Untitled case

Case Overview & Background

The case. The docket number and court in the case metadata — 2:22-cv-00002, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, filed January 1–3, 2022 — resolve to Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., Norfolk Division (E.D. Va.). Centripetal is a Reston, Virginia cybersecurity operating company (founded 2009 by Steven Rogers; developer of the CleanINTERNET®/RuleGATE® "threat intelligence gateway" appliances, with U.S. R&D in Reston, VA and Portsmouth, NH, and ~80 U.S. employees per its ITC pleading). Keysight is the Delaware/California (Santa Rosa) electronic test-and-measurement and network-security equipment vendor, which acquired Ixia in 2017 and with it the accused network-visibility/security lines. The suit was not Centripetal's first against Keysight: the parties litigated in the same district in 2017–2018 (Keysight I, No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCM-LRL), settling mid-trial in October 2018 for a three-year license that expired December 31, 2021 — this action followed immediately (Keysight ITC complaint excerpts; Dkt. 65, E.D. Va.).

Accused products, asserted patents, and posture. Centripetal accused Keysight's Vision One, Vision X, Vision 7300/7303, Vision Edge 1S, Trade Vision, ThreatArmor, and BreakingPoint products and the underlying NetStack, PacketStack, SecureStack, AppStack, and Application & Threat Intelligence (ATI) software/feed technologies of infringement. The operative district-court pleadings asserted eleven Centripetal patents — '370, '917, '526, '572, '343, '062, '573, '009, '266, '456, and '474 (Dkt. 45 at n.1; Dkt. 15 noting "eleven patents asserted") — all directed to threat-intelligence-driven packet filtering, logging/correlation, and rule optimization. One-line sketches, per sourced complaint analysis and Dkt. 65: the '370 patent claims correlating logged inbound/outbound packets to identify a compromised host and communicating that data; the '917 patent claims a packet-filtering device generating threat-indicator log entries, consolidating them into packet-flow entries, and displaying flow analytics; the '526 patent claims filtering encrypted traffic by matching stored identification data with decrypt/re-encrypt actions; the remaining eight patents are Centripetal firewall/threat-intelligence patents challenged in parallel IPRs (Dkt. 45, 65). Procedurally, the case was initially assigned to Judge Arenda Wright Allen and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller (No. 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM) and by September 2023 was docketed before Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (No. 2:22-cv-00002-EWH-DEM). Keysight moved to stay in mid-2022 pending the parallel ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1314, tried March 1–7, 2023 before ALJ MaryJoan McNamara, which found no Section 337 violation on the three ITC patents and invalidated claims) and Keysight's eight IPR petitions (IPR2022-01097, -01421, -01525, -01535, -01607; IPR2023-00445, -00446, -00448 — most instituted; Dkt. 65's status table). The district court stayed the case (Aug. 22, 2023 Order, Dkt. 58), and Keysight's FY2025 Form 10-Q confirms it remains stayed pending appeals of the ITC no-violation determination (issued Dec. 5, 2023) and PTAB invalidity decisions — with the Federal Circuit in January 2026 having affirmed invalidation of all claims of one challenged patent and heard argument on the ITC/PTAB rulings. Venue in E.D. Va. matters for the "rocket docket," Centripetal's home-district advantage, and judicial familiarity from Keysight I and Centripetal's other E.D. Va. campaign.

Why it matters — and a caveat on the '213 patent. This case is a front in Centripetal's high-profile, multi-front assertion campaign against major network vendors (Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, Keysight) over threat-intelligence gateway patents — a campaign that produced an October 2020 E.D. Va. jury verdict of roughly $2.5–2.75 billion against Cisco that Centripetal itself cited in its Keysight ITC complaint as industry-wide notice (Dkt./ITC excerpts citing IPWatchdog and SC Magazine). The Keysight action is notable for the coordinated defense: eight IPRs challenging most asserted patents, an ITC investigation that ended in a no-violation finding, and parallel German and Unified Patent Court proceedings — a textbook example of PTAB/ITC/District Court co-pendency and its strategic consequences. Important verification caveat: the case metadata lists U.S. Patent No. 9,565,213 ("Methods and Systems for Protecting a Secured Network," Centripetal-owned; firewall-policy optimization — reordering an ordered list of firewall rules by packet-matching probabilities to cut average rule comparisons per packet while preserving policy, including trie-based sub-group rotation and rule splitting/merging) as the patent at issue. However, I could not verify '213 in this docket: the July 2022 and September 2023 filings enumerating the patents in suit (Dkts. 45 and 65) list only the eleven patents above, none of which is '213. The '213 patent was instead the subject of Centripetal's earlier E.D. Va. litigation with Cisco (Cisco IPRs IPR2018-01386 and IPR2018-01512 against '213 are confirmed). The metadata linkage of '213 to this case number therefore appears to be a database cross-reference error, or reflects a pleading iteration I could not confirm; the verified parties, asserted patents, and outcome (stayed, post-verdict-less) belong to Centripetal v. Keysight as described.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with identifying the parties from the patent and docket.

