Defendant

Centripetal Networks, Inc.

17 cases as defendant.

Cases
17
Active
0
17 closed
Filed
2018–2022
Top venue
PTAB
10 cases
Also appears as a plaintiff in 16 cases View as plaintiff

Company profile

Centripetal Networks, Inc. is a privately held cybersecurity company founded in 2009 and headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. The company also has offices in New Hampshire and Galway, Ireland. As a private entity, its specific revenue and detailed financials are not publicly disclosed, though some sources estimate its annual revenue at around $24 million and employee count between 80 and 115. Centripetal has received venture capital funding, with total fundraising reported between $8 million and $33.3 million.

Centripetal is an operating company that provides intelligence-driven cybersecurity solutions. Its flagship offering is CleanINTERNET, a managed service that uses a threat intelligence gateway to proactively block known cyber threats in real-time. The platform aggregates threat data from thousands of sources and applies it at the network edge to prevent attacks before they can infiltrate a client's network. The company's core products include the RuleGate network appliance, which filters network packets at high speed based on millions of security rules, and the QuickThreat analytics platform. Centripetal serves a range of sectors, including government, defense, finance, and healthcare.

The company's patent litigation posture is that of an operating company asserting its own patents. The provided data shows Centripetal Networks as a plaintiff in one case before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and as a defendant in none. This pattern is consistent with an operating company enforcing its intellectual property rights rather than a non-practicing entity (NPE).

The notable tracked case is Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al., an action filed at the ITC in 2022. Centripetal alleged that Keysight's network monitoring products infringed on its patents related to correlating data packets in communications networks. In August 2023, an ITC administrative law judge found no violation, a decision later affirmed by the Commission and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in April 2026. The court found that Centripetal failed to establish the "technical prong" of the domestic industry requirement for its asserted product. Centripetal has also been involved in patent validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against other technology companies, including Palo Alto Networks.

Filing activity

2018: 1 case'18'19'202021: 13 cases13'212022: 2 cases'22
Cases filed per year naming Centripetal Networks, Inc. as defendant.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

final written decision; all challenged claims unpatentable; appeal dismissed
Docket:
IPR2022-01535
Filed:
2022-09-13
Terminated:
2025-01-29
Patents:10609062

Keysight petitioned for inter partes review of US Patent 10,609,062. The PTAB instituted review on April 18, 2023, and issued a Final Written Decision on April 16, 2024, holding all challenged claims (1–20) unpatentable. Patent owner Centripetal appealed, but the appeal was dismissed and the Federal Circuit mandate was docketed on January 29, 2025.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

final written decision; all claims held unpatentable; affirmed on appeal
Docket:
IPR2022-01525
Filed:
2022-09-12
Terminated:
2024-04-15
Patents:10284526

Keysight petitioned for inter partes review of the '526 patent. The PTAB instituted review of all claims 1-20 and issued a Final Written Decision holding all claims unpatentable as anticipated and/or obvious. Centripetal appealed, and the Federal Circuit later affirmed.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Unpatentable (on remand)
Docket:
IPR2022-00182
Filed:
2021-11
Terminated:
2026-06-12
Patents:9917856

Palo Alto Networks filed an Inter Partes Review challenging claims 1, 24, and 25 of US9917856. After an appeal and remand by the Federal Circuit, a new PTAB panel issued a Final Written Decision on Remand, again finding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Final Written Decision - all claims unpatentable; appealed
Docket:
IPR2021-01149
Filed:
2021-07-23
Terminated:
2023-02-17
Patents:10567413

Palo Alto Networks petitioned for inter partes review of the '413 patent. The PTAB instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision on February 17, 2023, holding all claims 1-20 unpatentable as obvious. Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

final written decision; appealed to Federal Circuit
Docket:
IPR2021-01157
Filed:
2021-07-22
Terminated:
2023-03-10
Patents:10749906

Palo Alto petitioned for inter partes review challenging claims 1-17 of '49906 (patent owner later named Centripetal Networks, LLC). The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on March 10, 2023; the narrative does not specify which claims were invalidated.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Final Written Decision; affirmed on appeal
Docket:
IPR2021-01152
Filed:
2021-07-22
Terminated:
2023-01-24
Patents:10091246

Palo Alto petitioned for inter partes review challenging all claims 1–20 of US10091246. The Board instituted review and, in a Final Written Decision, found the challenged claims unpatentable. Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Final Written Decision; claims 1-21 found unpatentable; affirmed on appeal
Docket:
IPR2021-01147
Filed:
2021-07-19
Terminated:
2023-02-09
Patents:10542028

Palo Alto Networks petitioned for inter partes review of the '028 patent. The PTAB instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-21 unpatentable as obvious over Sourcefire 3D System user guides and related prior art.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

final written decision; affirmed
Docket:
IPR2018-01760
Filed:
2018-09-18
Terminated:
2020-05-18
Patents:9413722

Cisco petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-25 of the '722 patent. The Board instituted review and issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over the Sourcefire 3D System User Guide; the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

PTAB invalid after remand
Docket:
IPR2018-01386
Patents:9565213

Cisco petitioned for inter partes review of the '213 patent. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding challenged claims unpatentable; the Federal Circuit vacated that decision and remanded, and the PTAB again found the patent invalid on remand.