PTAB Newsletter

In this issue:

• Q&A with Arnold & Porter PTAB Practitioner Nicholas M. Nyemah
• Q&A with Arnold & Porter PTAB Practitioner Joseph M. Galvin
• Notable Board Decisions
  • Patent Owner Moves for Recusal and Vacatur Based on APJ’s Financial Interests; Board Denies Motion: Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., and Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, IPR2022-00182, Paper 55 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2023)
  • Board Rejects Petitioner’s Collateral Estoppel Argument Based on Related Patent’s Prior IPR Decision: Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, IPR2021-01147, Paper 40 (Feb. 9, 2023)
• New Precedential Decision
  • Director Designates as Precedential Board’s Decision Denying Institution; Unsupported Expert Testimony Is Given Little Weight: Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (PTAB August 24, 2022)
• Recent Director Review Decisions
  • Director’s Order Restores OpenSky as a Party and Imposes Monetary Sanctions: OpenSky Industries, LLC v. VLSI Technology LLC, IPR2021-01064, Paper 127, (PTAB Feb. 3, 2023)
  • Director Review Decision Involving Additional Discovery and RPI: Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., IPR2022-00615, Paper 40 (PTAB Feb. 3, 2023)
• Recent Federal Circuit Decision Related to PTAB
  • Federal Circuit Precedential Decision: Deadlines for Institution Decisions and Final Written Decisions Do Not Apply to Further Director Review of Those Decisions: CyWee Group, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 20-1565 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2023)
• Upcoming Events and Speaking Engagements

* Drew Needham contributed to this newsletter. Mr. Needham is a graduate of the University of Maryland School of Law and is employed at Arnold & Porter's Washington, DC office. Mr. Needham is admitted only in Maryland. He is not admitted to the practice of law in the District of Columbia.

© Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP 2023 All Rights Reserved. This newsletter is intended to be a general summary of the law and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with counsel to determine applicable legal requirements in a specific fact situation.