Plaintiff
17 cases as plaintiff.
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.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Centripetal Networks, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
The investigation was terminated based on the PTAB's decision to institute IPR proceedings, which cast significant doubt on the patent's validity.
Patent infringement suit filed by Centripetal against Keysight, listed as involving the '474 patent. It was intradistrict-transferred from the Alexandria Division to the Norfolk Division on Jan. 4, 2022; the final merits disposition is not confirmed in the retrieved sources.
Centripetal sued Keysight for patent infringement involving a portfolio including the '009 patent. The case was stayed pending finalization of appeals of ITC findings and USPTO validity challenges, including IPR2022-01421.
Centripetal sued Keysight for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia. The case was stayed pending finalization of appeals of ITC findings and validity challenges. Google Patents associates this case with the '062 patent, though the exact asserted patents were not fully confirmed in the available sources.
Companion Virginia action filed by Centripetal against Keysight, initially docketed in the Alexandria Division and transferred to the Norfolk Division on January 4, 2022. It was stayed alongside the related Virginia action pending appeal outcomes.
Centripetal sued Keysight in the Eastern District of Virginia, with the '343 patent associated with the case alongside other Centripetal patents. The district case was related to ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1313 and was stayed. The full set of patents ultimately asserted was not confirmed.
Centripetal Networks, Inc. filed a second, broader suit against Keysight Technologies, Inc. in E.D. Va. Keysight challenged eight Centripetal patents at the PTAB, with most or all claims invalidated and appeals continuing into 2026. The narrative does not identify which patents were asserted in this case or whether the '401 patent was involved.
Centripetal sued LookingGlass and related defendants asserting 10,785,266 along with two other patents, plus claims for breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Case tracking services list the case as closed, but the specific disposition is unverified.
Centripetal asserted 13 patents, including the '213 patent, against Palo Alto Networks' NGFW, Cortex, MineMeld, DNS Security, and Panorama products. A jury returned a verdict for Centripetal; the court granted JMOL in part, denied it in part, and denied a new trial. The case was dismissed in part/closed on October 3, 2024.
Centripetal sued Palo Alto Networks asserting 13 patents, including 10,785,266. The case was tried to verdict; the court granted Palo Alto Networks' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law in part, denied it in part, denied a new trial motion, and recorded the case as dismissed in part on October 3, 2024.
Centripetal sued Palo Alto Networks, alleging infringement of the '380 patent among 13 patents asserted against products including Next-Generation Firewall, Panorama, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security Service. On January 13, 2024, the court granted summary judgment of no direct infringement of the '380 patent, removing it before trial. A jury verdict covered four other patents, and an appeal is pending at the Federal Circuit.
Centripetal accused Cisco of infringement in E.D. Va. After a Zoom bench trial, the district court awarded about $1.9 billion, but the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded. The '213 claims had been dismissed without prejudice pending IPRs, and on remand Centripetal failed to prove infringement of the retried patents. The docket was administratively closed around July 2025.
The '722 patent was initially asserted but was not part of the bench trial. The district court entered a roughly $2.75 billion judgment for Centripetal, later vacated by the Federal Circuit due to the judge's failure to recuse; on remand, Judge Hanes found no infringement and the case was closed on May 27, 2025.
Centripetal sued Keysight and IXIA asserting the '370 patent along with U.S. Patent Nos. 9,137,205, 9,413,722, and 9,560,077. A jury trial was held October 2-5, 2018; the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal on October 11, 2018, consistent with a settlement, and the case was terminated.
Centripetal sued Keysight and Ixia in the Eastern District of Virginia. The '213 patent was added by amended complaint on June 13, 2018. The case was litigated through claim construction and trial, but the final damages or settlement figure was not confirmed.
A motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of patent ineligibility for US9917856 was denied in September 2018, as disputed issues of fact existed. This case appears to be related to or preceding the 2:18-cv-00094 case.
The Federal Circuit vacated the initial district court judgment and remanded the case due to the district judge's recusal issues related to US9560176.