US 11039218

Summary: U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 (US11039218B1)

Bibliographic data

Source: Google Patents record and USPTO/PTAB file-history exhibits (IPR2024-01305, IPR2025-00269, IPR2025-00273).

Abstract (as published)

"Systems, apparatus, and methods are disclosed for obtaining, substantially in real time, via at least one communication interface over at least one network, an audio and/or visual feed generated by a broadcaster client device during at least one live event, wherein the audio and/or visual feed includes commentary associated with the at least one live event, and a separate event data feed including real time information associated with the at least one live event. The commentary and the real time information associated with the at least one live event are transmitted via at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one communication interface, so as to provide, substantially in real time, streaming content via the at least one communication interface over the at least one network to at least one display device for concurrent display of the commentary and a graphical ticker based on the real time information associated with the event."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has four independent claims (1, 12, 16, 21); dependent claims 2–11 and 13–15 chain from claims 1 and 12, and the patent contains at least 30 claims (IPR2024-01311 challenged claims 16–30). The claim text below is as reproduced in official PTAB filings (e.g., the IPR2024-01305 petition quoting the issued claims at 57:35–60:34); note that the specification's "Summary" section (in the Google Patents rendering) describes somewhat broader media-source/control-server/socket-server embodiments, so there is minor variance between the specification's illustrative embodiments and the final amended claim language.

• Claim 1 (system): A system for controlling viewer client devices to receive (i) first digital content relating to a first sporting event and (ii) first event information germane to that event, where the event information includes online gaming information. It comprises: (A) a control server that periodically retrieves the event information over the Internet; (B) at least one socket server coupled to the control server that receives the event information and transmits at least some of it (including the online gaming information) to a viewer client device over a first event information Internet communication channel tied to a first event socket corresponding to the event; and (C) at least one web server that sends the viewer (1) a first Internet address of a media source to establish a separate video Internet communication channel carrying the digital content, and (2) a first socket address of the event socket to establish the event-information channel carrying the online gaming information. In essence: a two-channel architecture — video on one channel, online gaming/event data on a socket-based channel — with a server pushing the data to many viewers in a synchronized, low-latency way.

• Claim 12 (method): A method for providing, to a first client device, first event information for a sporting event that includes first online gaming information. It comprises: (A) transmitting the online gaming information to the client device via an event information communication channel between a first event socket of a socket server and the client device (the socket corresponding to the event); and (B) transmitting at least one instruction causing the client device to request a first copy of a first stream of digital content relating to the sporting event. In essence: the server side pushes gaming/event data over a dedicated socket channel and directs the client to fetch the video stream separately.

• Claim 16 (method): A method of providing a viewer client device a sporting-event stream together with first online gaming information. It comprises: (A) transmitting a first instruction causing the viewer device to receive a copy of a stream of digital content for the sporting event via a first video communication channel; and (B) transmitting a second instruction causing the viewer device to receive the online gaming information via a first event information communication channel between a first event socket of a socket server and the viewer device — where the event-information channel is different from the video channel. In essence: explicitly separating the video path from the online-gaming/event-data path.

• Claim 21 (method): A method of transmitting instructions to a client device having a display, to cause that display to render a video of a first sporting event and render online gaming information relating to it. The instructions cause the client device to: receive first digital content (the video) on a first communication channel and render the video; and receive second digital content (the online gaming information) on a second communication channel different from the first and render it. In essence: the client-side rendering behavior — pulling video and gaming data over two separate channels and displaying both simultaneously.

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status (as of the searches)

• CAFC docket 26-1803 — SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd.: Appeal from the PTAB (originating case IPR2024-01311), filed per search results on or about May 6–8, 2026 (the docket source lists "Filed 05/08/26"; the underlying PTAB notice of appeal is dated May 6, 2026). ⚠️ Note: these dates fall slightly after the stated "current date" of April 26, 2026, so treat them as reported by the docket sources with that caveat.
• PTAB IPR2024-01310 & IPR2024-01311 (Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc.): Both petitions reached Final Written Decision (FWD issued ~March 13, 2026 for IPR2024-01311; Google Patents metadata marks both cases "Final Written Decision"). In IPR2024-01310, Patent Owner filed a Request for Director Review (Apr 2, 2026) and the Board authorized a Petitioner response (Apr 9, 2026). Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal in IPR2024-01311 (May 6, 2026) led to CAFC 26-1803.
• PTAB IPR2025-00269, -00273, -00275 (Sportradar AG): Filed December 2024; Google Patents metadata marks these "Not Instituted – Procedural" (denied institution).
• District court: Texas Eastern District Court cases 2:23-cv-00471, 2:23-cv-00472 (2023) and 2:25-cv-00335 (2025) involving the patent.

Uncertainty notes

1. Claim text source: The exact issued claim language of claims 1 and 12 is reproduced here from PTAB petition exhibits (official USPTO filings quoting Ex. 1009); I did not independently verify every clause against the USPTO Patent Center claims text. The Google Patents rendering supplied in the prompt describes the system embodiments with a "plurality of media sources" element that does not appear verbatim in the final claim 1 as quoted in the IPR petition — I flag this as the main source discrepancy.
2. Total claim count: IPR filings reference claims up to 30, but I did not confirm the exact final count (24 vs. 30) from an authoritative source; treat "≥24 claims, likely 30" as approximate.
3. CAFC filing date: The docket source lists 05/08/26, which postdates the stated current date; the exact filing date should be confirmed against PACER.

Based on my searches, US Patent No. 11,039,218 (US11039218B1; "the '218 patent"), owned/asserted by SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), is involved in the following known proceedings. Note: the patent number "11039218" and "11,039,218" refer to the same patent (US11039218B1).

District Court Litigation

1. SportsCastr Inc. v. Genius Sports Ltd., et al. — No. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division)

• Plaintiff: SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
• Defendants: Genius Sports Ltd., Genius Sports Media Ltd., Genius Sports Technologies Ltd., Genius Sports UK Ltd., Genius Sports Holdings Ltd., Genius Sports Group Ltd., Maven Topco Ltd., Maven Midco Ltd., Maven Debtco Ltd., Maven Bidco Ltd.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Filed: October 5, 2023
• Patents asserted: 10,425,697; 10,805,687; 11,039,218 (the '218 patent); 11,871,088 (a Stanford NPE database entry also lists 8,128,503)
• Status: Open/pending. Consolidated for pretrial purposes with No. 2:23-cv-00472 (designated lead case) by order dated October 15, 2024. Claim construction and invalidity contentions have been exchanged (e.g., Genius Sports' Second Supplemental Invalidity Contentions, Dec. 9, 2024). The complaint alleges infringement via Genius Sports' live-streaming product with betting-data ("Multibet" widget) transmitted over "long running socket"/WebSockets.
• Sources: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[284418](/patent/284418) ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--23-cv-00471/SportsCastr_Inc._v._Genius_Sports_Ltd/ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:23-cv-00471/doc/analysis/43

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

• Plaintiff: SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
• Defendants: Sportradar Group AG; Sportradar AG
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
• Filed: October 5, 2023 (amended complaint March 8, 2024)
• Patents asserted: Includes the '218 patent (along with '687, '697, and '088 patents)
• Accused products: Sportradar emBET, Sportradar OTT, and Sportradar Live Channel Trading (LCT)
• Status: Open/pending; designated lead case in the consolidation with 2:23-cv-00471. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or transfer to Delaware; motion denied Sept. 17, 2024. Sportradar answered and filed counterclaims (Oct. 2024).
• Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2:23-cv-00472 ; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10203985](/patent/10203985)/sportscastr-inc-v-sportradar-group-ag/ ; https://www.vitallaw.com/news/patent-e-d-tex-swiss-company-must-face-infringement-suit-in-texas-over-sports-video-streaming-technology/ipm0105ebb3e321594a7a8b22c900d5c25ab0

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

• Plaintiffs: Sportradar US LLC; Sportradar Solutions LLC; Sportradar AG
• Defendant: SportsCastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Filed: April 4, 2025
• Cause: Declaratory judgment of non-infringement under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, involving the '218 patent (and '687, '697 patents); complaint addresses claim 1 and dependent claim 4 of the '218 patent.
• Status: Listed as "Closed" in the Ex Parte case database (as of the search date).
• Sources: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00335/sportradar-us-llc-v-sportscastr ; https://dockets.justia.com/browse/state-texas/court-txedce/noscat-10/nos-830?page=33 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/2%3A25-cv-00335

PTAB / Inter Partes Review

4. Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) — IPR2024-01310 (P.T.A.B.)

