Charles Smith Enterprises v. DVSport: Sports Video Analytics Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Charles Smith Enterprises, LLC asserted two sports video replay and analytics patents — US7756876B2 and US6877010B2 — against DVSport’s suite of video review products. After 1,169 days of litigation in Delaware District Court, all claims were dismissed with prejudice by joint motion, with each party bearing its own costs.
Three years of sports video patent litigation ends by agreement in Delaware
On September 8, 2021, Charles Smith Enterprises, LLC (CSE) filed a patent infringement action against DVSport, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:21-cv-01279), before Judge Colm F. Connolly. CSE alleged infringement of US7756876B2 and US6877010B2 — patents directed at sports video replay and analytics technology — by DVSport’s commercial products including DVSport 360, DVSport HD Gameday, DVSport Replay, and DVSport Rewind.
On November 20, 2024, the parties — including Catapult Sports, Inc. as a co-defendant in related proceedings — jointly moved to dismiss all claims, counterclaims, and causes of action in both cases with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Judge Connolly granted the joint motion on the same day. The dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, permanently barring CSE from re-asserting the same claims against DVSport and Catapult on the same patents.
The 1,169-day duration suggests the case progressed well into substantive litigation before the parties reached an agreement. The mutual ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a clear-cut win for either side, and may suggest a licensing arrangement or business settlement was reached — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. What drove the ultimate resolution, including any license, cross-license, or commercial agreement, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 1169 days
1,169 days — roughly 3 years 2 months from filing to joint dismissal order
Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice: a final, permanent close
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which permits re-filing — this order permanently extinguishes CSE’s ability to assert US7756876B2 and US6877010B2 against DVSport and Catapult based on the same conduct. The joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement rather than a unilateral procedural step by either party.
Permanent bar to re-filingCSE gives up its infringement claims permanently
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Charles Smith Enterprises permanently waives its right to pursue these specific infringement claims against DVSport and Catapult on these two patents. This is a significant concession from the patent holder. However, the ‘each party bears its own costs’ structure — rather than a fee award against CSE — suggests the resolution was negotiated on commercially acceptable terms, possibly including undisclosed consideration.
Claims extinguished; possible settlementDVSport and Catapult secure permanent release from these patent claims
DVSport, Inc. and Catapult Sports, Inc. obtain a with-prejudice dismissal of all claims and counterclaims, providing legal certainty that CSE cannot reassert US7756876B2 or US6877010B2 in this litigation context. The absence of a cost award in their favour suggests they did not achieve a full litigation victory — the outcome is more consistent with a negotiated exit than a defendant win on the merits.
Permanent release securedSports video analytics IP risk: sector-level read-through
The dismissal with prejudice removes these two patents as active litigation risk for DVSport’s specific product lines. However, the patents remain in force and CSE — or any future assignee — could assert them against other players in the sports video analytics and replay space. Companies operating video review, replay, or coaching analytics products should note that the underlying IP was litigated for over three years without a validity ruling, leaving claim scope unresolved.
Patents remain in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Charles Smith Enterprises, LLC | Company | Sports video analytics patent assertion entity — holder of US7756876B2 and US6877010B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DVSport, Inc. | Company | Sports video review and replay software provider; products include DVSport 360 and DVSport HD GamedaySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Charles Smith Enterprises, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Charles Smith Enterprises, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew R. Cheslock | Attorney | Counsel for DVSport, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geoffrey Graham Grivner | Attorney | Counsel for DVSport, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert D. Finkel | Attorney | Counsel for DVSport, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC | Law Firm | Representing DVSport, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is notable for its breadth: it expressly extinguishes ‘all claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted by all Parties in both of these cases.’ The explicit with-prejudice designation forecloses any future re-filing on the same claims. The symmetric cost provision — each party bearing its own fees — is characteristic of a negotiated commercial resolution and does not suggest either party prevailed on the merits. No validity, claim construction, or infringement ruling was issued, leaving the patents’ enforceability against third parties legally intact.
