US 11451883

US Patent 11451883, titled "Method of and system for managing client resources and assets for activities on computing devices," was issued on September 20, 2022. The current assignee is Winview IP Holdings LLC, with the original assignee being Winview Inc. The inventors are Tim Huske, Mark J. Micheli, Mark K. Berner, Matt Ford, and David B. Lockton. The filing date for this patent application (US16/893,180) was June 4, 2020.

Abstract:
The patent describes a method and system for a distributed entertainment system on a computing device, particularly for activities correlated with live or televised events. It addresses challenges such as differing program timings, channels, state laws, and varying computing device models requiring specific software. The invention introduces an "Activity Client" to manage these concerns and enhance efficiency by delivering only necessary components, rather than entire data packages, to users' computing devices, thereby ensuring timely preparation for events.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1 (Method of implementing a consumer service on a mobile Internet-connected computing device): This claim outlines a method where a mobile Internet-connected computing device loads service-related information to an activity client, selects an option, downloads service-specific information, and executes an application. Crucially, it involves receiving a list of assets needed for the application, comparing this list with existing assets on the device, and then receiving only the assets that are missing.

• Claim 20 (Method of implementing a consumer service with a server): This claim describes a server-side method. The server transmits service-related information to an application, receives a selection, transmits selection-related information, and then receives additional information based on the user's application execution. The server then transmits a list of necessary assets and only sends the assets that are not already present on the mobile Internet-connected computing device.

• Claim 41 (Server device): This claim describes a server device configured with a memory and a processor to perform the method steps outlined in Claim 20, specifically transmitting and receiving information and assets, and only transmitting missing assets to a mobile Internet-connected computing device.

• Claim 62 (Device): This claim details a device (mobile Internet-connected computing device) comprising a memory and a processor. The device is configured to load service information, select an option, download service-specific information, execute an application, receive a list of necessary assets, compare them with resident assets, and only receive the missing assets.

• Claim 81 (Method of implementing a consumer service with a server, focused on asset transmission): This claim describes a server-side method involving transmitting service-related information to an application on a mobile Internet-connected computing device, receiving execution-based information, transmitting a list of necessary assets, and then transmitting only the assets from that list that are not already resident on the mobile Internet-connected computing device.

• Claim 102 (Server device, focused on asset transmission): This claim describes a server device with memory and a processor configured to execute the method steps of Claim 81, particularly transmitting service-related information, receiving execution data, transmitting a list of necessary assets, and then transmitting only the missing assets to the mobile Internet-connected computing device.

• Claim 123 (Mobile Internet-connected computing device, focused on asset reception): This claim describes a mobile Internet-connected computing device with memory and a processor. The device is configured to load service information, execute an application, receive a list of necessary assets, compare them with its own assets, and receive only the assets that are not already resident on the device.

Litigation Information:
As of April 26, 2026, US Patent 11451883 is actively involved in litigation. Cases have been filed in the New Jersey District Court under case numbers 3:25-cv-01143 and 3:25-cv-01146. Additionally, a PTAB case, IPR2026-00140, was filed and is currently pending. The patent is also noted to have its first worldwide family litigation filed.
An anticipated expiration date for the patent is June 20, 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 11451883 includes the following cases:

1. Plaintiff(s): WinView IP Holdings, LLC
   Defendant(s): DraftKings
   Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   Case Number: 3:25-cv-01143
   Filing Date: February 10, 2025
   Outcome or Current Status: Active/Pending litigation for patent infringement.

2. Plaintiff(s): WinView IP Holdings, LLC
   Defendant(s): FanDuel, Inc., FanDuel Group, Inc., and FanDuel Group Parent LLC
   Jurisdiction: New Jersey District Court
   Case Number: 3:25-cv-01146
   Filing Date: February 10, 2025
   Outcome or Current Status: Active/Pending litigation for patent infringement.

3. Case Number: IPR2026-00140
   Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the search results, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2026.
   Petitioner(s): Not explicitly named in the provided information.
   Outcome or Current Status: Pending.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 11451883. This proceeding, IPR2026-00140, is currently pending. As no claims have been invalidated or sustained, the patent's defensive posture remains untested by an AIA trial decision.

