Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

Parties and accused technology. This is the Federal Circuit phase of Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., the lead appeal in CAFC No. 25-1167 (consolidated with cross-appeal No. 25-1168). Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) is a Reston, Virginia cybersecurity company — an operating company rather than a pure NPE — that developed a "threat intelligence gateway" product (CleanINTERNET) built on packet-filtering technology that inspects 5-tuple network session data (IPs, ports, protocol). Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: PANW), the Santa Clara, California cybersecurity giant founded by Nir Zuk, sells the accused products: its Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW) running PAN-OS 9.0+, the Panorama management console, the Cortex XDR/XSOAR/XSIAM security-analytics platforms, plus AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security. Centripetal alleged (E.D. Va., filed March 12, 2021) that PAN's NGFW and Cortex products infringe its network-security patents, claiming the parties had discussed a partnership in 2016 that never materialized. At the January 2024 trial, the case was narrowed to PAN's NGFW (including its Automated Correlation Engine), NGFW combined with Panorama, and Cortex XDR + XSOAR and XSIAM combinations (Verdict Form, ECF No. 851).

Patents and procedural posture. The original complaint asserted 13 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,749,906 — the patent flagged in this case's docket metadata — which is directed to a "packet security gateway" that logs packet digests to support a "network communications awareness service" and receives dynamically updated packet-filtering rules from a security policy management server based on updated malicious-traffic intelligence (claim language quoted in IPR2021-01157's institution decision). The four patents that actually went to trial were: U.S. 10,567,437 (a gateway system that can modify the switching matrix of an associated LAN switch to quarantine compromised hosts), and the so-called "Correlation Patents" — U.S. 10,530,903 ("Correlating Packets in Communications Networks"), U.S. 10,659,573, and U.S. 10,931,797 (a continuation chain sharing one specification, covering logging and correlating received/transmitted packets to de-obfuscate the true host behind proxies/spoofing and to flag malicious actors). The case was venued in the E.D. Va., Norfolk Division (2:21-cv-00137-EWH-RJK), before District Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (with earlier proceedings before Judge Roderick C. Young, who in 2022 granted PAN's stay pending the PTAB); the "Rocket Docket" venue matters both for its fast patent schedule and because Centripetal is a Virginia-based plaintiff that won its earlier record verdict against Cisco in the same district. On January 31, 2024, the jury found PAN infringed the '437, '903, '573, and '797 patents and awarded $151.5M ($37.875M per patent as lump-sum royalties), rejecting willfulness. On post-trial motions (ECF No. 970/989), Judge Hanes granted JMOL of non-infringement on the '437 patent for insufficient evidence and denied PAN's new-trial motion, trimming the award. Both sides appealed on November 13, 2024; the Federal Circuit consolidated 25-1167 (PAN's appeal, lead) and 25-1168 (Centripetal's cross-appeal) as appeal and cross-appeal on December 11, 2024, deactivated them pending resolution of FRAP 4(a)(4) motions, and reactivated them on December 22, 2025 (E.D. Va. ECF No. 1017). PAN is represented on appeal by WilmerHale (Mark Fleming, William Lee); Centripetal by Clement & Murphy and Kramer Levin (Paul Clement, Matthew Rowen). The precise issue list in the CAFC briefs is not yet publicly confirmed, but the appeal will implicate § 101 eligibility of the Correlation Patents, the JMOL on '437, and the damages award.

Why the case is notable. The appeal sits at the intersection of two high-stakes threads. First, Centripetal is the same plaintiff that obtained a then-record $2.75B judgment against Cisco in E.D. Va. in 2020 — later reversed on § 101 and settled — making this litigation a key test of whether its network-security patent family can survive Alice-based attacks on damages of this scale. Second, PAN countered the 2021 suit with 13 IPRs and one PGR challenging all 13 patents; the PTAB invalidated six (including the '906 and '246 patents, both affirmed by the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2024, after which the district court dismissed those claims with prejudice in October 2024 — meaning the '906 patent is not among the live patents on appeal here, despite being listed in this case's metadata as the patent at issue). Complicating matters, in a separate appeal from IPR2021-01150 the Federal Circuit on December 16, 2024 vacated and remanded the PTAB's finding that the '903 patent's claims were not obvious, leaving validity risk hanging over one of the four tried patents while the infringement appeal proceeds. The case also showcases classic EDVA/Norfolk patent-litigation dynamics — a practicing-company plaintiff funding litigation through financing arrangements tied to its Cisco judgment (the Silver Point Finance disqualification dispute), a defendant pursuing a scorched-earth PTAB + Alice strategy, and a $150M+ jury award now being tested at the Federal Circuit in what industry watchers (RPX, Reuters, the WSJ) have tracked as one of the largest cybersecurity patent verdicts in recent years.

