Reexam References Count In Section 325d Analysis

Reexam References Count In Section 325(d) Analysis, PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.

The Board denied post grant review in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) after applying the Advanced Bionics[1] framework as informed by the factors outlined in Becton.[2]  IPR2021-01520 (March 22, 2022).  The patent-in-question is US 9,686,193 (the ’193 patent), which was issued from a continuation of the application for US 9,124,552 (the ’552 patent).  Id. at 17.

Read the full article at  

Insights by Jones Day should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the Firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request permission to reprint or reuse any of our Insights, please use our “Contact Us” form, which can be found on our website at This Insight is not intended to create, and neither publication nor receipt of it constitutes, an attorney-client relationship. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Firm.