Happy Halloween! Yesterday afternoon, the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential orders, both of which were dismissals. This morning, the Federal Circuit released three nonprecedential opinions. Two come in patent cases, while the third comes in a veterans case. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissals.
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Centripetal Networks, LLC owns U.S. Patent Nos. 10,542,028 and 10,757,126, both titled “Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection.” Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN) petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute inter partes reviews of all the claims of the ’028 and ’126 patents, alleging unpatentability for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of a reference called the Sourcefire 3D System User Guide (Sourcefire), alone or in combination with another reference not at issue on appeal. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, acting for the PTO Director, instituted the requested reviews, and after conducting the reviews, the Board concluded that all the challenged claims were unpatentable under § 103. J.A. 1–48, 49–92; see Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. IPR2021-01147, 2023 WL 1861774 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 9, 2023) (’028 Decision).
Centripetal timely appealed in both matters, and we consolidated the appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm.
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Centripetal Networks, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 10,567,413, titled “Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection.” Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN) petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to institute an inter partes review of all the claims of the ’413 patent, alleging that the claims were unpatentable for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, acting for the PTO’s Director, instituted the requested review, and after conducting the review, the Board concluded that all the challenged claims were unpatentable under § 103. J.A. 1–57; see Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., No. IPR2021-01149, 2023 WL 2592367 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2023) (’413 Decision).
Centripetal timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We affirm
Burnett v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Nonprecedential)
Kevin P. Burnett appeals from a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) denying relief under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”). We affirm.