Sourcing note: Party identities, the 13-patent assertion, the IPR history, jury verdict, and post-trial JMOL are confirmed by the E.D. Va. docket (2:21-cv-00137, ECF Nos. 851, 970/989), PTAB records (IPR2021-01157), Justia's CAFC dockets for 25-1167/25-1168, and RPX/Kramer Levin coverage. I could not verify from public sources the exact issues briefed in the CAFC appeals or whether the Federal Circuit has yet heard argument in 25-1167/25-1168; no decision on the merits has been identified as of the search date.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. — the litigation underlying Fed. Cir. Appeal No. 25-1167 (consolidated with No. 25-1168)

Scope note. The metadata ties this matter to U.S. Patent No. 10,749,906 ("'906 patent," Methods and systems for protecting a secured network, issued 2020-08-18). That patent was one of 13 patents originally asserted in the underlying district court action, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.). The '906 patent was removed from the case by PTAB invalidation before trial and was not among the four patents tried. The narrative below therefore covers (a) the full district-court lifecycle that produced the pending appeal, and (b) the separate PTAB path that disposed of the '906 patent. (Source for patent list: Justia complaint exhibit PDF at 2:2021cv00137/505359/285; DocketAlarm patent search on 2:21-cv-00137.)

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021)

• 2021-03-12 — Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) filed its patent-infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk), No. 2:21-cv-00137, asserting 13 patents — including the '906 patent (10,749,906) — against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. ("PAN") over its Next-Generation Firewall, Panorama, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security Service products (26 infringement counts, seeking damages, trebling for willfulness, and an injunction). Case originally assigned to Judge Roderick C. Young and a magistrate judge (docket citations in E.D. Va. record, 2:21-cv-00137; DocketAlarm; RPX).
• April 2021 — PAN moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing § 101 ineligibility of the '126, '028, and '246 patents (directed to abstract "filtering and sorting data based on rules") plus pleading deficiencies on willfulness, indirect infringement, etc. (RPX chronology).
• July 2021 — Centripetal amended to add a newly issued 13th patent, 10,931,797 ('797); PAN renewed its dismissal motion against the amended pleading (RPX).
• July–August 2021 — PAN filed 13 IPR petitions and 1 PGR petition at the PTAB challenging all claims of all 13 asserted patents (E.D. Va. ECF No. 100, notice dated 2021-08-04, discussed in the Court's 2022-03-01 opinion, ECF No. 285).

2. Early motion practice — dismissal, disqualification, and stay (2021–2022)

• 2022-03-01 — Judge Young issued the key pre-trial ruling (ECF No. 285, 2:21-cv-00137-RCY-RJK):
  • Granted PAN's motion to stay pending resolution of the PTAB proceedings (five IPRs then instituted; six IPRs and the PGR declined; two undecided);
  • Denied PAN's motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay;
  • Denied Centripetal's unusual motion to disqualify PAN's counsel Ropes & Gray, which arose from Ropes & Gray's role in a Silver Point Finance financing/data-room matter involving Centripetal (the court found no attorney–client or common-interest relationship). The PTAB separately rejected a parallel disqualification motion.
• August 2022 — Case reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (RPX).

3. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and effect on the litigation (2022–2023)

• 2022-03-15 — PTAB instituted IPR2021-01157, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., challenging claims 1–17 of the '906 patent (petition filed 2021-07-22; panel: APJs McNamara, Moore, Amundson) (Patexia; USPTO PTAB records).
• 2023-03-10 — PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01157 finding the challenged '906 claims unpatentable; Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2023-1730), which was still described as pending in 2023 reports (Patexia; RPX). (Caveat: I did not independently retrieve the CAFC disposition in 2023-1730.)
• May 2023 — Following a series of PTAB Final Written Decisions that invalidated six of the asserted patents — the '028, '126, '413, '246, '906, and '899 patents — the district court lifted the stay on Centripetal's motion. That left only the '437, '380, '573, '903, and '797 patents in active litigation. The '906 patent was thus eliminated from the case by the PTAB and never reached trial (RPX; consistent with the later trial record). Centripetal's IPR appeals to the Federal Circuit were reported as still active as of mid-2023 (RPX).

