The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s September 15, 2026 order in PGR2025-00067 is a procedural ruling rather than a merits decision, but it still offers useful guidance for practitioners navigating post-grant review. Orders on the conduct of proceedings often shape the practical course of a case—setting expectations on scheduling, briefing, evidentiary disputes, and the parties’ obligations to streamline issues for the Board.
Although this filing is styled simply as an “Order Conduct of the Proceeding,” that label should not mislead litigators into treating it as routine housekeeping. In PTAB practice, these orders frequently reflect the panel’s case-management priorities and can signal how strictly it intends to enforce procedural discipline. That matters because post-grant review is fast-moving, highly structured, and unforgiving when parties overreach on page limits, attempt to introduce new arguments late, or fail to raise disputes promptly.
At a high level, the Board appears to have exercised its broad authority to control the proceeding efficiently and fairly. The PTAB’s governing rules and trial practice guidance give panels significant discretion to manage briefing schedules, authorize or deny motions, regulate discovery, and require the parties to meet and confer before presenting disputes. The legal reasoning behind such orders typically rests on the Board’s mandate to secure the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of AIA trials while preserving due process for both petitioner and patent owner.
For practitioners, the key takeaway is practical: procedure can be outcome determinative at the PTAB. A conduct order can effectively define what arguments will be heard, what evidence will be considered, and whether a party will get room to correct mistakes or expand the record. Counsel should read these orders closely for implicit warnings about the panel’s tolerance for procedural gamesmanship, late-stage issue development, or noncompliance with conference requirements.
This order does not appear to set substantive patent-law precedent or announce a doctrinal shift. Instead, its significance lies in reinforcing an established feature of PTAB practice: panels expect precision, efficiency, and strict adherence to their instructions. For lawyers handling AIA matters, that is a reminder that winning at the PTAB is not only about strong invalidity or defense positions—it is also about mastering the Board’s procedural framework and tailoring strategy to the panel’s management style from the outset.