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

Parties and dispute background. This is a patent-infringement suit by Centripetal Networks, Inc. (joined by Centripetal Networks, LLC) against Keysight Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Rosa, California. Centripetal is a Reston, Virginia-based cybersecurity technology company (R&D in Reston and Portsmouth, N.H.) that sells network-threat-detection/filtering products and services (its "domestic industry" products, built around the CleanINTERNET/RuleGuard architecture); third-party trackers classify it as an operating company, but its business model includes heavy multi-forum assertion, and it has drawn PAE-style criticism. Keysight is a large electronic test-and-measurement company that, through its 2017 Ixia acquisition, sells network-visibility and network-security equipment. Centripetal previously sued Keysight and Ixia in the same district in 2017 (No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCM-LRL, "Keysight I"); after Centripetal's case-in-chief at the October 2018 trial, Keysight settled by taking a three-year license covering its VisionONE/Vision 7300/7303 (with AppStack and SecureStack), ThreatArmor, and BreakingPoint-with-ATI products. That license expired December 31, 2021, and when Keysight declined to renew, Centripetal filed this suit on January 1, 2022, alleging that Keysight's continued sale of its Network Visibility and ThreatArmor product lines—and its cloud "Application and Threat Intelligence" (ATI) feeds marketed as Threat Insights/"Rap Sheets," plus the NetStack/PacketStack/SecureStack/AppStack/MobileStack software stacks—infringes Centripetal's packet-filtering, packet-logging/correlation, and dynamically-updated threat-rule patents (see the ITC complaint and Ex Parte complaint analysis describing the accused technology; the Reed Smith profile of Keysight counsel describes the broader campaign as covering 11 patents in the EDVA action, 3 at the ITC, 3 in Germany, and multiple IPRs).

Patents, procedural posture, and venue. The asserted patent at issue per the case metadata is U.S. Patent No. 11,012,474 B2, "Methods and systems for protecting a secured network," issued May 18, 2021 (application 17/027,436, claiming priority to October 22, 2012; a child of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266 and grandchild of No. 10,567,437). In one line, the '474 patent claims a security-policy-management system that automatically creates or updates packet-filtering rulesets (e.g., firewall rules on a "packet security gateway") based on newly identified malicious network addresses, purportedly without IT personnel intervention—technology Centripetal maps onto Keysight's ATI-driven, automatically-updated rule filtering. Procedurally, the case was filed in the Alexandria Division as 1:22-cv-00001 and intradistrict-transferred to the Norfolk Division on January 4, 2022, where it operates as 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM before District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller (the docket stamp and receipt number confirm the renumbering). Venue matters because EDVA is Centripetal's home-district "rocket docket," where it previously forced the Keysight I settlement before Senior Judge Henry Coke Morgan, and because Keysight's nationwide sales confer venue there. The district case ran in parallel with Centripetal's ITC Section 337 complaint (Certain Computer Network Security Equipment and Systems; trial March 1–7, 2023; ALJ MaryJoan McNamara's August 8, 2023 Initial Determination found no violation—the asserted '370, '917, and '526 patents not infringed and/or invalid—which the Commission affirmed and the Federal Circuit upheld in April 2026), and Keysight obtained a stay of the EDVA action while pursuing IPRs.

Why the case is notable. The suit is a license-expiration/renewal dispute embedded in a deliberate multi-forum enforcement campaign (EDVA, ITC, Germany, and a coordinated PTAB assault—Keysight's counsel tout an 8-for-8 IPR institution record). The most notable development concerns the '474 patent itself: Keysight petitioned for IPR (IPR2023-00448, filed January 6, 2023), the Board instituted on July 24, 2023, and in its June 3, 2024 final written decision found nearly all of claims 1–33 obvious over Law (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0072506) and Golnabi ("Analysis of Firewall Policy Rules Using Data Mining Techniques," IEEE 2006) and related combinations—but dependent claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 survived solely because Keysight's petition never substantively argued them. On July 21, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed (Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Appeal No. 2025-1053, nonprecedential), candidly noting the "ghost in the room" that plainly vulnerable claims survive on petition-drafting grounds (PTABWatch, July 2026). The dispute therefore illustrates both the risk to a patent owner of an invalidation campaign across multiple patents (the related '526 patent was likewise invalidated at the PTAB and affirmed in Centripetal's April 2, 2026 appeal, No. 24-2246) and the procedural limits of IPR estoppel where a petitioner fails to develop its grounds claim-by-claim. The ultimate merits disposition of the stayed EDVA action itself (damages, dismissal, or settlement after the IPR/ITC outcomes) is not confirmed in the available sources.

