Litigation

Untitled case

on appeal

25-1052

Patents at issue (1)

10567343

Summary

Federal Circuit appeal docketed as 25-1052 involving the '343 patent; the exact underlying case was not confirmed.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Overview: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1052)

Parties and their roles

The appellant/patent owner is Centripetal Networks, LLC (successor to Centripetal Networks, Inc.), a cybersecurity operating company known for its threat-intelligence-driven "security gateway" products (e.g., CleanINTERNET/RuleGuard technology). Centripetal is not a traditional NPE, but it monetizes its portfolio aggressively through litigation; it is best known for its multi-year fight against Cisco Systems, which produced one of the largest patent verdicts ever ($2.75 billion in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2020, later remanded by the Federal Circuit, re-entered at reduced damages, and ultimately resolved by a 2023 settlement/license). The appellee/respondent is Keysight Technologies, Inc., the Santa Rosa, California–based electronic test-and-measurement company (spun off from Agilent; acquirer of Ixia) whose network-security testing and visibility product lines are the commercial focus of the parties' dispute. RPX Insight confirms the Federal Circuit docket 25-1052 as Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., filed October 11, 2024, with originating PTAB proceedings IPR2023-00446 and IPR2023-01353 (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[3014863](/patent/3014863)-centripetal-networks-v-keysight-technologies). The exact underlying district-court infringement docket, and the specific Keysight instrumentalities accused there, were not confirmed in the sources available; the case metadata likewise flags that the underlying case is unconfirmed, so I flag that portion as unverified.

Patent-in-suit and accused technology

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,567,343 B2, "Filtering network data transfers" (assigned to Centripetal Networks; priority back to about March 2013; family and assignee data per Unified Patents and Patexia: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/10567343). Technically, the '343 patent claims a multi-stage packet-filtering scheme: a security gateway receives packets, identifies a portion whose IP-packet header field values (e.g., a "5-tuple") match a packet filtering rule in a dynamic security policy, then applies an "operator" specified by that rule to inspect application-layer header fields — examples in the specification include an "HTTP-EXFIL" operator (allow/block based on HTTP method) and a "REQUIRE-TLS-1.1-1.2" operator (blocking older TLS versions) — and finally applies a packet transformation function (e.g., ALLOW or BLOCK) to prevent data exfiltration or policy-violating transfers. This is core Centripetal security-gateway technology, and it has been repeatedly challenged at the PTAB: Palo Alto Networks petitioned for IPR of the '343 patent in IPR2021-01155 (Docket Alarm: Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.), and Keysight's IPR2023-00446 (the docket listed for this appeal) targeted the same portfolio.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance

Procedurally, this appeal does not come from a jury verdict or district-court judgment but from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board: RPX lists the originating cases as IPRs IPR2023-00446 and IPR2023-01353, meaning the appeal is taken under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141–144, over which the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate venue (the "rocket-docket" venue dynamics of the underlying E.D. Va./W.D. Va. infringement campaigns do not apply at this stage). The appeal sits in a pair with companion docket 25-1053, Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, which the Federal Circuit decided nonprecedentially on July 21, 2026 (panel of Judges Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark), affirming the Board's cancellation of most challenged claims of related Centripetal patent U.S. 11,012,474 while preserving five dependent claims because Keysight's petition "failed entirely even to address" them — an application of the Netflix v. DivX and Wasica Finance waiver standards (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/07-21-2026-25-1053-keysight-technologies-inc-v-centripetal-networks-llc-opinion-25-1053-opinion-7-21-2026_2725540/; https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca13-25-01053; PTABWatch commentary at https://www.ptabwatch.com/2026/07/does-a-ghost-in-the-room-present-a-case-for-director-ordered-[reexamination](/resources/patent-reviews)/). Whether 25-1052 itself (Centripetal's appeal) has been decided as of today is not confirmed by available sources. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it is part of the broad, multi-defendant assertion campaign of a single Centripetal security-gateway patent family that has already produced billion-dollar-scale outcomes against Cisco and serial IPR challenges from Palo Alto Networks and Keysight; (2) the PTABWatch commentary highlights the "ghost in the room" — surviving dependent claims that may be plainly obvious but cannot now be re-litigated by Keysight because of IPR estoppel, a recurring structural concern in IPR practice; and (3) because Centripetal's litigation strategy depends on claim survival in IPRs, every decision here has outsized settlement leverage in the parallel infringement fight. Caveat: counsel of record, the current status/disposition of 25-1052, and the exact accused Keysight product models were not verifiable from the sources retrieved and should be confirmed against PACER/CAFC docket entries.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Based on my research, I can now reconstruct the litigation landscape for the '343 patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,567,343, "Filtering network data transfers," Centripetal Networks). I'll flag confidence levels because the case metadata is sparse (no caption) and some key documents are sealed or paywalled.

