This morning, the Federal Circuit released one precedential opinion, two nonprecedential opinions, and two nonprecedential orders. The precedential opinion and one of the nonprecedential opinions come in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The other nonprecedential opinion comes in a pro se appeal from a district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement claim. One of the orders grants a motion to withdraw a petition while the other is a dismissal. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the orders.
Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Precedential)
Centripetal Networks LLC (“Centripetal”) appeals from a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, holding claims 1, 24, and 25 of the ’856 patent unpatentable as obvious. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., No. IPR2022-00182, 2023 WL 5033832, at *2, *25 (P.T.A.B. May 23, 2023) (“Merits Decision”). Apart from its arguments on the merits, Centripetal argues that the Board’s decision was tainted by the belated recusal of an administrative patent judge (“APJ”) only after institution of the IPR. See Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., No. IPR2022-00182, Paper 55 at 6–22 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2023) (“Recusal Decision”). While we see no reversible error in the Board’s recusal analysis, we vacate the Board’s final written decision for failure to adequately consider evidence of copying and remand for further proceedings.
In re X-Fab Semiconductor Foundries GmbH (Nonprecedential)
X-Fab Semiconductor Foundries GmbH (X-Fab) appeals a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) affirming an examiner’s rejection of certain claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 15/648,728 as obvious. Because X-Fab forfeited the arguments it raises on appeal, we affirm the Board’s decision.
House v. General Electric Company (Nonprecedential)
Michael J. House appeals pro se a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, dismissing his complaint for patent infringement. See House v. General Elec. Co., No. 23-cv-00071, 2024 WL 4350665 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024) (“Decision”). For the following reasons, we affirm.