"that could be of value to both EDIG and its competitors/adversaries."

Like, in regard to the pit falls of a petitioners IPR in utilizing live and current Prior art IP as an exhibit?

Where that live and current Prior art IP sited in an IPR ....could come back to bit the petitioner, if they are successful in defeating challenged IP (e.g e.Digital).

Googles IPR was about ....MSFT / Dartmouth college (very much live art) vs. e.Digital (very much live art)....winner take all with a gold seal....and very much not about Google vs. e.Digital where there was no win for Google with either out come of MSFT vs. e.Digital.

A petitioner, IMVHO, better site dead art or no art at all....if they hope / expect to win an IPR argument.

All defendants that might challenge e.Digitals IP will have this issue to contend with. As it looks, to me anyway, that in considering Googles exhibits of prior art , all prior art is live and new to this new tech arena....Where, IMVHO, an IPR does not function properly in this respect, because it is so precise and ending with a three judge conclusion ....determing live and new IP

Without a doubt in my mind had the IPR conclude and was dis-positive to e.Digital...MSFT and Dartmouth College would be looking for there's with an un challengeable gold seal in the IPR arena.

doni