New Prehearing Conferences Reshape IPR and PGR Oral Hearings

The USPTO has updated the PTAB Trial Practice Guide to implement a new prehearing conference requirement for inter partes review (IPR) and postgrant review (PGR) trials. Parties must now participate in a prehearing conference approximately 15 days before their scheduled oral hearing. As a practical matter, these conferences will provide parties an opportunity to improve the oral hearing’s efficiency, substantively educate the Board on key issues, and resolve evidentiary disputes.

While the concept of prehearing conferences is not new, parties have long had the ability to request such conferences on an ad hoc basis. The USPTO’s December 2025 update now formalizes and mandates their use for IPR and PGR trials proceeding to oral hearing, with the stated goal of streamlining oral hearings by clarifying the key issues in advance.

The parties are expected to identify the points on which they intend to focus, such as particular claim construction disputes, prior art combinations, and objective indicia of nonobviousness.

The Board likewise may provide guidance on any particular issues as well as rule on pending motions, objections, and disputed exhibits. That said, the Board may also defer ruling until after the prehearing conference, at the oral hearing, or after the hearing. 

IMPACT ON PRACTITIONERS

For IPRs and PGRs that proceed to oral hearing, practitioners must now plan for an additional procedural step that holds the potential to shape or alter the focus of arguments presented in the oral hearing. As a practical matter, prehearing conferences will require earlier coordination among parties and organization of substantive arguments. It may also require substantive adjustments after the prehearing conference to address unexpected interest from the Board.

At minimum, a well-prepared prehearing conference can help focus the Board on the key arguments and clarify where the true disputes lie. But, beyond the practical efficiencies, these prehearing conferences present an opportunity for advocacy.

As with district court pretrial conferences, these prehearing conferences will allow parties to preview their themes and educate the Board on their theories before the true argument begins. Practitioners should thoughtfully identify their issues for the prehearing conference not only to ensure an efficient discussion, but also with the overarching educational goals in mind.

Where the Board decides to resolve evidentiary motions and/or objections at the prehearing conference, practitioners will have even more opportunities for advocacy. Prevailing on key limine issues holds the potential to significantly change the landscape of a hearing, including which grounds to emphasize.

Practitioners should therefore be mindful of which issues would preferably be resolved at the prehearing conference and which can be deferred. Losing a sensitive issue two weeks before the hearing is likely preferable to losing it at the hearing itself as the advance notice provides an opportunity to adjust one’s presentation and hearing strategy.

CONCLUSIONS AND TAKEAWAYS

The new prehearing conference required under the updated PTAB Trial Practice Guide introduces a meaningful new procedural requirement for IPR and PGR oral hearings. Recognizing the opportunity this new prehearing conference presents to sharpen arguments on key issues will be essential for efficient and effective advocacy.

Parties in IPRs and PGRs should consider these prehearing conferences as an opportunity to both improve the later hearing’s efficiency and substantively advocate by educating the Board and resolving evidentiary disputes.