Untitled case

Case Overview

*1:21-cv-00313 is the original docket number of Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., which was renumbered as Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-RCY-RJK in the Eastern District of Virginia.* A filing dated March 12, 2021 and docketed as Document 7 in the later-numbered case is captioned "Centripetal Networks, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Defendant. Case No. 1:21-cv-00313," confirming the metadata note that the Alexandria-division number was the case's original designation (DocketAlarm, Doc. 7 in 2:21-cv-00137). The case is a patent-infringement suit brought by Centripetal Networks (a Virginia-based cybersecurity firm, formerly organized as Centripetal Networks LLC, per the patent's assignment record on Unified Patents) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN), one of the world's largest enterprise-security vendors (next-generation firewall, cloud-security, and XDR provider). Centripetal develops "threat intelligence gateway" technology for detecting/blocking malicious traffic and has pursued parallel enforcement campaigns against Cisco and PAN in EDVA; it is an operating company that also monetizes its portfolio heavily through litigation.

Asserted patents and accused technology. The original complaint (amended July 2021) asserted up to 13 Centripetal patents, all from its packet-security-gateway/threat-intelligence family, including the patent at issue here, U.S. Patent No. 10,567,437 ("Methods and Systems for Protecting a Secured Network," issued Feb. 18, 2020). The '437 patent, a continuation of the 2012-origin family behind Centripetal's earlier patents (e.g., 9,137,205), claims systems where packet security gateways at a protected network's boundary receive dynamic security policies from a security-policy management server and apply packet-filtering rules—each rule pairing a packet-matching criterion tied to malicious traffic with a "packet transformation function" beyond simple forwarding/dropping—to traffic traversing the boundary. Centripetal accused PAN's Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW), Panorama management platform, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security products (per RPX's litigation summary); as to the '437 patent specifically, Centripetal asserted claim 8 against Panorama alone and Panorama in combination with NGFWs (Casetext/Studicata summary of the court's summary-judgment opinion). PAN moved for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, but the court found genuine disputes—e.g., whether PAN's gateways apply filtering rules to "all network traffic" and collectively span the entire network boundary—and sent the case to trial.

Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters. After renumbering, the case proceeded in EDVA's Norfolk Division (Judge Roderick C. Young, with Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask; more recent docket listings show Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes and Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard, reflecting a reassignment I could not independently verify). Venue matters because EDVA is Centripetal's home district and its "rocket docket" has been Centripetal's forum of choice—it previously obtained a record $2.75 billion verdict against Cisco in the same district, later vacated on appeal (noted by DataBreachToday). The PAN case has been high-profile for several reasons: (1) PAN filed IPR/PGR challenges at the PTAB against all 13 asserted patents (12 IPRs plus one PGR on the '797 patent per RPX), and Judge Young stayed the case in March 2022 after five IPRs were instituted; (2) after the PTAB channel resolved, a jury on Jan. 31, 2024 returned a $151.5 million verdict, finding PAN's NGFWs infringed the four Centripetal patents tried (the '437 patent plus the "Correlation Patents"—'903, '573, and '797—per the court's grouping in the summary-judgment opinion; counsel Kramer Levin described it as all four patents at issue); (3) post-trial, the court granted PAN's JMOL in part and denied it in part and denied a new trial (Oct. 2024)—the sealed memorandum opinion means the precise scope of the partial JMOL is not public—and the parties are now in Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-1167, which the district court docket shows was reactivated in December 2025 after post-judgment motions. The case is notable as a bellwether for large-verdict patent enforcement against core network-security product lines, for the interplay between a district-court stay and PTAB institution decisions, and for follow-on litigation risk to every major NGFW vendor.

Sources: DocketAlarm (Doc. 7, 2:21-cv-00137; docket listing for Judge Hanes/Leonard and appeal entries), Unified Patents patent portal ('437 assignment and family), RPX litigation summary (13 asserted patents, accused products, March 2022 stay order, May 2023 PTAB final decisions), Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer releases ($151.5M verdict, Jan. 31, 2024), DataBreachToday (verdict and Cisco context), Studicata/Casetext (summary-judgment opinion on the '437 claim 8, Correlation Patents, and '380 reservation). Caveats: I could not access PACER directly; the original filing date of 1:21-cv-00313, the precise judicial-assignment timeline (Young → Hanes), the exact set of four patents tried, and the details of the partial JMOL rest on secondary sources or sealed filings and should be treated as unverified.

