Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC — IPR Petition Must Argue Every Challenged Claim

Background

Keysight challenged Centripetal network-security patent claims in an inter partes review. Although its petition listed several dependent claims in headings, it did not develop obviousness arguments directed to those claims.

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s refusal to find the omitted claims unpatentable. The petitioner bears the burden to present a clear argument, and the Board need not assemble one from scattered record material. The Board also was free to reach a different conclusion in its final written decision than at institution because institution findings are preliminary and not binding.

Key Takeaways

Every challenged claim needs an articulated theory in the petition itself. Claim numbers in a heading do not preserve an argument, and later evidence cannot cure the omission. Institution does not guarantee the same merits outcome after full record development.

Why It Matters

The opinion is a direct warning about IPR drafting discipline: potentially invalid claims can survive when the petition fails to connect the evidence and reasoning to each claim.