IPR2026-00140 — DraftKings Inc. et al. v. Winview IP Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-01-16
• Status: Pending – The proceeding is ongoing and has not yet reached a final decision.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available at this stage.
• Petition grounds: Information regarding specific claims, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the petition is not yet publicly available through general search results at this pending stage.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. The statutory deadline for an institution decision is typically six months from the filing date of the petition (around July 16, 2026).
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled or terminated.
• Appeal: No appeal has been filed as no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: This IPR is in its early stages. Until an institution decision is rendered, and potentially a Final Written Decision, it does not currently impact the patent's validity. If the IPR is instituted, it indicates the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, which could pose a risk to the patent owner.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US patent 11451883 remain untested by a Final Written Decision from an AIA trial. The single pending IPR, IPR2026-00140, was filed by DraftKings Inc. et al. on January 16, 2026. As of today, May 28, 2026, the Board has not yet issued a decision on institution. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained, and the specific claims challenged and the prior art asserted are not yet widely public or confirmed by an institution decision.

The estoppel landscape is not yet established for US11451883, as there has been no Final Written Decision. Should IPR2026-00140 proceed to a Final Written Decision, the petitioner (DraftKings Inc. et al.) and its privies would be estopped from raising grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised in a future proceeding, per 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Currently, all prior-art grounds are technically still available to other potential challengers. The filing by DraftKings Inc. et al. suggests that at least one entity is actively challenging the patent. Unified Patents is listed as a source of PTAB data, indicating their potential involvement in monitoring or providing information related to this case, but not necessarily as a petitioner.

Recommended next steps

• Monitor the USPTO PTAB E2E system for IPR2026-00140. The critical next milestone will be the institution decision, which is expected by approximately July 16, 2026. This decision will reveal which claims, if any, the PTAB believes warrant a full review.
• If you are a defendant, understanding the specific claims and prior art challenged in IPR2026-00140 once the institution decision is public will be crucial for assessing the patent's strength and potential impact on any ongoing or future assertions.
• Given that an IPR has been filed, it signals that this patent is likely being asserted or is considered a threat, leading to defensive action by DraftKings Inc. et al. This suggests that the patent is not merely dormant.

Inventors

• Tim Huske
• Mark J. Micheli
• Mark K. Berner
• Matt Ford
• David B. Lockton

No employer at the time of filing is readily determinable from the patent text. The inventors do not appear to have all departed the original assignee within 12 months of filing, as the original assignee is Winview Inc, and the inventors are listed in the original patent document.

Original assignee

Winview Inc. The patent text describes the "entertainment service operator" and "company's internet site" in a manner that suggests Winview Inc. was an operating company at some point, offering an interactive entertainment service (games, polls, surveys) correlated to live events or televised programs on various computing devices including cell phones. Their primary line of business was related to distributed entertainment systems and interactive gaming. Their current status is "Original Assignee: Winview Inc" according to Google Patents, but a later assignment indicates a change to "Winview IP Holdings LLC."

Assignment timeline

• 2020-06-04 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-04

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BERNER, MARK K., FORD, MATT, HUSKE, TIM, MICHELI, MARK J., LOCKTON, DAVID B.
  • Assignee: AIRPLAY NETWORK, INC.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. RUSH, BRENT E. RUSH, P.C.
  • Context: Transfer of inventors' interest to a new entity.

• 2020-06-04 (executed) / recorded 2020-06-04

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: AIRPLAY NETWORK, INC.
  • Assignee: WINVIEW, INC.
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. RUSH, BRENT E. RUSH, P.C. - This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from Airplay Network to Winview, Inc.