4. Claim construction (2023)

• 2023-07-14 — Centripetal filed its opening claim-construction brief (ECF No. 359, 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-RJK), identifying the then-asserted patents in three families: the "Correlation Patents" ('903, '573, '797), "Exfiltration Patents" ('343, '380), and "Packet Security Gateway Patents" ('437, '266), arguing terms were already construed in prior Centripetal litigations and that PAN's constructions conflicted with its own IPR positions.
• The court proceeded through Markman briefing and argument; the case reached trial with the parties' claim-construction positions heavily litigated in summary-judgment papers (e.g., the '437 "all network traffic" and "one or more packet filtering rules" disputes discussed in the 2024-01-02 SJ opinion, ECF No. 702). I did not retrieve the discrete Markman order/opinion itself; its specific terms are not summarized here to avoid speculation.

5. Dispositive pre-trial motions (January 2024)

• 2024-01-02 — Judge Hanes denied PAN's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to the '437, '903, '573, and '797 patents (ECF No. 702), finding genuine disputes on the '437 "all network traffic" and gateway-architecture limitations, and reserving ruling on the '380 patent. (Additional SJ briefing in ECF Nos. 462, 515, 523, 565, 701.)
• 2024-01-04 — Hearing on remaining motions: the court denied PAN's Alice/judgment-on-the-pleadings § 101 challenge to the '903, '573, and '797 (Correlation) patents (converted to, and denied as, summary judgment) because genuine factual disputes existed on Berkheimer step two (whether the elements were "well-understood, routine, and conventional"); the court also denied Centripetal's no-invalidity summary-judgment motions in substantial part (moot as to § 102/103 and most § 112 defenses PAN abandoned at trial).
• 2024-01-13 — The court granted PAN summary judgment of non-infringement of the '380 patent (removing it from trial).
• 2024-01-19 — The court denied Centripetal's motion for summary judgment that claim 8 of the '437 patent was not invalid for lack of written description (Casetext summary, E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2024).

6. Trial and verdict (January 2024)

• 2024-01-22 — Trial commenced before Judge Hanes on four patents: '437, '903, '573, and '797.
• 2024-01-31 (eighth day) — Jury verdict for Centripetal (ECF No. 851; described in Final Judgment ECF No. 972):
  • Direct and literal infringement of: claim 8 of the '437 patent; claim 10 of the '903 patent; claims 1 and 9 of the '573 patent; claims 1, 12, and 17 of the '797 patent; plus infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of '437 claim 8; induced infringement of '573 claim 1 and '797 claim 1.
  • No willful infringement.
  • Damages: $37.875 million per patent as a lump-sum royalty for the life of each patent (≈ $33.709M U.S. + $4.166M foreign per patent), totaling $151.5 million.
  • The jury rejected PAN's invalidity defenses, including finding that PAN failed to prove the Correlation Patent claims were directed to "well-understood, routine, conventional" subject matter (the factual predicate to PAN's Alice challenge).

7. Post-trial motions and judgment (2024)

• 2024-10-03 — Judge Hanes granted in part PAN's motion for judgment as a matter of law (Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 970):
  • Held the '903, '573, and '797 asserted claims patent-eligible under § 101 (jury's step-two findings upheld) and that substantial evidence supported infringement and the lump-sum damages as to those three patents;
  • Held there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's infringement finding on the '437 patent, entering JMOL of non-infringement (literal and DOE) for the '437 patent;
  • Reduced the award from $151.5M to $113,625,000 ($37.875M × three surviving patents);
  • Denied a new trial on those issues; denied Centripetal's un-renewed JMOL (jury's no-willfulness and lump-sum findings upheld).
• October 2024 — Final judgment entered (Final Judgment in a Civil Case, ECF No. 972): non-infringement of '437 claim 8; direct infringement of '903 claim 10, '573 claims 1 & 9, '797 claims 1, 12 & 17; inducement as found; no willfulness; validity upheld; $113,625,000 lump-sum damages, with $101,126,250 allocated to U.S. sales and $12,498,750 to non-U.S. sales.
• 2024-10-30 — Judge Hanes denied PAN's motion for a new trial on damages, rejecting PAN's argument that the court wrongly excluded "book of wisdom" cross-examination about post-negotiation invalidation/non-infringement of third-party-licensed patents (ECF No. 989; discussed in PVUS Law blog, Nov. 2024).
• (Fee/FRAP 4(a)(4) post-judgment motions remained pending into late 2024, per the Federal Circuit's consolidation order.)