• Petitioner: Genius Sports Ltd.
• Patent Owner: SportsCastr Inc.
• Filed: August 23, 2024
• Status: Instituted; oral argument held December 18, 2025; Final Written Decision issued. Per the ipverse/GreyB docket, a Director Review request was filed (April 2, 2026) and the petitioner filed an authorized response (April 9, 2026) — i.e., a Director Review is pending.
• Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-01310 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01310 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01310/Genius_Sports_Ltd._v._SportsCastr_Inc/docs/02-10-2025-Petitioner/Other__other-8-Petitioners_Reply_to_Patent_Owners_Preliminary_Response.pdf

5. Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) — IPR2024-01311 (P.T.A.B.)

• Petitioner: Genius Sports Ltd.
• Patent Owner: SportsCastr Inc.
• Filed: August 23, 2024
• Status: Instituted; oral argument held December 18, 2025; Final Written Decision issued March 13, 2026. The GreyB/ipverse docket also lists a "Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal" dated May 6, 2026 — a date after the current date (April 26, 2026), so I cannot verify that entry; treat it as unconfirmed.
• Sources: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-01311 ; https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-01311 ; https://www.docketalarm.com/search/PTAB/

6. Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) — IPR2025-00273 (P.T.A.B.)

• Petitioner: Sportradar AG
• Patent Owner: SportsCastr Inc.
• Filed: December 11, 2024 (per SportsCastr's Updated Mandatory Notices, June 20, 2025)
• Status: Not instituted – procedural (per Google Patents litigation listing)
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00273 ; https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01310/Genius_Sports_Ltd._v._SportsCastr_Inc/06-20-2025-Patent_Owner/Notice__Updated_Mandatory_Notice-19-Notice_Mandatory_Notice/

7. Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) — IPR2025-00275 (P.T.A.B.)

• Petitioner: Sportradar AG
• Patent Owner: SportsCastr Inc.
• Filed: December 11, 2024 (per SportsCastr's Updated Mandatory Notices, June 20, 2025)
• Status: Not instituted – procedural (per Google Patents litigation listing)
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00275

Federal Circuit Appeal

8. Appeal No. 26-1803 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)

• Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Status: Listed on the Google Patents litigation record as a filed CAFC case involving the '218 patent. I could not confirm the parties or the underlying judgment (e.g., whether it is an appeal of the IPR Final Written Decisions or of a district court ruling) from the available search results; the case number is 26-1803.
• Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/26-1803

Possibly Related (Unconfirmed as involving the '218 patent)

• Sportradar US LLC, Sportradar Solutions LLC, Sportradar AG v. Sportscastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive, No. 1:24-cv-00170 — CourtListener shows this case was initially before Judge Colm F. Connolly and later "reassigned to District Judge John Campbell Barker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas" (suggesting a transfer). My searches did not confirm that the '218 patent is asserted in this specific case, and Google Patents does not list it among the '218 patent's litigation. I therefore flag it as related-party litigation without confirming '218 involvement.
• Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68238915/feed/

Summary

The '218 patent is centrally involved in (a) two consolidated E.D. Tex. infringement actions filed by SportsCastr against Genius Sports (2:23-cv-00471) and Sportradar (2:23-cv-00472) on October 5, 2023 — both still pending; (b) a Sportradar declaratory-judgment action (2:25-cv-00335, filed April 4, 2025, listed as closed); (c) two Genius Sports IPRs (IPR2024-01310 and IPR2024-01311, filed Aug. 23, 2024) that were instituted and have reached Final Written Decisions (with a Director Review request pending in -01310); (d) two Sportradar IPR petitions (IPR2025-00273 and IPR2025-00275, filed Dec. 11, 2024) that were not instituted; and (e) a CAFC appeal, No. 26-1803, the parties/scope of which I could not confirm.

Caveat: Several status entries (particularly the May 6, 2026 appeal date in IPR2024-01311 and the details of CAFC 26-1803) come from third-party databases that I could not fully verify given search limits; check PACER/PTAB for the current official status.

PTAB Proceedings on US 11,039,218 (US11039218)

Data-source note up front. The USPTO ODP/PTAB structured block in this prompt reports no AIA trial proceedings — that ingest appears stale. The patent's own litigation metadata on Google Patents (fetched 2026-08-28) and multiple PTAB docket aggregators independently confirm four IPRs on this patent: IPR2024-01310, IPR2024-01311 (both Genius Sports Ltd., both instituted, both reached Final Written Decision on 2026-03-13), and IPR2025-00273, IPR2025-00275 (both Sportradar AG, both institution-denied on 2025-06-25). One Federal Circuit appeal (docket 26-1803) is also on file. I flag these below rather than defaulting to "no PTAB activity."

Proceedings overview

Four AIA trial proceedings have been filed against US 11,039,218 — two instituted IPRs that went to Final Written Decision (Genius Sports, both FWDs issued 2026-03-13) and two institution-denied IPRs (Sportradar, discretionary denials 2025-06-25). No claims are formally canceled yet — the Patent Owner (SportsCastr Inc., d/b/a PANDA Interactive) has a Director Review request pending in IPR2024-01310 and has appealed IPR2024-01311 to the Federal Circuit (26-1803) — but the docket title of the IPR2024-01311 FWD states it "Determin[ed] All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" (claims 16–30), and the parallel FWD in IPR2024-01310 (claims 1–15) drew an immediate Director Review request, signaling an adverse result there too. Bottom line for a defendant: every one of the patent's 30 claims has now been through PTAB trial, the Board has found claims 16–30 unpatentable, and claims 1–15 are very likely on the same path — this is a patent in active retreat, and any assertion built on claims 16–30 is fighting an on-record PTAB unpatentability finding.

---

IPR2024-01311 — Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-08-23
• Status: Final Written Decision (2026-03-13) — docket aggregators list it as "Final Written Decision – Appealed"; Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal on 2026-05-06
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang (lead), Stephen E. Belisle, Jon M. Jurgovan — per the oral-hearing transcript of 2025-12-18 (filed 2026-01-07); note a Panel Change Order issued 2025-11-07, so verify the FWD's own signature block
• Petition grounds (challenged claims 16–30; independent claims 16 and 21):
  • Ground 1: Claims 16–30 obvious over Ellis (US 2014/0229992) in view of Spivey (US 2016/0036910) — § 103
  • Ground 2A: Claims 21–22, 27–28 over Herzog (US 2015/0163379) — § 102/§ 103
  • Ground 2B: Claims 25–26, 30 over Herzog in view of Ellis — § 103
  • Ground 2C: Claims 16–20, 23–24, 29 over Herzog in view of Spivey — § 103
  • (Ground structure per Patent Owner's Response, which contests each ground; primary contested limitations were the claimed "event socket" and "online gaming information.")
• Institution decision: Granted 2025-03-17
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-03-13 (Paper 46/47). The docket entry title reads: "JUDGMENT — Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable — Denying Petitioner's Motion to Exclude." That means the Board found all challenged claims 16–30 unpatentable over the Ellis/Spivey/Herzog grounds and denied Patent Owner's motion to exclude petitioner's evidence. I have not pulled the FWD text itself, so I cannot quote the panel's claim-by-claim reasoning verbatim — verify the paper at PTAB E2E before relying on it in a pleading.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Terminated by FWD on 2026-03-13.
• Appeal: Yes — Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal filed 2026-05-06; Federal Circuit docket 26-1803 (per the patent's litigation metadata). As of 2026-08-28 the appeal is pending; no CAFC disposition is on record.
• Defensive value: If you are accused of infringing claims 16–30, there is an on-record PTAB judgment that all of them are unpatentable. That finding is not yet a final cancellation (appeal pending), but it is powerful: in the parallel E.D. Tex. case (2:23-cv-00471) Genius Sports can press it, and any other defendant can cite it while the appeal runs.

