Gideon Korrell Shares 5 Strategic Lessons from the Centripetal v. Palo Alto Case
                     Gideon Korrell 
Shares 5 
Strategic 
Lessons from 
the Centripetal 
v. Palo Alto 
Case
On October 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit 
gave an important decision in Centripetal 
Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. 
The court rejected some of Centripetal’s 
arguments but still sent the case back to 
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Why? Because the Board failed to 
properly consider evidence that the 
invention may have been copied.
Here are five simple lessons from this 
case.
1. Don’t Delay 
Recusal Requests
Centripetal argued that one judge should 
have been removed because of a 
possible conflict of interest. But the court 
said the request came too late.
The key lesson is simple: if you see a 
problem, raise it immediately. Waiting 
too long, especially after losing on other 
issues, can hurt your case.
2. Follow the Exact 
Ethics Rules
The court looked closely at the rules about 
financial interests. The judge’s stock 
ownership was small and within allowed 
limits, so there was no violation.
Gideon Korrell explains that courts follow 
these rules strictly. General claims of 
unfairness won’t work unless they clearly 
break the written rules.
3. PTAB Judges Are 
Different from Court 
JCuentdripgetael asrgued that PTAB judges 
should follow the same strict standards 
as regular federal judges. The court 
disagreed.
PTAB judges are part of the executive 
branch, so different rules apply. This 
means you must build arguments based 
on those specific rules not on courtroom 
standards.
4. Recusal Doesn’t 
Automatically Cancel a 
EDveen icf tihserieo is na concern about a judge, it 
doesn’t mean the whole case will be 
thrown out.
The court said there was no real harm 
because the judge left before the final 
decision. So, the earlier issue didn’t affect 
the outcome enough to cancel everything.
5. Evidence of 
Copying Is Very 
IThme bpiggoesrt tmaistnaket by the PTAB was 
ignoring evidence that Cisco Systems may 
have copied Centripetal’s technology.
The court made it clear: this type of 
evidence must always be considered. It is 
part of what’s called “secondary 
considerations,” and it can strongly affect 
whether an invention is obvious or not.
THANK 
YOU