Recently in Apple Inc. v. Sightsound Tech., LLC, the Board authorized the patent owner to file a sur-reply to address an obviousness ground raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply. CBM2013-00020, Paper 100 at 2. In another case this month, Amneal Pharm., LLC v. Endo Pharm. Inc., the Board authorized both a reply and a sur-reply to address allegations in the preliminary response of a time-barred petition under 35 U.S.C. ¶ 315(b). IPR2014-00360, Paper 9 at 2-3. These cases show that the normal procedure of not allowing sur-replies in post grant proceedings can be changed under certain circumstances. This is not, however, expected to become the norm.