As noted above, petitions filed more than one year of service of a complaint are barred under section 315(b), with the limited exception of petitions filed with a motion for joinder within one-month of institution of trial. At least one petitioner has attempted to use the joinder provision to seek institution of trial on claims that the Board declined to institute trial on in connection with a first petition. See ZTE Corp. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00454. The patent owner may have discovered a way to work around this and preclude institution of an IPR on those claims that the Board declined to institute trial on the first time around. Specifically, the patent owner cancelled all of the claims on which trial was instituted, and adverse judgment was entered in its favor even over the objections of the petitioner who asked for the request for cancellation to be evaluated after its joinder petition was ruled on. See ZTE Corp. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00134, Paper 34 (Aug. 6, 2013). Now, it would appear that there is no pending proceeding to join. That the joinder will be denied on this grounds is not clear. In an earlier conference call between the parties, the Board explained that it should not “assume that if this inter partes review is terminated, it will be successful in the new inter partes review requested by [petitioner] in arguing that the new review is time-barred because this review is no longer pending and available to be joined.” See ZTE Corp. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc., IPR2013-00134, Paper 25 (Aug. 6, 2013). This issue is currently being briefed by the parties in connection with IPR2013-00454.