Case Explained: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD v. VALVE CORPORATION episode artwork

EPISODE · Jun 18, 2026 · 1 MIN

Case Explained: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD v. VALVE CORPORATION

from DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries · host amf-wp

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s supplemental partial judgment granting IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) against Valve Corporation, holding that the district court relied on insufficient evidence to estop one invalidity ground and failed to adequately account for hindsight bias in estopping another. The court applied the “skilled searcher” standard, which requires a patentee asserting estoppel to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an invalidity ground could have been reasonably raised during inter partes review (IPR) because a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search would have been expected to discover it. Regarding the “Kotkin” ground, the court found the district court erred by concluding a reference was discoverable based solely on classification searches that returned 26,333 results without evidence of further narrowing or manual review; mere accessibility via classification codes is insufficient when the search yields an unreviewable volume of references. Regarding the “Willner-Koji-Raymond” ground, the court held that the district court erred in relying on post-petition search evidence from Cardinal IP because it was tainted by hindsight bias. The court determined that the search methodology relied on forward-and-backward citation searches without date restrictions and a supplemental search conducted only after other references were found, rendering the evidence irrelevant to what would have been discovered at the time of Valve’s IPR petition. The practical consequence is that the case is remanded for further proceedings where the district court must consider the invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525 based on the previously estopped grounds (Kotkin and Willner-Koji-Raymond), as the evidentiary basis for estoppel has been vacated. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Episode metadata supplied by the publisher feed · Published Jun 18, 2026

Embed this episode

NOW PLAYING

Case Explained: IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD v. VALVE CORPORATION

0:00 1:35

No transcript for this episode yet

We transcribe on demand. Request one and we'll notify you when it's ready — usually under 10 minutes.

No similar episodes found.

No similar podcasts found.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is this episode of DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries?

This episode is 1 minute long.

When was this DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries episode published?

This episode was published on June 18, 2026.

Can I download this DIFTCL: Federal Narrative Summaries episode?

Yes. Use the download control on the episode player to save the publisher-provided media file.
URL copied to clipboard!