WinView IP Holdings, LLC v. DraftKings

This case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit filed by WinView IP Holdings, LLC against DraftKings and several related entities, including DK Crown Holdings Inc., Crown Gaming Inc., SBTech US Inc., and SBTech (Global) Ltd.. WinView IP Holdings, LLC is a Delaware-based company specializing in real-time sports gaming technologies, owning a portfolio of over 100 patents related to live game production, synchronized skill contests, multi-room competition, odds-setting, and monetization methods for sports and classic games.. WinView operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), having acquired its patent portfolio in September 2023 following a settlement of a Delaware lawsuit. DraftKings, on the other hand, is a prominent American gambling company based in Boston, Massachusetts, offering sportsbook, daily fantasy sports (DFS), and online casino services..

The lawsuit alleges that DraftKings has unlawfully incorporated WinView's patented technologies into its sports betting and daily fantasy sports platforms, including live, in-play wagering, micro-betting, online casino gaming, and Daily Fantasy Sports.. The specific patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,451,883. While the exact technical sketch for the '883 patent isn't detailed, WinView's patents generally cover innovations such as low-latency streaming, real-time betting synchronization, and fairness-enhancing mechanisms in sports wagering.. Other patents asserted by WinView in similar ongoing litigation against DraftKings and FanDuel involve technologies for managing client resources and assets on computing devices, and methodology for equalizing systemic latencies in television reception in connection with games of skill played with live television programming..

The case was filed on February 10, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District of New Jersey is a common venue for patent cases, and its local rules for patent litigation are applied, alongside the substantive patent law of the Federal Circuit. This litigation is notable due to its potential significant ramifications for the online gaming industry, as WinView seeks substantial damages and injunctions that could force DraftKings to modify or remove key features from its platforms or enter into licensing agreements.. WinView previously engaged in discussions with DraftKings regarding its patent portfolio before initiating legal action, asserting willful infringement.. This is not the first patent dispute for DraftKings, which was previously sued by Colossus Bets in 2021 for patent infringement related to a cash-out feature.. Furthermore, this lawsuit is part of a broader campaign by WinView, which had previously filed patent cases against DraftKings and FanDuel in July 2021 that were administratively terminated during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.. WinView IP Holdings, now with litigation funding, has relaunched these cases and filed new ones asserting additional patents..

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["WinView IP Holdings, LLC v. DraftKings 3:25-cv-01143 New Jersey District Court docket", "WinView IP Holdings v. DraftKings 11451883 PTAB IPR", "WinView IP Holdings v. DraftKings settlement", "WinView IP Holdings v. DraftKings claim construction", "WinView IP Holdings v. DraftKings summary judgment"]))
thought
The user is asking for key legal developments and the outcome of the patent infringement litigation, focusing on a chronological order of events. I need to cover:

• Filing & initial pleadings
• Pre-trial motions
• Claim construction
• Discovery milestones
• Trial events
• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings

I will use web search to find docket information, court opinions, and news articles related to the case.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation, WinView IP Holdings, LLC v. DraftKings, Case No. 3:25-cv-01143, was filed in the District of New Jersey on February 10, 2025. This case is part of a broader effort by WinView to enforce its patent portfolio in the online gaming and sports betting industry.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-02-10): WinView IP Holdings, LLC initiated the lawsuit against DraftKings Inc., DK Crown Holdings Inc., Crown Gaming Inc., SBTech US Inc., and SBTech (Global) Ltd. The complaint alleges willful infringement of nine U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,451,883, which is central to this case. WinView asserts that DraftKings' sports betting and daily fantasy sports platforms, encompassing live, in-play wagering, micro-betting, and online casino gaming, utilize its patented technologies without authorization. WinView is seeking damages and injunctive relief.
• Allegations of Willful Infringement: The complaint explicitly states that WinView had engaged in prior discussions with DraftKings regarding its patented technology and potential partnerships, but DraftKings allegedly chose to willfully infringe rather than partner with WinView.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

As of the current date (May 29, 2026), detailed specific pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay within this particular case (3:25-cv-01143) are not widely publicized in the available search results. However, it is noteworthy that an earlier, related patent infringement case between WinView and DraftKings (Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-13405) saw DraftKings file motions to dismiss, which resulted in some claims being dismissed without prejudice. While this provides context regarding the parties' litigation history, it does not represent a development in the 3:25-cv-01143 case directly.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

There is no publicly available information indicating that the court in WinView IP Holdings, LLC v. DraftKings, Case No. 3:25-cv-01143, has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or issued any claim construction rulings.

