SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and accused technology. Plaintiff SportsCastr Inc., doing business as PANDA Interactive, is a Las Vegas-based operating company (founded 2016), not a patent assertion entity, that builds "watch-and-bet" streaming technology — its flagship PANDA Studio platform lets sportsbooks, media companies, and leagues pair live video with real-time odds and in-stream wagering, and it was an early NFLPA-licensed platform (BusinessWire, Oct. 10, 2023; Compl. ¶¶ 14–15, E.D. Tex. Dkt. 1). Defendants Sportradar Group AG (NASDAQ: SRAD) and its Swiss operating affiliate Sportradar AG (headquartered in St. Gallen, Switzerland) are among the world's largest sports-data and sports-betting infrastructure providers. SportsCastr alleges that Sportradar's emBET, Sportradar OTT (over-the-top streaming), and Live Channel Trading (LCT) products infringe its patents by using a web server to direct viewer devices to open two separate Internet connections — one to a media server for live video and one to a socket server (allegedly implemented via a service like PubNub) for synchronized event data such as live odds and scores — which are then rendered as interactive betting overlays on the broadcast (Compl. ¶¶ 65–68, 74–84, 192–224; Dkt. 17). In other words, the core alleged infringement is the "watch-and-bet" architecture of delivering video and betting data over separate, synchronized channels, which the complaint describes as foundational technology Sportradar built its emBET/LCT products on.

Patents and procedural posture. Four patents from a common family (shared specification; inventors Kevin April, Philip Schupak, Peter Azuolas, Brian Silston) are asserted: U.S. Patent No. 10,805,687 (systems/apparatus/methods for delivering video-based commentary of live sporting events with synchronized event information over multiple Internet channels; claim 19 asserted); U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 ("Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information" — a socket-server "event channel" separate from the video channel, carrying online gaming information; claims 1, 4, 16, 21 asserted); U.S. Patent No. 10,425,697 (scalable, low-latency viewing of broadcast live-event streams with synchronization of event information via multiple Internet channels; claims 19–20 asserted); and U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088 (issued Jan. 9, 2024, added by amendment — a webserver instructing client devices to connect to separate media-server and socket-server channels for event video and synchronized event info; claim 1 asserted). The case is before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas — historically the nation's busiest and most plaintiff-friendly patent forum — and was designated the lead case consolidated with the parallel Genius Sports action, No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (Dkt. 57 at 20–21; DocketAlarm/Unified Patents docket). Sportradar moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer to Delaware; Judge Gilstrap denied the motion on September 17, 2024 (Dkt. 57; SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, 2024 WL 4242806 (E.D. Tex. 2024)), finding specific jurisdiction because Sportradar marketed the accused products "in every state" (hence Texas) and holding Delaware was not "clearly more convenient" — in part because the related Genius case involving three of the same patents was already pending in Marshall. The case later expanded: on February 14, 2025, SportsCastr filed a Second Amended Complaint adding Sherman Act and Texas antitrust claims alleging Sportradar and Genius unlawfully tied access to exclusive official league data (NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL) to adoption of their betting technology; Genius's motion to strike those allegations was denied (Dkt. 183, June 11, 2025 opinion). After claim construction (Markman hearing May 9, 2025) and with trial set for February 27, 2026, the parties announced a settlement on February 17, 2026 and requested a stay to finalize it (Law360, Feb. 17, 2026); Sportradar's 2025 annual report confirms a March 2026 settlement under which PANDA dismissed its claims with prejudice, with Sportradar recognizing €35.1 million in litigation costs including the settlement payment (Sportradar Group AG Annual Report, March 2026). The docket remains the live lead case for the Genius portion, where a discovery fight over production of the Panda–Sportradar settlement agreement was still ongoing in April 2026.

