Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., et al., No. 2023-2027 (Fed. Cir. (PTAB) Oct. 22, 2025). Opinion by Cunningham, joined by Moore and Hughes.
Centripetal owns a patent directed to methods and systems for detecting network threats in encrypted communications. Palo Alto Networks filed an IPR petition challenging certain claims in the patent. After the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted the IPR, Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies filed substantively identical petitions to that of Palo Alto Networks and sought joinder.
Several months later—after the Board’s institution decision—Centripetal learned that one of the assigned APJs owned between $1,001 and $15,000 in Cisco stock. Centripetal moved for recusal and vacatur, arguing that the APJ’s participation tainted the process.
The Board denied Centripetal’s motion as untimely and found no violation of ethics rules, noting that the APJ’s stock holdings were below the regulatory threshold and that Centripetal delayed raising the issue. The Board went on to issue a final written decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. Centripetal appealed, challenging both the failure to recuse and the merits.
The Federal Circuit first held that it had jurisdiction to review the recusal challenge. Although institution decisions are final and non-appealable, Centripetal’s recusal challenge did not turn on the Board’s decision to institute. Instead, it implicated ethics and constitutional concerns.
As to recusal, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Centripetal’s requested relief. Centripetal was aware of the APJ’s financial disclosures and, as the Board found, “waited until after it had received an unfavorable decision … to raise its recusal concerns.” Centripetal’s recusal argument also failed on the merits. The applicable regulation permits APJs to participate in matters where the “aggregate market value of the holdings of the employee … in the securities of all entities does not exceed $15,000.”
The Federal Circuit also rejected Centripetal’s argument that its due process rights were violated and that it was treated unfairly. And the court held that even if the recusal motion had been timely and meritorious, it still did not justify vacatur because “none of the relevant factors indicate that vacatur is justified based on recusal concerns."
Turning to the merits, the Federal Circuit held that the Board failed to discuss Centripetal’s evidence that its patent had been copied by Cisco. The court explained that the Board “had an obligation to consider the specific evidence that was put before it” but “failed to properly consider [the] evidence of copying.” Thus, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for the Board to conduct the proper analysis in the first instance.