The Board has repeatedly acknowledged that a motion to amend claims may be contingent on the Board determining an original claim is unpatentable. One patent owner sought to expand on the conditional motion to amend a patent claim by seeking the Board’s view on whether it could present alternative, contingent substitute claims. See BAE Sys. Information & Electronic Sys. Integration, Inc., IPR2013-00175, Paper 26 (Aug. 27, 2013). In this case, “Patent Owner asked whether it is permissible to propose two replacement claims for an existing claim. For example, ‘replacement claim 1’ would add an additional limitation to claim 1 and be contingent on claim 1 being found unpatentable. ‘Second replacement claim 1’ would add a different limitation to claim 1 and be contingent on both claim 1 and ‘replacement claim 1’ being found unpatentable. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.121(a)(3), ‘[t]he presumption is that only one substitute claim would be needed to replace each challenged claim, and it may be rebutted by a demonstration of need.’ The Board referred Patent Owner to the guidance provided in Case IPR2012-00027, Paper 26, dated June 11, 2013 (“Idle Free”). In particular, ‘a patent owner has to show a special need to justify more than one substitute claim for each challenged claim. In such situations, the patent owner needs to show patentable distinction of the additional substitute claim over all other substitute claims for the same challenged claim.’…Thus, should Patent Owner propose a ‘second replacement claim 1,’ Patent Owner would need to establish a special need for doing so and a patentable distinction over ‘replacement claim 1.’”