"The precedential opinion, authored by Judge Cunningham, said the Board did not err in its analysis of Centripetal's arguments for recusal of an APJ with a financial interest in Cisco-a joined party to the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding brought against Centripetal by Palo Alto Networks-but ultimately vacated the final PTAB decision nonetheless due to the Board's failure to consider evidence presented to it of copying."
"The IPR petition was brought by Palo Alto in November 2021 challenging claims of Centripetal's U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, titled, "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection for Encrypted Communications." A panel that included APJ Brian McNamara instituted review. Centripetal requested rehearing by the Board or the Precedential Opinion Panel but was denied. Cisco and Keysight Technologies then filed "substantively identical" petitions for IPR and they sought joinder to Palo Alto's petition, which was eventually granted."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board final decision after finding the Board failed to consider evidence of copying. The court found no error in the Board's analysis denying recusal of an administrative patent judge with a financial interest in Cisco. Palo Alto filed an inter partes review petition in November 2021 challenging Centripetal's U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, and a panel including APJ Brian McNamara instituted review. Cisco and Keysight later filed substantively identical petitions and were joined to the proceeding. Centripetal moved for recusal and rehearing after discovering McNamara's Cisco stock ownership; McNamara subsequently withdrew from the panel.
Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]