"In Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2023-2027 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 22, 2025), the Federal Circuit held that an administrative patent judge's stock ownership in petitioner did not required vacatur of the PTAB institution and final written decisions."
"The case is almost exactly parallel to a prior federal circuit decision vacating a $1.9 billion district court judgment -- with the court explaining the difference being that Article III judges are held to a different ethical standard than PTAB judges."
"Although the patentee lost lost the recusal argument, it won on a separate argument -- that the PTAB failed to consider specific evidence of copying in its obviousness analysis."
"This part of the case thus reinforces the idea that secondary considerations evidence must always be evaluated if presented."
The Federal Circuit held that an administrative patent judge's stock ownership in the petitioner did not require vacatur of the PTAB institution and final written decisions. The court distinguished PTAB judges from Article III judges by applying different ethical standards. The patentee's recusal argument failed, but a separate obviousness challenge succeeded because the PTAB did not consider specific evidence of copying. The court emphasized that evidence of secondary considerations must be evaluated when presented. The decision upholds PTAB rulings despite alleged financial interests while enforcing consideration of secondary-evidence in obviousness analyses.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]