Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC

Constitutional Issues

Patent infringementPatent claim construction

Rule Statements

"Claim construction is a matter of law."

"The patentee bears the burden of proving infringement."

Judges

• Richard G. Taranto
• Jimmie V. Reyna
• Kara F. Stoll

Q: What is Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC about?

Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC is a case decided by Federal Circuit on December 10, 2025.

Q: What court decided Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC?

Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC was decided by the Federal Circuit, which is part of the federal judiciary. This is a federal appellate court.

Q: When was Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC decided?

Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC was decided on December 10, 2025.

Q: What is the citation for Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC?

The citation for Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and what court decided it?

The case is Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC, and it was decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This court specializes in patent law, making it the appropriate venue for this dispute.

Q: Who were the main parties involved in the Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP case?

The main parties were Game Plan, Inc., the accused infringer, and Uninterrupted IP, LLC, the patent holder. Uninterrupted IP, LLC alleged that Game Plan's system infringed on their patent.

Q: What was the central legal issue in Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP?

The central issue was whether Game Plan, Inc.'s system for managing athletes' name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights infringed upon Uninterrupted IP, LLC's patent for a similar system. Specifically, the court examined if Game Plan met the patent's claim limitations.

Q: What specific patent was at the heart of the Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP dispute?

The dispute involved Uninterrupted IP, LLC's patent for a system designed to allow athletes to manage their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. The patent's claims, particularly those concerning a 'centralized database' and 'authorization' of NIL deals, were central to the infringement analysis.

Q: What was the outcome of the Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP case at the Federal Circuit?

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding that Game Plan, Inc. did not infringe on Uninterrupted IP, LLC's patent. The appellate court agreed that Game Plan's system did not meet all the limitations required by the patent claims.

Q: Is Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC published?

Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What was the ruling in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC. Key holdings: The court held that Game Plan's system did not infringe Uninterrupted's patent because it lacked a "centralized database" as required by the claims, finding that Game Plan's distributed data storage did not meet this limitation.; The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Game Plan's system did not perform the "authorization" step as claimed in Uninterrupted's patent, as Game Plan's role was limited to facilitating communication rather than granting explicit approval for NIL deals.; The court determined that the "system" limitation in the patent claims was not met because Game Plan's accused product did not embody all the claimed elements, thus precluding a finding of infringement.; The Federal Circuit rejected Uninterrupted's argument that the district court erred in its claim construction, finding the construction to be reasonable and supported by the patent's specification and prosecution history.; The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Game Plan, concluding that no reasonable jury could find infringement based on the undisputed facts and the proper claim construction..

Q: Why is Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC important?

Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC has an impact score of 15/100, indicating narrow legal impact. This decision provides clarity on patent claim construction for systems managing athlete endorsements and NIL rights, particularly concerning the interpretation of terms like "centralized database" and "authorization." It underscores the importance of precise claim language and the specific functionality of accused systems in patent infringement cases, offering guidance to both patent holders and potential infringers in this rapidly evolving space.

Q: What precedent does Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC set?

Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC established the following key holdings: (1) The court held that Game Plan's system did not infringe Uninterrupted's patent because it lacked a "centralized database" as required by the claims, finding that Game Plan's distributed data storage did not meet this limitation. (2) The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Game Plan's system did not perform the "authorization" step as claimed in Uninterrupted's patent, as Game Plan's role was limited to facilitating communication rather than granting explicit approval for NIL deals. (3) The court determined that the "system" limitation in the patent claims was not met because Game Plan's accused product did not embody all the claimed elements, thus precluding a finding of infringement. (4) The Federal Circuit rejected Uninterrupted's argument that the district court erred in its claim construction, finding the construction to be reasonable and supported by the patent's specification and prosecution history. (5) The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Game Plan, concluding that no reasonable jury could find infringement based on the undisputed facts and the proper claim construction.

Q: What are the key holdings in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC?

1. The court held that Game Plan's system did not infringe Uninterrupted's patent because it lacked a "centralized database" as required by the claims, finding that Game Plan's distributed data storage did not meet this limitation. 2. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's conclusion that Game Plan's system did not perform the "authorization" step as claimed in Uninterrupted's patent, as Game Plan's role was limited to facilitating communication rather than granting explicit approval for NIL deals. 3. The court determined that the "system" limitation in the patent claims was not met because Game Plan's accused product did not embody all the claimed elements, thus precluding a finding of infringement. 4. The Federal Circuit rejected Uninterrupted's argument that the district court erred in its claim construction, finding the construction to be reasonable and supported by the patent's specification and prosecution history. 5. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Game Plan, concluding that no reasonable jury could find infringement based on the undisputed facts and the proper claim construction.

Q: What cases are related to Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC?

Precedent cases cited or related to Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC: 35 U.S.C. § 271; Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 157 (1996); Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Q: Did Game Plan's system meet the 'centralized database' requirement of Uninterrupted's patent?

No, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Game Plan's system did not meet the 'centralized database' limitation as defined in Uninterrupted's patent claims. The court determined that Game Plan's system did not operate as a single, unified database in the manner contemplated by the patent.

Q: How did the court interpret the 'authorization' requirement in Uninterrupted's patent claims?

The court found that Game Plan's system did not satisfy the 'authorization' requirement of the patent claims. This means Game Plan's platform did not perform the specific function of authorizing NIL deals as described and claimed in Uninterrupted's patent.

Q: What legal standard did the Federal Circuit apply when reviewing the infringement finding?