The patent is assigned to Centripetal Networks ("Methods and systems for protecting a secured network"). Let me identify the parties in case 2:22-cv-00002.

The case is Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM). Now I need to verify the '213 patent's role — the initial complaint asserted 11 patents not obviously including the '213. Let me dig deeper.

Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. — Case 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va.)

Note on the patent-in-suit. Your case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,565,213 (the '213 patent) as the patent at issue. Based on the docket materials I located, the operative asserted-patent set in this 2022 action appears to have been eleven different Centripetal patents (the '370, '917, '526, '572, '343, '062, '573, '009, '266, '456, and '474 patents — see Centripetal's 2022-07-01 opposition to stay, Dkt. 45, n.1). The '213 patent was asserted against Keysight (then Ixia) in the earlier E.D. Va. litigation, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Techs., Inc. & Ixia, No. 2:17-cv-00383, and was challenged by Cisco in IPR2018-01512. I flag this discrepancy rather than assume it away: if your metadata is correct that the '213 patent was in this docket (e.g., via an amended complaint), I could not independently confirm it within my search limits. Everything below concerns the case as documented in accessible records.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-01-01 — Centripetal Networks, Inc. filed its complaint for patent infringement in the Norfolk Division of the E.D. Va. (Dkt. 1), with ~91 exhibits (Dkts. 2–9). Case assigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, referral to Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller (case No. 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM).
• The filing came one day after a limited-term license between the parties lapsed, which had settled/ended the earlier Centripetal–Keysight/Ixia litigation (2:17-cv-00383). Centripetal's counsel included Stephen E. Noona (Kaufman & Canoles), Kevin O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell), and Kramer Levin attorneys Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Hannah Lee, and Kris Kastens.
• Keysight's defense team: local counsel William Rueger Poynter plus pro hac vice counsel Christine Morgan, Christopher Pulido, Jonah Mitchell, and Seth Herring (PHV motions granted by order dated 2022-02-16, Dkt. 24).
• 2022-01-20 — Keysight obtained an extension of its response deadline to 2022-02-25 (proposed order at Dkt. 15-1).
• 2022-02-25 — Keysight moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 25; supporting memo Dkt. 26), and separately moved for judgment on the pleadings. Centripetal opposed (Dkt. 28), defending patent eligibility and pleading sufficiency for, among others, the '917 and '062 patents and invoking leave-to-amend in the alternative. No ruling on these motions was confirmed in my search.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss / judgment on the pleadings (2022-02-25) — targeted § 101 eligibility and insufficiency of infringement, willfulness, and indirect-infringement pleadings (Dkts. 25–28). Outcome not confirmed.
• Motion to stay pending ITC proceedings (filed ~June 2022, Dkt. 44) — Keysight sought a stay pending completion of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 and of IPR petitions it said it would file. Centripetal opposed on 2022-07-01 (Dkt. 45), arguing that 8 of the 11 asserted patents and the accused BreakingPoint products were not before the ITC, that a stay would not simplify the case, and that it would be prejudiced by ongoing alleged willful infringement. The motion's disposition is not confirmed in the sources I could access, but the case was in fact stayed in due course (see below).
• No transfer motion was identified. The case proceeded in Norfolk.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman order or claim-construction opinion in this docket was confirmed in my search. The case was stayed before reaching that stage, so far as the record shows. (Claim construction of related Centripetal patents occurred in the earlier Keysight/Ixia case, 2:17-cv-00383, in 2018, and in the parallel Cisco litigation.)