---

IPR2024-01310 — Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-08-23
• Status: Final Written Decision (2026-03-13); Patent Owner filed a Request for Director Review 2026-04-02; Petitioner filed an authorized response 2026-04-09 — Director Review pending as of the data date
• Judge panel: Thu A. Dang (lead), Stephen E. Belisle, Jon M. Jurgovan (same combined hearing of 2025-12-18 as IPR2024-01311)
• Petition grounds (challenged claims 1–15; independent claims 1 and 12):
  • Ground 1A: Claims 12–15 obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey — § 103
  • Ground 1B: Claims 1–11 obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey and Herzog — § 103
  • Ground 2A: Claims 1–9, 12–14 obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey — § 103
  • Ground 2B: Claims 10–11, 15 obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey and Ellis — § 103
• Institution decision: Granted 2025-03-17
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-03-13 (Paper 47). I could not confirm the claim-level verdict from my sources. The prompt's own litigation metadata flags this case as "Final Written Decision," and Patent Owner's immediate Director Review request (within 30 days, while it simultaneously appealed the sister case) strongly indicates the Board ruled against Patent Owner on at least some of claims 1–15 — but do not plead a specific outcome for claims 1–15 until you have read the actual FWD.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. Terminated by FWD 2026-03-13; Director Review proceeding ongoing.
• Appeal: Not yet, as of the data date — Patent Owner chose the Director Review route here (2026-04-02) rather than a direct CAFC appeal. If the Director denies review, a CAFC appeal remains available.
• Defensive value: The only remaining uncertainty is the precise claim-by-claim breakdown for claims 1–15. If the Director Review is denied and the FWD stands as an unpatentability judgment, the entire patent — all 30 claims — is dead. Expect that outcome; monitor the Director Review.

---

IPR2025-00273 — Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-11
• Status: Not Instituted – Procedural (docket aggregators: "Discretionary Denial"); terminated 2025-06-25
• Judge panel: Barbara Parvis and John Hudalla (per docket aggregators; confirm in the denial order)
• Petition grounds: Sportradar filed two same-day petitions mirroring the Genius split — this one is understood to target the claims-1–15 slice (the companion IPR2025-00275's POPR shows it addressed independent claims 16 and 21). The art is the same family: Ellis, Spivey, Herzog, and combinations, on § 102/§ 103 grounds. I could not confirm the exact claim scope of this petition from my sources.
• Institution decision: Denied 2025-06-25, discretionarily / on procedural grounds. The precise basis (e.g., § 314(a)/Fintiv in view of the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation 2:23-cv-00472, or § 325(d) redundancy with the already-instituted Genius IPRs on identical art) is not confirmed from my sources — read the denial order.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; terminated by denial.
• Appeal: No.
• Defensive value: Because institution was denied, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to Sportradar — the Ellis/Spivey/Herzog art remains fully available to Sportradar and its privies in district court. But the denial also means Sportradar got no merits win here; the heavy lifting was done by the Genius IPRs.

---

IPR2025-00275 — Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-12-11
• Status: Not Instituted – Procedural ("Discretionary Denial"); terminated 2025-06-25
• Judge panel: Barbara Parvis and John Hudalla (per docket aggregators; confirm in the denial order)
• Petition grounds: Per Patent Owner's Preliminary Response (2025-04-08), this petition challenged the claims-16–30 slice (independent claims 16 and 21 expressly addressed): Ground 1 — Ellis in view of Spivey (all claims); Ground 2A — Herzog anticipation; Ground 2B — Herzog in view of Ellis; Ground 2C — Herzog in view of Spivey. The "online gaming information" limitation of claims 16 and 21 was a focal dispute.
• Institution decision: Denied 2025-06-25, discretionarily / on procedural grounds (basis to be confirmed in the denial order).
• Settlement / termination: No settlement; terminated by denial.
• Appeal: No.
• Defensive value: Same as IPR2025-00273 — no estoppel for Sportradar, no merits decision, and the identical claim scope was already adjudicated in IPR2024-01311 (where the Board found claims 16–30 unpatentable). Sportradar gets the benefit of that FWD in its E.D. Tex. defense regardless.

---

Strategic summary

Claims CANCELED vs. SUSTAINED vs. UNTESTED. No claim of US 11,039,218 is formally canceled today — no certificate has issued because the FWDs are not final (Director Review in IPR2024-01310, CAFC appeal 26-1803 in IPR2024-01311). But the substantive picture is stark: all 30 claims have been tested before the Board. Claims 16–30 were found unpatentable in the IPR2024-01311 FWD ("Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable"); claims 1–15 went to FWD in IPR2024-01310 on the same art family with an adverse-to-PO procedural posture (Director Review request). No claim has yet been sustained by the Board in any of the four proceedings — the only two petitions that were denied (Sportradar's) were denied without reaching the merits, so they neither sustain nor cancel anything. Practically: the patent is on the verge of being entirely wiped out; the surviving question is appellate timing, not validity.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Genius Sports and its privies are estopped in the E.D. Tex. litigation (2:23-cv-00471) from asserting any § 102/§ 103 ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2024-01310/-01311 — i.e., the Ellis, Spivey, Herzog, and Mitic art and all obvious combinations of them are off the table for Genius in district court. That leaves Genius (and any privy) with § 101, § 112, and only genuinely unavailable prior art. Sportradar is not estopped (its petitions were denied, so no FWD); Sportradar and its privies can still run Ellis/Spivey/Herzog in 2:23-cv-00472. A new defendant not in privity with either petitioner faces no IPR estoppel at all and can raise the full universe of § 102/§ 103 art — including the exact combinations that just produced an unpatentability judgment against claims 16–30.

Pattern signals. This is a textbook coordinated, family-wide defense. Two of SportsCastr's E.D. Tex. defendants — Genius Sports (sued 2023-10-05, 2:23-cv-00471) and Sportradar AG (2:23-cv-00472) — filed parallel IPR waves using the same Ellis/Spivey/Herzog art, Genius on 2024-08-23 (IPR2024-01310/-01311, plus IPR2024-01305 on sister patent 10,805,687) and Sportradar on 2024-12-11 (IPR2025-00273/-00275 on this patent, IPR2025-00265/-00266 on sister patent 10,425,697). The Patent Owner (SportsCastr Inc./PANDA Interactive, counsel Cahill Gordon, previously King & Spalding) defended aggressively — substituted lead counsel mid-trial, opposed exclusion, sought Director Review, and appealed to the CAFC — but lost on the merits in the Genius IPRs. There is no Unified Patents or defensive-aggregator petitioner in this chain; the petitioners are the actual accused infringers. A third E.D. Tex. case (2:25-cv-00335) is also on file, so the assertion campaign is continuing even as the patent craters.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the two FWDs before relying on them. Both issued 2026-03-13 (Paper 47 in IPR2024-01310; Paper 46/47 in IPR2024-01311). Confirm the claim-by-claim disposition in IPR2024-01310 (claims 1–15) — my sources confirm the docket title for IPR2024-01311 ("Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable … Denying Petitioner's Motion to Exclude") but not the -01310 verdict text. Retrieve from PTAB E2E / USPTO PTAB Decisions, and quote the FWD's own claim table.
2. If you are a defendant on claims 16–30, put the IPR2024-01311 FWD in front of the district court now (via estoppel briefing if you are Genius or a privy; via inter partes estoppel-free citation if not). If you are a new defendant, file your own petition promptly if you have better art — the FWDs don't estop you, but the statutory 1-year trial clock and the near-certain full cancellation mean the value of a fresh IPR is mostly in staying the district court case.
3. Track the two pending appellate threads. (a) Director Review in IPR2024-01310 (PO request 2026-04-02, petitioner response 2026-04-09) — if denied, expect a second CAFC appeal; (b) CAFC docket 26-1803 (PO's appeal of IPR2024-01311) — pending as of 2026-08-28, no disposition. Also monitor whether the district court stays 2:23-cv-00471/-00472 pending those appeals — a stay is the usual outcome where the entire patent is before the CAFC.
4. Deadline note for anyone filing now: any new petition must be filed within one year of being served with a complaint (§ 315(b)), and if instituted the FWD is due within one year of institution — but with all claims already found unpatentable, the marginal value of a new petition is low unless you are not in privity and want your own estoppel shield.

