Sportradar US LLC v. Sportscastr, Inc. d/b/a Panda Interactive, 1:24-cv-00170

This case centers on competing patent litigation between Sportradar entities and Sportscastr (doing business as Panda Interactive) regarding patented sports broadcast technology with synchronized live data.
Panda first sued Sportradar’s parent company in the Eastern District of Texas in October 2023 for alleged infringement of three patents. Service of process was delayed until December 2023.
Sportradar’s U.S. subsidiaries and manufacturer subsidiary filed a declaratory judgment action for noninfringement of the same patents in the District of Delaware in February 2024, after amending parties in Texas.
The Eastern District of Texas eventually found it had personal jurisdiction over Sportradar’s parent and manufacturer, and denied transfer to Delaware.
Panda moved to dismiss, transfer, or stay the Delaware action, asserting the Texas action was first-filed. Consolidation with related litigation has since occurred in Texas.
The Delaware court's opinion considers application of the first-to-file rule and whether any exception applies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which case is the first-filed under the rule?	Delaware case should be first as proper parties/jurisdiction	Texas was first, as it was on file first with patents at issue	Texas action is first-filed under Federal Circuit law
Does the party or jurisdictional mismatch matter?	First-filed must have all necessary parties and proper jurisdiction	First suit is first regardless of party mismatches or amended complaints	Party/jurisdiction mismatch doesn’t override first-to-file
Should Delaware decline jurisdiction under Declaratory Judgment Act?	Delaware is proper; Texas is improper/less convenient	Delaware should defer for comity and consistency; Texas has consolidated/advanced	Delaware court transfers to Texas per judicial efficiency
Are any exceptions to the first-to-file rule met?	Yes; complexities of parties/jurisdiction, proper venue lacking in Texas	No; no equitable exception applies, factors support transfer	No exceptions apply; no delay/prejudice, transfer favored

Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (first-to-file rule in patent declaratory actions promotes uniformity)
EMC Corp. v. Norand Corp., 89 F.3d 807 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (declaratory judgment discretion in patent cases)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Releasomers, Inc., 824 F.2d 953 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act is relief from uncertainty)
Micron Tech., Inc. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc., 518 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (exceptions to first-to-file rule in patent actions)
Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (first-to-file is a doctrine of federal comity in patent cases)
In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (transfer statute requirements, personal jurisdiction over plaintiffs not required)
EEOC v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988) (chronologically first court should generally decide concurrent claims)
Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equip. Co., 189 F.2d 31 (3d Cir. 1951) (chronology of filings governs notwithstanding late addition of parties)
Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997) (consolidation in first court with overlapping issues)