4. Parallel ITC proceeding and its effect on the case

• 2022-04 — Centripetal filed a Section 337 complaint at the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1314) against Keysight's imports, asserting three Centripetal patents (two of which later had all claims invalidated at the PTAB, per Keysight's SEC disclosures).
• 2023-12-05 — The ITC issued its Notice of Determination of no violation of Section 337 and terminated the investigation.
• Centripetal appealed the ITC determination to the Federal Circuit; Keysight's disclosures state that in April 2026 the Federal Circuit issued a decision allowing the ITC's findings to stand.
• Effect on the district case: The E.D. Va. action is stayed pending finalization of the ITC appeals and the USPTO validity challenges (Keysight Form 10-Q for the quarter ended 2026-04-30). The stay is the controlling posture of this case today.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and their effect

• Keysight (and related parties) petitioned for IPR against eight of the asserted patents; per Keysight's SEC disclosures, the PTAB found all or most claims invalid in each challenged patent.
• Relevant PTAB docket references tied to the Centripetal–Keysight dispute include IPR2022-01525 and IPR2023-00445, -00446, -00448, plus the earlier Cisco IPRs (IPR2018-01386, -01443, -01444, -01512, -01513). IPR2018-01512 is the Cisco IPR on the '213 patent itself (Cisco was petitioner; the '213 patent was also asserted in the earlier 2:17-cv-00383 Keysight/Ixia case).
• Centripetal appealed seven PTAB adverse decisions to the Federal Circuit. Status as of Keysight's April 2026 disclosures:
  • The Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB invalidation of all claims of two challenged patents (including, per Law360's 2026-04-02 report "Centripetal Loses Fed. Circ. Bid To Save Cybersecurity Patent," a Keysight-challenged Centripetal cybersecurity patent).
  • The Federal Circuit expanded the PTAB's decision on a third patent to invalidate all but two claims — effectively invalidating all claims.
  • Appeals continue for four patents.
• Effect: These IPR results gutted the patent portfolio underpinning the district-court case and are a principal reason the E.D. Va. action remains stayed rather than proceeding to trial.

6. Discovery and trial

No substantive discovery rulings, trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions in this docket were confirmed. The case never reached trial in the confirmed record — it was stayed in the liability posture, with no claim construction or merits adjudication in the district court.

7. Current disposition / posture

• The district court action has not been resolved on the merits. Per Keysight's Form 10-Q (quarter ended 2026-04-30): "The underlying case is currently stayed." Some aggregators (Ex Parte/RPX) tag the case "Closed," which is consistent with an administrative closure accompanying the stay, but Keysight's most recent public disclosure describes an active, stayed case.
• Related global skirmishes (German nullity/EPO proceedings, a Unified Patent Court action filed 2024-08-21, and the Centripetal–Cisco Federal Circuit appeal of the vacated $2.75B judgment) are collateral to this docket.

Bottom line

This litigation is a stay-driven, unresolved enforcement campaign rather than a litigated-to-judgment case: filed 2022-01-01 immediately after license expiration; defended via Rule 12 motions and a stay motion tied to the parallel ITC investigation (337-TA-1314) and Keysight IPRs; the ITC found no violation (2023-12-05) and the Federal Circuit let that stand (2026); the PTAB invalidated all or most claims across the eight challenged patents, with Federal Circuit affirmances through April 2026; and the district case remains stayed pending those appeals. No verdict, judgment, or settlement has been confirmed. Where I could not confirm specific rulings (e.g., the disposition of the dismissal/12(c) motions or the stay motion, and the exact role of the '213 patent in this particular docket), I have said so rather than speculate.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.)

Source basis and caveat. I could not pull the live CM/ECF attorney roster directly; the roster below is compiled from signature blocks on multiple docket filings that surfaced in full-text form (Dkts. 10, 14, 31, 41, 42, 45, 49, 73), cross-checked against UniCourt and Justia summaries. UniCourt's party page lists only Stephen Noona for the plaintiff, which is plainly incomplete (it reflects only the ECF-registered filer on the earliest docket entries); the signature blocks on the merits filings (e.g., Dkt. 42, the June 2, 2022 Notice of Institution of Related ITC Investigation; Dkt. 45, the July 1, 2022 stay opposition) show the fuller team below. No in-house counsel for Centripetal appeared on the district-court filings I could verify.

1. Stephen Edward Noona — Virginia local counsel / E.D. Va. counsel of record

• Firm/office: Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., 150 W. Main St., Suite 2100, Norfolk, VA 23510 (VSB No. 25367).
• Role: Principal E.D. Va. local counsel; signed the complaint-related notices, financial disclosure statements (Dkt. 41), the ITC-institution notice (Dkt. 42), and the stay opposition (Dkt. 45); he is the name/address on the summons served on Keysight (Dkt. 14) and the ECF filer for most Centripetal submissions.
• Experience: Veteran E.D. Va. patent litigator who has served as Centripetal's Virginia counsel across its entire campaign, including Keysight I (No. 2:17-cv-00383), the parallel Cisco litigation, and this case; also local counsel in the firm's broader IP docket.