Key links: IPR2024-01310 docket (ipverse.greyb.com / PTAB E2E) · IPR2024-01311 docket (ipverse.greyb.com / DocketAlarm) · CAFC 26-1803 (Unified Patents litigation portal) · E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00471 (Stanford NPE Litigation Database).

Caveat on sourcing: claim-level quotations above are drawn from docket-entry titles and party briefs (Patent Owner Responses/POPRs), not from the FWD texts themselves, which were not retrievable in my search pass; the -01310 outcome in particular remains to be verified against the FWD before it is cited in any filing.

I'll research the ownership chain for US 11039218, starting with the USPTO assignment records and cross-referencing litigation and corporate records.

I have initial leads. The patent is in the Sportscastr family, now tied to "Panda Interactive" and multiple IPRs and E.D. Tex. cases. Let me dig into the litigation, the assignment records, and the current operating status.

The picture is forming: SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) is the plaintiff asserting this patent against Genius Sports and Sportradar. Now I need the exact USPTO assignment reel/frame records and the IPR outcomes.

I've hit my search-step budget, but I have enough confirmed material to reconstruct the chain with appropriate caveats. Here is the analysis.

Inventors

All four named inventors are co-founders / principals of SportsCastr (now d/b/a PANDA Interactive), per the BusinessWire announcement, the E.D. Tex. complaints, and Wikipedia coverage:

• Kevin April — co-founder; CEO of SportsCastr Inc. / PANDA Interactive (he is quoted as CEO in the October 2023 press release announcing the Genius Sports / Sportradar suits).
• Peter Azuolas — co-founder (listed as a creator of SportsCastr; appears in the recorded assignment as "Azoulas, Peter" in one USPTO/Google rendering — spelling variance in the record, not a different person).
• Philip Nicholas Schupak — co-founder; family member of Donald Schupak (Chairman) and Andrew Schupak (CSO).
• Brian Silston — co-founder; named first assignor on the recorded inventors' assignment (reel 049017/0502).

Pattern check: No unusual departure pattern. Kevin April was still CEO at the time of the 2023 lawsuits — the inventors stayed with the operating company. No fire-sale precursor.

Original assignee

SportscastrLive LLC (also recorded as "SPORTSCASTR.LIVE LLC" / "Sportscastr.Live LLC"), a Delaware LLC, New York-based (595 Madison Ave), founded 2016–2017.

• Products embodying the claims: Yes. The company launched the SportsCastr mobile app (consumer live-commentary/social streaming) and evolved it into PANDA Studio, a B2B "Watch & Bet" platform, plus PANDA CUB (AdTech) — all described by the company and in its complaints as implementing the patented socket-based video-plus-event-information architecture ("SocketVision"). It was an NFLPA-licensed platform and one of the first NFLPA investment/licensing deals.
• Line of business: Live sports video streaming and, post-rebrand, B2B interactive streaming / sports-betting technology (SportsCastr Inc., d/b/a PANDA Interactive, Las Vegas).
• Current status: Operating. The LLC's patent rights were transferred to Sportscastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive) in 2021, and that entity is actively litigating the patent as plaintiff (E.D. Tex., 2023–present).

Assignment timeline

I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center directly in this session, so the entries below are reconstructed from Google Patents legal events for US 11039218 and the family-level recordation cited on sibling patent US 10425697. The two reel/frame numbers I can cite (049017/0502 and 053969/0429) are from that family recordation; the reel/frames for the two recordations applied specifically to the '218 continuation were not independently confirmed. Correspondents of record are not exposed in my sources — I flag that gap rather than guess.

• 2019-04-01/02 (executed) / recorded 2019 — Reel 049017/0502 (family recordation; cited on US10425697)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (inventors → company)
  • Assignor: Brian Silston; Philip Nicholas Schupak; Kevin April; and Peter Azuolas ("and others")
  • Assignee: recorded as "SPORTSCASTR.LIVE" (New York) — name later corrected
  • Correspondent: not available in my sources
  • Context: Standard inventors-to-company assignment covering the Sportscastr patent family (the '687/'697/'218 lineage). Corrected shortly after by the entry below.
• 2019/2020 (recorded) — Reel 053969/0429 (corrective recordation)
  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment (assignee-name correction of reel 049017/0502)
  • Assignor: same inventors
  • Assignee: SPORTSCASTR.LIVE LLC, New York
  • Correspondent: not available in my sources
  • Context: Administrative fix to record the correct assignee legal name — an internal housekeeping filing, not a change of ownership.
• 2021-02-05 (recorded, per Google Patents legal events for the '218) — reel/frame not confirmed
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Brian Silston, Kevin April, Peter Azuolas ("Azoulas" in the event rendering), Philip Nicholas Schupak
  • Assignee: SPORTSCASTR.LIVE LLC
  • Correspondent: not available in my sources
  • Context: Recordation of the inventors' assignment against continuation application 17/141,631 (the '218 application, filed 2021-01-05) to perfect title in the LLC before grant.
• 2021-10-14 (recorded, per Google Patents legal events for the '218) — reel/frame not confirmed
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: SPORTSCASTR.LIVE LLC
  • Assignee: SPORTSCASTR, INC.
  • Correspondent: not available in my sources
  • Context: Internal corporate restructuring — transfer from the LLC to the corporation as the company reorganized under the Panda Interactive brand. This is the terminal link in the chain.

No security agreements, licenses, or further transfers were surfaced in my searches, but because I could not directly query the Assignment Center, I can't conclusively rule out additional recorded documents.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "11039218"; legacy mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11039218
    2016 : Priority filing
    2019 : Inventors assign to Sportscastr Live LLC
    2020 : Corrective assignment recorded
    2021 : Continuation filed
         : Assignment recorded against it
         : Patent granted June 2021
         : Transferred to Sportscastr Inc
    2023 : Suit vs Genius Sports filed
         : Suit vs Sportradar filed
    2024 : IPR petitions filed by rivals
    2025 : CAFC appeal docketed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The chain runs inventors → Sportscastr.Live LLC → Sportscastr Inc. Both assignees are the same operating business (the LLC was the company's original vehicle; the Inc. is the rebranded Panda Interactive entity). There is no transfer to a licensing-only LLC, no registered-agent-address assignee, and the entity's own complaints and press releases describe shipped products (SportsCastr app, PANDA Studio, PANDA CUB). Reels 049017/0502 and 053969/0429 plus the 2021-10-14 recordation support this.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, or Spangenberg entity appears anywhere in the chain. The sole asserter is the operating company itself (Sportscastr Inc. / Panda Interactive), which is not on any NPE directory I can confirm.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the recorded correspondents for these filings (Assignment Center not directly queryable in this session, and Google Patents does not display correspondents). No recurrence can be asserted; no recurrence can be ruled out.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only two substantive conveyances over five years (inventors → LLC, then LLC → Inc.), both consistent with normal corporate formalities. No chained LLCs, no rapid-fire transfers.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last assignment (Sportscastr.Live LLC → Sportscastr Inc.) was recorded 2021-10-14, roughly two years before the first infringement suits filed 2023-10-05 (2:23-cv-00471-JRG and 2:23-cv-00472-JRG). Well outside the six-month window; nothing suggests the chain was arranged to enable the suit.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No bankruptcy proceedings involving Sportscastr were found; the company is active and litigating.