1. Case identification (high confidence, but not docket-verified)

The only litigation found that (a) involves the '343 patent, (b) reached a jury verdict and post-trial motions in 2024, and (c) would produce a Federal Circuit appeal docketed in the 25-10xx range is:

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Division, filed 2021-03-12)

  • Judge: Elizabeth W. Hanes (presiding); Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard (DocketAlarm)
  • Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement; jury demand
  • 13 patents originally asserted, including the '343 patent (also '912, '899, '903, '420, '413, '437, '573, '380, '906, '126, '266, '797 per DocketAlarm)
  • This case is almost certainly the source of Fed. Cir. appeal 25-1052, though I could not open the PACER/CM/ECF docket to confirm the caption or the exact judgment under appeal.

Caveat: A separate, coincidentally numbered First Circuit case (25-1052, Powell v. The Campbell's Company) exists — so verification of the Federal Circuit docket itself is essential if precise caption confirmation is required.

2. Chronology of key developments

Filing & initial pleadings

  • 2021-03-12 — Centripetal filed the complaint in E.D. Va. (2:21-cv-00137) accusing Palo Alto Networks ("PAN") of direct and indirect infringement of 13 network-security patents (26 counts), seeking damages, treble damages for alleged willfulness, and injunctive relief (DocketAlarm; Studicata).
  • 2021 (spring) — PAN filed its answer; the exact date and the scope of PAN's counterclaims (invalidity/declaratory judgment) are not confirmed from public sources. PAN was represented at the PTAB stage by Ropes & Gray.
  • 2021-07-06 — PAN filed IPR2021-01155 at the PTAB challenging all 20 claims of the '343 patent (Patexia; DocketAlarm).

Pre-trial motions of substance

  • 2022 — The court resolved three early motions (reported in Studicata's summary of the case):
    • Stay pending IPR: GRANTED. The court found the case in its infancy, the IPR petitions challenged all claims of all 13 patents (potential for simplification), and no undue prejudice to Centripetal.
    • Motion to disqualify Ropes & Gray: DENIED. Centripetal argued a conflict from pre-suit financing negotiations under an NDA; the court found no attorney–client relationship between Centripetal and Ropes & Gray (the firm represented Silver Point Finance, not Centripetal).
    • Motion to dismiss: DENIED without prejudice, expressly so PAN could re-raise after the IPRs resolved.
  • 2022-01-20 — PTAB denied institution of IPR2021-01155 on the '343 patent (Patexia: "Institution Denied," judges Jurgovan/Moore/Pettigrew). The '343 claims survived the first PAN challenge.
  • 2023-09-05 — PAN filed a second IPR on the '343 patent, IPR2023-01353 (ipverse.greyb).
  • 2024 (pre-trial) — PAN moved for summary judgment of no direct/indirect infringement, invalidity of the '437 patent (written description), and no willfulness. The court denied SJ in part, holding genuine disputes for the jury on infringement of the '437 patent and the "Correlation Patents," and reserved ruling on the '380 patent for later hearing (Studicata summary of the SJ opinion).

Claim construction (Markman)

  • No publicly accessible Markman opinion was located for 2:21-cv-00137. The early stay decision noted that the IPRs could "contribute important information" to claim construction. If a written claim-construction order exists, it is not in the free public sources I could access. Not confirmed.

Discovery milestones

  • The only strategically significant, publicly reported discovery-adjacent event is the Ropes & Gray disqualification motion (above), which arose from discovery into pre-suit financing/Negotiations. Otherwise, discovery disputes in this case do not appear in accessible public summaries. Largely unconfirmed.

Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

  • 2024-01-31 — A jury in E.D. Va. returned a verdict for Centripetal of $151.5 million, finding that PAN's next-generation firewall products infringed all four Centripetal patents tried (Kramer Levin / Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer press release). Note: by trial the case had narrowed from 13 asserted patents to 4; whether the '343 patent was among the four tried patents is not confirmed from the sources I found.
  • 2024 (Oct) — Post-trial rulings:
    • PAN's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (ECF No. 900): GRANTED IN PART / DENIED IN PART — i.e., at least some of the jury's verdict was set aside as legally unsupported.
    • PAN's Motion for a New Trial (ECF No. 906): DENIED.
    • Additional motions at ECF Nos. 818, 841, 847: DENIED.
    • The supporting Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 970) was filed under seal; parties were ordered to justify any redactions by 2024-10-17 (PatSnap/Eureka docket text quoting the order). Because the opinion is sealed, the precise reduction in damages/which claims fell are not publicly known.
  • Late 2024 / early 2025 — A final judgment consistent with the JMOL order was entered (separate judgment contemplated by the October order).

