By Kyle Conkle
In a recent case filed on September 17, 2024, SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Grp., the plaintiff SportsCastr Inc., doing business as PANDA Interactive, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the defendant, a global sports tech and entertainment company, Sportradar Group. The claim emerged as a byproduct of PANDA’s perception that the defendant contravenes on the plaintiff’s patents respective to video streaming software without consumer consent. The “Accused Products” of specific concern to PANDA include Sportradar emBET, Sportradar OTT, and Sportradar LCT. Sportradar Group responded to the initial complaint by filing a motion to dismiss which resulted in PANDA amending their complaint to include an additional defendant, Sportradar AG, a subsidiary of its parent company Sportradar Group.
One of the key components to PANDA’s success in their next generation technology is its ability to facilitate engagement due to a variety of interactive social components and real-time actionable betting odds that ultimately affect revenue generation. As such, many major sportsbooks utilize AI housed through PANDA that simply makes the consumer experience easier and more accessible. Consequently, the unfair use of their patented technology by the defendants brought about the case at hand. Hovering over the aforementioned amended complaint was the principal question of jurisdiction. The defendants’ stance was that the case should be dismissed by the Court altogether on this jurisdictional basis with the goal of transferring the case to the District of Delaware. However, PANDA challenged this stance through theories of agency, alter ego, and indirect infringement. As a result, the plaintiff had to satisfy the three prongs of the personal jurisdiction inquiry.
First, PANDA was able to successfully establish that the defendants had sufficient minimum contacts within Texas and that they purposefully directed those contacts to the residents of Texas. To support its jurisdictional claim in Texas, PANDA argued some of the means of infringement took place there, including broadcasting the Accused Products, inserting the Accused Products into the stream of commerce, and cultivating employment opportunities there. While the defendants attempted to defer liability through language identifying “U.S. subsidiaries,” many press releases demonstrated the opposite in which the Sportradar Group was the entity showing partnerships with large organizations and sports leagues connected to the lone star state. Second, the Court noted that PANDA’s cause of action for the patent infringement was a sole byproduct of the streaming and broadcast agreements across the board relating to the defendants’ contacts in Texas. Third, the Court found there was no compelling case that the assertion of jurisdiction was unfair or unreasonable as presented by the defendants. Therefore, the defendants’ first-filed case argument failed. However, there was a subsequent motion to transfer to a more convenient forum.
In the motion to transfer to a more convenient forum, the Court considered both private and public interest factors. Four private interest factors were highlighted including: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2) availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, (3) cost of attendance of willing witnesses, and (4) judicial economy. While the first two factors were perceived as neutral by the Court, the third factor weighed slightly in favor of the defendants’ motion to transfer, but the fourth factor weighed against transferring the case. Next, the Court examined two public interest factors: (1) speedy and efficient administration of justice and (2) local interest in having localized interests decided at home. The Court found that the first factor weighed against transferring the case while the second factor was neutral. For these reasons, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to transfer as they were unable to substantiate that the District of Delaware was more convenient.
In recent years, the watch and bet product has become increasingly more popular and has produced a tangible change in the nature of consumption for many sports fans. Consequently, media and sports betting are an essential arenas to continue monitoring due to the current legalization efforts and more recently, the widespread acceptance of gambling from a cultural standpoint. Interactive streaming technology is a significant element to the future of the fandom interface, but it is becoming clearer that enforcement is on the rise given what lies ahead regarding other potential infringement issues coming to fruition. Furthermore, developments in sports gambling regulations will continue to impact the scene as taxation schemes and proposed restrictions have the potential to impact the sports betting market that users choose to participate in and the platform manipulated. In essence, the industry should not expect a decline in the quantity of lawsuits pertaining to this realm given how competitive the sports betting sector has become in the modern landscape.
Dr. Kyle Conkle is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at the University of North Alabama with past practitioner experience in Division I Athletic Operations and Facilities. His areas of specialization in research include the sport gambling landscape, organizational behavior and leadership, intercollegiate athletics, and burnout.