The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court's claim construction de novo and its infringement findings for clear error. This standard involves examining whether the accused product embodies every element of a patent claim, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

Q: What is the significance of claim construction in patent infringement cases like Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP?

Claim construction defines the scope and meaning of the patent's claims, which are the boundaries of the invention. In this case, the interpretation of terms like 'centralized database' and 'authorization' was critical to determining whether Game Plan's actions fell within those boundaries.

Q: Did the court consider the doctrine of equivalents in its infringement analysis?

While the primary focus was on literal infringement, the court's affirmation of the district court's non-infringement finding implies that Game Plan's system did not infringe even under the doctrine of equivalents. This doctrine allows for infringement findings when an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result, even if not identical.

Q: What are the key takeaways for patent holders in the NIL space after this ruling?

Patent holders in the NIL space should ensure their patent claims are clearly defined and cover specific functionalities. The ruling emphasizes that broad interpretations of terms like 'centralized database' may not be upheld if the accused system doesn't meet the precise limitations articulated in the patent claims.

Q: How does Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC affect me?

This decision provides clarity on patent claim construction for systems managing athlete endorsements and NIL rights, particularly concerning the interpretation of terms like "centralized database" and "authorization." It underscores the importance of precise claim language and the specific functionality of accused systems in patent infringement cases, offering guidance to both patent holders and potential infringers in this rapidly evolving space. As a decision from a federal appellate court, its reach is national. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: What does a finding of non-infringement mean for Game Plan, Inc. going forward?

A finding of non-infringement means that Game Plan, Inc. is legally permitted to continue operating its NIL management system without owing damages or facing an injunction for infringing Uninterrupted IP, LLC's patent. This allows Game Plan to continue its business operations as they were.

Q: How does this ruling impact other companies developing NIL management platforms?

The ruling provides clarity on the specific limitations of Uninterrupted's patent, particularly regarding the 'centralized database' and 'authorization' elements. Other companies can use this decision to assess their own systems and ensure they do not infringe on this specific patent's claims, potentially encouraging innovation in the space.

Q: What is the real-world impact on athletes seeking to manage their NIL rights?

For athletes, the ruling means that Game Plan, Inc. can continue to offer its services for managing NIL rights. It also highlights the importance of understanding the specific patent landscape surrounding NIL technology to ensure platforms are legally sound.

Q: Are there any compliance implications for businesses in the sports technology sector following this case?

Businesses in the sports technology sector, especially those involved with NIL, should carefully review their systems against the specific patent claims at issue in this case. Understanding the precise definitions of terms like 'centralized database' and 'authorization' as interpreted by the CAFC is crucial for avoiding infringement.

Q: What does this case suggest about the patentability of software systems for managing athlete endorsements?

The case demonstrates that while systems for managing NIL rights can be patented, the specific claims must be carefully drafted and narrowly construed. The court's focus on specific limitations indicates that broad claims might be vulnerable to non-infringement findings if the accused system doesn't meet those precise limitations.

Q: What are the key takeaways for companies developing NIL technology after this ruling?

Companies developing NIL technology should carefully analyze existing patents and ensure their systems do not incorporate the specific elements or functionalities claimed in those patents. Understanding the precise definitions and limitations of patent claims, as interpreted by courts like the CAFC, is crucial for avoiding infringement.

Q: How does Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP fit into the broader history of patent law regarding software and business methods?

This case is part of a long line of patent litigation concerning software and business methods, particularly in emerging fields like Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL). It reflects the ongoing judicial effort to define the boundaries of patentable subject matter and infringement for technological innovations.

Q: What legal precedents might have influenced the court's decision in Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP?

The court likely considered prior CAFC decisions on patent claim construction, software patent infringement, and the interpretation of specific technical terms within patent claims. Cases defining 'centralized database' or similar concepts in other technological contexts could also be relevant.

Q: How does this ruling compare to other landmark patent cases involving technology platforms?

Similar to other cases, Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP underscores the importance of precise claim language and the court's role in interpreting those claims. Unlike cases where infringement is found due to broad similarities, this decision emphasizes that specific claim limitations must be met.

Q: What was the docket number in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC?

The docket number for Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC is 24-1407. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted Ip, LLC be appealed?

Potentially — decisions from federal appellate courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States via a petition for certiorari, though the Court accepts very few cases.

Q: How did this case reach the Federal Circuit?

The case reached the Federal Circuit through an appeal from a district court's decision. Game Plan, Inc. likely appealed the district court's findings or rulings, leading to the appellate review by the CAFC, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals.

Q: What procedural rulings might have been made by the district court before the appeal?

The district court would have likely made rulings on claim construction, potentially decided motions for summary judgment on infringement, and possibly conducted a trial. The appeal to the Federal Circuit would focus on alleged errors in these district court proceedings, particularly regarding claim interpretation and the infringement determination.

Q: What is the role of the district court in patent infringement cases like this one?

The district court is where patent infringement lawsuits are initially filed and tried. It is responsible for interpreting the patent claims (claim construction) and determining whether infringement occurred, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, before any appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Q: What does it mean for the Federal Circuit to 'affirm' the district court's decision?

To 'affirm' means that the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's decision and found no reversible error in its rulings. In this case, the CAFC upheld the district court's conclusion that Game Plan, Inc. did not infringe Uninterrupted IP, LLC's patent.

Q: Could Uninterrupted IP, LLC appeal this decision further?

While theoretically possible, further appeals from the Federal Circuit's decision would typically go to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court grants review in only a small fraction of cases, and patent cases are not automatically prioritized.