Neal v. Sports Stats Iq LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Eddie Neal (Florida)
  • Defendant: Sports Stats IQ LLC (Florida), Sylvester Butler (Florida)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: RL Drolet Patent Prosecution Services PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-21947, S.D. Fla., 09/01/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as all parties reside within the district, and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the action, including business activities and communications, occurred in Florida.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks to be named a co-inventor on a patent related to a method for scoring sports statistics, alleging the currently named sole inventor improperly omitted him and another individual from the patent.
• Technical Context: The technology resides in the field of fantasy sports and statistical analysis, proposing a novel method to quantify and score defensive performance in sporting events.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint details a history beginning with a 2014 patent application that named the Plaintiff as a co-inventor. Subsequently, a 2018 continuation-in-part application was filed that led to the patent-in-suit, from which the Plaintiff was allegedly omitted without his knowledge or consent. The complaint also references a parallel state court action between the parties concerning business disputes, which has been stayed pending the resolution of this federal inventorship case.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2014-06-04	Priority Date (Filing of parent application 14/296,388)
2018-02-01	Filing Date of application 15/886,779 (led to '908 patent)
2018-12-04	U.S. Patent No. 10,143,908 Issues
2019-10-11	Butler assigns '908 patent to Sports Stats IQ, LLC
2022-04-26	Plaintiff commences state court "Okeechobee Action"
2025-05-13	Okeechobee Action is stayed by the state court
2026-09-01	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,143,908 - "SINGLE SQUAD MATCHUP PREDICTION POOL"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,143,908, "SINGLE SQUAD MATCHUP PREDICTION POOL", issued December 4, 2018.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a perceived shortcoming in traditional sports scoring and fantasy games, where the performance of a team's defensive unit is not adequately quantified or directly contributed to the team's overall score '908 Patent, col. 1:22-28 '908 Patent, col. 3:25-30 This limits the ability to accurately measure a team's or a fantasy player's comprehensive skill.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a computer-implemented method for a new type of fantasy sports game. The system assigns point values to defensive plays that are described as "formerly non-scoring forced possession changes," such as forcing a punt or causing a turnover '908 Patent, abstract '908 Patent, col. 21:58-22:11 Game participants make predictions about these events, and their accuracy is used to calculate a "stat knowledge IQ," creating a new metric for ranking fantasy players based on their defensive knowledge '908 Patent, abstract '908 Patent, col. 28:1-5
• Technical Importance: This approach introduces a method to value defensive acumen in fantasy sports, potentially creating a more nuanced and strategically complex game that mirrors the real-world importance of defense '908 Patent, col. 2:5-13

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent claims 1, 4, and 5 Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶89
• Independent Claim 1 recites a computer-based method for quantifying prediction skills, involving:
  • Observing a first team in a defensive role during a game.
  • Identifying a "first scoring event" that is a "formerly non-scoring forced possession change."
  • Assigning a numerical value to that event.
  • Comparing predictions of this event between game-players to identify a prevailing player.
• Independent Claim 4 recites a computer-based method for a "single squad team fantasy matchup pool," involving:
  • A game-player making a prediction of "formerly non-scoring forced possession changes" (e.g., fumble recovery, forced punt).
  • Adjusting the prediction based on graduated factors, such as the accuracy of predicting the game winner or the team's league ranking.
  • Tabulating and comparing adjusted scores between game-players.
• Independent Claim 5 recites a process that utilizes "single squad matchup predictions pools" to compare various real-time or known statistical outcomes against player predictions to generate a "stat knowledge IQ."

III. The Disputed Instrumentality and Parties

Instrumentality Identification

• The subject of the dispute is U.S. Patent No. 10,143,908 ('908 Patent), which the complaint alleges incorrectly lists its inventors Compl. ¶177

Alleged Ownership and Control

• The complaint alleges that Defendant Sylvester Butler is the sole individual named as the inventor on the '908 Patent Compl. ¶81 It further alleges that on or about October 11, 2019, Butler assigned his rights in the patent to Defendant SPORTS STATS IQ, LLC, a Florida limited liability company of which Butler is the sole member Compl. ¶82 Compl. ¶116 The action seeks to add Plaintiff Eddie Neal and Interested Party Joel Borgella as co-inventors, which, if successful, would establish them as co-owners of the patent with undivided interests Compl. ¶109

IV. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations

The complaint does not allege patent infringement. Instead, it alleges that Plaintiff Eddie Neal and Interested Party Joel Borgella are true co-inventors of the '908 Patent and were improperly omitted. The complaint references Exhibit N, a claim chart detailing their alleged contributions Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶71 Based on the narrative allegations, the core contributions can be summarized. The complaint makes specific allegations regarding Figure 5 of the '908 patent, stating it was "conceived, developed, provided, and disclosed by at least NEAL and Joel Borgella" and is the "exactly the same graphic" that was copied into the patent application Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶38

'908 Patent Inventorship Allegations (based on Claim 4)