7. Privateering — not present. The patent owner is asserting in its own name and its own products against direct competitors (Genius Sports Ltd. and Sportradar Group AG in E.D. Tex.), which is the opposite of a privateering structure. No SEC 10-K/8-K evidence of an operating company funneling patents to an NPE exists because neither party's assignee is public (Sportradar and Genius are public, but they are the defendants).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at the asserting operating company, not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The current owner, Sportscastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive), is the plaintiff that filed the first infringement suits naming US 11039218 on 2023-10-05 (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00471-JRG v. Genius Sports and 2:23-cv-00472-JRG v. Sportradar), and it describes its own shipped products (SportsCastr app, PANDA Studio, SocketVision) as implementing the claimed technology. The recorded chain is a clean two-step corporate history — inventors to Sportscastr.Live LLC (reels 049017/0502, corrected at 053969/0429) and LLC to Sportscastr Inc. (2021-10-14) — with no NPE intermediary, no known asserter, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint. The only caveats are that the exact '218-specific reel/frames and the recorded correspondents could not be verified from the Assignment Center in this session, and the IPR2024-01310/01311 final written decisions' outcomes were not confirmed from my sources; neither gap changes the classification, which rests on who owns, who ships, and who is suing whom.

Verify: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (patent 11039218); litigation dockets 2:23-cv-00471 and 2:23-cv-00472 (E.D. Tex.); IPR2024-01310 / IPR2024-01311 / IPR2025-00273 / IPR2025-00275 (PTAB).

I'll search for the patent's cited prior art references.

Let me get the full cited-references list from the patent's Justia/Google pages.

Let me pull the patent's front-page reference list and the examiner-cited art directly.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,039,218 B1 (US11039218B1)

Scope note / strict-identifier rule: I interpreted every alphanumeric identifier literally as retrieved. Where an OCR rendering is ambiguous or self-inconsistent, I preserved the rendering and flagged it rather than "fixing" it.

---

A. Reference identification and verification status

The patent was positively identified as US 11,039,218 B1, application US 17/141,631, filed 2021-01-05, granted 2021-06-15, priority 2016-08-05, "Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information" — matching the number in the task exactly. No results for other patent numbers were substituted.

Important limitation on this section. The text of the patent supplied in the prompt (Google Patents rendering) omits the front page — there is no "(56) References Cited" block in it. I therefore reconstructed the cited art from the USPTO/PTAB exhibit copy of the patent's front page (Exhibit 1009 filed 2024-12-11 in Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc., IPR2025-00269) and from the file-history exhibit (Exhibit 1011 in IPR2025-00273). That OCR is fragmentary and demonstrably misaligned in places (patent numbers, inventor surnames, and issue dates are sometimes printed on different lines than the numbers they belong to). I flag every such instance below. I was not able to retrieve the complete, clean front page before exhausting my search budget — the itemized list below is therefore a partial-but-genuine reconstruction, not a verbatim transcription.

---

B. Front page — "References Cited" — U.S. Patent Documents

These are patent numbers I could positively corroborate as appearing in the '218 front-page list (OCR fragments show the numerals; dates/names in the same block are OCR-scrambled and should not be trusted without pulling the PDF):

Additional surnames/dates appearing in the same scrambled OCR block, for which I could not match a patent number: "Bassett et al." (12/2012); "Perlman et al." (10/2013); "Mandyam et al." (11/2013); "Xu et al." (10/2014); "Verna et al." (6/2015); "Horen et al." (8/2015); "Dornbush et al." (10/2015); "Burns" (2/2016); "Panje et al." (3/2016); "Brown et al." (11/2016); "Lau et al." (12/2016); "Vinson et al." (2/2017); "Thornburgh et al." (3/2017); "Hiremath" (5/2017); "Kim et al." (5/2017); "Gaunt et al." (6/2017); "Oyman et al." (7/2017); "Cox" (11/2019); "Barthel et al." (8/2020); "Evans" (11/2020).

⚠️ Flag: I am not assigning these surnames to the numbers in the first table — the OCR does not support that mapping, and doing so would be fabrication.

---

C. Front page — U.S. Patent Application Publications

These are corroborated as cited application publications on the '218 front page:

⚠️ Flag on the assignment of these four references. My sources list Cardona, Sexton, Makhlouf and Silver on the citation lists of both the '218 and the sibling US 11,770,591. That is expected for same-family continuations, but the OCR I retrieved cannot by itself prove each of the four is on the '218's own front page as opposed to only the sibling's. Treat the four as examiner-cited art in the '218 family; verify against the '218 PDF before quoting.

⚠️ Cross-check against the previously generated Obviousness section: that section also listed Ma et al. (US 2017/0188054 A1) and Barbulescu et al. (US 2017/0099516 A1) as examiner-cited on the '218. I could not corroborate either in the front-page material I retrieved. Either they are on the '218 front page beyond my OCR coverage, or they belong to a sibling patent. Treat those two as unconfirmed.

---

D. Front page — Foreign Patent Documents and Other Publications

• Foreign patent documents: the OCR block header appears ("FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS") but no foreign document numbers were recoverable. None can be listed or assessed.
• Other publications (recovered):
  • International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2017/045801, dated 2019-10-30 (18 pages) — i.e. the ISR/WO for the '218's own PCT. This is the family's own prosecution document, not third-party art.
  • ISR/WO in PCT/US2018/033016, dated 2018-08-06 (29 pages) — also a family-related PCT.
  • "Analyze & Optimize," Maestro, 2020, accessed 2021-04-21 (3 pages).
  • "Around-the-clock action for your sportsbook," BetGenius Brochure, accessed 2021-03-19 (1 page).
  • "Betradar Live…" (entry truncated in the OCR).

⚠️ Flag — notable and worth pressing on: the BetGenius and Betradar brochure citations are competitor marketing materials (BetGenius is a Genius Sports brand; Betradar is a Sportradar brand) that appear to have been placed of record during the '218's 2021 prosecution — i.e. the applicant cited the future IPR petitioners'/defendants' own product literature against itself, or the Examiner did. I cannot determine from my sources which party submitted these (Exhibit 1009's OCR does not preserve IDS-submitter attribution). This is exactly the kind of §102(a)(1) "printed publication" / public-use evidence that would matter for the "online gaming information" limitation, and I recommend pulling the '218 file wrapper (IPR2024-01310, Ex. 2035, "11,039,218 Certified File History," filed 2024-12-20) to see the IDS cover sheets.

---

E. The most relevant prior art against the '218 — the IPR art (not on the front page)

The front-page list is considered art that the patent issued over. The art that has actually been held to render the claims unpatentable is different, and it comes from the IPRs. This is the answer to "most relevant prior art":

Descriptions above are drawn from the PTAB's own summary of Ellis and Spivey in the sibling '697 IPR decision and from the '218 petition text (IPR2024-01310 / IPR2025-00273 exhibits), not from my own reading of the references.

Note: the Ellis used by the petitioner is a different publication from the "Ellis et al." on the '218 front page (US 2008/0062318 A1). The petition nonetheless asserted that the Examiner had "substantively considered Ellis" during prosecution. Whether those are the same Ellis family or different publications is something I could not verify — flagging rather than asserting.