2. Kevin O'Donnell — Virginia co-counsel

• Firm/office: Henry & O'Donnell P.C., 300 N. Washington St., Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314 (VSB No. 30086).
• Role: Virginia counsel appearing with Noona on Centripetal filings; listed in the plaintiff signature block on Dkt. 42 (and Dkt. 10).
• Experience: Virginia patent litigator long associated with Centripetal's E.D. Va. suits (including the earlier Keysight/Ixia and Cisco actions); handles local practice, service, and discovery matters on the "rocket docket."

3. Paul J. Andre — Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP — at filing, 990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025; relocated effective July 22, 2022 to 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (Dkt. 49). Following the Kramer Levin–Herbert Smith Freehills combination, now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (Redwood Shores/Washington, D.C.).
• Role: Lead plaintiff's trial counsel (pro hac vice) in the district court; lead appellate counsel in the parallel Federal Circuit IPR appeals (e.g., Fed. Cir. No. 24-2246, argued 2026).
• Experience: Former Weil Gotshal/Fish & Richardson IP partner; co-led Centripetal's headline E.D. Va. trial against Cisco (the ~$2.75B verdict, later vacated and reinstated-in-part on appeal) and the Keysight/Palo Alto Networks/ITC fronts; argued multiple Centripetal appeals at the Federal Circuit (per the April 2, 2026 Fed. Cir. opinion in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 24-2246, he and James Hannah are listed appellate counsel).

4. Lisa Kobialka — Senior litigation counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Kramer Levin (Menlo Park → Redwood Shores, CA; now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP).
• Role: Senior patent litigator on the Centripetal team (pro hac vice in this case); co-signatory on the plaintiff signature block (Dkt. 42; Dkt. 10).
• Experience: Former Weil Gotshal IP partner; co-lead in Centripetal v. Cisco, Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks, Keysight I, and the ITC investigation; extensive district-court and PTAB practice on the same firewall/threat-intelligence patent portfolio.

5. James R. Hannah — Senior litigation counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Kramer Levin (Menlo Park → Redwood Shores, CA); now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP.
• Role: Senior patent litigator (pro hac vice); his PHV application (Dkt. 31) and the firm's address-change notice (Dkt. 49) are on the docket; appellate counsel in the Federal Circuit IPR appeals.
• Experience: Longtime Centripetal lead litigator (Cisco, Palo Alto, Keysight I, ITC 337-TA-1314); argued before the Federal Circuit; experienced in network-security patent trials and IPRs.

6. Kris Kastens — Litigation counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Kramer Levin (Menlo Park → Redwood Shores, CA); now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP.
• Role: Member of the plaintiff trial team (pro hac vice); listed in the plaintiff signature block on Dkt. 42 and Dkt. 10.
• Experience: IP litigator on Centripetal's Kramer Levin team across the Keysight and related network-security matters.

7. Hannah Lee — Litigation counsel (pro hac vice) — withdrawn May 16, 2024

• Firm/office: Kramer Levin (Menlo Park → Redwood Shores, CA).
• Role: Plaintiff's counsel (pro hac vice) through spring 2024.
• Withdrawal: By order dated May 16, 2024 (Dkt. 73), the court granted the parties' unopposed motion and withdrew Hannah Lee as counsel for Centripetal, directing the Clerk to remove her from the case's electronic-notification list. She is therefore not current counsel of record, though she was on the original team.

Related appellate counsel (context, not district-court counsel of record)

The parallel Federal Circuit appeals of the PTAB/ITC rulings (e.g., No. 24-2246, decided April 2, 2026) were handled by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP attorneys including Daniel Noah Lerman (Washington, D.C., argued), Christina M. Finn (Redwood Shores), Jeffrey H. Price, plus Paul Andre and James Hannah; Sullivan & Cromwell attorneys (Andrei Iancu, Jeffrey B. Wall, Laurie N. Stempler, Daniel J. Richardson, Aviv S. Halpern) filed corrected appearances for appellant Centripetal Networks, LLC in 2024 — consistent with appellate (ITC-appeal) representation. None of these appellate appearances makes them counsel of record in the stayed district-court case, which I want to flag so they aren't conflated.

