Defendant
9 cases as defendant.
Centripetal Networks, LLC is a privately held cybersecurity company founded in 2009 and headquartered in the Herndon/Reston, Virginia area. The venture-backed company provides intelligence-driven network security solutions and has an estimated 75-115 employees. Sources have reported its annual revenue in the range of $24 million.
Centripetal operates in the field of proactive cybersecurity. Its main offerings are a service called CleanINTERNET® and a hardware appliance known as the RuleGate® Threat Intelligence Gateway. This system is designed to filter network traffic in real-time by applying rules based on a massive aggregation of threat intelligence data, blocking known threats before they can enter a customer's network. The company states its technology is protected by over 90 U.S. and international patents.
The company is an active patent litigant. The provided data shows an even split between plaintiff and defendant cases, which is characteristic of an operating company asserting its intellectual property against competitors and defending those same patents from challenges. Centripetal has filed its infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The defensive cases against it are reviews before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common venue for defendants to challenge patent validity.
Centripetal has been involved in high-stakes litigation against major technology companies. The tracked cases show it suing Keysight Technologies and Palo Alto Networks in January 2022 over its network security patents. In February 2024, a federal jury awarded Centripetal over $150 million in its suit against Palo Alto Networks. While not listed in the tracked cases above, the company also won a significant, multi-billion dollar judgment against Cisco Systems in 2020 in the Eastern District of Virginia, although this ruling was later set aside on appeal for reasons related to judicial conduct.
Palo Alto Networks petitioned for inter partes review of the '343 patent. The PTAB granted institution and issued a Final Written Decision, terminating the proceeding on August 5, 2024; the decision has been appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Palo Alto Networks petitioned for IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,785,266; institution and joinder with IPR2023-00445 were granted on February 22, 2024. A Final Written Decision issued July 22, 2024 finding all challenged claims unpatentable, and the patent-family litigation record lists related Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2024-2373.
Keysight petitioned for inter partes review of all claims 1–33 of the '474 patent. The Board granted institution on July 24, 2023, and in its June 3, 2024 Final Written Decision held all claims except 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 unpatentable as obvious; the surviving claims were not adequately briefed by Keysight.
Keysight petitioned for IPR challenging claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent 10,785,266. The PTAB instituted review on July 24, 2023, and issued a Final Written Decision on July 22, 2024 finding all challenged claims unpatentable; Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 2024-2372.
Keysight petitioned for inter partes review of the '343 patent. The PTAB instituted review, denied the Patent Owner's request for Director review, and issued a Final Written Decision; the exact FWD date and merits outcome were not confirmed.
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 unpatentable as obvious, but did not find claims 4 and 14 unpatentable. This decision was appealed to the CAFC.
In a Final Written Decision, the PTAB found claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 to be unpatentable, but determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated that claims 4 and 14 were unpatentable.
Palo Alto's appeal from the judgment in the Eastern District of Virginia action, 2:21-cv-00137. The Federal Circuit docket reflects appeal No. 25-1167, with an order reactivating the appeal on December 22, 2025.
Inter partes review filed by Palo Alto Networks against a related Centripetal patent. The narrative identifies the challenged patent as US 9,917,856 ('856). The '401 patent was not the subject of this IPR.