WinView IP Holdings v. FanDuel — Sports Gaming Patent Claims Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss

Background

WinView IP Holdings owns patents covering technology for distributing interactive gaming experiences tied to live sports events. Two patents are at issue: U.S. Patent No. 10,721,543 (the ‘543 patent), which claims a method for sending location-based service information to mobile devices and managing content delivery; and U.S. Patent No. 10,806,988 (the ‘988 patent), which claims a method for conducting multiple simultaneous skill competitions for a single live event.

WinView sued FanDuel — the major daily fantasy sports and sports betting operator — alleging that FanDuel’s Sportsbook, Fantasy, Racing, and Casino apps infringe these patents. After earlier rounds of pleading, WinView filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserting direct infringement of exemplary claim 118 of the ‘543 patent and exemplary claim 64 of the ‘988 patent, plus indirect (induced and contributory) infringement and willful infringement of both. FanDuel moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

This case is one of a set: WinView filed nearly identical suits against multiple gaming companies, including DraftKings, where the same judge had previously issued rulings on overlapping legal questions.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Castner granted FanDuel’s motion in part and denied it in part.

Direct infringement — survived. The court found that WinView’s SAC adequately alleged direct infringement of claim 118 of the ‘543 patent. WinView walked through each element of the claim and identified how FanDuel’s products allegedly perform those steps on server devices interacting with users. The court held this satisfied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard: WinView gave FanDuel fair notice of the specific claim and how its products allegedly infringe it, going beyond a naked assertion of infringement.

Indirect and willful infringement — dismissed with prejudice. All claims of induced infringement, contributory infringement, and willful infringement were dismissed with prejudice. Each of these theories requires a showing that the defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents and knew (or should have known) that its conduct constituted infringement. WinView argued that FanDuel’s post-complaint knowledge — including knowledge gained through the litigation itself — was sufficient. Judge Castner rejected this argument, reiterating her prior holdings in the parallel DraftKings litigation: knowledge established solely by the filing of a complaint cannot support indirect or willful infringement claims. WinView had no allegations of pre-suit knowledge, and after multiple opportunities to amend, any further amendment on these points would be futile.

Key Takeaways

• Direct patent infringement claims can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the complaint identifies a specific asserted claim and maps the accused product’s functions to each claim element — element-by-element mapping at the pleading stage is not required, but some factual specificity is.
• Indirect and willful patent infringement require pre-suit knowledge of both the patent and the infringement. Post-complaint knowledge — including knowledge from the complaint itself — is insufficient in the District of New Jersey.
• Repeated failure to plead pre-suit knowledge across multiple amended complaints supports dismissal with prejudice; courts will not indefinitely extend opportunities to cure the same deficiency.
• Where a plaintiff files identical or near-identical suits against multiple defendants in the same court, prior rulings in the earlier cases can quickly foreclose re-litigation of the same legal issues.

Why It Matters

WinView’s campaign against gaming companies highlights a recurring tension in patent litigation: a patent holder can survive a motion to dismiss on direct infringement with a properly mapped complaint, but indirect and willful infringement claims — which carry enhanced damages — require demonstrating that the defendant actually knew about the patents before being sued. This decision, combined with the parallel DraftKings ruling, signals that WinView will need to develop evidence of pre-suit awareness if it wants to pursue enhanced damages. Judge Castner also noted she may consolidate the FanDuel and DraftKings cases, which could streamline the overlapping issues going forward.