---

F. §102 anticipation mapping by claim

Under §102 a single reference must disclose every limitation arranged as claimed. Applying that standard to the record:

Bottom line on §102: the only single-reference anticipation theory with any record support for the '218 is Herzog against claims 21–22 and 27–28, and even that was pleaded in the alternative to §103. Everything else is a §103 combination. A §102 case built on the front-page references alone would fail, because the Examiner considered all of them and still allowed the claims (the '218 issued 2021-06-15 following the applicant's 2021-04-13 response to the Office Action).

---

G. Cross-checks against the previously generated sections

1. No hard contradiction, but a correction of emphasis: the earlier Obviousness section stated the '218 text lacks a prior-art section "in the excerpt." That is true of the Google Patents prompt text, but the front page does exist and does contain a (56) References Cited block — I retrieved portions of it from PTAB Exhibit 1009. This section supplements that earlier statement.
2. The earlier Obviousness section listed Ma (US 2017/0188054 A1) and Barbulescu (US 2017/0099516 A1) as on the '218's face. I could not corroborate either. Treat that part of the earlier section as unverified.
3. The earlier PTAB challenges section is consistent with what I found: IPR2024-01310 (claims 1–15) and IPR2024-01311 (claims 16–30) are the two proceedings whose ground structure supplies the Ellis/Spivey/Herzog combinations above, and IPR2025-00273/00275 (Sportradar) mirror them. My retrieval of the IPR2025-00273 petition text confirms the Herzog-in-view-of-Spivey ground and the "MQSD topic queues" and "gamecenter.nfl.ravenssteelers" mappings verbatim, corroborating that section.

---

H. What is still unverified (do not cite without pulling the source)

1. The complete, clean (56) References Cited list of the '218 — my list is partial, and the number↔name↔date mapping is OCR-unreliable. Pull: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/... /US11039218.pdf or the certified file history (IPR2024-01310 Ex. 2035).
2. Foreign patent documents — none recovered.
3. Subject matter of every front-page reference except Cardona/Sexton/Makhlouf/Silver and the IPR's Ellis/Spivey/Herzog — I deliberately did not invent titles or descriptions for the others.
4. Exact publication dates for US 2014/0229992 A1, US 2016/0036910 A1 and US 2015/0163379 A1 — the dates in the table are my best record-based figures; confirm on the documents themselves.

---

Verification links

• Patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11039218B1/en
• Front-page exhibit (IPR2025-00269, Ex. 1009 — US Patent 11039218): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00269/Sportradar_AG/12-11-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1009-US_Patent_11039218/
• Certified file history (IPR2024-01310, Ex. 2035): https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01310/Genius_Sports_Ltd._v._SportsCastr_Inc/12-20-2024-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2035-11,039,218_Certified_File_History/
• File history exhibit w/ '218 claims (IPR2025-00273, Ex. 1011): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00273/Sportradar_AG/docs/12-11-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1011-File_History_of_US_Patent_11039218.pdf
• Sibling citation list (US 11,770,591, showing 11039218 / Cardona / Sexton / Makhlouf / Silver): https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11770591](/patent/11770591)
• USPTO Patent Center / PTAB E2E (authoritative): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ and https://ptacts.uspto.gov/

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 11,039,218 B1 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A. Scope and sources used

The patent text provided (Google Patents fetch of US11039218B1) contains the specification but not a dedicated "Prior Art" / "References Cited" section in the excerpt. To comply with your instruction, I relied on (i) the background art discussed in the patent itself (Twitch.tv, Facebook Live, Periscope, Livestream, musical.ly — the prior-art platforms the specification admits had ~10–15 second latency problems), and (ii) live search results identifying the art actually asserted against the patent in inter partes review, which is the most probative evidence of record:

• IPR2024-01310 and IPR2024-01311 (Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc.) — instituted; Final Written Decision issued March 13, 2026 (IPR2024-01310). Challenged claims 1–15.
• IPR2025-00273 / IPR2025-00275 (Sportradar AG) — filed but Not Instituted (Procedural); IPR2025-00269 (Sportradar) also pending/docketed.
• The examiner-cited references printed on the face of the '218 patent (via Docket Alarm's Exhibit 1009 reproduction of the patent): Sexton (US 2016/0249108 A1), Silver (US 2017/0034237 A1), Makhlouf (US 2016/0360261 A1), Cardona (US 2016/0037215 A1), Ma et al. (US 2017/0188054 A1), Barbulescu et al. (US 2017/0099516 A1), plus a large block of U.S. patents (8,341,662; 8,549,574; 9,055,271; 9,149,682; 9,516,390; 9,584,858; etc.).

Caveat: I do not have the text of the March 2026 Final Written Decision, so I cannot represent which claims the Board actually held unpatentable. The analysis below is based on the petition grounds and the claim language in the specification, which is the correct evidentiary basis for a § 103 assessment.

---

B. The claimed invention in relevant part

The claims (exemplified by the two "inventive example" systems in the specification, corresponding to independent claim sets) require:

1. A plurality of media sources (300) that receive two broadcasters' live streams of digital content containing live sporting-event video commentary (102A, 102B) and provide copies (202A, 202C) to viewer client devices over separate video Internet communication channels (204A, 204C).
2. A control server (500) that periodically retrieves, via the Internet from an event information provider (55), first/second event information (502A/502B) including score information (504A/504B).
3. At least one socket server (600), coupled to the control server, that receives the score information and transmits it to viewer client devices over a separate event-information Internet communication channel (206A/206C) via an event socket (602A/602B) corresponding to the event.
4. Dependent elements: a web server supplying an EventID/StreamID to clients for socket connection (e.g., via a URL path), separate chat/system-event sockets (604A/604B), and synchronized delivery of event info to all viewers of an event regardless of which broadcaster's stream they watch.

The technical "problem" the patent claims to solve is latency (Twitch ~15 s, Facebook ~10 s, admitted in the specification) and cross-viewer synchronization of event data with the video.

---

C. Primary obviousness combinations (asserted in IPR2024-01310)

The Genius Sports petition is the authoritative demonstration that the claims are obvious over combinations of three publications, all of which are prior art under § 102 (all published 2014–2016, before the earliest priority date of Aug. 5, 2016):

Ground 1 — Claims 12–15 obvious over Ellis in view of Spivey

• Ellis alone discloses the core architecture: a video content source delivering a live stream and a separate supplemental data source (score/stat data) delivered over distinct communication paths — matching the media sources (300) + control server (500) + dual-channel (video channel 204 / event channel 206) structure.
• Ellis's gap: no dedicated low-latency socket server for the data feed. Spivey fills exactly that gap with its MQSD — a WebSocket-based, message-queue server whose "topic queues" are uniquely addressable endpoints per event, functionally identical to the claimed event socket (602A/602B) keyed to an event ID.
• Motivation to combine: Both references share the common goal of reducing latency in real-time data delivery. A POSITA implementing Ellis's supplemental-data path with Spivey's WebSocket MQSD does nothing more than substitute a known, off-the-shelf low-latency transport for a generic one — a textbook "combination of familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results" under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The claimed result (score updates arriving over a dedicated low-latency channel synchronized with video) is the predictable benefit both references independently seek.

Ground 2 — Claims 1–11 obvious over Ellis + Spivey + Herzog

• The Ellis/Spivey combination supplies the media sources, control server, socket server, event sockets, and dual-channel transmission.
• Herzog supplies the "web server" claim element that Ellis/Spivey do not expressly teach: an application server that functions as a web server to manage client requests, provide ancillary communication services, and perform time synchronization to reduce latency between client devices and the back-end architecture.
• Motivation to combine: Herzog's express purpose is solving the same latency/synchronization problem identified in the '218 specification (which itself admits ~10–15 s latencies in Twitch/Facebook). Inserting Herzog's time-synchronizing application server between the client and Spivey's MQSD is an obvious architectural choice: Spivey's framework is described as compatible with web servers, and a POSITA would predictably combine a WebSocket push server (Spivey) with a time-synchronizing front-end server (Herzog) to deliver synchronized, time-stamped metadata — the exact "event information channel" of the claims.

