Update on IPR Estoppel

No estoppel if IPR not instituted. A recent district court case confirms that IPR estoppel does not apply to IPR petitions that are not instituted. See inMusic Brands, Inc. v. Roland Corporation, 1-17-cv-00010 (DRI Jun. 14, 2022) (Lincoln D. Almond). This follows on the heels of the following CAFC decisions mentioned in past posts.

Estoppel applies to grounds not in IPR petition. Estoppel applies for all grounds not in petition for claims challenged in a petition. See California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited, et al., 20-2222, Feb. 4, 2022 and Feb. 22, 2022 errata sheet.

Estoppel does not apply to claims not challenged. The CAFC held that estoppel arising on a final written decision in two simultaneously filed IPRs required dismissal of a third simultaneously filed IPR which asserted different grounds against the same claims.  The court noted that petitioner could have filed multiple petitions addressing different subsets of the claims, as opposed to different subsets of the grounds. In so doing, the court indicated that IPR estoppel “applies on a claim-by-claim basis.” Intuitive Surgical v. Ethicon, 2022 WL 414252, Feb. 11, 2022.
Knowledge assets are defined in the study as confidential information critical to the development, performance and marketing of a company’s core business, other than personal information that would trigger notice requirements under law. For example,
The new study shows dramatic increases in threats and awareness of threats to these “crown jewels,” as well as dramatic improvements in addressing those threats by the highest performing organizations. Awareness of the risk to knowledge assets increased as more respondents acknowledged that their