Centripetal Networks, Inc. (and LLC) v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.

Case No. 1:22-cv-00001 (E.D. Va. Alexandria) → 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va. Norfolk)
Asserted patent per case metadata: U.S. Patent No. 11,012,474 ("the '474 patent")

Scope note on the record

The publicly retrieved docket shows that the case as filed in fact asserted eleven patents, of which the '474 patent is one: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,264,370 ('370), 10,193,917 ('917), 10,284,526 ('526), 10,511,572 ('572), 10,567,343 ('343), 10,609,062 ('062), 10,659,573 ('573), 10,681,009 ('009), 10,785,266 ('266), 10,924,456 ('456), and 11,012,474 ('474). Centripetal's own July 1, 2022 stay-opposition brief (Dkt. 45) lists all eleven and identifies the '474 patent as one of eight "Non-Overlapping Asserted Patents" not in the parallel ITC investigation. The '474-specific proceedings (IPR2023-00448 and its appeal) are treated in detail below.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-01-01 — Complaint filed. Centripetal Networks, Inc. filed a patent-infringement complaint in the Alexandria Division (1:22-cv-00001) (receipt AVAEDC-8176270). The complaint accused Keysight's network-security products (e.g., Vision One, ThreatARMOR, Application & Threat Intelligence, BreakingPoint) of infringement. (Unified Patents docket portal; Justia docket for 2:22-cv-00002; complaint analysis at ai-lab.exparte.com.)
• 2022-01-04 — Intradistrict transfer to Norfolk Division. The Alexandria case was transferred/re-docketed as 2:22-cv-00002, assigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen with Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller (the "AWA-DEM" docket). Justia's docket reflects the Norfolk case as filed 2022-01-01, with entries commencing 2022-01-05. (Justia; Unified Patents "Final Civil Docket 01-04-2022".)
• 2022-01-05 / 2022-01-06 — Summons and service. Summons issued; Keysight served on its registered agent (CT Corporation System) on 2022-01-06; return of service filed 2022-01-15 (Dkt. 14).
• 2022-01-20/21 — Extension of time to respond. Keysight's consent motion (Dkt. 15) granted by Magistrate Judge Miller (Dkt. 16), extending Keysight's responsive-pleading deadline to 2022-02-25.
• 2022-02-06/16 — Pro hac vice admissions for Keysight's counsel (Dkts. 17–24).
• 2022-02-25 — Motion to dismiss. Keysight moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 25) with a supporting memorandum (Dkt. 26). Disposition not located in the retrieved sources; the motion appears to have been superseded by the stay posture described below. I found no evidence of a separately filed answer or counterclaims in the retrieved docket excerpts — Keysight's first substantive response was the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to stay pending ITC proceedings (the pivotal motion).

