Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Patent Strategy Tips from Fed. Circ. 'Kroy v. Groupon' Ruling on Collateral Estoppel

By Cory G. Smith and George C. Chen and Ellen Komlos
April 30, 2025

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the usage of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in patent infringement cases. Specifically, the court considered whether a finding of invalidity of claims by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at an inter partes review (IPR) could be used to estop a patent holder from asserting patent infringement of different claims of the same patent in district court litigation. In Kroy v. Groupon, the court reversed the trial court and held that a prior finding of invalidity at the PTAB cannot be used to estop a patent infringement suit in district court alleging infringement of different claims of the same patent.

Discussion by Federal Circuit on Estoppel

On Feb. 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Kroy v. Groupon case on appeal from the District of Delaware. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 127 F.4th 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Kroy owns U.S. Patent No. 6,061,660 (the ’660 patent) entitled “System and Method for Incentive Programs and Award Fulfillment.” Id. at 1378; U.S. Pat. No. 6,061,660. The ‘660 patent issued on May 9, 2000 with 115 claims. In October 2017, Kroy sued Groupon in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of 13 claims of the ‘660 patent. Groupon, 127 F.4th at 1378. Groupon filed two IPR petitions at the PTAB challenging a total of 21 claims of the ‘660 patent in October 2018. Id. The 21 claims challenged by Groupon in the IPRs included the 13 claims asserted by Kroy in the lawsuit, and also included some additional dependent claims related to the asserted claims. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., No. CV 17-1405-MN-CJB, 2022 WL 17403538, at *1 (D. Del. Dec. 2, 2022), rev'd and remanded, 127 F.4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025). Kroy filed a first amended complaint in the district court case asserting infringement of additional claims of the ‘660 patent after the passage of Groupon’s IPR filing deadline. Groupon, 127 F.4th at 1378. Then, the PTAB found all of the 21 claims challenged by Groupon in the two IPRs to be unpatentable. In response to the IPR decisions, Kroy filed a second amended complaint to assert additional claims of the ‘660 patent against Groupon. Id. Groupon filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) arguing that the IPR rulings on the ‘660 patent collaterally estopped Kroy from asserting the newly asserted claims in the second amended complaint. Id. The district court granted the motion to dismiss, and the Federal Circuit reversed. Id. at 1378-82.

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.