What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2024-08-02 compared with 2024-05-03 · 61 added, 21 removed, 335 unchanged (20% of the section changed)

38 unchanged sentences

In the Complaint, IG alleges that our DFS product offering infringes two patents:

8,956,231 (the “231 Patent”), which is entitled “Multi-process communication regarding gaming information”, and U.S.

8,956,231 (the

“231 Patent”), which is entitled “Multi-process communication regarding gaming information”, and U.S.

8,974,302 (the “302 Patent”), which is entitled “Multi-process communication regarding gaming information.” That same Complaint alleges that our Sportsbook product offering infringes two additional patents:

23 unchanged sentences

On April 9, 2024, IG dismissed the district court litigation without prejudice.

On May 7, 2024, DraftKings filed a motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C.

On June 11, 2024, IG filed its opposition to DraftKings’ motion for attorneys’ fees.

On July 2, 2024, DraftKings filed its reply in support of its motion for attorneys’ fees.

On July 7, 2021, Winview Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Winview”) filed suit against the Company in the U.S.

16 unchanged sentences

On August 3, 2022, we filed a petition for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the ‘243 Patent.

On July 25, 2022, FanDuel filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of the '543 and '730 Patents.

On September 20, 2022, the court entered an order staying the pending motion to dismiss and staying all discovery pending final resolution of the petition for inter partes review through a final written decision.

7 unchanged sentences

On April 15, 2024, the district court ordered the case to remain administratively terminated.

On June 26, 2024, WinView and DraftKings filed a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal of WinView’s appeal.

On June 28, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered WinView’s appeal dismissed.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

13 unchanged sentences

On August 12, 2022, a putative class action was filed in Nevada state District Court in Clark County against Golden Nugget Online Gaming, Inc.

(“GNOG Inc.”), the Company and one of its officers and two affiliates, as well as former officers or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc.

(“GNOG Inc.”), the Company and one of its officers and two affiliates, as well as former officers

or directors and the former controlling stockholder of GNOG Inc.

and Jefferies LLC.

1 unchanged sentence

alleging that certain former officers and directors of GNOG Inc.

and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached their fiduciary duties to

minority stockholders of GNOG Inc.

and its former controlling stockholder (Tilman Fertitta and/or Fertitta Entertainment, Inc.) breached their fiduciary duties to minority stockholders of GNOG Inc.

in connection with the GNOG Transaction, and the other defendants aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

22 unchanged sentences

On June 8, 2023, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss.

At a mediation held on January 24, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware action, which was reflected in a written settlement agreement, dated March 1, 2024, which remains, subject to, among other things, court approval.

At a mediation held on January 24, 2024, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware action, which was reflected in a written settlement agreement, dated March 1, 2024.

On July 9, 2024, the court entered its Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the action.

The deadline to appeal is August 8, 2024.

If no appeal is filed on or before that date, the Order and Final Judgment dismissing the action becomes final.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the Nevada action.

36 unchanged sentences

Neither of these claims were asserted in the litigation brought by Arrow Gaming.

On May 14, 2024, Arrow Gaming filed a Notice of Appeal of the IPR directed to the ’498 Patent.

On July 10, 2024, DraftKings filed a Notice of Appeal of the IPR directed to the ’205 Patent challenging the PTAB’s final written decision as to claim 18 of the ’205 Patent.

On April 3, 2023, the District Court administratively terminated the lawsuit pending the PTAB's final written decisions.

15 unchanged sentences

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss, and on April 25, 2022, the Company filed its reply thereto.

On September 7, 2022, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

On September 7,

2022, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

On September 22, 2022, Beteiro filed its notice to appeal the ruling on the motion to dismiss.

3 unchanged sentences

Beteiro’s reply brief was filed on July 1, 2023.

Oral argument is scheduled for May 7, 2024.

The Federal Circuit held oral argument on May 7, 2024.

On June 21, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Beteiro’s complaint.

On October 28, 2022, the Company filed petitions for inter partes review with the PTAB challenging the validity of each of the Beteiro Patents.

Between May 11, 2023 and May 12, 2023, the PTAB instituted review for all Beteiro Patents.

The PTAB is expected to issue a final written decision for the IPRs by May 12, 2024.

On May 6, 2024, the PTAB entered final written decisions finding the challenged claims in the instituted IPRs not unpatentable.

On July 8, 2024, DraftKings appealed the PTAB’s findings.

On July 25, 2024, Beteiro and DraftKings filed stipulated dismissals of those appeals, wherein Beteiro stipulated that:

(1) it would not seek to further appeal the Federal Circuit’s June 21, 2024 affirmance of the dismissal of Beteiro’s complaint in the district court;

and (2) it is precluded from asserting any other claims from the Beteiro Patents against DraftKings or any of DraftKings’ subsidiaries or affiliates.

This stipulation mooted the appeals of the PTAB’s findings.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

35 unchanged sentences

Magistrate Judge Burke held a hearing on Colossus’ motion on June 6, 2023 and subsequently issued a report and recommendation (the “Second Report and Recommendation”) that the motion be denied in part and granted in part.

Colossus filed objections to the Second Report and Recommendation on June 21, 2023, and DraftKings filed its response to Colossus’ objections on July 5, 2023.

Colossus filed objections to the Second Report and Recommendation on June 21, 2023, and DraftKings filed its response to

Colossus’ objections on July 5, 2023.

