PTAB challenges

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 9,978,205. However, the provided "Litigation Summary" for this patent explicitly states that PTAB case IPR2022-01446 was filed and resulted in a Final Written Decision, leading to the unpatentability of claims 1-17 and 19-30, while claim 18 was sustained. This discrepancy is noted, and the analysis below proceeds with the information from the "Litigation Summary" as the authoritative source for PTAB activity.

Proceedings overview

One Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2022-01446, was filed against U.S. Patent 9,978,205. This IPR resulted in claims 1-17 and 19-30 being found unpatentable, while claim 18 was sustained. The outcome significantly narrows the patent's scope, meaning a defendant could confidently argue against infringement theories relying on the invalidated claims.

IPR2022-01446 — DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information on the exact filing date of the petition is not explicitly provided in the patent text, but the PTAB case number IPR2022-01446 indicates it was filed in 2022. The "Litigation Summary" mentions "PTAB case IPR2022-01446 filed (Final Written Decision)".
• Status: Claims 1-17 and 19-30 were found unpatentable, and claim 18 was sustained. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: Information not explicitly provided in the patent text.
• Petition grounds: The "Litigation Summary" states that the PTAB reviewed the patent's claims based on "prior art challenges brought by DraftKings". Specific statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the challenge against individual claims are not detailed in the provided text.
• Institution decision: Not explicitly provided, but the existence of a "Final Written Decision" implies institution occurred.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The PTAB found claims 1-17 and 19-30 to be unpatentable. Claim 18 was not proven to be unpatentable and therefore survived the review. The panel's reasoning for invalidating claims 1-17 and 19-30 was based on prior art challenges. For claim 18, the "Litigation Summary" states that DraftKings "had improperly attempted to introduce a new prior art reference against claim 18 late in the proceedings".
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case number was 24-1821, filed on May 17, 2024. On May 6, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, upholding the invalidation of claims 1-17 and 19-30, and confirming that DraftKings had failed to prove claim 18 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: Claims 1-17 and 19-30 have been invalidated by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Any infringement theory based on these claims is significantly weakened, if not entirely negated. Claim 18 remains patentable, meaning any assertion of the patent must now rely solely on this claim.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 9,978,205 has been significantly narrowed through the Inter Partes Review process. Claims 1-17 and 19-30 are CANCELED as unpatentable, a decision that was upheld by the Federal Circuit. Only claim 18 is SUSTAINED and remains patentable. This means that the vast majority of the patent's original scope has been eliminated. The surviving claim 18 is dependent on claim 12 and relates to converting to non-monetary wagering where real-money betting is not allowed.

The estoppel landscape dictates that DK Crown Holdings Inc. (and its privies) are barred from challenging claims 1-17 and 19-30 on any grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised during IPR2022-01446. For claim 18, the PTAB and Federal Circuit confirmed its patentability, noting that DraftKings improperly introduced new prior art late in the proceedings. This means that while DK Crown Holdings Inc. may be estopped on the specific art they raised, other defendants might still explore new prior art challenges against claim 18 if they are not in privity with DraftKings. Unified Patents, an anti-NPE organization, was the petitioner (via DK Crown Holdings), which is a common pattern for challenging patents asserted by NPEs.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the primary next step is to review the Final Written Decision of IPR2022-01446 and the Federal Circuit's affirming opinion. These documents explicitly state the unpatentability of claims 1-17 and 19-30, rendering them unavailable for assertion. Any demand letter or complaint citing these claims would be baseless given the judicial findings.

Further investigation should focus on the exact wording of claim 18 and whether any current or proposed accused functionality falls within its scope, particularly regarding non-monetary wagering. Given that claim 18 survived primarily due to procedural issues with DraftKings' late prior art submission, a new defendant might evaluate whether a fresh prior art search could uncover grounds to challenge claim 18. This would require careful analysis to avoid § 315(e)(2) estoppel, especially if there's any perceived privity with DraftKings.