Bottom line

The plaintiff's district-court counsel of record is a Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP) team led by Paul J. Andre — with Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Kris Kastens, and (until May 2024) Hannah Lee appearing pro hac vice — backed by Virginia local counsel Stephen E. Noona (Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk) and Kevin O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell P.C., Alexandria). No in-house counsel appears on the verified filings. If a complete CM/ECF roster includes additional Kramer Levin associates or a Centripetal in-house attorney, it did not surface in the accessible docket text, and I have not invented names to fill that gap.

Counsel of record for the defendant — Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.)

The sole defendant is Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Ixia was a co-defendant only in the parties' earlier suit, No. 2:17-cv-00383, not in this action). The defense is structured as a Reed Smith LLP national team (San Francisco-led) with a Virginia local counsel. Five attorneys appear on the E.D. Va. docket as Keysight's counsel of record: local counsel William Rueger Poynter, who certified four pro hac vice motions filed February 6, 2022 (Dkts. 17–20), all granted by Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen's order of February 16, 2022 (Dkt. 24) for Christine M. Morgan, Christopher J. Pulido, Jonah D. Mitchell, and Seth B. Herring. Justia's docket sheet (last updated Feb. 25, 2022) and UniCourt's party-attorney listing confirm this same five-attorney roster.

Defense team

1. Christine M. Morgan — Lead/partner trial counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco (101 Second St., Ste. 1800; cmorgan@reedsmith.com — signature blocks in both the 2017–18 and 2022 litigations).
• Role: Reed Smith partner and the firm's designated trial lead for Keysight in this dispute. Her Reed Smith bio expressly lists "Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies" (ITC 3 patents, E.D. Va. 11 patents, Germany 3 patents, 8-for-8 PTAB IPR institution) and states she "Prevailed on motion to stay EDVA action" — i.e., she handled the Dkt. 44 stay motion in this case.
• Experience: Trial lawyer who has tried patent cases in E.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., E.D. Va., the ITC, and the PTAB (first chair in two trials); previously represented Keysight/Ixia in Keysight I (2:17-cv-00383), which settled mid-trial in Oct. 2018; led the ITC trial (Inv. No. 337-TA-1314) that produced the no-violation finding (Dec. 5, 2023), affirmed by the Commission and the Federal Circuit (Apr. 2026).

2. Jonah D. Mitchell — Partner/lead appellate-and-coordination counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco (confirmed by Reed Smith signature blocks and Federal Circuit captions listing "JONAH D. MITCHELL, San Francisco, CA").
• Role: Reed Smith partner; core member of the Keysight defense team and the firm's public spokesperson on the multi-forum matter (quoted in Reed Smith's 2026 victory release describing wins at the ITC, PTAB, UPC, and German courts).
• Experience: Appeared for Keysight in the parallel Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., No. 24-2246, '526 patent IPR appeal, decided Apr. 2, 2026; No. 24-1406, '917 patent cross-appeal, decided Apr. 23, 2026); also on the Keysight I trial team (2017–18).

3. Seth B. Herring — Partner (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP (office not confirmed in my sources; bio page is reedsmith.com/our-people/seth-b-herring/).
• Role: Reed Smith partner admitted pro hac vice Feb. 16, 2022 (Dkt. 19/Dkt. 24).
• Experience: His firm bio expressly lists the representation: "Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.: Representing Keysight in multi-forum patent infringement dispute with litigation proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia (11 patents), the ITC (3 patents), the UPC (1 patent) and Germany (3 patents) and multiple inter partes reviews." Trial lawyer in patent, trademark, trade dress, and commercial disputes; also handled Keysight's post-settlement royalty arbitration.

4. Christopher J. Pulido — Associate/counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco (cpulido@reedsmith.com; signature blocks in both cases).
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice Feb. 16, 2022 (Dkt. 20/Dkt. 24). In the 2018 phase he self-identified as "an associate with the law firm of Reed Smith LLP" (declaration in 2:17-cv-00383, Dkt. 472-1); his current title (counsel vs. partner) at the time of the 2022 filing was not confirmed.
• Experience: Long-tenured member of the Keysight defense team across Keysight I and the current multi-forum dispute (Reed Smith's 2026 release still lists him on the Keysight representation team).