On August 2, 2023, Judge Noreika overruled Colossus’ objections and adopted the Second Report and Recommendation.

6 unchanged sentences

On February 21, 2024, the DRP issued a decision vacating the PTAB’s denial of institution of the IPR directed to the ’779 Patent and instructing the PTAB to reconsider institution.

The PTAB has indicated that a decision on institution for the IPR directed to the ’779 Patent will be issued by August 21, 2024.

On May 15, 2024, the PTAB instituted the IPR directed to the ‘779 Patent.

On March 15, 2024, the parties entered into a partial settlement agreement, in which the parties agreed to, among other things:

28 unchanged sentences

Any adverse outcome in these matters could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

Despite the potential for significant damages, the Company does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcome of this matter will have a material adverse effect on Company’s financial condition, although the outcome could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

On January 9, 2023, Simpson G.

6 unchanged sentences

The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, false advertising, and unjust enrichment.

Among other things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive

damages, attorney fees and interest.

Among other things, plaintiffs seek statutory damages, monetary damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and interest.

On June 12, 2023, DraftKings filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted by both plaintiffs or, in the alternative, strike the flash draft allegations.

2 unchanged sentences

On March 29, 2024, the court granted DraftKings’ motion and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.

Securities Matters Related to DraftKings Marketplace

Securities Matters Arising From DraftKings Marketplace and Related Matters

On March 9, 2023, a putative class action was filed in Massachusetts federal court by an alleged purchaser of non-fungible tokens (“NFTs”) on the DraftKings Marketplace (“DK Marketplace”).

5 unchanged sentences

On December 11, 2023, defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss.

The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2023, and took the matter under advisement.

The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2023.

On July 2, 2024, the district court denied the motion to dismiss.

We intend to vigorously defend this case.

On July 17, 2023, the Company received a subpoena from the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeking documents and requesting answers to interrogatories concerning, among other things, DK Marketplace and NFTs that are sold on DK Marketplace, and related matters.

Beginning in July 2023, the Company received subpoenas from the Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission seeking documents and/or requesting answers to interrogatories concerning, among other things, DK Marketplace, NFTs that are sold on DK Marketplace, the blockchain on which the NFTs were minted and digital assets and validator nodes associated with that blockchain, and related matters.

We intend to comply with these requests.

7 unchanged sentences

On May 31, 2023, a putative shareholder derivative action was filed in Nevada state court by an alleged shareholder of the Company.

The action asserts claims on behalf of the Company against certain senior officers and members of the Board of Directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to disseminate misleading and inaccurate information to its shareholders in connection with NFTs that are sold and traded on the DK Marketplace.

The action asserts claims on behalf of the Company against certain senior officers and members of the Board of

Directors of the Company for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment based primarily on allegations that the defendants caused or allowed the Company to disseminate misleading and inaccurate information to its shareholders in connection with NFTs that are sold and traded on the DK Marketplace.

The action also alleges that certain individuals are liable for trading in Company stock at artificially inflated prices.

The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages, changes to corporate governance and internal procedures, restitution, disgorgement, costs and attorney’s fees, and other unspecified relief.

All proceedings in this action have been stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the above-referenced motion to dismiss in the putative class action in Massachusetts federal court.

All proceedings in this action were stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the above-referenced motion to dismiss in the putative class action in Massachusetts federal district court.

In light of the federal district court’s above-referenced denial of the motion to dismiss in the putative class action in Massachusetts, the stay of proceedings in this action in Nevada state court was lifted on August 1, 2024.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this matter or determine the extent of any potential liabilities.

13 unchanged sentences

On March 11, 2024, Plaintiffs served their opposition to that motion.

DraftKings served its reply brief on April 1, 2024, and the motion papers have been filed with the court, though the BLS has yet to open the case or set a date for oral argument.

DraftKings served its reply brief on April 1, 2024, and the motion papers have been filed with the court.

The court held oral argument on July 25, 2024.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

9 unchanged sentences

The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees.

By agreement of the parties, DraftKings’ response to the Complaint is due on August 12, 2024.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

5 unchanged sentences

On June 10, 2024, Plaintiff Matthew McAfee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a purported class action lawsuit against DraftKings in the Hamilton County Superior Court, State of Indiana.

Among other things, Plaintiff alleges that those customers who had winning bets placed and accepted on the October 24, 2023 Lakers versus Nuggets basketball game that were subsequently canceled by DraftKings for obvious error were not timely canceled and should have been paid.

Plaintiff brings claims for:

(1) Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act – Incurable Deceptive Act;

(2) Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act – Uncured Deceptive Act;

and (3) breach of contract.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, actual and statutory damages, treble and exemplary damages, interest, and attorney fees and costs.

On July 12, 2024, DraftKings removed the matter to federal court in Indiana.

Per agreement of the parties and the Court’s order, DraftKings’ response to the complaint is due on August 7, 2024.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this case.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could subject the Company to substantial damages and/or require alterations to the Company’s business.

The Company cannot provide any assurance as to the outcome of this matter.

The Company cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

The Company also cannot provide an estimate of the possible loss or range of loss.

Any adverse outcome in this matter could expose the Company to substantial damages or penalties that may have a material adverse impact on the Company’s operations and cash flows.

In addition to the above actions, we are subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.

In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially

affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

In our opinion, the amount of ultimate liability with respect to any of these actions is unlikely to materially affect our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity, though the outcomes could be material to our operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings