Untitled case

Centripetal Networks LLC, a cybersecurity company specializing in threat intelligence and network protection solutions, was the plaintiff in case 1:22-cv-00001 in the Virginia Eastern District Court. Centripetal Networks develops products and services like CleanINTERNET and RuleGATE, which utilize real-time threat intelligence for advanced packet filtering and network protection. Although the provided case information indicates "Active litigation," docket search results from Unified Patents show that case 1:22-cv-00001, filed on January 1, 2022, was closed, with Keysight Technologies Inc. listed as a defendant. Palo Alto Networks Inc. was also associated with a closed case under this number, but has been involved in other patent litigation with Centripetal under different case numbers. The specific accused products from Keysight Technologies in this closed case would likely involve their network security or testing equipment, though detailed information for this particular closed case is not readily available.

The central patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,203,806, titled "Rule Swapping in a Packet Network." This patent broadly covers methods for network protection devices to receive and preprocess multiple rule sets, and then efficiently process packets according to these rule sets. The underlying technology aims to enable faster and more effective switching between complex network security rules, improving performance and mitigating network attacks. The procedural posture of the case was in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a venue often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its reputation for rapid case progression, which can influence litigation strategies.

This case, despite its closed status, is part of a broader, notable pattern of patent enforcement by Centripetal Networks. The company has been described as a "network security patent assertion entity" and gained significant attention for its patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. (a different case, 2:18-cv-00094), which resulted in one of the largest patent verdicts in U.S. history, ranging from $2.6 billion to $3.2 billion, for willful infringement of several of Centripetal's patents. Centripetal's litigation activities, including linked inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit concerning its patent portfolio, highlight its aggressive approach to protecting its intellectual property in the cybersecurity industry.

This summary details the key legal developments and outcome of the patent infringement litigation involving Centripetal Networks LLC and patent 9,203,806. Please note that while the provided case number in the prompt is 1:22-cv-00001, the extensive and relevant legal developments concerning Centripetal Networks LLC and patent 9,203,806 are primarily associated with the case Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00094, in the Eastern District of Virginia. The information below pertains to the 2:18-cv-00094 case, as specific details for 1:22-cv-00001 regarding this patent were not found in the search results.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00094)

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing (February 2018): Centripetal Networks, Inc. (Centripetal) filed a complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) alleging infringement of 11 of Centripetal's U.S. Patents.

2. Pre-trial Motions & Stays:

• Cisco filed numerous petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against nine of the asserted patents.
• The court initially stayed proceedings for patents subject to IPR.
• Stay Lifted (September 2019): The Court issued an order lifting a stay with respect to patents and claims not currently subject to IPR proceedings. This included U.S. Patent No. 9,203,806 (the '806 Patent), along with 9,137,205, 9,500,176, 9,686,193, and 9,917,856.

3. Claim Construction (Markman):

• A Markman order was issued in the case, though the specific date is not detailed in the provided snippets.

4. Trial Events, Verdict & Post-Trial Motions (First Trial):

• Bench Trial (May 2020): A six-week bench trial was held virtually via Zoom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Centripetal argued that Cisco infringed claims 9 and 17 of the '806 Patent, among others.
• Recusal Motion (Pre-Verdict): Before the Court issued its post-trial findings, Cisco moved for the recusal of the presiding judge, the Honorable Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.
• Initial Verdict (October 9, 2020): The District Court found that Cisco willfully infringed four out of five of Centripetal's asserted patents, including the '806 patent. Specifically, the court concluded that Centripetal proved by a preponderance of the evidence that several of Cisco's products, such as the Catalyst 9000 series switches and Adaptive Security Appliance 5500 series with Firepower services, literally infringed asserted claims of the '806 Patent.
• Damages Award (October 9, 2020): The court awarded enhanced damages of $755,808,545 (enhanced by a factor of 2.5X) and prejudgment interest of $13,717,925, totaling $1,903,239,288 in past damages. Additionally, Cisco was ordered to pay a running royalty of 10% on apportioned sales for three years, followed by 5% for another three years, potentially increasing the total to $2.65 billion to $3.25 billion.
• Denial of Recusal Motion and New Trial (March 17, 2021): Judge Morgan denied Cisco's motion for a new trial and entered final judgment in favor of Centripetal.

5. Appeal & Remand (Federal Circuit):

• Federal Circuit Reversal and Vacatur (June 23, 2022): The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of Cisco's recusal motion. This was due to Judge Morgan's wife owning a small amount of Cisco stock, which constituted a financial interest under § 455(b). As a result, the Federal Circuit vacated the infringement opinion and judgment in favor of Centripetal and remanded the case for further proceedings before a newly appointed judge.

6. Re-Trial/Re-Evaluation (December 11, 2023):

• Upon remand, a new judge was appointed to decide the case without regard for the vacated opinions.
• New Findings (December 11, 2023): The Court found that Centripetal failed to meet its burden to establish infringement of the '193, '806, or '176 Patents. The court entered partial final judgment in favor of Cisco, concluding that Centripetal had not established infringement.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Petitions (November 2021): Palo Alto Networks petitioned for IPR of certain claims of a Centripetal patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856), which is related to the portfolio asserted against Cisco. Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies later joined these proceedings.
• PTAB Invalidity Decision (May 2023): The PTAB found claims 1, 24, and 25 of patent 9,917,856 unpatentable as obvious.
• Federal Circuit Remand of PTAB Decision (October 22, 2025): The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's final written decision regarding patent 9,917,856 and remanded the case. The court found that the PTAB failed to adequately consider Centripetal's evidence of copying as an objective indicium of non-obviousness. However, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's denial of Centripetal's recusal motion regarding an administrative patent judge who owned Cisco stock, deeming it untimely.
• PTAB Invalidation of final patent (June 15, 2026): The PTAB invalidated the last remaining Centripetal patent tied to the vacated Cisco verdict, which was patent 9,917,856.
• Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability (May 13, 2024): In a separate appeal involving Centripetal Networks and Palo Alto Networks (Case 23-1730), the Federal Circuit affirmed an earlier invalidity or cancellation ruling against US10749906B2 under Federal Circuit Rule 36, confirming its unpatentability. This indicates Palo Alto Networks successfully used post-grant review mechanisms.

Present Posture:
The district court case 2:18-cv-00094 resulted in a finding of non-infringement for patent 9,203,806 (among others) on remand. Parallel PTAB proceedings have significantly impacted Centripetal's patent portfolio, with several claims and patents being invalidated or facing ongoing challenges.

As of June 26, 2026, publicly available information from web searches does not definitively identify the counsel of record representing Centripetal Networks LLC in the specific patent infringement case 1:22-cv-00001 in the Virginia Eastern District Court.

While Centripetal Networks LLC has been involved in extensive patent litigation, including against Keysight Technologies, Inc. (the defendant in this case, filed January 3, 2022), and other entities like Cisco Systems, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc., the specific attorneys appearing for Centripetal in case 1:22-cv-00001 have not been explicitly named in the search results.

Previous related cases and PTAB proceedings involving Centripetal Networks LLC have shown representation by firms such as:

• Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
• Banner & Witcoff LTD
• Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

However, without direct access to the docket sheet for case 1:22-cv-00001, it is not possible to confirm if these firms or other attorneys are representing Centripetal Networks LLC in this particular, active litigation.

Keysight Technologies Inc., the defendant in Centripetal Networks LLC v. Keysight Technologies Inc. (1:22-cv-00001, Eastern District of Virginia), is represented by attorneys from Reed Smith LLP. While specific docket entries for this precise case were not directly accessible to confirm every attorney, Reed Smith has publicly stated its representation of Keysight in "complex, multi-forum litigation" against Centripetal Networks, LLC, which includes patent defense efforts in U.S. courts and agencies.

The following attorneys from Reed Smith LLP have been identified as representing Keysight Technologies Inc. in its patent defense against Centripetal Networks, LLC:

• Peter J. Chassman

  • Role: Partner, firmwide chair of Reed Smith's Intellectual Property Group, likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Houston office.
  • Experience: A distinguished trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience, he serves as lead counsel in high-tech patent infringement, patent licensing, trade secret, and commercial contract disputes. He has represented clients in numerous patent and commercial cases in U.S. federal district courts nationwide, the ITC, and the PTAB. He has been recognized as Texas Lawyer's IP Attorney of the Year (2024) and an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property (2013-2025).

• Gerard M. Donovan

  • Role: Partner, IP litigator and counselor.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience: With a background in computer engineering, Gerard focuses on complex IP disputes before federal district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB. He advises clients on IP strategies, particularly in medical devices, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence technologies.

• Jonathan I. Detrixhe

  • Role: Patent litigator.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco office.
  • Experience: A seasoned patent litigator with over 15 years of experience, he has secured favorable outcomes for clients in district courts nationwide, at the PTAB (often as lead counsel in IPRs), and before the International Trade Commission in various technologies including computer hardware and software, wired and wireless communication systems, and semiconductors.

• Sidharth Kapoor (also known as Sid Kapoor)

  • Role: Partner in IP Litigation and Enforcement.
  • Firm: Pierson Ferdinand LLP, Palo Alto office (as of October 2024). Previously with Reed Smith LLP.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and patent prosecution, particularly in computer-implemented technologies, AI-driven inventions, and medical devices. He has served as a federal law clerk and a patent examiner at the USPTO. Given his move to Pierson Ferdinand in October 2024, his current involvement as counsel of record in an active case initiated in 2022 might require further confirmation through direct docket access if the case is still active.

Other Reed Smith LLP attorneys mentioned in connection with Keysight's defense against Centripetal include:

• Jonah Mitchell (Partner, San Francisco office)
• Christine Morgan (Key attorney, San Francisco office)
• Seth Herring
• Doyle Johnson
• James Martin
• Christopher Pulido

It is also common for patent infringement cases in the "rocket docket" of the Eastern District of Virginia to involve local counsel. Firms like CWM Law and Kaleo Legal are known for serving as local counsel in high-stakes patent litigation in this district. While no specific local counsel for Keysight in this particular case has been identified from public records, it is a likely arrangement.