• 2023-10-02 (executed) / recorded 2023-10-02

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: WINVIEW, INC.
  • Assignee: WINVIEW IP HOLDINGS, LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT E. RUSH, BRENT E. RUSH, P.C. - This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer from an operating company to an IP holding company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11451883
    2005 : Priority date
    2020 : Inventors assign to Airplay Network
         : Airplay Network assigns to Winview Inc
    2022 : Patent granted
    2023 : Winview Inc assigns to Winview IP Holdings LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The transfer from "WINVIEW, INC." to "WINVIEW IP HOLDINGS, LLC" on 2023-10-02 (recorded 2023-10-02) suggests a shell entity transfer. The "IP Holdings" suffix in the assignee's name is a strong indicator.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. Winview IP Holdings LLC is not explicitly listed on common public NPE lists such as those maintained by Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, or Intellectual Ventures within the provided data. However, Google Patents indicates "Family has litigation" and points to a PTAB case IPR2026-00140 filed, which is a common occurrence with NPEs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. BRENT E. RUSH, BRENT E. RUSH, P.C. appears as the correspondent for multiple assignments: the transfer from Airplay Network, INC. to WINVIEW, INC. (2020-06-04, recorded 2020-06-04) and the transfer from WINVIEW, INC. to WINVIEW IP HOLDINGS, LLC (2023-10-02, recorded 2023-10-02).
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are three transfers, but only two occurred in close succession (Airplay Network to Winview Inc on 2020-06-04), followed by a gap of over three years before the next transfer to Winview IP Holdings LLC.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there's a PTAB case IPR2026-00140 listed as "filed (Pending)" on Google Patents, the exact date of the first infringement suit is not provided, making it impossible to determine if the 2023-10-02 assignment occurred within 6 months prior.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for the original assignee, Winview Inc.
7. Privateering — unclear. No information is provided in the patent text or Google Patents legal events to confirm or deny privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. The transfer from "WINVIEW, INC." to "WINVIEW IP HOLDINGS, LLC" on 2023-10-02, coupled with the repeated use of the same correspondent, BRENT E. RUSH, BRENT E. RUSH, P.C., across multiple assignments, are strong indicators of an NPE pattern. While explicit listing on an NPE database is not present in the provided information, the existence of an "IP Holdings" entity and associated litigation strongly suggest an assertion-focused strategy.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art for US patent 11451883, based on the provided patent text and focusing on documents that predate its earliest priority date of June 20, 2005.

The earliest priority date for US11451883 is June 20, 2005, claimed from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/692,356. Therefore, any prior art must have an effective date before June 20, 2005, and not be part of the direct priority chain of US11451883.

The provided patent text references the following as related or foundational:

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda et al.

• Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda et al.
• Publication/Filing Date: The provided text indicates this patent had "expiration" prior to the current invention, enabling new uses. The specific publication or filing date is not explicitly stated in the provided text. However, its mention as an expired patent enabling new technology indicates it predates US11451883's priority date.
• Brief Description: This patent broadly relates to systems that utilize a multicast network with cell phones and other mobile communication devices to enable television viewers to participate in games of skill, such as predicting aspects of a live event (e.g., a football play).
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): While Fascenda et al. establishes a foundational concept of interactive entertainment linked to television events via mobile devices, it likely does not anticipate the specific features claimed in US11451883. The key differentiating elements of US11451883, as found in its independent claims (e.g., claims 1, 20, 41, 62, 81, 102, and 123), include the detailed methodology for managing client resources and assets. Specifically, these claims involve:
  • Receiving a list of assets necessary for executing an application.
  • Comparing this list with a first set of assets already resident on the computing device.
  • Receiving only a second set of assets that are not already resident on the device.
  • Further refining this by prioritizing the second set of assets (e.g., into necessary and preferred assets).
    These granular asset management and differential downloading techniques are central to US11451883's invention and are not evident in the high-level description of Fascenda et al. as provided in the background of US11451883.