Discovery Milestones

No specific strategic discovery milestones for this particular case have been identified in the public record.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case remains active and has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The case is currently active and has not reached a final disposition through settlement, dismissal, or judgment. No appeals have been filed in this specific case.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

While WinView has a history of its patents being challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by DraftKings and FanDuel, those challenges primarily pertained to different patents (e.g., '243 and '730 patents) in the context of an earlier 2021 lawsuit (Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-13405). There is no publicly available information indicating that U.S. Patent No. 11,451,883, the primary patent at issue in the current 3:25-cv-01143 case, has been subjected to a parallel IPR or PGR proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by DraftKings.

WinView IP Holdings, LLC is represented by attorneys from Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and local counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Name: Paul J. Andre

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • Office Location: Silicon Valley (Menlo Park), CA or San Francisco, CA. While the exact office for him isn't specified in the provided snippets, Kramer Levin has a strong presence in California for patent litigation.
  • Note: Paul Andre is Co-Chair of Kramer Levin's patent litigation practice and leads the legal team for WinView in these matters, which involve patent infringement in online gaming and sports betting, including patent 11,451,883. He has a strong background in high-stakes patent disputes.

• Name: Jennifer L. Gilbert

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • Office Location: Likely New York, NY, but further specificity is needed to confirm her primary office if she works from multiple.
  • Note: Jennifer Gilbert has entered an appearance via a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice. She is a patent litigator at Kramer Levin.

• Local Counsel (based on standard practice for out-of-state firms):
  While specific local counsel names for WinView in this particular case are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, it's standard practice for out-of-state firms like Kramer Levin to associate with local counsel in the District of New Jersey. The search results for the defendant mention Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C. as representing DraftKings, but do not list local counsel for WinView. Further docket review would typically confirm specific local counsel.

Counsel of Record for DraftKings

DraftKings and its co-defendants (DK Crown Holdings Inc., Crown Gaming Inc., SBTech US Inc., and SBTech (Global) Ltd.) are represented by attorneys from Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C. as local counsel, and by an attorney admitted pro hac vice, indicating a national firm's involvement.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• James E. Cecchi

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C.
  • Office Location: Roseland, New Jersey
  • Note: Mr. Cecchi is a litigator with extensive experience in federal and state courts, including complex commercial and intellectual property disputes.

• Melissa Ellen Flax

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C.
  • Office Location: Roseland, New Jersey
  • Note: Ms. Flax is an attorney whose practice includes commercial litigation.

• Jonathan A. Cox

  • Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: (Firm to be identified in next step)
  • Office Location: (Office location to be identified in next step)
  • Note: Mr. Cox was granted pro hac vice admission on April 30, 2026. His primary firm and specific patent litigation experience require further investigation.Counsel of record representing DraftKings and related entities in WinView IP Holdings, LLC v. DraftKings are primarily from Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C. as local counsel, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, with an attorney admitted pro hac vice.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• James E. Cecchi

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C.
  • Office Location: Roseland, New Jersey
  • Note: Mr. Cecchi is an experienced litigator in federal and state courts, handling complex commercial and intellectual property disputes.

• Melissa Ellen Flax

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Carella Byrne Cecchi Brody & Agnello, P.C.
  • Office Location: Roseland, New Jersey
  • Note: Ms. Flax's practice includes commercial litigation.

• Jonathan A. Cox

  • Role: Lead Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale)
  • Office Location: According to firm information, WilmerHale has multiple offices, including Boston, New York, Washington D.C., and several in California. His profile does not specify a single office, but he is active in federal district courts nationally.
  • Note: Mr. Cox focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, counseling technology and life sciences companies in global patent disputes in federal district courts and Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission. His experience includes patents related to telecommunications standards, mobile communication devices, microprocessor design, and various other technologies.