Appeal / present posture

  • 2025 (Jan–Feb) — Notice(s) of appeal from the final judgment were docketed in the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 25-1052 (consistent with the metadata you supplied). As of my research cutoff, no Federal Circuit merits decision, oral argument date, or disposition in 25-1052 was located — the appeal appears to remain pending.
  • Note the related, earlier Federal Circuit appeal 23-2027 (Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., with Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies as appellees and the PTO Director as intervenor) — that appears to be Centripetal's appeal from PTAB IPR final written decisions, and it was actively briefing into 2025 (CourtListener docket feed; § 28(j) letters Jan 2025; oral-argument responses Dec 2024–Jan 2025). It is a parallel PTAB appellate track, not the district-court appeal.

3. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '343 patent and their effect

Proceeding Petitioner Filed Institution Outcome Status
IPR2021-01155 Palo Alto Networks 2021-07-06 Denied 2022-01-20 N/A Terminated
IPR2023-01353 Palo Alto Networks 2023-09-05 Granted 2024-03-13 Final Written Decision 2024-08-05 Appealed (per ipverse.greyb status)
IPR2023-00446 Keysight Technologies 2023 (per GreyB/IPVerse record) — — Challenged the '343 patent (Ex. 1001 = '343)

Effect on the litigation:

  • The granted early stay (2022) was driven by PAN's first wave of IPRs (including IPR2021-01155 on the '343); denial of institution on the '343 in IPR2021-01155 kept the '343 claims in the case.
  • PAN's second IPR (IPR2023-01353) reached a Final Written Decision on 2024-08-05 — after the jury verdict but before/around the post-trial JMOL ruling. Its outcome (claims cancelled vs. upheld) was not publicly discernible from my sources, but its status as "appealed" means it is now before the Federal Circuit (potentially within the 23-2027 consolidated IPR appeal track).
  • These IPRs are the reason the case was stayed early and, later, why post-trial relief/JMOL and the final damages amount were shaped under the shadow of PTAB invalidity risk.

4. Bottom line on outcome to date

  • District court: Centripetal prevailed at trial ($151.5M verdict, 2024-01-31), but PAN's JMOL was granted in part (verdict reduced or partially vacated on a sealed record, Oct 2024); new-trial motion denied; final judgment entered in late 2024/early 2025.
  • On appeal: Fed. Cir. No. 25-1052 — pending as of the latest accessible records; no Federal Circuit decision located.
  • PTAB: The '343 patent survived IPR2021-01155 (institution denied 2022-01-20); a second challenge (IPR2023-01353) ended in an FWD on 2024-08-05 that has been appealed.

5. Confidence and sourcing notes

Well-sourced: The parties, case number 2:21-cv-00137, filing date, 13 asserted patents including '343, the 2022 stay/disqualification/dismissal rulings, IPR2021-01155 and IPR2023-01353 dates, the 2024-01-31 $151.5M verdict, and the October 2024 post-trial order (via DocketAlarm, Patexia, ipverse.greyb, PatSnap/Eureka, Studicata, and the Kramer Levin/HF press release).

Not independently verified / uncertain:

  • That Fed. Cir. 25-1052 is definitively the appeal in 2:21-cv-00137 (very likely but not docket-confirmed).
  • Whether the '343 patent was among the four tried patents versus resolved earlier in the case.
  • The content of the sealed JMOL memorandum (ECF 970) and the final damages figure after JMOL.
  • PAN's answer/counterclaim details and any Markman order.
  • The substance of the IPR2023-01353 Final Written Decision (cancellation vs. survival of '343 claims).

If you want, I can next pull the actual Federal Circuit docket sheet for 25-1052 (via PACER or the court's CM/ECF public terminal) to lock down the caption, the judgment appealed from, the appellant(s), and whether it is consolidated with the IPR appeal track.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The search results reveal an important correction: Fed. Cir. **25-1052 is actually Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.—a PTAB/IPR appeal (originating IPR2023-00446 and IPR2023-01353, both on the '343 patent)**—not the district-court appeal from 2:21-cv-00137. Let me verify counsel on the docket for 25-1052.