8. Appeals — present posture (2024–present)

• 2024-11-13 — Notices of appeal docketed at the Federal Circuit:
  • No. 25-1167 — Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN's appeal from the judgment, including the JMOL/§ 101/damages rulings);
  • No. 25-1168 — Centripetal's cross-appeal.
  • Appellate counsel: PAN — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (Mark C. Fleming, William F. Lee, Laura E. Powell, Harry Hanson); Centripetal — Clement & Murphy (Paul D. Clement, Matthew Rowen, Joseph DeMott, Kyle Eiswald) with Dowd Scheffel (Justia/Unicourt CAFC dockets).
• 2024-12-11 — Federal Circuit consolidated 25-1167 (lead) and 25-1168 as appeal and cross-appeal, ordered one set of briefs, and deactivated the appeals pending entry of a new final judgment or resolution of PAN's outstanding FRAP 4(a)(4) post-judgment motions in the district court; the parties were directed to advise the court how to proceed within seven days of those events (CAFC order entered 12/11/2024; E.D. Va. ECF No. 1014 copy).
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-04): the CAFC docket (per Justia, last retrieved 2024-12-11, and Unicourt, last updated 2025-01-12) shows the case as open/active but deactivated pending the district court's post-judgment motion practice. I found no public CAFC merits decision in 25-1167/25-1168 in my searches, and no indication of settlement of this action. (The Federal Circuit's 2025-10-22 decision in the separate IPR appeal No. 23-2027 — also styled Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks — concerns the unrelated '856 patent and PTAB recusal/copying issues, not this case.)

---

Bottom line

• The '906 patent (10,749,906) — the patent flagged in the case metadata — was one of 13 originally asserted in E.D. Va. No. 2:21-cv-00137 but was knocked out by the PTAB in IPR2021-01157 (Final Written Decision 2023-03-10), with Centripetal's appeal (CAFC No. 2023-1730) reported pending; it played no part in the 2024 trial.
• The surviving case produced a $151.5M jury verdict (2024-01-31) on four patents, later reduced by JMOL to $113.625M (2024-10-03) after the court vacated the '437 infringement finding; final judgment entered October 2024; a new-trial motion on damages was denied (2024-10-30).
• Both sides appealed; the Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals (25-1167 lead / 25-1168 cross) and deactivated them (2024-12-11) pending disposition of FRAP 4(a)(4) motions below. As of 2026-09-04, the consolidated appeal appears still pending with no merits decision located in public sources.

Sources: E.D. Va. docket 2:21-cv-00137 (ECF Nos. 100, 285, 359, 702, 851, 970, 972, 989, 1014) via DocketAlarm/Justia/valawyersweekly/Casetext; CAFC dockets 25-1167/25-1168 via Justia and Unicourt; RPX litigation coverage ("Virginia Jury Returns $151.1M Verdict for Centripetal Networks"; "Top Damage Awards in 2024"); PVUS Law blog (2024-11); Patexia (IPR2021-01157); business press (Silicon Valley Business Journal, BankInfoSecurity, 2024-02). Where a fact is not directly verified in these sources — e.g., the discrete Markman order's terms and the ultimate CAFC disposition of 25-1167/25-1168 — it is flagged as not retrieved rather than assumed.