Why the case matters. This litigation sits at the intersection of three hot-button areas: (1) the post-PASPA sports-betting boom, where "watch-and-bet" overlay technology is the key monetization layer for sportsbooks, broadcasters, and leagues — SportsCastr sued the two dominant sports-data infrastructure providers (Sportradar and Genius Sports, both NYSE/NASDAQ-listed) on the same day in the same court; (2) aggressive parallel PTAB and antitrust strategy — Genius filed six IPRs on the '687/'697/'218 patents (IPR2024-01305, -01307, -01308, -01309, -01310, -01311), and Sportradar filed six "copycat" joinder petitions (IPR2025-00265, -00266, -00268, -00269, -00273, -00275) that the PTAB Acting Director discretionarily denied institution on June 25, 2025 because the district-court trial was imminent and the parties had invested heavily in the Texas case (Director Stewart decision, Paper 19). Genius's instituted IPRs later produced Final Written Decisions in March 2026 finding some SportsCastr claims unpatentable, which SportsCastr appealed to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 26-1803, filed May 8, 2026); and (3) market-structure antitrust claims targeting exclusive league-data deals, which could have industry-wide implications for how official sports data is licensed and packaged. The case also produced a notable jurisdictional ruling (a foreign parent held subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas based on its own marketing statements), a public settlement with a reported eight-figure-plus cost, and a role-reversal sequel — Genius Sports sued SportsCastr in the Southern District of New York in May 2026 on Second Spectrum patents covering real-time graphics overlays (theigaming.eu, May 14, 2026). One caveat: while the Sportradar settlement and dismissal with prejudice are well sourced (Law360; Sportradar's annual report), the exact settlement payment figure is not publicly itemized — Sportradar's €35.1 million figure is litigation costs "inclusive of the settlement payment," not a disclosed settlement amount.

I'll research this case systematically across court records, PTAB proceedings, and legal media.

I have solid initial material. Let me dig into the docket, PTAB proceedings, claim construction, and the Delaware parallel case.

Good progress. Now let me look at the Delaware parallel case outcome, the claim construction order, the '088 IPR, and the most recent 2026 docket activity.

SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al., No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

Key legal developments and outcome — chronological summary

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2023–2024)

• 2023-10-05 — SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) filed the complaint (Dkt. 1) against Sportradar Group AG, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 10,805,687 (the '687), 11,039,218 (the '218), and 10,425,697 (the '697) — the "socket server / synchronized live-streaming event information" family. The accused products were the Sportradar emBET, Sportradar OTT, and Live Channel Trading (LCT) systems. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 16–18; businesswire release of 2023-10-10.) The same day, SportsCastr filed the companion case against Genius Sports Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG, on the same three patents.
• 2023-10-10 — Public announcement of both suits by PANDA Interactive (King & Spalding LLP listed as counsel).
• Service delay — Summons on Sportradar Group AG was not executed until 2023-12-14; the court extended the answer deadline to 2024-02-12 (per the D. Del. opinion, 1:24-cv-00170, Doc. 23).
• 2024-03-08 — SportsCastr filed its Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17), adding Sportradar AG (the Swiss manufacturer subsidiary) as a defendant and adding a fourth patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,871,088 (the '088, issued 2024-01-09), with claim 1 asserted. This amendment post-dated—and created the first-to-file fight with—the Delaware action below.
• 2024-10-15 — Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims (Dkt. 73). SportsCastr answered the counterclaims on 2024-10-30 and filed a further answer on 2024-12-16.
• 2024-10-11 / 10-15 — Judge Rodney Gilstrap entered the Consolidation Order (Dkt. 70) consolidating 2:23-cv-00472 (lead) with 2:23-cv-00471 (Genius) for all pretrial purposes, with individual cases to remain active for trial. The order set a Markman hearing for 2025-05-09, a pretrial conference for 2025-10-06, and jury selection for 2025-11-07 (later pushed to January 2026).

---

2. Parallel Delaware declaratory-judgment action and the first-to-file fight

• 2024-02-08 — Sportradar AG, Sportradar US LLC, and Sportradar Solutions LLC sued SportsCastr in the District of Delaware (1:24-cv-00170, Judge John Campbell Barker) seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the same '687/'218/'697 patents. The parent, Sportradar Group AG, was not a plaintiff there.
• 2024-02-09 — Sportradar Group AG filed its first motion to dismiss the E.D. Tex. case for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer to Delaware.
• 2024-03-15 — SportsCastr moved in Delaware to dismiss, transfer, or stay the DJ action under the first-to-file rule.
• 2025-03-26 — Judge Barker granted in part SportsCastr's motion: applying the first-to-file rule and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), he transferred the Delaware case to the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, to be assigned to Judge Gilstrap for a possible consolidation with 2:23-cv-00472 (D. Del. Doc. 23). The court held the E.D. Tex. action was first-filed even though Sportradar AG was added there only after the Delaware suit, rejecting the "first-to-obtain-jurisdiction" argument (citing In re Seattle SpinCo, 817 F. App'x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
• 2025-04-04 — The transferred case opened in E.D. Tex. as 2:25-cv-00335-JRG.
• 2025-04-14 — All claims by the Sportradar entities were dismissed without prejudice (2:25-cv-00335, Dkt. 27), ending the parallel DJ action.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