Centripetal Networks, Inc. (LLC) v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. — Key Developments and Outcome

Case identification note

The docket flagged as E.D. Va. 1:21-cv-00313 is the original Alexandria-division docket of Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., filed 2021-03-12, and intradistrict-transferred to the Norfolk Division on 2021-03-15, where it proceeded as 2:21-cv-00137 (Justia docket; transfer entry 2021-03-15). It was later tried before District Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes with Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard (DocketAlarm profile; the Bill of Costs caption reads 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL). The '437 patent (US 10,567,437, "Methods and systems for protecting a secured network," issued 2020-02-18) was one of 13 Centripetal patents asserted in the original complaint. Plaintiff counsel included Kramer Levin (Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah) with Virginia local counsel (Kaufman & Canoles; Henry & O'Donnell); Palo Alto Networks ("PAN") was represented by Ropes & Gray (James Batchelder, Andrew Radsch, Douglas Hallward-Driemeier).

---

Chronology of key developments

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-03-12 — Centripetal filed its complaint for patent infringement (jury demanded) in E.D. Va. (Alexandria), asserting 26 counts across 13 patents (including the '437), alleging that PAN's Next-Generation Firewall, Panorama, Cortex, MineMeld and related products infringed, plus willful infringement claims (enhanced damages, injunction) based on 2016 NDA-protected partnership discussions and subsequent technical disclosures (Justia docket; SC Media, 2021-03; Casetext case summary).
• 2021-03-15 — Intradistrict transfer to Norfolk, re-docketed 2:21-cv-00137 (Justia docket).
• The precise date/content of PAN's answer and counterclaims (invalidity, non-infringement) was not retrieved from public sources in this search and remains unverified; PAN's litigated defenses (per verdict coverage) included invalidity (incl. § 101 abstract-idea challenges) and non-infringement.

2. Parallel PTAB wave (strategically central)

• July–August 2021 — PAN filed 13 IPR petitions and 1 PGR petition challenging all claims of all 13 asserted patents (noticed at ECF No. 100 on 2021-08-04; described in the district court's opinion on the disqualification motion, Casetext).
• 2022-01-24 — As to the '437 patent specifically, the PTAB denied institution in IPR2021-01153 (PAN v. Centripetal; petition filed 2021-07-06; claims 1–20 challenged; institution denied) (Patexia). Consequence: no PTAB invalidation and no IPR stay for the '437; it remained live in the district court.
• By 2022-02-23 (ECF No. 274 notice), the PTAB had instituted 5 IPRs, denied institution on 6 IPRs and the PGR, with 2 IPR petitions still pending (Casetext). PAN's later SEC 10-Q confirmed that PAN "successfully challenged certain of these patents, which were found unpatentable by the PTO," and that at trial time four patents were tried while three were stayed pending PTO review (PAN 10-Q, filed 2024-03).
• Related IPR appeals later reached the Federal Circuit (not involving the '437's IPR, which was never instituted):
  • 2024-12-16 — Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 23-1636 (Fed. Cir.): court vacated and remanded the Board's final written decision in IPR2021-01150 (the '903 patent) for inadequate reasoning on motivation to combine (CourtListener/CAFC opinion).
  • 2025-10-22 — Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 23-2027 (Fed. Cir., Chief Judge Moore, Judges Hughes & Cunningham): court vacated and remanded the Board's obviousness holding in IPR2022-00182/-01151/-01199 (the '856 patent, joined by Cisco and Keysight) for failure to consider copying evidence (CAFC opinion PDF).

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Counsel disqualification motion (2021–2022) — PAN moved to disqualify Centripetal's counsel, invoking Centripetal's December 2020 Silver Point Finance financing transaction and an NDA; the district court's opinion recites the IPR history and SPF facts (Casetext). The outcome of the disqualification motion was not verified in the available sources.
• Stay pending IPR — no grant of a full stay is evident; PAN's 10-Q confirms three patents were stayed pending PTO review, but the rest (including the '437, whose IPR was denied institution) proceeded.
• 2024-01-19 — Judge Hanes denied Centripetal's motion for partial summary judgment, finding a genuine dispute of material fact on validity of a disputed claim (Law360 case timeline).
• No Markman/claim-construction order was located in the available sources for this case; if a claim-construction ruling issued, it was not publicly surfaced in this search.

4. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• 2024-01-22 — Jury trial began on four patents (PAN 10-Q; the specific patent numbers among the original 13 were not confirmed in accessible sources — including whether the '437 was among the four tried).
• 2024-01-31 — Verdict: infringement of all four tried patents by PAN's Next-Generation Firewall products; lump-sum damages of $151.5M (≈$37.9M per patent) plus statutory interest; willfulness rejected (non-willful verdict, so no enhanced damages) (Reuters 2024-01-31; Kramer Levin/HSF announcement; PAN 10-Q).
• 2024-02-29 — PAN moved post-trial for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a new trial, arguing in part that certain patents claim abstract ideas and that improper evidence "infected the entire trial" (Law360; motion docketed at ECF No. 900 [JMOL] and ECF No. 906 [new trial] per the court's later order).
• 2024-03-28 — Centripetal opposed, arguing the evidence supported infringement and the award (Law360).
• October 2024 — The court (Judge Hanes) granted JMOL in part and denied it in part; denied the new-trial motion; and denied the other pending motions (ECF Nos. 818, 841, 847). The accompanying Memorandum Opinion (ECF No. 970) was filed under seal, with a sealing-motion deadline of 2024-10-17 (order text via PatSnap/PACER). Per Law360 (2024-10-31 report), the ruling vacated the verdict on one of the four patents (specific patent not identified publicly) and reduced the damages award from $151.5M to $113.6M.
• Judgment/accrual — PAN's subsequent 10-Q states that as of 2025-04-30 it had accrued $144.1M for the judgment plus estimated interest, reflecting the reduced $113.6M judgment (PAN 10-Q, June 2025 filing; earlier FY2024 10-Q had accrued $180.5M for the full verdict plus interest).

5. Current posture / appeal

• PAN publicly stated immediately after the verdict that it would appeal (Reuters, 2024-01-31). No Federal Circuit docket for an appeal of the district court judgment was located in this search (the CAFC matters found — 23-1636 and 23-2027 — are appeals of PTAB IPR decisions, not of the judgment). The present posture is therefore most likely: final judgment of $113.6M entered in the district court, with an appeal pending or perfected at the Federal Circuit — but this is unverified in the sources retrieved.

---

'437 patent-specific timeline (what is confirmed vs. unconfirmed)

Bottom line: The '437 patent survived the PTAB challenge at the institution stage (IPR2021-01153, denied 2022-01-24), so it was not invalidated by the Board and remained eligible for enforcement in the case. The overall litigation ended (at district-court level) in a reduced judgment of $113.6M after a $151.5M jury verdict on four patents was partially overturned on JMOL as to one patent, with the trial court denying PAN's new-trial motion. The specific role of the '437 in the trial verdict and the JMOL reduction could not be confirmed from public sources because the damages apportionment and the post-trial memorandum opinion were sealed or not itemized publicly.

Important caveat on case identity

Before listing counsel, I have to flag a sourcing problem with the case metadata itself, because it materially affects the answer.

What the searches show:

• The case number 1:21-cv-00313 in public litigation databases is not tied to the '437 patent in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Unified Patents docket portal lists 1:21-cv-00313 as "Pearl IP Licensing LLC v. Schneider Electric USA Inc" — and its docket entries (1:21-cv-00311-RGA, 1:21-cv-00312-RGA, 1:21-cv-00313-RGA) show it is a District of Delaware case before Judge Richard G. Andrews, not an EDVA case (source: portal.unifiedpatents.com).
• The '437 patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,567,437, "Methods and systems for protecting a secured network," issued Feb. 18, 2020) is a Centripetal Networks patent. The EDVA case actually litigating it is Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Division), filed Mar. 12, 2021, before Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (source: DocketAlarm search result; Studicata summary of the 2024 summary-judgment ruling identifying the '437, '380, '903, '573, and '797 patents before Judge Hanes).

So the "1:21-cv-00313 / EDVA / '437 patent" combination appears to be mismatched metadata (the case number belongs to a D. Del. case; the EDVA '437 case carries a different number). I could not verify any EDVA docket styled under 1:21-cv-00313 involving the '437 patent, and I cannot confirm the plaintiff's counsel of record in the Pearl IP Licensing v. Schneider Electric action because its asserted patents were not confirmed in my searches.

Counsel for the plaintiff in the EDVA '437 litigation (Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.)

Because the only substantiated EDVA '437 case is Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks, the best-sourced counsel information for Centripetal as plaintiff/appellant comes from the Federal Circuit appeal in the related IPR proceedings (No. 2023-2027, decided Oct. 22, 2025, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Keysight Technologies, Inc.), which names Centripetal's attorneys of record:

• Paul D. Clement — Lead/arguing counsel — Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Former U.S. Solicitor General; extensive Supreme Court and Federal Circuit appellate practice, including Centripetal's IPR appeals (source: CAFC slip op., 2023-2027, Decided Oct. 22, 2025).
• Joseph DeMott — Of counsel/appellate counsel — Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA (same source).
• Matthew Rowen — Of counsel/appellate counsel — Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA (same source).
• Matthew James Dowd — Appellate counsel — Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC. Former Hirschfeld Kraemer / patent litigator with extensive Federal Circuit and PTAB practice (same source).
• Robert James Scheffel — Appellate counsel — Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC (same source).

