In Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 23-2027 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2025), the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the PTAB's recusal analysis and vacated and remanded the PTAB's obviousness judgment for further proceedings to properly consider evidence of copying.
The Federal Circuit addressed Centripetal's challenge to the PTAB's handling of the late recusal of an administrative patent judge ("APJ") who owned stock in Cisco, a non-party at the time of the APJ's involvement. The court clarified that it has jurisdiction to review conflict-of-interest challenges in PTAB institution procedures and upheld the PTAB's recusal analysis on several grounds. The court first determined that the PTAB did not abuse its discretion in finding that Centripetal's recusal motion was untimely because procedural fairness requires parties to raise such concerns promptly while Centripetal waited three months to seek recusal. The Federal Circuit then found no reversible error in the merits of the Board's recusal analysis because ethics regulations provided an exception for holdings under a threshold amount and the APJ's financial interest was below that regulatory threshold.
On the merits of the PTAB's obviousness determination, the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB erred by failing to consider Centripetal's evidence of copying by Cisco. Although the PTAB acknowledged the existence of the evidence, which had been presented in a prior district court litigation, it erred by dismissing the evidence without analysis. The Federal Circuit clarified that while the Board need not scour the entire litigation record, it must engage with the copying evidence that Centripetal put before it.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