(a) Motion to dismiss / transfer (Rule 12(b)(2), § 1404(a)) — DENIED 2024-09-17

• 2024-04-15 — Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG filed the operative motion (Dkt. 27) to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer to Delaware.
• 2024-09-17 — Judge Gilstrap denied the motion in full (Dkt. 57, Memorandum Opinion and Order). The court found specific personal jurisdiction satisfied: SportsCastr made a prima facie showing of minimum contacts because Sportradar's own press releases described the accused products as offered "in every state" (hence Texas), including products marketed under the "Sportradar Group" name rather than the U.S. subsidiaries. The court rejected the Delaware-first-filed argument and, on the § 1404(a) Volkswagen factors, held Delaware was not "clearly more convenient" — judicial economy weighed against transfer because the Genius case (2:23-cv-00471) pending in the same court involved three of the same patents and would permit consolidated claim construction. (Reported: VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, 2024-09-18.)

(b) Docket-control amendment for antitrust claims — GRANTED 2025-03-28

• 2025-02-14 — On the amended-pleadings deadline under the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 93), SportsCastr filed its Second Amended Complaint against Sportradar (Dkt. 126) adding Sherman Act and Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act claims, and its Third Amended Complaint against Genius (Dkt. 127).
• 2025-03-07 — Sportradar moved to amend the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 142); Genius joined (Dkt. 146). On 2025-03-28, the court granted the motion and extended non-patent deadlines by up to 75 days (Dkt. 154).

(c) Motion to strike antitrust allegations — DENIED 2025-06-10

• 2025-03-31 — Defendants moved under Rules 12(f) and 15(a) to strike the antitrust paragraphs (Dkt. 158; Sportradar joinder at Dkt. 162), arguing the DCO did not authorize adding new causes of action without leave.
• 2025-06-10 — Judge Gilstrap denied the motion (Dkt. 224): the plain language of the DCO ("[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") permitted the new antitrust claims without leave. In re Katrina Canal Breaches was distinguished.

(d) Other pending motions

• Sportradar filed a motion to dismiss Counts V and VI of the Second Amended Complaint (the antitrust counts) in spring 2025 (referenced in the IPR2025-00269 record); I could not confirm a ruling from available sources.

---

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• The case reached claim construction. A Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement was filed, and the Markman hearing was held on 2025-05-09 before Judge Gilstrap (confirmed in the PTAB's 2025-06-25 discretionary-denial decision: "a Markman hearing was held on May 9, 2025, and fact discovery is scheduled to close in August 2025").
• The court's DCO required the parties to file a joint notice on mediation within 14 days of issuance of the claim construction order, indicating the written claim-construction opinion was expected in mid-2025. I did not locate the text of the claim-construction order in public sources; the specific constructions are therefore unverified.

---

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• ESI orders — SportsCastr's opposed motion for entry of an ESI order (Dkt. 46) and the parties' joint ESI-order motions (Dkt. 55, 58) were terminated by the 2024-10-11 consolidation order, which was accompanied by a joint ESI protocol.
• Source-code and infringement contentions — SportsCastr's infringement case against emBET centered on source code showing use of PubNub as the claimed "socket server," an Event Manager/control-server architecture, and "listeners" for event information (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 74–84). The parties exchanged claim charts and invalidity contentions; the PTAB record references Sportradar's Amended Invalidity Contentions and Genius's Second Supplemental Invalidity and Subject-Matter Eligibility Contentions (April 2025).
• Claim narrowing — SportsCastr served correspondence stipulating asserted claims for litigation (April 2025, per PTAB exhibits), and the court entered an order limiting asserted claims and prior art.
• Fact discovery was scheduled to close August 2025 (per the PTAB decision), with expert/Daubert and summary-judgment motions to follow under the Second Amended DCO.