Important case-identification correction before answering

New search results contradict the prior case summary's assumption, and I need to flag it explicitly:

  • Fed. Cir. No. 25-1052 is not the appeal from the E.D. Va. district-court case (2:21-cv-00137). Per RPX Insight, 25-1052 is captioned Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., filed October 11, 2024, with originating cases IPR2023-00446 and IPR2023-01353 — the two inter partes reviews on the '343 patent (RPX Insight, "25-1052 – Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.," insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/3014863).
  • The Federal Circuit consolidated 25-1052 (lead) with 25-1103 (Keysight's cross-appeal, filed Oct. 24, 2024), directing that all documents be filed in the lead appeal only (Justia docket for 25-1103, entries of Oct. 24 and Dec. 5, 2024, referencing "[25-1052, 25-1103]"). So 25-1052 is a PTAB/IPR appellate proceeding — Centripetal as patent owner/appellant — not the district-court damages appeal. (The district-court appeal appears to be a separate matter; Unicourt shows a Nov. 13, 2024 Federal Circuit filing, No. 25-1167, with PAN as appellant and Centripetal as appellee.) A June 10, 2026 Bloomberg Law case summary describes a Federal Circuit affirmance that the '343-patent-type claims were unpatentable as obvious in the Keysight/PAN IPRs, consistent with a merits disposition in 25-1052/25-1103.

Consequently, "the plaintiff" for purposes of this matter is Centripetal Networks, LLC (the patent owner; appellant in 25-1052; the named plaintiff in the underlying E.D. Va. infringement litigation 2:21-cv-00137).

Counsel of record for Centripetal Networks, LLC

On the Federal Circuit appeal (25-1052, IPR appeal of the '343 patent)

I was not able to open the 25-1052 docket sheet itself (PACER/Justia/CourtListener do not yet show a public party/counsel page for 25-1052 in accessible results), so the entries of appearance in this specific appeal are not docket-verified. What is well-sourced is the firm pattern Centripetal has used in every parallel IPR appeal before the same court, which is almost certainly repeated here:

  • Paul D. Clement — argued counsel / lead appellate counsel; Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Clement argued the companion IPR appeal, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 23-2027, and appeared for Centripetal in No. 25-1167 (Unicourt entry #7). Former U.S. Solicitor General; renowned Supreme Court and Federal Circuit appellate advocate. Clement & Murphy represented Centripetal in IPR appeals arising from the same portfolio (23-2027 opinion, Justia PDF, listing Clement, DeMott, Rowen).
  • Joseph J. DeMott — of counsel/appellate counsel; Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Listed on the 23-2027 opinion (with Clement & Murphy) and on the Unicourt 25-1167 appearance entry.
  • Matthew D. Rowen — appellate counsel; Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Washington, DC/Alexandria, VA (Direct 202-742-8900). Appeared for Centripetal in 23-2027 and 25-1167.
  • Matthew James Dowd — appellate counsel; Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC (1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW). Of record for Centripetal in 23-2027 (per the opinion's "also represented by" listing).
  • Robert James Scheffel — appellate counsel; Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC. Of record with Dowd in 23-2027.
  • Kyle Raymond Eiswald — appeared with the Clement & Murphy/Dowd Scheffel team for Centripetal in Fed. Cir. 25-1167 (Unicourt entry #7). Whether Eiswald also entered an appearance in 25-1052 is not confirmed.

Caveat: I verified the Clement & Murphy / Dowd Scheffel lineup from the published 23-2027 opinion (argued Oct. 2024, decided Oct. 22, 2025: "PAUL D. CLEMENT, Clement & Murphy, PLLC … argued for appellant. Also represented by JOSEPH DEMOTT, MATTHEW ROWEN; MATTHEW JAMES DOWD, ROBERT JAMES SCHEFFEL, Dowd Scheffel PLLC") and the Unicourt appearance entry in 25-1167. Those are authoritative as to those cases; the actual 25-1052 entries of appearance should be confirmed on PACER before finalizing.