Identification of the case

The underlying patent infringement case is Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.) — the case that produced Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-1167, consolidated as lead case with cross-appeal No. 25-1168 (caption: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Defendant-Appellant). U.S. Patent No. 10,749,906 is one of the patents Centripetal asserted against Palo Alto Networks in that action. The appeals were initially docketed 11/13/2024, deactivated 12/11/2024 pending FRAP 4(a)(4) post-judgment motions, and reactivated in December 2025 (E.D. Va. docket entry reflecting "ORDER of USCA reactivating appeal under FRAP 4(a)(4) [25-1167]"). Docket entries for No. 25-1167 show the parties' roles as Palo Alto Networks (appellant/defendant) and Centripetal Networks (appellee/plaintiff); in 25-1168 Centripetal is the cross-appellant.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff, Centripetal Networks, LLC (Federal Circuit, Nos. 25-1167/25-1168)

Based on the CAFC appearance entries filed 11/27/2024 (e.g., Entry of Appearance No. 7 in 25-1167: "Entry of Appearance for Paul D. Clement; Matthew D. Rowen; Joseph J. DeMott; Kyle R. Eiswald as counsel for Appellee Centripetal Networks, LLC"), the plaintiff's appellate counsel of record are:

• Paul D. Clement — lead appellate counsel. Firm: Clement & Murphy PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Former U.S. Solicitor General; argued the related PTAB appeal Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 23-2027 (Fed. Cir.), for Centripetal; one of the most experienced Supreme Court/Federal Circuit advocates in the country.
• Matthew D. Rowen — appellate counsel. Clement & Murphy PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Patent/appellate litigator with Clement & Murphy; previously practiced at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
• Joseph J. DeMott — appellate counsel. Clement & Murphy PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Appellate and IP litigator at the firm.
• Kyle R. Eiswald — appellate counsel. Clement & Murphy PLLC, Alexandria, VA. Appellate and IP litigator at the firm.

Caveat: My access to the live PACER/CAFC docket was through aggregator extracts (UniCourt, Justia, DocketAlarm) as of roughly January–December 2025. The reactivation of the appeals (December 2025) may have prompted updated entries of appearance or additional counsel; I cannot confirm from available sources whether later, amended appearances were filed. No in-house counsel for Centripetal appeared of record on the appellate docket based on the extracts reviewed.

District-court trial counsel for plaintiff Centripetal (for context)

At trial in the E.D. Va. action, Centripetal was represented by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), which secured the ~$151.5M jury verdict (Feb. 2024) against Palo Alto Networks:

• Paul J. Andre — lead trial counsel; Managing Partner, Silicon Valley (Menlo Park), and Head of U.S. IP; veteran patent trial lawyer.
• Lisa Kobialka — Managing Partner, Disputes, Silicon Valley; co-led the trial team (recognized in Litigation Daily's "Litigator of the Week" runners-up).
• James Hannah — Partner, Silicon Valley; IP trial litigator.
• Hannah Lee — Partner, Silicon Valley; withdrew as Centripetal's counsel by court order in May 2024 (ECF Nos. 963–966), before the appeal.
• Cristina M. Finn — Special Counsel, Silicon Valley; member of the trial team.
• Local counsel: Stephen E. Noona — Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., Norfolk, VA (Virginia State Bar No. 25367), who signed the complaint and appeared throughout the district litigation; Kevin O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell P.C., Alexandria, VA) also appeared early in the case.

Note that several Kramer Levin trial team members (e.g., associates Violaine Brunet, now at Brown Rudnick, and others) have since moved firms; the current district-court counsel-of-record list should be verified against the latest E.D. Va. docket if needed.

Practical answer to the question asked

If you are asking who represents Centripetal Networks (the plaintiff below) in Federal Circuit appeal 25-1167 as counsel of record, the answer is Paul D. Clement, Matthew D. Rowen, Joseph J. DeMott, and Kyle R. Eiswald of Clement & Murphy PLLC (Alexandria, VA), per the November 27, 2024 appearances — with Paul Clement serving as lead/appellate counsel. If you are asking about the plaintiff's trial counsel of record in the underlying E.D. Va. patent case, the answer is the Kramer Levin (Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, et al.) and local counsel Stephen Noona (Kaufman & Canoles). No filings appear to be sealed that would hide these appearances, and I found no evidence of in-house counsel of record for Centripetal.

I have good initial data from the docket. Let me verify the individual attorneys and their firm affiliations/offices.

The docket shows five attorneys entered for Palo Alto Networks. Let me verify each person's firm and office, and check for any later-entered counsel after the December 2025 reactivation.