---

6. Trial posture, verdict, and post-trial (2026)

• 2025-04-14 — Judge Gilstrap entered the Second Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 174): pretrial conference 2026-01-05; jury selection/trial 2026-01-23 at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas. The E.D. Tex. calendar confirms trial events docketed for the week of 2026-01-20 through 2026-01-26.
• Outcome as of 2026-08-29 (today): I could not confirm from available public sources whether the January 2026 trial actually proceeded, resulted in a verdict, settled, or was continued. No post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fees), judgment, or Federal Circuit notice of appeal appear in the sources I could access. The case is best characterized as active/pending through the last verifiable docket entry (the 2025-06-10 strike order), with trial set for January 2026 — the final disposition is unverified and should be confirmed on PACER.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and their effect on the litigation

(a) Genius Sports IPRs — instituted 2025-03-06

Genius filed six petitions on the shared-specification family asserted in both cases:

• '687: IPR2024-01305 (claims 1–9), IPR2024-01307 (claims 19–25, 27–30)
• '697: IPR2024-01308 (claims 1–9), IPR2024-01309 (claims 19–25, 27–30)
• '218: IPR2024-01310 (claims 1–15), IPR2024-01311 (claims 16–30)

The Board instituted all six on 2025-03-06 (projected final written decisions ~2026-03-06).

(b) Sportradar "copycat" IPRs — discretionarily denied 2025-06-25

• 2024-12-11 — Sportradar AG filed six mirror-image petitions seeking joinder with the Genius IPRs: IPR2025-00265/00266 ('697), IPR2025-00268/00269 ('687), IPR2025-00273/00275 ('218), plus IPR2025-00316 directed to '687 claims not challenged by Genius. Sportradar's real parties in interest include Sportradar Group AG, Sportradar Solutions LLC, and Sportradar US LLC.
• Sportradar also executed a Sotera-style stipulation (filed as a PTAB exhibit) agreeing not to pursue invalidity defenses in the litigation on grounds raised or reasonably available in instituted IPRs.
• 2025-06-25 — The Board (Director's review) granted SportsCastr's request for discretionary denial and denied institution of the six joinder petitions (Papers 19 in IPR2025-00265/266/268/269/273/275). Rationale: the projected FWD dates (2026-07-08 for the new petitions; 2026-03-06 even if joined) would not precede the 2026-01-23 district-court trial; the parties had made meaningful investment in the district court (Markman held 2025-05-09, fact discovery closing August 2025); and there was insufficient evidence the district court would stay.
• Effect: the PTAB route was largely foreclosed for Sportradar, leaving validity to the district court and the Genius IPRs. The status of IPR2025-00316 ('687 additional claims) and any IPR on the '088 patent was not confirmed in my searches.

---

Bottom line

SportsCastr survived Sportradar's jurisdictional challenge (E.D. Tex., 2024-09-17), beat back the Delaware DJ end-run (transferred 2025-03-26, then dismissed 2025-04-14), added Sherman Act/TFEAA antitrust claims (Feb. 2025) that survived a motion to strike (2025-06-10), and headed to a jury trial scheduled for 2026-01-23 in Marshall, Texas. Genius's IPRs were instituted (2025-03-06), but Sportradar's copycat IPRs were denied institution for gamesmanship/proximity to trial (2025-06-25). The dispositive trial outcome, any settlement, post-trial motions, or appeal — the present posture — could not be verified from public sources and requires a PACER check of the 2026 docket.

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

Summary of sourcing

I could not pull the live PACER docket directly, but the following sources were used: (1) the BusinessWire press release announcing the suit (Oct. 10, 2023), which states PANDA was "represented in the cases by King & Spalding LLP"; (2) the IP Law Daily case note (Sep. 18, 2024) on the personal-jurisdiction ruling, which identifies Mark Douglas Siegmund (Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC) as attorney for SportsCastr; (3) Unified Patents' docket index showing plaintiff filings signed by Mark Siegmund (Oct. 30, 2024) and Matthew Wood (Dec. 16, 2024); and (4) a May 2025 E.D. Tex. calendar report (filed as Exhibit 1052 in IPR2025-00269) listing the ECF counsel of record for "SportsCastr Inc. (Plaintiff, Counter Defendant)."

Attorneys of record for SportsCastr Inc.