Trial counsel below (E.D. Va. 2:21-cv-00137, where the '343 patent was asserted)

If "plaintiff's counsel" is meant at the district-court/underlying-case level, Centripetal's trial team was Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Silicon Valley/Redwood Shores & Menlo Park, CA offices; now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer) with Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. as Virginia local counsel. Firm press releases and docket filings confirm:

  • Paul J. Andre — lead trial partner; Managing Partner, Silicon Valley Office and Head of IP, US (Kramer Levin). Named on the firm's $151.5M verdict announcement and on numerous E.D. Va. filings (e.g., DocketAlarm docs. 227, 963 listing pandre@kramerlevin.com). Notably, Andre previously won the related Centripetal v. Cisco case (awarded ~$2.75B in 2020 before Judge Henry Morgan, later reversed on other grounds) — the firm's 2021 Managing IP Impact Case award.
  • Lisa Kobialka — partner / co-lead; Managing Partner, Disputes, US, Silicon Valley (Kramer Levin); on the verdict team and the 2021 disqualification-motion filings.
  • James Hannah — IP partner, Silicon Valley (Kramer Levin); on the trial team and case filings (jhannah@kramerlevin.com).
  • Hannah Lee — IP partner (Kramer Levin) on the trial team; moved to withdraw in the E.D. Va. case as she left the firm (DocketAlarm doc. 963, "Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Counsel," noting Centripetal would continue with Kramer Levin and Kaufman & Canoles).
  • Christina M. Finn (firm materials also render "Cristina") — Special Counsel, Silicon Valley; on the trial team.
  • Supporting associates/senior associates on the trial team (per the Feb. 2024 firm release): Christina L. Martinez, Aakash Jariwala, Linda Xu, Violaine Brunet, Dana Anderson, Zehra Jafri (Silicon Valley/New York).
  • Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. — Virginia local counsel of record (Norfolk/Hampton Roads), continuing as local counsel after Lee's withdrawal.
  • Note: a DocketAlarm service list also shows Banner & Witcoff counsel (Jeffrey H. Price, Bradley Wright, Scott Kelly) email-copied on PAN-IPR stipulations and identified by PatSnap/Eureka as Centripetal IPR counsel — those attorneys handled the parallel PTAB proceedings, not necessarily the district-court trial team.

Verification limits

  • I could not confirm the exact caption, appellant-side entries of appearance, or arguing-counsel designation on the 25-1052 docket itself; treat the appellate lineup above as highly probable but PACER-unverified.
  • The trial-court lineup is verified through firm press releases, the E.D. Va. withdrawal motion (doc. 963), and email/service lists appearing in DocketAlarm copies of docketed filings.
  • The PTAB appellees in 25-1052 (Keysight; PAN as petitioner in IPR2023-01353) are represented by separate counsel (e.g., Reed Smith for Keysight; Ropes & Gray for PAN) — not plaintiff-side.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I have to flag an important threshold point before answering, because it determines who the "defendant" is.

Threshold clarification — what appeal 25-1052 actually is

The prior "Key legal developments" section hypothesized that Fed. Cir. No. 25-1052 is Centripetal's appeal from the E.D. Va. jury case against Palo Alto Networks (2:21-cv-00137, $151.5M verdict). My searches do not support that identification and instead corroborate the RPX Insight entry and the metadata's "on appeal" status: *25-1052 is Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., an appeal from PTAB inter partes review final written decisions* — originating proceedings IPR2023-00446 (Keysight v. Centripetal on the '343 patent, Ex. 1001 = U.S. 10,567,343) and IPR2023-01353 — filed October 11, 2024, and consolidated with Keysight's cross-appeal No. 25-1103 (lead case 25-1052). See RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/3014863-centripetal-networks-v-keysight-technologies); Justia CAFC docket for 25-1103 ("Note to File: The following cases are consolidated: 25-1052 Lead with 25-1103 Cross-Appeal," 10/24/2024, dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-1103). Keysight's own 10-Q describes the underlying E.D. Va. infringement suit (filed January 1, 2022) as stayed pending appeal of the IPRs and ITC findings (Keysight 10-Q via advfn.com).

So in the underlying patent infringement case the defendant is Keysight Technologies, Inc., and in this appeal Keysight is the appellee/cross-appellant. I therefore give Keysight's counsel first, then separately list Palo Alto Networks' counsel in case the intended "defendant" is PAN (the alternative hypothesis from the earlier section).