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 4)	Alleged Inventive Contribution by Neal & Borgella	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
the game-player makes a prediction of formerly non-scoring forced possession changes where a defense prevents an offense from scoring... [examples include] a turnover, a fumble recovery... forcing a punt...	The complaint alleges Neal originally conceived the novel method of scoring based on defensive metrics and that Neal and Borgella together conceived the "prediction aspect of this sub element."	¶72; ¶73; ¶83	col. 26:15-26
the prediction is adjusted by ... the game-player accurately predicting a win, an overtime win, a loss or an overtime loss...	The complaint alleges Neal and Borgella conceived and provided "central claim language elements" and "explicit definitions" for claim interpretation that form the game's logic.	¶34; ¶43; ¶85	col. 26:27-34
the prediction is adjusted by a graduated factor for how closely the game-player predicted the league ranking after a game;	The complaint alleges Neal and Borgella conceived and produced FIG. 5, which provides context for "enhanced score computations" and weighted stats that are tied to ranking.	¶35; ¶36; ¶88	col. 26:38-41
an adjusted score is tabulated and recorded on the computer... the game-player with the greater adjusted score is determined to be a prevailing game-player;	The complaint alleges Neal and Borgella contributed to applying the method to a "mobile application or an apparatus," which involves the tabulation and comparison of scores on a computer.	¶31; ¶32; ¶84	col. 26:42-47

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Standard of Inventorship: A primary legal question will be whether the alleged contributions of Neal and Borgella rise to the level of "conception" of an element in a claim, which is the standard for joint inventorship, or if their contributions were merely the work of skilled individuals reducing Butler's already-conceived invention to practice.
  • Corroboration: A key evidentiary question will be what corroborating evidence, beyond the testimony of the alleged inventors themselves, can be produced to support the claims of contribution to conception (e.g., emails, drafts, meeting notes).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In an inventorship dispute, the focus of claim analysis shifts from defining terms for infringement to understanding them as markers of a conceived idea.

• The Term: "formerly non-scoring forced possession change"

• Context and Importance: This phrase appears in all independent claims and represents the core novel concept of the patent-assigning value to defensive actions that do not traditionally score points. Practitioners may focus on this term because determining who first conceived of identifying, categorizing, and building a game mechanic around these specific events will be central to establishing inventorship. The complaint alleges Neal conceived this core idea Compl. ¶83 Compl. ¶92

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a long, non-exclusive list of such events, including "a turnover, a fumble recovery, an interception, a forced quarterback turnover sack, forcing a punt, a safety, a touchback, a fourth down non-conversion" '908 Patent, col. 26:20-24 This could support a broad definition covering any defensive stop.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An opposing argument might frame these as well-known football events, suggesting the only novelty is the act of labeling and scoring them, which may narrow the focus of who contributed the truly "inventive" step.

• The Term: "stat knowledge IQ"

• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in claim 5 and the abstract, defines the output metric of the patented system. The dispute will likely involve who conceived of this specific metric as the ultimate measure of a fantasy player's skill based on predictive accuracy. The complaint directly ties the development of "Stat IQ" to materials, including Figure 5, allegedly created by Neal and Borgella Compl. ¶35

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes quantifying a "gameplayer's prediction skills" and comparing "predictive skill and knowledge levels," suggesting "stat knowledge IQ" is a broad concept for measuring predictive ability '908 Patent, col. 2:10-20
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures, such as Figure 5's "Enhanced Score Game Logic," provide specific formulas and weighting systems '908 Patent, Fig. 5 This could support a narrower definition tied to the specific calculations disclosed, raising the question of who conceived those specific mechanics.

VI. Allegations of Inequitable Conduct

The complaint does not allege infringement but pleads, in the alternative to correcting inventorship, that the '908 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Compl. ¶¶192-201 The specific allegations are:

• Knowledge and Materiality: The complaint alleges that Defendant Butler and the prosecuting attorney knew that Neal and Borgella had made inventive contributions to the subject matter of the '908 Patent and that correct inventorship is material to patentability Compl. ¶75 Compl. ¶76 Compl. ¶199 Compl. ¶200
• Intent to Deceive: The complaint alleges that Butler acted with a specific intent to deceive the USPTO by submitting an inventor's oath declaring himself the sole inventor, knowing this to be false Compl. ¶192 Compl. ¶194 Evidence cited for this intent includes the alleged fact that the application naming Butler as sole inventor was filed after Neal had refused to sign documents that would have removed him as an inventor from the project Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶49 Compl. ¶54 The complaint further points to the fact that the application naming Neal as a co-inventor ('388 application) was still pending when the new application naming only Butler was filed, suggesting a deliberate act of omission Compl. ¶195 Compl. ¶196

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case is not a standard infringement dispute; it is a contest over the origin and ownership of an invention. The outcome will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of inventive contribution: Does the evidence presented by the Plaintiff demonstrate, by a standard of clear and convincing evidence, that his and Mr. Borgella's contributions were to the "conception" of the ideas recited in at least one of the patent's claims, as defined by Federal Circuit precedent? Or will the court find their contributions were merely those of skilled collaborators reducing an idea already fully conceived by the Defendant?

2. A second, parallel issue is one of deceptive intent: If inventorship is found to be incorrect, can the Plaintiff further prove with clear and convincing evidence that the omission was not a mistake, but a deliberate act to deceive the USPTO? The resolution of this question will determine whether the patent is simply corrected to add the new inventors or is rendered entirely unenforceable.