1. Mark Douglas Siegmund — Lead/local counsel

• Firm/Location: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, Marshall, Texas (E.D. Tex. litigation boutique).
• Role: Appears as filing counsel for plaintiff (e.g., Answer to Sportradar's counterclaim, docketed 10/30/2024) and is the attorney identified by IP Law Daily for SportsCastr. Given the firm's Marshall base, he functions as EDTX local counsel in practice, though the available docket entries do not label him "lead" vs. "local."
• Experience note: A veteran E.D. Tex. trial lawyer and former Assistant U.S. Attorney who regularly serves as local/lead counsel in Marshall patent cases; the firm (Cherry Johnson Siegmund James) is a well-known EDTX patent-litigation boutique.

2. Matthew David Wood — Counsel of record

• Firm/Location: Not confirmed from available sources (firm not stated on the docket entries I located). Listed on ECF as counsel for SportsCastr; signed the plaintiff's answer to Sportradar's counterclaim (docketed 12/16/2024).
• Experience note: No reliable biographical data located in this search; treat firm/office as unverified.

3–9. King & Spalding LLP team (per the Oct. 2023 press release and the May 2025 ECF calendar, the following are listed as counsel representing SportsCastr Inc. / PANDA Interactive):

• Hope Garrison — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar. Firm not confirmed in this search, though she is a well-known patent trial lawyer (appears to be a King & Spalding partner in Atlanta; this specific affiliation was not independently confirmed for this case).
• Patrick Michael Lafferty — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar; firm/office not confirmed.
• Gregory Phillip Love — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar; firm/office not confirmed.
• Brett Aaron Mangrum — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar; firm/office not confirmed.
• Edward Moss — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar; firm/office not confirmed.
• Ari B. Rafilson — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar; firm/office not confirmed.
• Rahul Sarkar — ECF counsel for plaintiff per the May 2025 calendar; firm/office not confirmed.

Candid notes and gaps

• The King & Spalding engagement is well sourced (contemporaneous press release), but I could not confirm each named K&S attorney's individual role (lead vs. of counsel), office location, or experience from the sources available in this search. Those details should be verified against the notice(s) of appearance on PACER (case 2:23-cv-00472-JRG) or King & Spalding's attorney bios.
• No in-house counsel for SportsCastr/PANDA was identified in any source reviewed.
• The Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP and Scheef & Stone attorneys appearing in the same filings (Roodman, Williamson, Brell, Smith) represent defendants Sportradar Group AG/Sportradar AG, not the plaintiff.
• Devora Allon (Kirkland & Ellis) appears in one database in connection with this case number but in a "Challenger" (adversary) capacity, not as plaintiff's counsel — likely tied to the related IPR or Genius Sports representation; I did not treat her as plaintiff counsel.
• If filings are sealed or counsel has since withdrawn/added, the definitive source is the PACER attorney appearance list for 2:23-cv-00472-JRG; the above reflects the public record as of the May 2025 ECF calendar.

Based on the docket exhibits, PTAB filings, and contemporaneous press coverage available in search results, the defendants' (Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG) counsel of record in SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG et al., No. 2:23-cv-00472-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) is the Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (BCLP) team with Michael C. Smith of Scheef & Stone serving as local counsel. Details below.

Lead / national counsel — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP

David A. Roodman — Lead counsel

• Firm/office: BCLP, One Metropolitan Square, 211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102 (MO Bar No. 38109).
• Role: Signed first on the defendants' proposed Sotera stipulation re IPR (Dec. 11, 2024, filed as Ex. 1021 in IPR2025-00269/-00273), under the caption "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS SPORTRADAR GROUP AG AND SPORTRADAR AG"; the Vital Law write-up of Judge Gilstrap's Sept. 17, 2024 jurisdictional ruling likewise identifies him as counsel for Sportradar. He is the principal lead for the defense.
• Experience: Longtime BCLP (formerly Bryan Cave) IP trial lawyer with a substantial patent-litigation docket, including high-stakes bet-the-company patent defense.

Nick E. Williamson — Counsel

• Firm/office: BCLP, St. Louis (MO Bar No. 56925).
• Role: Co-signatory on the Sotera stipulation and the IPR joinder/petition team; listed in the EDTX calendar of events (May 2025, IPR2025-00269 Ex. 1052) as counsel of record for both Sportradar entities.
• Experience: Patent litigation and IPR practice at BCLP.

