PTAB Posts Two Representative/Informative Decisions Re Estoppel Scope & Discovery

On July 17, the PTAB posted two representative/informative opinions on its website. One dealt with the scope of estoppel, and the other with discovery requests.

Westlake Services LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp. (IPR2014-00176) was designated representative (non-binding example) regarding estoppel. The PTAB held that estoppel only applies where there was a final written decision in an earlier review, and does not apply to claims on which review was not instituted. There has been an increase in follow-on petitions on the same patents/claims, and the PTAB makes it clear that such petitions face significant hurdles. The PTAB has the discretion to deny petitions that raise "the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments" that were previously presented in an earlier IPR. The PTAB in Westlake pointed out that two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and a CAFC decision (Alice & Ultramercial) issued between the first and second petitions, vacating a key precedent relied on