Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 515328009 series 3661412
Content provided by Randy Noranbrock. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Randy Noranbrock or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

This episode concerns a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al., decided on October 22, 2025. The core of the case involves Centripetal Networks appealing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that held certain claims of their patent unpatentable as obvious. A significant issue addressed is Centripetal’s claim that the PTAB’s decision was "tainted" due to the belated recusal of an administrative patent judge (APJ) who held stock in one of the appellees, Cisco Systems, Inc. While the court affirmed that the APJ’s minimal financial interest did not violate ethics rules, it ultimately vacated the PTAB’s final decision and remanded the case because the Board failed to adequately consider Centripetal’s evidence of copying by Cisco.

This podcast is for entertainment purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The AI-generated hosts are not attorneys and are not providing legal advice. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

  continue reading

57 episodes