George G. Brell — Counsel

• Firm/office: BCLP, St. Louis (MO Bar No. 69850).
• Role: Co-signatory on the Sotera stipulation; also on the PTAB joinder petitions (IPR2025-00265 et seq.).
• Experience: IP litigation/PTAB practice at BCLP.

Lindsay Sklar Johnson — Antitrust counsel (added after the Second Amended Complaint)

• Firm/office: BCLP, One Atlantic Center, 1201 W. Peachtree St., 14th Fl., Atlanta, GA 30309.
• Role: Appeared for Sportradar AG and Sportradar Group AG; listed on the May 2025 EDTX calendar of events for this case and filed a notice of appearance in the companion antitrust matter, 2:25-cv-01250. Brought in for the Sherman Act/TFEAA counterclaims and defense following SportsCastr's Feb. 2025 antitrust amendment (Dkt. 158).
• Experience: BCLP antitrust litigation partner; Chambers USA–ranked (Georgia, Antitrust, Band 2); defends and prosecutes antitrust cases, including price-fixing and monopolization litigation.

David Bernard Schwartz — Counsel

• Firm/office: BCLP (per PacerMonitor appearance notices; specific office not confirmed in available sources).
• Role: Appeared for Sportradar AG and Sportradar Group AG; listed on the May 2025 EDTX calendar of events for this case and in the related 2:25-cv-01250 docket.
• Experience: Patent/commercial litigation at BCLP (office unconfirmed — flagging as not independently verified).

George Patrick Watson — Counsel

• Firm/office: BCLP (per PacerMonitor; office not confirmed).
• Role: Notice of appearance on behalf of "All Defendants" (filed April 2026 in the related antitrust action; listed in this case's May 2025 calendar of events).
• Experience: Litigation associate/counsel at BCLP (details not independently verified).

Local counsel — Scheef & Stone, LLP (Marshall, TX)

Michael C. Smith — Local counsel

• Firm/office: Scheef & Stone, LLP, 113 East Austin Street, Marshall, TX 75670 (TX State Bar No. 18650410).
• Role: The EDTX-required local counsel; signs all defendants' stipulations and motions in the Marshall Division, including the Sotera stipulation.
• Experience: One of the best-known Marshall/E.D. Tex. local counsel (runs the widely-read EDTexweblog); has served as local counsel in hundreds of Eastern District patent cases before Judge Gilstrap.

Notes and caveats

• No in-house counsel of record identified. Available docket exhibits and appearance lists show only BCLP and Scheef & Stone attorneys; Sportradar's in-house legal team does not appear in the public appearance records reviewed.
• Kirkland & Ellis LLP is plaintiff's counsel, not defendants'. Jeanne Heffernan, James Lomeo, Joshua Simmons, and Patrick Arnett (K&E) appear on SportsCastr's amended complaint and represent SportsCastr/PANDA; likewise Cahill Gordon & Reindel (Andrew Cochran, Colleen Tracy James) is SportsCastr's IPR counsel, and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James / Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love (Mark Siegmund, Gregory Love, et al.) is SportsCastr's local counsel. Do not confuse those with the Sportradar defense team.
• Sources: (1) Defendants' Stipulation Re Inter Partes Review, Ex. 1021 to IPR2025-00269/-00273 (Dec. 11, 2024) — signature block with Roodman, Williamson, Brell, Smith; (2) EDTX Calendar of Events, Ex. 1052 to IPR2025-00269 (May 23, 2025) — listing Johnson, Schwartz, Watson, Roodman, Williamson, Smith as attorneys of record for Sportradar in 2:23-cv-00472; (3) Vital Law, "Swiss company must face infringement suit in Texas…" (Sept. 2024) — identifying Roodman as Sportradar's counsel; (4) PacerMonitor docket for the related antitrust case 2:25-cv-01250 — appearance notices for Johnson, Schwartz, Watson; (5) BCLP/Chambers/Martindale profiles confirming Johnson's BCLP Atlanta office and antitrust focus.
• Verification limits: I could not pull PACER directly to confirm the exact docket-entry numbers for each notice of appearance in 2:23-cv-00472, and the office locations for Schwartz and Watson are not confirmed by public sources; those two entries are flagged accordingly. If you need the precise appearance docket numbers, the next step would be a PACER query of the appearance/attorney entries for this case number.