Defendant Keysight Technologies, Inc. — counsel of record

All of Keysight's identified defense counsel in the Centripetal multi-forum dispute (E.D. Va., ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1300-ish, PTAB, and the CAFC appeals) are from Reed Smith LLP. Verified from firm bios and Federal Circuit opinions:

Federal Circuit appellate counsel (appeals 24-1930, 23-2027, and the 25-1052/25-1103 track):

  • Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe — argued the January 12, 2026 CAFC argument in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 24-1930, for Keysight. Reed Smith, San Francisco. (Rule 36 judgment, 1/12/2026, at https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1930.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-12-2026_2630941.pdf.)
  • Jonah D. Mitchell — Reed Smith, San Francisco; his firm bio identifies him as lead defense counsel in the "global, multi-forum patent infringement dispute" against Keysight, including E.D. Va. (11 patents), ITC, PTAB (8 IPRs, 100% institution, 185 claims invalidated), and Federal Circuit appeals. He is the single most-cited Keysight defense lawyer on this campaign (https://www.reedsmith.com/our-people/jonah-d-mitchell/).
  • Gerard M. Donovan — Reed Smith, Washington, DC; appeared for appellee Keysight in the related PTAB appeal Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 23-2027 (CAFC opinion of 10/22/2025 lists "GERARD M. DONOVAN, Reed Smith LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee Keysight Technologies, Inc.").
  • James Christopher Martin — Reed Smith, Pittsburgh; listed for Keysight in the 24-1930 opinion.

District court / ITC / PTAB trial counsel for Keysight (per Reed Smith bios):

  • Christine M. Morgan — Reed Smith, San Francisco; bio: "Representing Keysight in multi-forum patent infringement dispute with litigation proceedings in the ITC (3 patents), Eastern District of Virginia (11 patents), Germany (3 patents) and multiple IPRs… Prevailed after trial at the ITC with a finding of no violation… 100% institution rate… 8 for 8" (https://www.reedsmith.com/our-people/christine-m-morgan/).
  • Seth B. Herring — Reed Smith; bio confirms representation of Keysight in the same E.D. Va./ITC/UPC/Germany/PTAB dispute (https://www.reedsmith.com/our-people/seth-b-herring/).

Caveats on Keysight counsel: (1) I could not retrieve the actual 25-1052 CAFC entry-of-appearance docket entries (the Justia feed shows entry of appearance was due 11/07/2024 and certified list received 12/03/2024, but attorney names aren't in the free text), so the specific lead counsel on the briefs in 25-1052/25-1103 should be confirmed against the CAFC docket or the briefs. (2) Keysight's local Virginia counsel in the stayed E.D. Va. case was not verified in my sources. (3) No Keysight in-house attorney was verified by name; do not assume one.

If the intended defendant is Palo Alto Networks (alternative hypothesis)

If the underlying case meant is Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk) — the case the earlier section assumed was the source of 25-1052 — then PAN's counsel of record from the joint trial filing (DocketAlarm, doc. 860, 2/7/2024) and earlier pleadings were:

  • Local counsel: Robert W. McFarland (McGuireWoods, Norfolk, VA) and David E. Finkelson (McGuireWoods, Richmond, VA).
  • Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP: Brett C. Govett and Jacqueline G. Baker (Dallas, TX); Richard S. Zembek, Eric B. Hall, Daniel A. Prati, and Daniel S. Leventhal (Houston, TX); Stephanie N. DeBrow (Austin, TX).
  • Ropes & Gray LLP: James R. Batchelder and Andrew T. Radsch (East Palo Alto, CA), Carolyn L. Redding (East Palo Alto), and Josef B. Schenker (New York, NY).
  • PAN's appellate counsel in the parallel PTAB appeal No. 23-2027 (CAFC, opinion 10/22/2025): Douglas Hallward-Driemeier argued for appellee PAN (Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC), also represented by James R. Batchelder and Andrew T. Radsch (East Palo Alto).

Bottom line

  • The verified record shows 25-1052 is an IPR appeal, Centripetal v. Keysight (consolidated with cross-appeal 25-1103), not the PAN district-court appeal. The earlier section's premise is contradicted by RPX, Justia, and Keysight's own 10-Q; I flag that discrepancy expressly.
  • On that footing, the defendant in the underlying, now-stayed infringement case is Keysight Technologies, whose counsel of record across the campaign is Reed Smith LLP — principally Jonah D. Mitchell (SF), Christine M. Morgan (SF), Seth B. Herring, Jonathan Detrixhe (SF), Gerard M. Donovan (DC), and James C. Martin (Pittsburgh).
  • If instead the user's "defendant" is Palo Alto Networks in the E.D. Va. case, its counsel were McGuireWoods (local), Norton Rose Fulbright, and Ropes & Gray as identified above.
  • The precise attorney-of-record list on the 25-1052 briefs remains unverified from free sources; PACER/CAFC CM/ECF (or the filed briefs) is needed to lock down lead counsel designations.