5. William Rueger Poynter — Local counsel

• Firm/office: Kaleo Legal, 4456 Corporation Ln., Ste. 135, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 (VSB No. 48672; wpoynter@kaleolegal.com). Note: his FindLaw/Martindale listings and 2025 E.D. Va. filings place him at Kaleo Legal, and USPTO correspondence records tie him to that firm as early as ~2019–2022; I could not independently confirm the exact firm name on his Jan.–Feb. 2022 appearance, but the address is consistent.
• Role: Virginia local counsel for Keysight; he "certified" each of the four Reed Smith PHV motions (Dkts. 17–20) and filed Keysight's early substantive papers (e.g., Dkt. 26, memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, filed Feb. 25, 2022).
• Experience: Virginia Beach IP/commercial litigator (Washington & Lee; U.Va. Law; admitted E.D. Va., W.D. Va., Fourth Circuit, Federal Circuit, and U.S. Supreme Court bar); served the same local-counsel role for Keysight/Ixia in Keysight I (2:17-cv-00383) and appears regularly as E.D. Va. local counsel in patent cases.

In-house counsel

• Jeffrey Li, Senior Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Keysight Technologies — identified in Reed Smith's victory announcement as the in-house executive overseeing the defense ("We appreciate Reed Smith's tenacious advocacy on our behalf"). No Keysight in-house attorney is documented in my sources as entering an appearance of record in the E.D. Va. docket; Li's role is management/oversight rather than counsel of record.

Additional Reed Smith attorneys on the broader campaign (not confirmed of record here)

Reed Smith's 2026 release lists the full Keysight team as Jonah Mitchell, Christine Morgan, Seth Herring, Doyle Johnson, Gerard Donovan, Jonathan Detrixhe, James Martin, and Christopher Pulido — but that roster spans the ITC, PTAB, Federal Circuit, UPC, and German fronts. Gerard M. Donovan (Reed Smith, Washington, DC) argued and Peter J. Chassman, Michael J. Forbes (Houston), Jonathan I.A.M. Detrixhe (San Francisco), and James C. Martin (Pittsburgh) appeared on the Federal Circuit IPR/ITC appeals (Nos. 24-2246, 24-1406, 24-1416). I found no docket evidence that these appellate-campaign attorneys entered appearances in the E.D. Va. action itself; because the case has been stayed since Aug. 22, 2023 (Dkt. 58) and has generated no merits filings since, the five-attorney E.D. Va. roster above is likely still current, but I could not verify any post-February-2022 docket entries or substitution of counsel through PACER (the Justia docket ends Feb. 25, 2022, and later documents I could access, Dkts. 45, 49, 64, are plaintiff-side filings).

Key sources

• Justia docket, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va.): Dkts. 17–20 (PHV motions certified by local counsel Poynter) and Dkt. 24 (order granting Pulido PHV, Feb. 16, 2022).
• UniCourt case page pc-db5-centripetal-networks-inc-v-keysight-technologies-inc-1109898 (defendant attorneys: Poynter, Morgan, Pulido, Mitchell, Herring).
• Reed Smith signature blocks in 2:17-cv-00383 filings (Dkt. 237, Dkt. 472-1; 101 Second St., San Francisco, cmorgan/jmitchell/cpulido@reedsmith.com) — same Reed Smith team carried over to this case.
• Reed Smith bios: Christine M. Morgan (reedsmith.com/our-people/christine-m-morgan — "Prevailed on motion to stay EDVA action"); Seth B. Herring (reedsmith.com/our-people/seth-b-herring — Centripetal v. Keysight representative matter).
• Reed Smith press release, "Keysight secures major success against Centripetal" (2026) — full team roster and in-house GC quote.
• Federal Circuit captions, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 24-2246 (Apr. 2, 2026) and No. 24-1406 (Apr. 23, 2026) (Donovan argued; Mitchell, Detrixhe, Chassman, Forbes, Martin of Reed Smith on the briefs).
• Martindale/FindLaw/Kaleo Legal listings for William Rueger Poynter (Virginia Beach, VSB No. 48672).

Bottom line: Keysight's E.D. Va. counsel of record is Reed Smith LLP (lead: Christine M. Morgan, with Jonah D. Mitchell, Seth B. Herring, and Christopher J. Pulido, all pro hac vice from the San Francisco office) plus Virginia local counsel William Rueger Poynter (Kaleo Legal, Virginia Beach). No substitution of counsel, new appearances, or withdrawals after the February 2022 PHV grants were confirmed, consistent with the case's stay-driven inactivity since August 2023.