Reyna, J. Following rehearing, vacating Board decision in IPRs related to action sport video cameras and remanding. The instituted grounds used a sales catalog as prior art. During the IPR, the patent owner challenged the prior art status of the sales catalog because the trade show at which it was distributed was “open to dealers but not the public.” In its final written decisions, the Board concluded that the petitioner “had not met its burden to show that the [catalog] was disseminated or otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the subject matter or art and exercising reasonable diligence could have located it.” The Court disagreed fining that the sales catalog qualified as prior art. “When direct availability to an ordinarily skilled artisan is no longer viewed as dispositive, the undisputed record evidence compels a conclusion that the [catalog] is a printed publication as a matter of law… Although the trade show was only open to dealers, there is no evidence or indication that any of the material disseminated or the products at the trade show excluded [action cameras], or information related to such cameras. This is especially true in light of evidence that the [trade organization is] directed to action sports vehicles and accessories related thereto… Based on [petitioner’s] testimony regarding the [trade show], and the evidence of the [distributor’s] website, we conclude that [petitioner] met its burden to show that its catalog is a printed publication under § 102(b).”