Ground 3 — Claims 1–9 and 12–14 obvious over Herzog in view of Spivey

• Herzog alone discloses delivering multiple video streams plus associated sporting-event metadata over separate communication paths; its "ERP Server" maps to the claimed control server and its "Origin Server" maps to a socket-like server. Herzog's disclosed weakness is its reliance on HTTP polling for metadata, which introduces latency.
• Spivey's MQSD is the known remedy: replacing polling with persistent WebSocket connections/topic queues.
• Motivation to combine: The combination is a direct solution to a problem identified inside Herzog itself (metadata latency). A POSITA reading Herzog would immediately recognize Spivey's MQSD as the standard fix — replacing a polling loop with a persistent low-latency socket is one of the most well-known substitutions in networking, rendering the combination obvious under the "known technique to improve the same device" rationale of KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.

---

D. Alternative combinations from the patent's own cited art

Even without the IPR art, the references cited by the Examiner on the face of the '218 patent support obviousness for the same claim elements:

• Sexton (US 2016/0249108 A1) and Silver (US 2017/0034237 A1) — sports-broadcast systems with live scoring/statistics delivered alongside video; combinable with Makhlouf (US 2016/0360261 A1) or Cardona (US 2016/0037215 A1) for server-side event-data aggregation and push delivery.
• Ma et al. (US 2017/0188054 A1) — supplemental-content delivery over networks, usable for the "separate event-information channel" element.
• Barbulescu et al. (US 2017/0099516 A1) — social/chat features synchronized with live content, covering the chat/system-event sockets (604A/604B).
• A POSITA combining, e.g., Sexton (video + live score data for sporting events) with Ma et al. (separate supplemental channel) and Barbulescu (synchronized chat) would arrive at the full claimed system; each reference addresses the same identified problem (synchronized delivery of live event data to viewers), giving the requisite motivation.

---

E. Why a POSITA would have been motivated to combine (general rationale)

1. Same recognized problem: Every reference in the primary combinations (Ellis, Herzog, Spivey) and the patent's own background art addresses latency/synchronization of real-time data with streaming video. The '218 specification admits the prior-art latency problem (Twitch ~15 s; Facebook ~10 s) — i.e., the problem was known and the claimed solution is the predictable union of known components.
2. Known, compatible components: WebSocket socket servers (Spivey), application/web servers (Herzog), event-data providers (Ellis, Sexton, Silver) were all standard, interoperable networking components by 2014–2016. Combining them required no new hardware or protocol invention.
3. Predictable result: The claimed "event information Internet communication channel" over a dedicated socket, separate from the video channel, is the conventional client-server architecture (socket servers + web servers + media servers) applied to sports data — an "obvious to try" scenario with a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421).
4. Secondary considerations risk: The specification's touted benefits (low latency, "viewer segment concurrency," socket-based event sync) are all attributes a POSITA would expect from the WebSocket + CDN + HLS architecture already present in the prior art; nothing in the record indicates unexpected results or long-felt unmet need beyond what Ellis/Herzog/Spivey already addressed.

---

F. Conclusions

• The most defensible § 103 case is Ground 2 (Ellis + Spivey + Herzog) against claims 1–11, because each claimed structural element (media sources, control server, socket server, web server, event sockets, separate channels) maps to an express teaching in at least one of the three references, with documented motivations to combine at each step.
• Grounds 1 and 3 (Ellis + Spivey; Herzog + Spivey) cover the remaining claim sets (12–15 and 1–9/12–14) with the same substitution rationale.
• The institution and Final Written Decision in IPR2024-01310 (issued Mar. 13, 2026) confirm the Board found the petition's grounds sufficiently strong to proceed to a merits decision on all challenged claims 1–15; the not-instituted Sportradar petitions (IPR2025-00273/00275) do not undermine the obviousness case — they were rejected on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the art.

If you can provide the text of the March 2026 Final Written Decision (or the specific claim language of claims 1–15), I can refine this analysis to state precisely which claim limitations the Board found disclosed/motivated and whether any dependent limitations (e.g., the EventID/StreamID URL-path mechanism) survived as non-obvious.

I'll research the specific patent record for 11039218, focusing on term adjustments, family members, and expiration. Note: your task states the current date is April 26, 2026, while the session header reads 2026-09-29 — I'll flag where that matters (several docket events in the pre-loaded sections postdate April 26, 2026).

Let me pull the patent's own front-page data (Related U.S. Application Data and any PTA line) and identify any children of the '218.

Scope, identification, and a date caveat

Identifier handling (strict rule applied). I interpreted the search string "11039218" literally and did not substitute any near-number. It resolves to exactly one record:

• US 11,039,218 B1 — "Systems, apparatus and methods for rendering digital content relating to a sporting event with online gaming information"
• Application 17/141,631, filed 2021-01-05, granted 2021-06-15
• Assignee: Sportscastr.Live LLC → Sportscastr, Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)

Dates such as 11,039,213 / 11,039,218 / 11,039,281 were not merged; only 11,039,218 appears below.

⚠️ Date conflict to flag. Your task states the current date is April 26, 2026, but the session header reads 2026-09-29, and the previously generated sections rely on docket events that postdate April 26, 2026 (e.g., a CAFC notice of appeal of 2026-05-06 in IPR2024-01311, docket 26-1803). Those events are after your stated "current date." I treat them as reported-by-source and flag the inconsistency rather than silently reconciling it.

⚠️ Sourcing limitation. I could not directly query USPTO Patent Center or the PTAB/PTA databases in this session (I exhausted the search budget). The front-page bibliographic data below is taken from the full text of the printed patent as reproduced in PTAB Exhibit 1009 (Sportradar AG v. SportsCastr Inc., IPR2025-00269, filed 2024-12-11) — i.e., a USPTO-record document — plus the Google Patents legal-events record supplied in the prompt. The PTA figure is derived by arithmetic, not read off an authoritative PTA line; I say so explicitly below.

---

1. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

Conclusion: PTA = 0 days (no adjustment), on the record available to me.

Reasoning and evidence:

1. Pendency of the '218 application is only 161 days. Application 17/141,631 was filed 2021-01-05 and the patent issued 2021-06-15. None of the three statutory PTA clocks can accrue in that window:
   • § 154(b)(1)(A) (14-month first-action / 4-month issue-after-fee-fee, etc.) — not triggered;
   • § 154(b)(1)(B) (three-year pendency) — not triggered (161 days ≪ 3 years);
   • § 154(b)(1)(C) (appeal/interference/secrecy) — none occurred.
     So the PTA calculation is trivially zero. This is a continuation, so there is no "carry-over" of the parent's PTA — PTA is computed per application from its own § 111(a) filing date.
2. The arithmetic corroborates it. The patent's "Anticipated expiration" is recorded as 2037-08-07, which is exactly 20 years after the earliest § 120/§ 365(c) referenced filing (PCT/US2017/045801, filed 2017-08-07) — see § 4 below. A zero-PTA patent and an exactly-20-years date are consistent.
3. The IPR record quotes a first-action allowance. The Genius/Sportradar petitions state the Examiner "summarily allowed all claims to issue in a first-action allowance" for the '218 — again consistent with a 5-month pendency and no PTA accrual.

Caveats (do not over-cite):

• I did not retrieve the printed patent's (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by ___ days. line. If PTA were anything other than zero, that line would appear. Its absence from the Exhibit 1009 OCR excerpt is weak corroboration but not proof.
• Do not plead "0 days PTA" as a verified fact without reading the front-page Notice line on the patent PDF or Patent Center → "Patent Term Adjustment" tab. That is the single item to confirm.

---

2. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

Conclusion: not applicable; none on record.

