The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s return to in-person hearings changed more than the address on a calendar invitation. It reshaped travel budgets, hearing strategy, staffing, demonstrative preparation, and the way advocates respond to administrative patent judges. Here is what the September 2025 policy means for patent owners, challengers, applicants, and counseland how to prepare without letting airport delays become an unplanned exhibit.
The PTAB’s September 2025 In-Person Hearing Rule
Beginning September 1, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office made physical attendance the default for Patent Trial and Appeal Board oral hearings. Parties are expected to appear in person unless they establish good cause for a virtual appearance. The policy applies broadly to PTAB hearings, including America Invents Act proceedings and ex parte appeals.
Remote technology did not disappear. Members of the public may still request remote access to public hearings, and a party may participate virtually when the Board approves a good-cause request. The important distinction is that remote observation remains available, while remote participation by a party is now an exception.
What Counts as Good Cause?
The USPTO identified financial hardship, medical emergencies, and comparable obstacles as circumstances that may justify virtual participation. Ordinary convenience is unlikely to be enough. “Our best technical lawyer lives three time zones away” may be a staffing headache, but it is not automatically a legal obstacle.
Good cause is evaluated separately for each party. If the petitioner receives permission to appear remotely, the patent owner does not inherit that permission. Each side must make and support its own request.
How PTAB Hearings Reached This Point
In March 2020, the USPTO shifted PTAB hearings to video or telephone as part of its pandemic response. In 2022, the agency restored an in-person option at headquarters and regional offices, but virtual appearances remained available and in-person hearings initially depended on agreement among the parties.
In March 2025, judges conducting virtual hearings were generally directed to appear from PTAB hearing rooms, while parties were encouraged to attend physically. The September policy completed the progression by making in-person attendance the starting point and requiring a specific justification for remote participation. In procedural terms, the burden flipped. In practical terms, travel returned to the case plan.
Who Is Affected?
The PTAB hears appeals from adverse examiner decisions and conducts AIA proceedings such as inter partes review, post-grant review, and derivation proceedings. Across these matters, oral hearings give the panel an opportunity to question the parties before deciding the case.
Patent Applicants and Ex Parte Appellants
Applicants appealing an examiner’s rejection must now weigh the value of oral argument against transportation, lodging, and additional attorney time. A hearing can be especially useful when claim construction or a technical misunderstanding drives the rejection, but it should not be requested merely because it feels like the ceremonial next step.
Petitioners and Patent Owners in AIA Trials
In inter partes review and post-grant review, oral argument may be the final live exchange before a final written decision. Because these cases often overlap with district-court litigation, licensing, or product strategy, counsel must keep PTAB positions consistent with arguments elsewhere. A memorable podium answer can help; an inconsistent one can be memorable for the wrong reason.
Clients and Legal Departments
In-house teams must approve travel budgets and decide which lawyers, experts, and business representatives truly need to attend. Large groups may also require advance coordination because hearing-room seating is limited.
Where In-Person PTAB Hearings May Be Held
The USPTO’s hearings page lists its Alexandria, Virginia headquarters and regional locations in Detroit, Denver, Dallas, and San Jose. Parties may request a preferred office, and the PTAB will try to accommodate the request. Actual options can depend on hearing-room capacity, agency operations, and panel logistics.
A venue request is not a reservation confirmation wearing a suit. Counsel should wait for the Notice of Oral Hearing or Hearing Order before buying nonrefundable travel and should treat the case-specific notice as controlling.
Not Every Judge Must Be in the Same Room
Current hearing guidance permits at least one administrative patent judge to appear physically while other panel members participate remotely. Advocates therefore need to engage the judge in the room without forgetting those on screen. Clear slide numbers and record citations matter more than pointing and saying, “right there.”
What the Rule Changes for Hearing Strategy
1. Preparation Must Include the Room
Remote advocacy emphasized camera framing and screen sharing. In-person advocacy adds posture, podium discipline, room acoustics, security, and equipment setup. Rehearsals should include standing, advancing slides, handling interruptions, and returning directly to the judge’s question.
2. The Record Still Controls
An oral hearing is not another briefing round. Demonstratives must be grounded in the existing record, and new evidence is not permitted. Effective slides usually simplify the dispute by placing a claim limitation beside the cited passage, expert testimony, or figure that matters.
3. Questions Outrank the Script
The PTAB advises counsel to lead with critical issues, answer the question asked, confront weak points, and know the entire record. A polished opening helps, but the hearing may quickly become a detailed conversation about one limitation, one expert concession, or one missing link in an obviousness theory.
4. Team Selection Becomes More Deliberate
It may not be economical to bring every lawyer, expert, and client representative. Lead counsel should decide who must be physically present and who can support from elsewhere. The technical specialist who can locate the decisive exhibit may be more useful than the fifth person who edited the slides.
5. Venue Becomes a Case-Management Issue
A regional office may reduce costs, but convenience should be weighed against panel logistics and the needs of both sides. Counsel should raise preferences early and explain practical constraints. “The barbecue is better” remains a weak venue argument.
