PTAB

IPR2026-00245

FanDuel Inc v. WinView IP Holdings LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Synchronized gaming and programming
  • Brief Description: The ’349 patent is directed to systems and methods for distributed gaming that address latency issues among remote users. The technology aims to equalize gameplay by streaming broadcast video content and separate game data, then ensuring a synchronized display on user devices and using a lockout signal to prevent predictions after a key event has occurred.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

The petition asserted a single ground of unpatentability.

Ground 1: Anticipation of Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, 17, 21-22, 24, 31, 33, 35, and 39-40 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) over McKeown.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: McKeown (European Patent Application No. 0 873 772 A1).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that McKeown discloses every limitation of the challenged claims. McKeown describes an "interactive, predictive game control system" played in conjunction with a live TV broadcast, which Petitioner equated to the system of the ’349 patent.
      • Streaming and Synchronization: Petitioner asserted that McKeown’s system functions as a server that solves the same latency problem. McKeown's "central controller" generates game data, which is combined with live television broadcast signals in a "combining unit." This combined stream is then transmitted simultaneously to remote user devices. To ensure synchronization, McKeown taught that all parts of the network operate on a "common universal system clock," with the central controller repeatedly issuing synchronization signals. Each remote user's microprocessor monitors these signals and adjusts its local clock to maintain synchronization, thereby teaching the synchronized display of video and game data as required by independent claims 1 and 24.
      • Lockout Functionality: Petitioner argued McKeown explicitly disclosed the claimed lockout feature. McKeown described using "time stamped signals" as a "lock-out command" to prevent users from making further predictions after a key moment in the live event. For example, upon operator confirmation that a sporting event has commenced, the central controller issues a lock-out signal to all remote units. In another example involving an "Action Ball" game, an operator-inputted time stamp for an event (e.g., a shot on goal) is broadcast to players, who then have a limited 10-second window to respond, effectively locking them out after that period. Petitioner contended this directly maps to the limitation in claims 1 and 24 of "preventing users from submitting a response...based on the video data and a lockout signal."
      • Server and Method Claims: Petitioner mapped McKeown’s components to both the method of claim 1 and the server of claim 24. McKeown's "game control system," including its central controller (PC), databases, and combining unit, was argued to constitute the claimed "server." The databases (4A, 4B) taught the "memory for storing an application." The central controller itself was identified as the "processing component." The entire described process of combining, transmitting, synchronizing, and locking out user input was argued to fully teach the method of claim 1.
      • Dependent Claims: Petitioner argued that McKeown also disclosed the limitations of all challenged dependent claims. This included receiving a game start signal (e.g., an operator clicking "Start First Half"), allowing users to select choices related to video data (e.g., predicting the "Time Slot of First Goal"), displaying data simultaneously on the same device, collecting and reporting scores, buffering data in advance, and transmitting over a broadcast network.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15, 17, 21-22, 24, 31, 33, 35, and 39-40 of Patent 12,005,349 as unpatentable.