In re: CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 38 F.4th 1025 Fed. Cir. 2022 . On January 4, 2023, the panel…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-127
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. IPR2022-00182,
IPR2022-01151, and IPR2022-01199.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
WALLACH , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Centripetal Networks, LLC petitions for a writ of man-
damus to direct the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to va-
cate all decisions in this inter partes review (“IPR”) and
constitute a new panel of administrative patent judges
(“APJs”) to reconsider the IPR petition. The United States
Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Palo Alto Networks,
Inc. (“PAN”), Cisco Systems, Inc., and Keysight Technolo-
gies, Inc. oppose. Centripetal replies.
Centripetal owns patents relating to systems and
methods that perform computer networking security
Case: 23-127 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE: CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC 2
functions, including U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 (“the ’856
patent”). In 2021, Centripetal filed a civil action against
PAN for patent infringement. In response, PAN filed IPR
petitions seeking the PTO’s review of Centripetal’s patents.
In May 2022, a Board panel consisting of APJs McNamara,
Moore, and Amundson, instituted review of the ’856 patent.
On June 8, 2022, Centripetal sought rehearing of the
institution decision. On June 24, 2022, Cisco and Keysight
filed petitions for IPR of the ’856 patent that were substan-
tively identical to PAN’s petition and moved for joinder. In
December 2022, Centripetal moved for APJ McNamara’s
recusal and vacatur of the institution decision on the
ground that he owned Cisco stock; Centripetal principally
relied on this court’s decision vacating a damages award
against Cisco (based on the ’856 patent) after the court con-
cluded that disqualification was required under 28 U.S.C.
§ 455(b)(4) because the spouse of the trial judge owned
Cisco stock. See Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
Inc., 38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
On January 4, 2023, the panel denied Centripetal’s re-
quest for rehearing, granted Cisco’s and Keysight’s peti-
tions to institute, and joined the three proceedings. APJs
McNamara and Amundson then withdrew and were re-
placed by APJs Wormmeester and Khan. On February 3,
2023, the new panel rejected Centripetal’s argument that
APJ McNamara’s ownership of stock in Cisco required va-
catur of the decision instituting PAN’s IPR. The Board con-
cluded that “Cisco was not a party to this proceeding at the
time of the Institution Decision,” that the statute that re-
quired disqualification in Cisco “does not apply to the
Board,” and that the value of APJ McNamara’s stock “falls
well below” the threshold requiring recusal set by Execu-
tive Branch ethical standards. Appx11, Appx20.
On February 7, 2023, the Board also denied without
prejudice Centripetal’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
one of its attorneys based on, inter alia, his prior failure to
Case: 23-127 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE: CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC 3
comply with the Board’s rules and procedures and im-
proper conduct before two district courts.
We have jurisdiction over Centripetal’s mandamus pe-
tition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(4)(A), 1651, and 35
U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319. See Mylan Laby’s Ltd. v. Janssen
Pharmaceutica, N.V., 989 F.3d 1375, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
In order for Centripetal to establish entitlement to the
“extraordinary remedy” of a writ of mandamus, it must
show that: (1) there are “no other adequate means to attain
the relief [it] desires,” (2) the “right to issuance of the writ
is clear and indisputable,” and (3) “the writ is appropriate
under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). Centripetal has failed to satisfy this de-
manding standard. Centripetal has not shown that it will
be unable to raise its arguments after a final written deci-
sion, which is expected to issue shortly. Cf. Mobility Workx,
LLC v. Unified Pats., LLC, 15 F.4th 1146, 1150–57 (Fed.
Cir. 2021) (addressing arguments regarding conflict of in-
terest for APJs after final written decision). Nor has it
shown any “irremediable interim harm” that would justify
mandamus, particularly at this late stage in the proceed-
ings. In re Procter & Gamble Co., 749 F.3d 1376, 1379 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Finally, without making any definitive conclu-
sions, we cannot say that Centripetal has shown a clear
and indisputable right to vacatur, particularly given the
lack of any evidence that Cisco was involved in the proceed-
ings at the time of institution, Cisco’s backup capacity sta-
tus, and the fact that APJ McNamara will not be a member
of the panel that decides the ultimate merits in the IPR
proceeding.
Accordingly,
Case: 23-127 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE: CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC 4
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
May 16, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-127 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 05/16/2023

-- 4 of 4 --