I've hit the search-step limit, but I have sufficient verified material to answer. Here is the counsel-of-record analysis.

Counsel for the defendant — Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

In the underlying E.D. Va. infringement action (2:21-cv-00137-EWH-RJK) and in the related Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-1167, where PAN is the Defendant-Appellant; No. 25-1168 is Centripetal's cross-appeal), Palo Alto Networks is represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale).

The CAFC docket entry of appearance (Docket No. 2 in 25-1167, filed 11/27/2024) lists five counsel for PAN, all WilmerHale:

1. Mark C. Fleming — Lead/arguing appellate counsel; Partner, WilmerHale (Boston, MA).

   • Note: WilmerHale's appellate face in this matter. He argued for the Centripetal adversaries (PAN, Cisco, Keysight) in the related IPR appeal Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 23-2027 (Fed. Cir. argued 2025, decided Oct. 22, 2025), and was the attorney who secured the Federal Circuit's June 2022 reversal of the record $2.75B Centripetal v. Cisco judgment — a win that earned him Litigation Daily's "Litigator of the Week." He is the filer on essentially every 25-1167 initial pleading (appearance, certificate of interest, related-case notice, docketing statement, FRAP 4(a)(4) notice).

2. William F. Lee — Senior trial/appellate counsel; Partner (former co-managing partner), WilmerHale (Boston, MA).

   • Note: One of the country's most prominent IP trial lawyers (100+ trials, 50+ Federal Circuit arguments), lead counsel for Apple in the Apple v. Samsung smartphone wars, and a member of the WilmerHale team on the Cisco Centripetal reversal. Appeared on the 11/27/2024 entry of appearance for PAN.

3. Arthur W. Coviello — Partner, WilmerHale (Palo Alto, CA).

   • Note: IP litigation partner whose practice spans computer/network security technologies; former clerk to Federal Circuit Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa. He was part of the WilmerHale team on the underlying E.D. Va. litigation against Centripetal and appears for PAN on the appeal. (Office confirmed by WilmerHale bio and California State Bar profile: 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400, Palo Alto.)

4. Laura E. Powell — WilmerHale associate (appearing counsel on the 11/27/2024 entry of appearance).

   • Note: Named in the CAFC entry of appearance for PAN. I could not independently verify her office location or title from the sources available in this pass; WilmerHale's trial team in this matter operated out of Boston/DC/Palo Alto. Do not treat office/role as confirmed beyond her appearance.

5. Harry Hanson — WilmerHale associate (appearing counsel on the 11/27/2024 entry of appearance).

   • Note: Same caveat as Powell — listed on the entry of appearance, but no independently verified office/title found in this search pass.

Points of clarity and sourcing

• Sources: CAFC Docket No. 2 in 25-1167 (entry of appearance listing Fleming, Lee, Coviello, Powell, Hanson as counsel for Appellant PAN) — captured via UniCourt/CourtListener summaries of the CAFC docket; the Federal Circuit's Oct. 22, 2025 opinion in No. 23-2027 (identifying Fleming as WilmerHale Boston counsel who argued for the appellees including PAN); WilmerHale attorney bios (Fleming "Litigator of the Week" page; Coviello bio and CA State Bar profile); the Dec. 11, 2024 consolidation order (25-1167 lead / 25-1168 member) revising the caption to "Centripetal Networks, LLC … Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Defendant-Appellant."
• Distinguish the PTAB track: PAN's IPR-side appellate counsel is a different firm — Ropes & Gray (Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, Washington, DC; James R. Batchelder and Andrew T. Radsch, East Palo Alto) — but that representation is in No. 23-2027 and related PTAB appeals, not counsel of record in the 25-1167 infringement appeal.
• In-house counsel: No PAN in-house attorney appears on the CAFC entry of appearance identified in the available docket excerpts; I found no public evidence of an in-house appearance of record.
• Status caveat: The consolidated appeals were deactivated from December 11, 2024, until the E.D. Va. entered its new final judgment and the CAFC reactivated them on December 22, 2025 (E.D. Va. ECF No. 1017). Briefing on the merits post-reactivation may have brought additional or changed counsel into the record; I could not verify post-reactivation docket entries or brief signatures in this search pass, so the five-attorney list above should be treated as the confirmed appearance set as of the last docket information I could access.