US7756876B2 & US6877010B2 — Sports Video Replay and Analytics Patents
US7756876B2 (Application No. 11/050673) and US6877010B2 (Application No. 09/806008) are directed at sports video replay, indexing, and analytics technology. US6877010B2, based on the earlier application number, represents foundational IP in digitised sports video retrieval and likely predates the widespread commercialisation of cloud-based sports analytics. US7756876B2 builds on this foundation, covering data management and replay systems relevant to modern coaching and performance review workflows.
These patents sit at the core of a rapidly commercialising sector: sports video analytics platforms are increasingly used across professional, collegiate, and amateur sports for coaching, recruitment, and performance review. The fact that CSE was able to assert both patents against DVSport’s entire product suite — including DVSport 360, HD Gameday, Replay, and Rewind — suggests broad claim coverage. For competitors in this space, the absence of any invalidity ruling following three years of litigation is a material risk factor that warrants proactive FTO analysis.
Should your team run an FTO against US7756876B2 and US6877010B2?
If your company develops or distributes sports video replay, coaching analytics, performance review software, or any platform that indexes or retrieves video tied to athletic events, these two patents should be on your FTO radar. The claims were asserted against four distinct DVSport products across replay and real-time review functionality. No court has invalidated or construed the claims, meaning their enforceable scope remains open — and potentially broad.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map their specific feature sets against the claim trees of US7756876B2 and US6877010B2, identify prior art that could support a design-around or IPR petition, and benchmark against the full Charles Smith Enterprises patent portfolio. A targeted FTO now is materially cheaper than three years of Delaware litigation later.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7756876B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar sports video analytics and replay patent cases in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent infringement actions involving sports video replay, coaching analytics, and video indexing technology litigated in Delaware and comparable jurisdictions.
What this case signals for the sports video analytics IP landscape
A with-prejudice joint dismissal after three years of Delaware litigation points to a negotiated resolution — and leaves two asserted patents with unresolved claim scope.
Dismissal with prejudice protects defendants — not the whole market
DVSport and Catapult are permanently protected from these specific claims. But US7756876B2 and US6877010B2 remain active patents. Other sports video analytics vendors — including those offering replay, tagging, or performance review platforms — remain potentially exposed. The lack of any validity ruling means the patents carry forward with no public record weakness established.
Three-year duration without trial suggests hard-fought negotiation
Cases that run 1,169 days before a joint dismissal typically involve substantive claim construction, discovery disputes, or IPR activity. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a commercial settlement rather than capitulation by either party. IP teams monitoring sports tech litigation should treat this as a likely licensed resolution, not a patent defeat.
Charles v DVSport — key questions answered
Charles Smith Enterprises asserted two patents: US7756876B2 (application 11/050673) and US6877010B2 (application 09/806008). Both patents cover sports video replay and analytics technology and were asserted against DVSport’s product suite including DVSport 360, DVSport HD Gameday, DVSport Replay, and DVSport Rewind.
The case was dismissed with prejudice. On November 20, 2024, Judge Colm F. Connolly granted a joint motion by the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 dismissing all claims, counterclaims, and causes of action with prejudice. This permanently bars re-filing of the same claims against DVSport and Catapult Sports on these patents.
Charles Smith Enterprises was represented by Timothy Devlin of Devlin Law Firm LLC. DVSport was represented by Andrew R. Cheslock, Geoffrey Graham Grivner, and Robert D. Finkel of Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney PC.
The cost provision means no fee-shifting was ordered — neither party was required to pay the other’s attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses. In U.S. patent litigation, this is often consistent with a negotiated settlement or commercial resolution rather than a clear legal victory for either side. It contrasts with an ‘exceptional case’ fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Yes. The dismissal only resolves claims between CSE, DVSport, and Catapult Sports. No court ruled on the validity or claim scope of either patent. Both US7756876B2 and US6877010B2 remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other companies operating in the sports video analytics and replay space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.