2. U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/588,273 (and its non-provisional U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/166,596)

• Full Citation: U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/588,273. The non-provisional application derived from this provisional is U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/166,596.
• Publication/Filing Date:
  • Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/588,273: Filed July 14, 2004. This date predates the earliest priority date of US11451883 (June 20, 2005).
  • Non-provisional Application Ser. No. 11/166,596: Filed June 24, 2005. While its filing date is after US11451883's priority, it claims priority from the July 14, 2004 provisional, making the content of the provisional effective prior art as of that earlier date.
• Brief Description:
  • Provisional 60/588,273 is entitled "A METHODOLOGY FOR PROVIDING ALL CONTESTANTS IN GAMES OF SKILL PLAYABLE ON CELL PHONES WITH THEIR CURRENT STANDING WHILE RECEIVING GAME CONTROL INFORMATION ONE-WAY VIA A ‘BROADCAST’ TRANSMISSION."
  • Non-provisional 11/166,596 is entitled "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DISTRIBUTED GAMING OVER A MOBILE DEVICE."
    Together, these describe systems for distributed games of skill played on cell phones, involving the reception of game control information (potentially via one-way broadcast) and providing participant standings.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): These applications are highly relevant as they explicitly disclose "distributed gaming over a mobile device" and "games of skill playable on cell phones," aligning with the core application area of US11451883. The mention of "receiving game control information" suggests the transfer of data necessary for the game. However, similar to the analysis for Fascenda et al., the provided descriptions do not clearly articulate the specific asset management methodology found in US11451883's independent claims.
  The key differentiating elements of US11451883, such as receiving a list of assets, comparing it with resident assets, and only receiving the missing second set of assets (claims 1, 20, 41, 62, 81, 102, 123), particularly for optimizing memory and transmission efficiency, are not explicitly described in the titles or brief descriptions of 60/588,273 or 11/166,596. Furthermore, the emphasis on "one-way via a 'broadcast' transmission" in the provisional's title suggests a different interaction model compared to the client-server request-and-response model for asset delivery in US11451883. The prioritization of assets (e.g., necessary vs. preferred assets) for efficient memory utilization, as detailed in US11451883 (e.g., claims 3, 4, 24, 25, 45, 46, 64, 65, 85, 86, 106, 107, 125, 126), further distinguishes US11451883 from these prior art references based solely on their provided descriptions.

3. U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/298,901

• Full Citation: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/298,901.
• Publication/Filing Date: Filed December 9, 2005.
• Brief Description: Entitled "A GAME OF SKILL PLAYED BY REMOTE PARTICIPANTS UTILIZING WIRELESS DEVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON GAME EVENT."
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): The filing date of this application (December 9, 2005) is after the earliest priority date of US11451883 (June 20, 2005). Unless this application claims an earlier priority date that precedes June 20, 2005 (which is not indicated in the provided text), it would not constitute anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the claims of US11451883 that are supported by the June 20, 2005 priority date. Therefore, it is generally not considered relevant anticipatory prior art in this context.

To analyze the obviousness of US patent 11451883 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we identify combinations of prior art references and the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have to combine them. The analysis is based on information provided within the patent document itself, particularly the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section and explicit prior art mentioned. The priority date for US11451883 is June 20, 2005.

Identified Prior Art

1. U.S. Pat. No. 4,592,546 to Fascenda et al.: The patent's "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" section explicitly mentions Fascenda et al., stating that its expiration enabled companies to "use the cell phone and other mobile communication devices utilizing a multicast network to control television viewers in games of skill based upon predicting, for example, what the quarterback may call on the next play." This establishes that systems for interactive games synchronized with television programming on mobile devices were known in the art.
2. General knowledge in the art (as described in the "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" of US11451883): The patent itself outlines several existing challenges and limitations in distributed entertainment systems involving mobile devices prior to the invention:
   • The "ability to play games and enjoy other activities corresponding to current events on cell phones exists."
   • Network Congestion/Overload: "Cellular networks and other networks are only able to handle a limited amount of traffic, so when millions of participants utilize the network at the same time for a regularly scheduled event, there are concerns of the network being overloaded and bogged down to a point where users do not receive necessary data in a timely manner."
   • Limited Mobile Device Memory: "cell phones and other computing devices have their own limitations as well. Although cell phone memory is increasing... cell phones still have a limited amount of memory. Moreover, many users still have somewhat older cell phones that have less memory than current models."
   • Download Latency: "Cell phone users are also sensitive to the time it takes to download the necessary data to play games or enjoy activities."
   • Device Fragmentation: "multiple cell phone service providers and a plethora of cell phone models using slightly different protocols. ... Therefore, slightly different software is likely required for each separate make and model of a user's device."
   • Server Resource Limitations: "Servers of the entertainment provider also have limited resources yet must be able to ensure the potentially millions of simultaneous users have the necessary and proper software resident on their cell phones."

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 1

Claim 1 of US11451883 describes a method of implementing a consumer service on a mobile Internet-connected computing device, including loading service-related information, selecting an option, downloading service-specific information, executing an application, receiving a list of necessary assets, comparing this list with existing assets on the device, and receiving only the assets not already resident.

A combination of Fascenda et al. (or the general state of the art it enabled) and the widely recognized challenges in mobile and distributed computing (as outlined in the patent's own background) would render Claim 1 obvious to a PHOSITA.

Reasoning for Obviousness:

1. Basic Interactive Mobile Entertainment System (Fascenda et al. / Known Art): The "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" confirms that the fundamental concept of delivering interactive entertainment (e.g., games of skill) to mobile devices synchronized with live events was known. This provides the basic framework of a "consumer service on a mobile Internet-connected computing device" where users could "select an option" and "execute an application" related to it. The general acts of loading information from a server to a client ("activity client" being a "program for managing activity information and data") and downloading application-specific data were also standard practices in client-server architectures.

2. Motivation to Improve Efficiency (Problems from Background Art): The patent's "BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION" explicitly details a series of well-known technical problems inherent in such interactive mobile entertainment systems at the time of the invention. These problems include:

   • Resource Constraints: The significant limitations of memory on mobile devices and the sensitivity of users to download times.
   • Network Bottlenecks: The potential for cellular networks and servers to be "overloaded and bogged down" when handling "millions of participants" for scheduled events.
   • Device Heterogeneity: The need to support a "plethora of cell phone models using slightly different protocols" and the resulting complexity of managing "slightly different software" for each.

   A PHOSITA, faced with these clear and acknowledged problems in the context of interactive mobile entertainment, would be strongly motivated to seek solutions for efficient resource management and data delivery. The goal would be to reduce network traffic, minimize download times, and conserve scarce device memory, thereby improving the user experience and system scalability.

3. Obvious Solution (Combining Known Techniques): The solution presented in Claim 1—"receiving a list of assets necessary... comparing the list of assets with a first set of assets on the mobile Internet-connected computing device; and receiving only a second set of assets within the list of assets that are not already resident on the mobile Internet-connected computing device"—is a well-known and straightforward engineering technique in distributed software deployment and content delivery. This approach, often referred to as differential updating or lazy loading, was a conventional method to optimize software updates and content distribution to resource-constrained client devices. By only transmitting missing components, it directly addresses the problems of limited memory, download latency, and network congestion articulated in the background. The patent itself highlights this benefit: "By providing only the needed components instead of entire data packages, the present invention is able to much more efficiently prepare users' computing devices in time."

Therefore, a PHOSITA combining the basic interactive mobile entertainment systems (as taught by Fascenda et al. and acknowledged as existing in the background) with the common knowledge of efficient data management techniques (such as differential downloads based on asset manifests), motivated by the explicit problems of memory, bandwidth, and latency identified in the patent's own background, would find the method of Claim 1 obvious. The act of generating a list of required assets (a "manifest"), comparing it to locally resident assets, and only downloading the delta, represents a predictable application of known engineering principles to solve identified problems in a known field.

A patent term is generally 20 years from the earliest filing date of the application on which the patent was granted. However, this term can be adjusted or extended under specific circumstances.

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) can extend a patent's term to compensate for delays caused by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during the prosecution of a utility or plant patent application. These delays can include:

• Failure to issue a first Office Action or notice of allowance within 14 months of filing.
• Failure to issue an action within four months of an applicant's response.
• Failure to issue the patent within three years of the actual filing date of the application.
• Failure to issue the patent within four months of payment of the issue fee.
• Delays caused by interference proceedings, secrecy orders, and successful appeals.

Any PTA granted can be reduced if delays are caused by the applicant's actions, such as taking more than three months to reply to a USPTO notice or action.

To determine the exact PTA for US11451883, an in-depth review of the patent's prosecution history (file wrapper) would be necessary. This information is typically available through the USPTO's Patent Center or Public Search tools. Without direct access to the file wrapper or a specific PTA calculation from the USPTO, the exact PTA amount for US11451883 cannot be precisely stated.

Patent Term Extensions (PTE)

Patent Term Extensions (PTEs) are primarily relevant for patents covering pharmaceutical products, medical devices, animal drugs, veterinary biologics, and food/color additives that undergo regulatory review by the FDA. PTE compensates patent owners for the time lost during this regulatory approval process, providing up to five years of additional patent protection.

Since US11451883, "Method of and system for managing client resources and assets for activities on computing devices," does not appear to cover a product subject to FDA regulatory review, it is highly unlikely to be eligible for a Patent Term Extension (PTE).

Continuation and Divisional Applications

The patent text explicitly states: "This Patent Application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/216,885, filed Dec. 11, 2018, entitled METHOD OF AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CLIENT RESOURCES AND ASSETS FOR ACTIVITIES ON COMPUTING DEVICES which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/997,352, filed on Jan. 15, 2016, entitled METHOD OF AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CLIENT RESOURCES AND ASSETS FOR ACTIVITIES ON COMPUTING DEVICES which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/260,480, filed on Apr. 24, 2014, entitled METHOD OF AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CLIENT RESOURCES AND ASSETS FOR ACTIVITIES ON COMPUTING DEVICES which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/472,241, filed on Jun. 20, 2006, entitled METHOD OF AND SYSTEM FOR MANAGING CLIENT RESOURCES AND ASSETS FOR ACTIVITIES ON COMPUTING DEVICES, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,694, which claims priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) of the co-owned U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/692,356, filed Jun. 20, 2005, and entitled SYSTEMS AND METHODOLOGIES ENABLING A CELL PHONE BASED SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE OFFERING A VARIETY OF SCHEDULED GAMES IN CONNECTION WITH LIVE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING″ which are also all hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety."

Based on this, the following continuation applications are identified:

• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/216,885, filed Dec. 11, 2018
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/997,352, filed on Jan. 15, 2016 (a continuation-in-part of 16/216,885)
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/260,480, filed on Apr. 24, 2014
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/472,241, filed on Jun. 20, 2006 (which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,694)

The patent also indicates claims priority from:

• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/692,356, filed Jun. 20, 2005.

The patent text does not explicitly mention any divisional applications of US11451883. Divisional applications typically arise when the USPTO issues a restriction requirement, forcing the applicant to divide claims directed to independent and distinct inventions into separate applications.

Related Family Members

Based on the information provided, the key related family members (excluding the direct continuation chain leading to US11451883) are those explicitly mentioned in the "RELATED APPLICATION(S)" section:

• U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,694: This is the patent issued from U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/472,241, which is a direct predecessor in the continuation chain of US11451883.
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/692,356: The earliest priority document for the family, filed June 20, 2005.
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/298,901, filed on Dec. 9, 2005: Entitled "A GAME OF SKILL PLAYED BY REMOTE PARTICIPANTS UTILIZING WIRELESS DEVICES IN CONNECTION WITH A COMMON GAME EVENT."
• U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/166,596, filed on Jun. 24, 2005: Entitled "METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DISTRIBUTED GAMING OVER A MOBILE DEVICE," which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/588,273, filed Jul. 14, 2004.
• U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/588,273, filed Jul. 14, 2004.

Projected Expiration Date

The patent states an "Anticipated expiration" date of June 20, 2026. This date is consistent with a 20-year term from the earliest non-provisional filing date in the chain, which is June 20, 2006 (for U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/472,241).

Since the current date is April 26, 2026, the patent is projected to expire relatively soon, assuming no PTA or PTE has been applied that would extend it beyond this date. Without the official PTA calculation from the USPTO, the definitive expiration date cannot be confirmed beyond the "Anticipated expiration" date provided in the Google Patents information.