According to prior decisions by the PTAB, anything a declarant says in a declaration was fair game for cross-examination of that declarant in a post-issuance trial proceeding. The Board previously refused to allow a party to file a motion to limit the scope of cross-examination to the grounds on which trial was instituted. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00128, Paper 34 (Sept. 16, 2013). In Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00004, Paper 18 (May 3, 2013); Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00007, Paper 18 (May 3, 2013); Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, IPR2013-00007, Paper 18 (May 3, 2013), the Board noted that the witness submitting a declaration must be made “available for cross examination on all direct testimony.” A similar decision was made in Micron Tech., Inc. v. The Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, IPR2013-00005, Paper 21 (Apr. 15, 2013); Micron Tech., Inc. v. The Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, IPR2013-00006, Paper 18 (Apr. 15, 2013); Micron Tech., Inc. v. The Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Illinois, IPR2013-00008, Paper 27 (Apr. 15, 2013), where the Board explained that under 37 C.F.R. 42.53(d)(5)(ii), the proper scope of cross examination is the scope of direct testimony. The Board explained that testimony about grounds on which trial was not instituted “may be relevant to the state of the prior art.” However, in a decision rendered in ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00133, the petitioner “requested that cross-examination be limited to the grounds on which trial was instituted.” The Patent Owner noted that 37 C.F.R. 42.53(d)(5)(ii) allows cross-examination into “all statements” made by the declarant, “including statements unrelated to the grounds on which trial was instituted.” The Board agreed with the petitioner this time, citing Section (I)(F) of the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide’s statement that “discovery before the Board is focused on what the parties reasonable need to respond to the grounds raised by an opponent,” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48761 (Aug. 14, 2012). “Accordingly, the Board indicated that the cross-examination is limited to statements of [the declarant] related to the grounds on which trial was instituted.” The Board then made a curious statement that “statements of the witness in related proceedings or publications may be used at cross-examination for impeachment purposes.” See also ZTE corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00136, Paper 27 (Oct. 9, 2013); ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00137, Paper 33 (Oct. 9, 2013); ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00138, Paper 34 (Oct. 9, 2013); ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00139, Paper 32 (Oct. 9, 2013). It is unclear whether this is referencing statements in the declaration pertaining to grounds that were not instituted, but since that is the subject of the dispute, it would seem that the Board would have said so if that is what it meant.