Plaintiff
9 cases as plaintiff.
Keysight Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded company (NYSE: KEYS) that designs and manufactures electronic test and measurement equipment and software. Headquartered in Santa Rosa, California, the company was founded on November 1, 2014, as a spin-off from Agilent Technologies, which itself originated from Hewlett-Packard. For its 2023 fiscal year, Keysight reported revenues of $5.46 billion and employed approximately 16,800 people as of 2025.
As a major operating company, Keysight provides a wide range of solutions across various industries, including communications, aerospace and defense, automotive, and semiconductors. Its product portfolio includes instruments such as oscilloscopes, network analyzers, signal generators, and spectrum analyzers, as well as electronic design automation (EDA) software under its PathWave brand. These tools are used by engineers in design, development, manufacturing, and network monitoring.
Keysight’s litigation profile is primarily that of an operating company defending itself against patent assertions. The tracked case data shows two instances of Keysight as a defendant and one as a plaintiff, all related to the same adversary. This pattern indicates a targeted defensive posture rather than that of a frequent litigant. When sued for infringement, the company has shown a willingness to challenge the validity of the asserted patents, a common strategy for operating companies.
The company's tracked patent cases all stem from a multi-forum dispute with cybersecurity firm Centripetal Networks, LLC. Centripetal initiated actions against Keysight in 2022 in the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement by Keysight's network security products. In response, Keysight filed a proceeding at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of Centripetal's patents. In April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed rulings from both the ITC and PTAB in favor of Keysight, clearing it of infringement claims and invalidating numerous asserted patent claims.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when Keysight Technologies, Inc. files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
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.
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 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.
Keysight petitioned for inter partes review of all claims 1-30 of the '009 patent. The PTAB initially denied institution, but the Director remanded, and after institution the Board's Final Written Decision on November 1, 2024 found all claims unpatentable. Patent Owner's rehearing request was denied and Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit.
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.
Keysight Technologies filed this IPR, which was joined with IPR2022-00182. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand for this joined case.
Keysight Technologies filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1, 3, 5–8, 10, 12–15, 17, and 19–20 of the '437 patent. The joint status report listed the petition as 'Institution Denied'; the IPR case number was not located.