a Marshall firm or additional K&E attorneys (e.g., on the antitrust briefing), it would appear in filings I could not retrieve.
• Case status: The case metadata lists the matter as pending, and the CM/ECF calendar confirms appearances through at least May 2025 (and Leifer through Dec. 2025). Per the prior case summary, press accounts report the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss after settlement on Feb. 13, 2026; if so, counsel of record's appearances would have concluded with dismissal — but I could not independently verify that on PACER in this pass.

Bottom line: The Genius Sports defendants are represented by Kirkland & Ellis LLP — lead team of Patrick Arnett (DC), Joshua Simmons (NY), Texas-based Jeanne Heffernan and James Lomeo (Austin), with Samuel Leifer (Boston), Kevin Neylan, and Guy Ruttenberg also on the docket. Heffernan/Lomeo double as Texas counsel; no separate local or in-house counsel is confirmed in accessible sources.