How to Prepare for an In-Person PTAB Oral Hearing
- Read the case-specific order first. The Notice of Oral Hearing, Scheduling Order, and Hearing Order control the details of the proceeding.
- Resolve appearance issues early. File any good-cause request promptly and support it with concrete facts.
- Confirm the venue before purchasing travel. Use flexible reservations when possible.
- Rehearse to the actual time limit. Reserve rebuttal time intentionally and practice concise answers.
- Prepare an offline presentation. Hearing rooms may not provide internet access, so store files locally and bring the necessary adapters.
- Use exact citations. Make slide, exhibit, page, and transcript references easy to find.
- Plan for security. Bring acceptable identification and arrive early; current guidance recommends at least 30 minutes.
- Prepare for a hybrid panel. Speak clearly and avoid relying on gestures a remote judge cannot see.
Costs, Access, and Fairness
The principal criticism of mandatory in-person attendance is cost. Flights, hotels, transportation, and added attorney time may weigh more heavily on small businesses, independent inventors, universities, and distant parties. The good-cause exception offers a safety valve, but routine budget pressure may not automatically qualify as financial hardship.
Supporters can point to more natural interaction, fewer connection failures, clearer turn-taking, and a more formal setting for high-stakes adjudication. Judges may find it easier to interrupt and test whether counsel is answering the question rather than gently orbiting it.
Public remote access remains an important feature. Because agency materials have used different advance-request periods for certain viewing arrangements, prudent observers should contact the PTAB hearings office early and follow the stricter deadline stated in the most recent guidance or case notice.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Seeking a virtual exception too late: A timely, documented request is stronger than a last-minute convenience argument.
- Assuming all judges will be present: Prepare for a hybrid panel.
- Turning slides into new briefing: Demonstratives should explain the record, not expand it.
- Depending on cloud access: A failed connection should not become the most persuasive opponent in the room.
- Ignoring room rules: Recording is prohibited, professional conduct is expected, and late entry may be restricted.
Practical Experience: What the Return to the Room Changes
The most useful way to understand the in-person policy is to imagine the entire hearing day, not merely the minutes spent arguing. The experience begins when the team chooses a venue and books travel. A remote hearing could be handled from a conference room with a controlled setup. An in-person hearing introduces weather, flight delays, federal-building security, unfamiliar equipment, and the possibility that someone packed three chargers but not the one the laptop actually uses.
That reality changes preparation. A strong team should arrive early enough to avoid turning travel risk into advocacy risk. For an important AIA hearing, arriving the day before may be sensible. Counsel can inspect the route, confirm identification requirements, test the presentation offline, and conduct a final rehearsal while standing. The goal is not luxury; it is removing avoidable distractions before the panel begins asking unavoidable questions.
The Podium Changes Pacing
At a podium, silence feels different. Counsel cannot glance continuously at a private message window or wait for a colleague to type an answer. The advocate must know the record, recognize the direction of the panel’s questions, and ask for a brief moment when necessary rather than filling the air with words. A concise answer followed by a citation usually sounds more confident than a long tour through every argument in the brief.
Physical presence also makes handoffs more visible. If lead counsel repeatedly turns to the team for help, the panel notices. That does not mean counsel should pretend to know what they do not know. It means the team should decide in advance how to pass a note, locate an exhibit, or identify the correct transcript line without creating a small stage production behind the podium.
Hybrid Judging Requires Two Kinds of Eye Contact
One judge may be in the room while another appears by video. The advocate should answer the judge who asked the question but speak for the full panel. When discussing a demonstrative, counsel should say the slide number and relevant record cite rather than pointing vaguely and saying, “right there.” “Right there” is a dangerous location in patent litigation; it rarely appears in the record.
Clients Experience the Hearing Differently, Too
For inventors and business leaders, attending in person can make the proceeding feel more consequential and easier to understand. They see which issues interest the judges and how the opposing side answers pressure. At the same time, counsel should prepare clients for the narrow nature of oral argument. The hearing is not a product demonstration, a settlement conference, or an opportunity to tell the company’s entire origin story.
The Best Practical Lesson Is Disciplined Simplicity
In-person PTAB advocacy rewards preparation that is deep but presentation that is selective. Know every important exhibit, but lead with the two or three issues that can change the result. Build demonstratives that can be understood from across a room and over a video feed. Rehearse hostile questions. Carry backup files. Arrive early. Then, when the panel interrupts the carefully planned opening on slide two, welcome the question. It is probably the reason the hearing exists.
Conclusion
The September 1, 2025 return to in-person PTAB hearings transformed oral argument into a travel, logistics, and advocacy exercise with a physical default. The substance remains rooted in the written record, but delivery now requires early venue planning, timely exception requests, offline demonstratives, disciplined answers, and preparation for judges who may participate from different locations.
Virtual hearings offered efficiency; in-person hearings offer immediacy. Success in either format still depends on identifying the issue that matters, answering the question asked, and showing exactly where the record supports the answer. The room changed. The burden of persuasion did not.
