⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Real court arguments, crisp audio, with context.

Court recordings can be difficult to follow, and many suffer from poor audio quality. This podcast enhances the audio, provides a brief introduction to each case, and explains legal concepts that may be unfamiliar to some listeners.

We hope these enhancements make oral argument recordings easier to understand, more accessible, and more enjoyable to listen to.

Apple Podcasts Spotify YouTube /feed.xml Open RSS Status

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. — Fed. Cir. (Nov 4, 2026)

No. 25-1715 Argued November 4, 2026 Published November 5, 2026

The Federal Circuit hears Centripetal Networks' appeal from a patent-review decision in a dispute with Keysight Technologies. The patent concerns a network security device changing the rules it uses to process incoming data. The claimed method prepares rule sets before implementing them, pauses processing when changing rules, and caches unprocessed packets so they can later be processed under the new rules. Caching means temporarily storing those packets, rather than continuing to process them under the old rules. Keysight challenged the patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, arguing that combinations of earlier technical publications made the claimed method obvious. The board agreed and held the challenged claims unpatentable. After the board denied reconsideration, Centripetal brought this appeal. One central disagreement concerns whether the earlier technology teaches caching entire packets, not merely selected portions. A packet may include a header and a data payload; some packets contain only a header. That distinction explains why the lawyers debate whether storing a complete header can sometimes mean storing the whole packet. Centripetal will argue that the references describe only partial storage, and that expert speculation cannot supply what the documents fail to teach. Keysight will answer that the board reasonably credited its expert and that the disclosed treatment of packets without payloads supports the board's decision. A second disagreement concerns the order of operations: whether the earlier technology supports preparing the rules before implementation, rather than only before applying them to particular traffic. Listen for the difference between what a technical document expressly says and what a skilled reader could reasonably understand from it, and for how much room the appeals court has to revisit the board's factual findings.

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (No. 25-1715) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.

Sources
Argument audio — official Federal Circuit recording:https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/25-1715_11042026.mp3
Actual method, challenged claims and obviousness ruling — PTAB IPR2022-01421 Paper 32, Nov 1, 2024; agency decision under review:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550164/download-documents?artifactId=zeK0vrWZx8W_JbVYSI7VEcS34evg7l62FclZOQPE5arh-FxOjeQp_ko
Rule-preprocessing dispute and rehearing denial — PTAB IPR2022-01421 Paper 34, Feb 21, 2025; not this appeal outcome:https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1550164/download-documents?artifactId=ZYSfwhsKOhAsLT-DdDzrY7lcSg-V2Ipv2WtIzALlgd2-PPAo0ti_HLE

0:00
0:00