It is common for petitioners to file multiple petitions challenging a patent.  The chief advantage of this strategy is an additional 60 pages of argument for each additional petition filed.  Sometimes, however, the petitioner will follow up with a second petition to mop up the claims it “missed” in an earlier petition.  The Board has been increasingly sensitive to this, finding that it is really just an improper request for rehearing of a question already decided.  This was the case in Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels LLC v. GEVO, Inc., IPR2014-00581, Paper 9 (October 14, 2014), where the Board denied Butamax’s petition calling it “an attempt to request rehearing of a prior decision instituting trial, outside the time period provided in our Rules for such requests” and citing Microsoft Corp. v. Enfish, LLC, Case IPR2014-00577, slip op. at 8 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) (denying second petition that is “essentially a rehearing request”).