PTE under § 156 extends term only for patents claiming a product, method of using a product, or method of manufacturing a product subject to regulatory review by the FDA (drug/device/biologic). The '218 claims a networked live-streaming / socket-based event-data architecture — no FDA-regulated product — so § 156 is categorically inapplicable. I found no PTE application, certificate, or extension associated with 11,039,218, and none would be legally available.

I flag this because PTA (§ 154(b)) and PTE (§ 156) are frequently conflated; a § 156 PTE would be recorded as a certificate and would change the expiration date, whereas a § 154(b) PTA is printed on the patent face. Neither adds term here.

---

3. Continuation applications

3a. Ancestors — the '218 is the third continuation in the chain

The patent's Related U.S. Application Data (Ex. 1009) states verbatim:

• Application 17/141,631 (the '218), filed 2021-01-05, is a continuation of
• Application 16/580,552, filed 2019-09-24, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,805,687 ("the '687"), which is a continuation of
• Application 16/267,887, filed 2019-02-05, now U.S. Pat. No. 10,425,697 ("the '697"), which is a continuation of
• Application PCT/US2017/045801, filed 2017-08-07.

Provisional priority (also on the '218 face):

Note the August 5, 2016 priority date cited everywhere in the prior-art and PTAB sections is the earliest provisional (62/371,558). Critically for term: provisionals do not start the 20-year clock (§ 154(a)(2) counts only § 120/121/365(c)/386(c) applications). The clock starts with the PCT filing (2017-08-07).

3b. Descendants — no child of the '218 confirmed

I found no continuation, continuation-in-part, or divisional naming 17/141,631 as parent in the sources retrieved. In particular:

• US 11,871,088 ("the '088") is related-party family art asserted alongside the '218 in E.D. Tex., but the Genius invalidity contentions state the '088 claims priority to May 16, 2017 / Provisional 62/507,158 — a different priority chain from the '218's 2016-08-05 chain. On the record I have, the '088 is not established as a continuation of the '218. Do not assert it is without checking the '088's own front page.
• Pre-grant publication US 2021/0160584 A1 (published 2021-05-27) is the '218's own A1 publication, not a separate family member.

---

4. Divisional applications

Conclusion: none identified. Every benefit claim on the '218 face is a straight "continuation of" reference (not a "divisional of" / § 121 reference). Continuations and divisionals are different conveyances with different effects (divisionals trigger the § 121 safe-harbor against ODP; continuations do not), and only continuations are recited here. I found no application claiming benefit under § 121 from any member of this chain.

Caveat: a divisional would appear as a separate application/patent in the family listing rather than on the '218's own face, so a full family-member sweep (PATENTSCOPE/Espacenet "Also published as") is required to rule one out conclusively. Espacenet's INPADOC/Global Dossier view for the '218 is the right tool.

---

5. Related family members — consolidated table

Family IPR cross-reference (confirms siblings): the consolidated PTAB hearing transcript (IPR2024-01305, Jan. 7, 2026) lists the family as IPR2024-01305/-01307 (10,805,687 B2); IPR2024-01308/-01309 (10,425,697 B2); IPR2024-01310/-01311 (11,039,218 B1), and the Genius invalidity contentions add IPR2025-00251 (11,871,088).

⚠️ Cross-check against the prior-art section. That section flagged the front-page OCR mapping as unreliable. The Exhibit 1009 excerpt I retrieved now resolves the application-publication block cleanly: 2016/0037215 (Cardona), 2016/0249108 (Sexton), 2016/0360261 (Makhlouf), 2017/0034237 (Silver), 2017/0099516 (Barbulescu et al.), 2017/0188054 (Ma et al.), 2020/0162796 (Azuolas et al.). This corroborates Barbulescu and Ma as being on the '218's face — which the prior-art section had marked "unverified." Flagging the correction: those two are corroborated by Ex. 1009, so the earlier "unconfirmed" label can be lifted for them. Conversely, the OCR I have still does not cleanly map the U.S. patent-number block (8,341,662 etc.) to inventors/dates, so that portion of the earlier section remains qualified.

---

6. Projected expiration date

Statutory 20-year date: 2037-08-07 (2037-08-07 = 20 years from PCT/US2017/045801, filed 2017-08-07, the earliest § 120/§ 365(c) application).

Google Patents "Anticipated expiration": 2037-08-07 — consistent with a zero-day PTA.

Projected expiration, therefore: August 7, 2037, assuming (a) zero PTA is confirmed, (b) no terminal disclaimer shortens it, and (c) all maintenance fees are paid.

Maintenance-fee checkpoints (anchored to the 2021-06-15 issue date; windows run 3.5/7.5/11.5 years from grant):

• 3.5-year fee window: opens 2024-12-15, closes with surcharge 2025-06-15
• 7.5-year fee window: opens 2028-12-15
• 11.5-year fee window: opens 2032-12-15

Failure to pay any one window causes expiration as of the 4-year / 8-year / 12-year anniversary of grant — i.e., the enforceable term can end long before 2037-08-07. I could not verify payment status in this session.

Terminal-disclaimer caveat. Because the '218 is the last continuation in a chain all measured from the same 2017-08-07 date, a terminal disclaimer would not change its expiration date (all chain members expire together). But if a TD were filed tying the '218 to a differently dated related patent (e.g., the '088, whose chain runs to 2017-05-16), it could. I found no TD on the '218 face, but I could not run a full ODP/TD check.

---

7. The overlay that actually governs value: PTAB outcome

Expiration date is a statutory figure only if the claims survive. On the record already generated for this patent:

• IPR2024-01311 (claims 16–30) — Final Written Decision 2026-03-13, docket title: "Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable." Appeal reported (CAFC 26-1803).
• IPR2024-01310 (claims 1–15) — Final Written Decision 2026-03-13; Patent Owner's Request for Director Review (2026-04-02) pending; claim-level verdict not confirmed in the sources I retrieved.
• IPR2025-00273 / -00275 (Sportradar) — not instituted, 2025-06-25.

So the calendar expiration of 2037-08-07 is the wrong number to rely on if all 30 claims are canceled. Cancellation of all claims via certificate would leave the patent unenforceable long before 2037 irrespective of PTA/PTE. Any analysis that reports "expires 2037-08-07" without this overlay is materially incomplete.

---

8. What I could not verify (do not cite without pulling the source)

1. The printed PTA Notice line on the '218 front page — verify at Patent Center → patent 11,039,218 → "Patent Term Adjustment." My zero-PTA conclusion is a logical inference from a 161-day pendency, not a read-off figure.
2. Any terminal disclaimer on the '218 (or on the '697/'687 that would propagate).
3. Maintenance-fee payment status.
4. Children of 17/141,631 — none found, but a full family listing (Espacenet/PATENTSCOPE "Also published as," or USPTO Patent Center "Continuity Data") should be swept to rule out a continuing application.
5. Existence of any divisional anywhere in the chain (§ 121) — none found on the '218 face.
6. The '088's exact relationship to the '218 — separately prioritized (2017-05-16) and therefore likely a different chain, but unconfirmed.

---

Verification links

• Patent record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11039218B1](/patent/US11039218B1)/en
• Front page / Related U.S. Application Data (USPTO document as reproduced): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2025-00269/Sportradar_AG/12-11-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1009-US_Patent_11039218/
• USPTO Patent Center (authoritative PTA, TD, fee status, continuity): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search 11039218)
• PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/
• Family/global dossier (INPADOC, "also published as"): https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=US11039218

One-line answer: US 11,039,218 is the third straight continuation in a chain running to PCT/US2017/045801 (filed 2017-08-07); I found no divisional and no confirmed child application; there is no PTE (not FDA-eligible) and, by inference from a 161-day pendency, PTA = 0 days, giving a projected statutory expiration of 2037-08-07 — but confirm the PTA Notice line at Patent Center, and note that the PTAB's 2026-03-13 Final Written Decisions mean the practical end of the patent may come from claim cancellation well before that date.