In a short but useful procedural order, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s unopposed motion to withdraw existing lead counsel and substitute new lead counsel in PGR2025-00086. The order applies 37 C.F.R. § 42.10, the PTAB rule governing counsel recognition and changes in representation, and reflects the Board’s routine but important emphasis on continuity of representation.

Although the ruling does not break new doctrinal ground, it is a practical reminder that PTAB counsel changes are not automatic. A party seeking to replace lead counsel must obtain Board authorization, and the motion should make clear that the party will continue to be represented by qualified counsel, with backup counsel in place as required by the rules. The fact that the motion here was unopposed likely made the result straightforward.

The Board’s reasoning appears procedural rather than substantive: because the patent owner requested withdrawal and substitution, and because no party opposed the request, the Board found good cause to grant it under the governing regulation. These orders typically turn on whether the request preserves orderly case management and avoids prejudice to the opposing party or disruption to the schedule. In other words, the Board is generally receptive to counsel substitutions so long as the case remains staffed appropriately and deadlines are not jeopardized.

For practitioners, the significance is less about precedent and more about PTAB practice discipline. First, if lead counsel needs to exit, parties should move promptly and ensure replacement counsel is properly identified and eligible to serve. Second, securing the other side’s non-opposition can materially smooth the path to relief. Third, even seemingly ministerial changes should be handled carefully in a fast-moving AIA proceeding, where missed deadlines and administrative missteps can have outsized consequences.

This order does not appear to change existing law or establish a new standard. Instead, it reinforces the Board’s established approach: counsel substitutions will generally be allowed when the request complies with § 42.10, the opposing party does not object, and the transition does not threaten efficient adjudication. For counsel managing PTAB matters, that is a useful operational takeaway—particularly in post-grant review proceedings, where strategic and staffing changes often occur under compressed timelines.

View full case on Docket Alarm