IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Tex.: Swiss company must face infringement suit in Texas over sports video streaming technology, (Sep 18, 2024)

By Kevin M. Finson

Specific personal jurisdiction based on acts directed at the forum state existed because the foreign alleged infringer had itself announced the launch of its product “in every state.”

A foreign alleged infringer had at least minimum contacts with the forum state of Texas to support specific personal jurisdiction, the U.S. District Court in Marshall has held. The foreign company had put infringing goods in the stream of commerce knowing they would reach Texas (SportsCastr Inc. v. Sportradar Group AG, No. 2:23-CV-00472-JRG ((E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2024)).

Sportcastr, Inc. (Sportcastr) brought suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Sportradar Group AG and Sportradar AG (collectively, Sportradar), alleging that Sportradar’s video streaming software and systems and the use thereof by professional sports leagues infringe Sportcastr’s patents. Sportradar, a competitor or Sportcastr organized and with its headquarters in Switzerland, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative, to transfer the case to the District of Delaware.

Personal jurisdiction. Sportcastr alleged that Sportradar was subject to specific personal jurisdiction due to having directed its business activities at the residents of Texas. Sportcastr showed statements of Sportradar and its subsidiaries that at least one of the accused products was offered “in every state” and therefore must be offered in Texas. Several press releases described the products as offered by “Sportradar Group,” rather than the U.S. subsidiaries who Sportradar claimed were responsible for all of the sales of its products in the United States. The court found that this was sufficient to show minimum contacts and because the claims arose from those contacts, specific personal jurisdiction was proper.

Transfer. Neither party claimed any physical evidence, so the proximity to evidence was a neutral factor. Availability of witnesses slightly favored transfer. Judicial economy weighed against transfer because the Eastern District of Texas currently had another case pending involving three of the same patents. This pending case also caused the speedy and efficient administration of justice factor to weigh against transfer because transfer would lead to the unnecessary duplication of proceedings which could otherwise be consolidated, such as claim construction. The remaining factors were agreed to be neutral. Balancing the factors, the court found that Delaware was not a “clearly more convenient” forum.

The court denied both Sportsradar’s motion to dismiss and to transfer.

The Case is No. 2:23-CV-00472-JRG.

Judge: Gilstrap, R.

Attorneys: Mark Douglas Siegmund (Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC) for SportsCastr Inc. David A. Roodman (Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP) for Sportradar Group, AG.

Companies: SportsCastr Inc.; Sportradar Group, AG

Cases: Patent TexasNews