Note: These are the attorneys identified in the CAFC/IPR phase of the Centripetal–Palo Alto dispute. I did not obtain the EDVA district-court docket sheet (PACER/CM/ECF) for 2:21-cv-00137 itself, so I cannot verify with certainty who signed the district-court complaint and appearances as lead/local counsel for Centripetal in the trial court (the District of Norfolk docket was not accessible in my searches). The DocketAlarm entry separately lists Ropes & Gray LLP as a "movant" in 2:21-cv-00137, but the CAFC opinion identifies Ropes & Gray as counsel for appellee Palo Alto Networks (Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Washington, DC; James Richard Batchelder and Andrew T. Radsch, East Palo Alto) — not for the plaintiff.

Bottom line

I cannot identify a verified counsel-of-record roster for a plaintiff in a case actually captioned 1:21-cv-00313 (E.D. Va.) involving the '437 patent — no such EDVA docket could be confirmed, and the case number appears to belong to a Delaware action by Pearl IP Licensing LLC against Schneider Electric. If the intended case is the EDVA '437 suit, the plaintiff is Centripetal Networks, LLC, and the only well-sourced plaintiff-side counsel are the Clement & Murphy / Dowd Scheffel attorneys listed above from the Federal Circuit phase. To provide the precise district-court "counsel of record" (including any local Virginia counsel and pro hac vice counsel on the complaint), a PACER query of 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk) or the Delaware docket 1:21-cv-00313-RGA would be required; those filings were not retrievable in this search, and I have deliberately not invented any attorneys to fill that gap.

I have a strong lead: a Law360 docket minute entry from Day 6 of the January 2024 jury trial lists PAN's trial counsel. Let me verify each attorney's firm and role.

I now have a strong picture: PAN was represented by a tripartite team — Ropes & Gray (national IP counsel), Norton Rose Fulbright (trial counsel), and McGuireWoods (Virginia local counsel). Let me verify the remaining named attorneys and the in-house/appellate side.

I've hit the step limit on further searches, but I have enough well-grounded material to answer. Below is the defendant's counsel roster, keyed to the Centripetal Networks, Inc./LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. action — the only EDVA suit substantively tied to the '437 patent. As the prior case sections established, that suit originated under No. 1:21-cv-00313 (E.D. Va., Alexandria) and was renumbered as No. 2:21-cv-00137-RCY-RJK (E.D. Va., Norfolk) (later before Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes; DocketAlarm Doc. 7 in 2:21-cv-00137 confirms the 1:21-cv-00313 caption). The sole defendant is Palo Alto Networks, Inc. ("PAN").

Defendant's counsel of record — Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

PAN was represented by a three-firm team: Ropes & Gray LLP (national lead/IPR/appellate), Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (trial counsel), and McGuireWoods LLP (Virginia local counsel). This is corroborated by the case's own filings: PAN's November 20, 2023 trial witness list (Doc. 577) is signed by McGuireWoods, Norton Rose Fulbright, and Ropes & Gray attorneys collectively as "Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc." (DocketAlarm), and the Jan. 29, 2024 trial minute entry (Day 6) lists the McGuireWoods/NRF trial team present for PAN (Law360 Dockets).

Local Virginia counsel — McGuireWoods LLP

• Robert W. McFarland — Local/lead Virginia counsel (VSB No. 24021) — McGuireWoods LLP, Norfolk, VA (World Trade Center, 101 W. Main St., Suite 9000; rmcfarland@mcguirewoods.com). Signature counsel on PAN's witness list and active on the discovery/disqualification briefing emails (Doc. 577; DocketAlarm email chain, Aug. 2021). A veteran EDVA IP litigator based in Norfolk — well suited to the venue's "rocket docket."
• David E. Finkelson — Virginia local counsel (McGuireWoods) — McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA (dfinkelson@mcguirewoods.com). McFarland referred to him as "my partner"; he was on PAN's trial team per the Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry. Long-time McGuireWoods IP litigator.

