Defendant

Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

6 cases as defendant.

Also appears as a plaintiff in 1 case View as plaintiff

Company profile

Palo Alto Networks, Inc. is a publicly traded multinational cybersecurity company founded in 2005. Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, the company trades on the Nasdaq stock exchange under the ticker symbol PANW. For the fiscal year ending in July 2025, Palo Alto Networks reported revenue of $9.22 billion and had over 16,000 employees.

The company provides a comprehensive platform of cybersecurity solutions covering network security, cloud security, and security operations. Its core product lines include Strata for network security, featuring advanced firewalls; Prisma for cloud security, designed to protect applications and data in cloud environments; and Cortex, an AI-driven security operations platform for threat detection and response. Palo Alto Networks serves over 80,000 enterprise customers globally.

As an operating company, Palo Alto Networks' patent litigation profile consists entirely of defending its technology. The provided case list shows five recent instances of the company as a defendant and none as a plaintiff, a typical posture for a large technology firm. Lawsuits have been filed in plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions such as the Eastern District of Texas, as well as in the Northern District of California and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Notable tracked cases include suits brought by Centripetal Networks, Inc. and Qomplx LLC. The litigation with Centripetal has involved disputes over patents related to network threat detection technology. Another case of note was a suit filed by competitor Fortinet, Inc., reflecting the competitive landscape of the cybersecurity industry.

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al.

Vacated and Remanded
Docket:
23-2027
Filed:
2023-05-23
Terminated:
2025-10-22
Patents:9917856

Centripetal Networks appealed the PTAB's initial decision in IPR2022-00182 (and related IPRs) concerning US9917856. The Federal Circuit vacated the decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, citing the PTAB's failure to adequately consider evidence of copying.