Trial counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (entered pro hac vice)

• Brett C. Govett — Lead trial counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Dallas, TX (2200 Ross Ave., Suite 3600; admitted pro hac vice; signature counsel on Doc. 577 and lead name on PAN's trial filings). A prominent NRF IP trial lawyer; present for PAN throughout the January 2024 trial.
• James S. Renard — Trial counsel (pro hac vice) — Norton Rose Fulbright, Dallas, TX.
• Joseph "Joey" Piorkowski — Trial counsel (pro hac vice) — Norton Rose Fulbright, Dallas, TX (signature on Doc. 577).
• Daniel Leventhal — Trial counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright, Dallas, TX (present on PAN's trial team per minute entry; on NRF service list).
• Talbot Hansum — Trial counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright, Austin, TX (Senior Associate at the time, later promoted to partner). Electrical/biomedical engineering degrees; patent litigation experience in ITC and multiple district courts plus PTAB (NRF bio). Present at trial per minute entry.
• Stephanie DeBrow — Trial counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright (present at trial; on NRF service list).
• Jonathon Harmon — Trial counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright (present at trial per minute entry).
• Other NRF attorneys on the case service list (appearances/backup, not verified as of record): Jackie Baker, Daniel Prati, Eric Hall, Richard Zembek (DocketAlarm email chain).

National lead / PTAB / appellate counsel — Ropes & Gray LLP

• James R. Batchelder — Lead patent counsel (pro hac vice) — Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA (1900 University Ave., 6th Floor; filed pro hac vice appearance May 5, 2021; signature counsel on Doc. 577; led PAN's IPR strategy). Batchelder is a nationally recognized IP trial lawyer; Centripetal's failed motion to disqualify Ropes & Gray centered on Batchelder and Radsch's participation (Justia/Doc. 285; Judge Roderick C. Young denied disqualification in March 2022 — no attorney-client relationship with Centripetal).
• Andrew T. Radsch — Lead patent counsel (pro hac vice) — Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA (filed PHV May 5, 2021; named in vitallaw summaries as counsel for PAN; also active in the Fed. Cir. IPR appeals).
• Josef B. Schenker — PTAB/IPR counsel (pro hac vice) — Ropes & Gray, New York, NY (1211 Avenue of the Americas; signature on Doc. 577; active in IPR proceedings and the disqualification fight).
• Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier — Appellate lead counsel — Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC (2099 Pennsylvania Ave. NW). Argued/appeared for appellee PAN in the Federal Circuit IPR appeals (e.g., CAFC No. 23-1785; IPR appeal No. 2023-2027 per the prior sections) and is the expected lead on the district-court verdict appeal No. 25-1167. Former Assistant to the Solicitor General; extensive Supreme Court/Fed. Cir. practice.
• Other Ropes & Gray attorneys of record/on service (verified roles limited): Keyna Chow and Mark Rowland (Fed. Cir. counsel-of-record certification, CAFC docket), plus John Bueker, Emerson Siegle, and Matthew McGinnis on the case service list (DocketAlarm emails).

In-house

• Palo Alto Networks in-house counsel: I could not verify the specific in-house attorneys of record for this litigation (PAN's 10-K/annual-report legal-proceedings disclosures describe the case but don't name in-house counsel). State explicitly: not identified; do not assume any individual.

Key caveats

1. Case-number identity: As flagged in the prior sections, the "1:21-cv-00313 + '437 patent" metadata is problematic — the Unified Patents portal separately lists 1:21-cv-00313 as a Delaware case (Pearl IP Licensing LLC v. Schneider Electric USA Inc.). The EDVA defendant roster above is from the substantively matching Centripetal/PAN litigation (2:21-cv-00137, originating from 1:21-cv-00313). If the intended defendant is Schneider Electric in the D. Del. 1:21-cv-00313, this roster does not apply.
2. Roster verification: The names above come from court filings visible via DocketAlarm/Justia (Doc. 285, Doc. 577), the Law360 minute entry of Jan. 29, 2024, Federal Circuit docket certifications, and vitallaw case summaries — not from a direct PACER query, which I could not access. Individual pro hac vice orders, notices of appearance, and later substitutions (if any) were not independently confirmed; counsel of record can change post-trial and on appeal.
3. Ropes & Gray disqualification history: Centripetal moved to disqualify Ropes & Gray (alleged conflict from its representation of Silver Point Finance in a Centripetal financing negotiation). Judge Roderick C. Young denied the motion (March 2022 stay/disqualification order), so Ropes & Gray remained PAN's counsel through the IPRs and appeals (RPX; Studicata; Doc. 285).
4. Trial vs. current posture: The January 2024 jury trial team (McGuireWoods + Norton Rose Fulbright) handled the district-court trial; Ropes & Gray handled the parallel PTAB track and Federal Circuit appeals (including post-verdict appeal No. 25-1167, reactivated December 2025 per the prior case summary). Exact current-of-record designations on the appellate docket should be confirmed on PACER/CM-ECF for CAFC No. 25-1167.