• Centripetal notified the court of the related ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 ("Certain Computer Network Security Equipment and Systems…") on 2022-06-02 (Dkt. 42); the ITC investigation was instituted ~2022-05-18 and covered three of the eleven asserted patents ('370, '917, '526).
• 2022-06-17 — Keysight moved to stay the entire district-court case pending completion of the ITC investigation and Keysight's announced ("yet-to-be-filed") IPR petitions (Motion, ECF 43; Mem. ECF 44).
• 2022-07-01 — Centripetal opposed, arguing that eight non-overlapping patents (including the '474 patent), the BreakingPoint products, damages, and injunctive relief were not before the ITC, and that a stay would prejudice its willful-infringement/injunction case (Dkt. 45; Finn Decl., Dkt. 46).
• 2022-07-07 — Keysight replied (Dkt. 47), noting the case was "in its infancy, with no scheduling order or discovery underway, and no trial date," conceding the mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) as to the ITC-overlapping patents, and urging a discretionary full stay on the non-overlapping patents.
• 2022-09-12 — Court order (Dkt. 50) directing Keysight to file a status report by 2022-09-14 on whether its "forthcoming" additional IPR petitions (including IPRs on the '474 patent and other non-ITC patents) had actually been filed.
• The court thereafter granted a stay, which remains in force: Keysight's SEC disclosures (FY2025 Form 10-K) state that "The lawsuit before the Federal District Court in Virginia is stayed pending the finalization of appeals of the ITC findings and validity challenges." The exact date/text of the stay order was not retrieved from PACER-adjacent sources, and I do not fabricate it.

Later effort to lift the stay.

• Following the ITC ALJ's Initial Determination (2023-08-08), Centripetal moved to lift the stay and reopen the case; Keysight opposed in filings dated ~2023-09 (Dkts. 62, 62-1, 65, describing the ITC ID and pending Commission review). The stay was not lifted — the case remained stayed per Keysight's later SEC disclosures.

Other pre-trial motions. The Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal motion (Dkt. 25) is discussed above; no rulings on motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment were located.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman/claim-construction ruling in the district court was identified. Keysight represented in July 2022 that no scheduling order existed (Dkt. 47), and the case was stayed before claim construction. Claim construction disputes did arise, however, in the parallel IPR context (see below), most notably the PTAB/Federal Circuit construction of "corresponding action" in the '526 patent litigation and the "application of intermediating logic"/"corresponding action" issues argued in the '474 patent IPR appeal.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• The case was stayed before meaningful merits discovery: Keysight's 2022-07-07 reply stated there was "no scheduling order or discovery underway" (Dkt. 47).
• The strategic center of gravity shifted to the parallel forums: the ITC investigation (337-TA-1314, evidentiary hearing/trial March 1–7, 2023) and Keysight's 2022–2023 wave of IPR petitions against the asserted patents.
• Centripetal's failed 2023 effort to lift the stay (Dkts. 62–65) was the last identified discovery-related skirmish; no merits discovery milestones in the district court were located in the retrieved sources.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

None in the district court. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion occurred in this case because it was stayed. The only trial on these patents occurred in the ITC (March 1–7, 2023), which ended adversely to Centripetal (below).

6. Final disposition / present posture

• No final merits judgment has been entered in the district court; the case remains stayed and active ("Pending - Other Pending" status), consistent with the case metadata ("status: transferred") and Keysight's FY2025 SEC disclosure that the Virginia action is stayed pending finalization of the ITC and validity appeals.
• The district case's practical outcome is being driven by the collateral proceedings:
  • ITC No. 337-TA-1314: ALJ MaryJoan McNamara's Initial Determination (2023-08-08) found no Section 337 violation and held the asserted claims of the '370, '917, and '526 patents invalid and/or not infringed; the Commission issued its Notice of Determination of no violation and terminated the investigation on 2023-12-05. Centripetal appealed.
  • Federal Circuit (ITC side): Oral argument was held in January 2026; on 2026-04-23, the Federal Circuit sided with Keysight, affirming the ITC's no-violation determination (Law360, "Fed. Circ. Sides With Keysight On Centripetal Network Patents," 2026-04-23).
  • '526 patent IPR: PTAB Final Written Decision (IPR2022-01525, 2024-04-15) held all claims 1–20 of the '526 patent unpatentable; the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-04-02 in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 24-2246 (nonprecedential).
  • No settlement was identified; the parties continue to litigate validity/infringement issues in the Federal Circuit and abroad (Germany/UPC/EPO).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the '474 patent and effect on the litigation

IPR2023-00448 (Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, U.S. Patent 11,012,474).

• Keysight filed the IPR petition challenging all claims of the '474 patent (filed early 2023); institution was pending as of March 2023, with the institution decision due 2023-07-06 (status chart filed in the related E.D. Va. case Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137, Dkt. 329-8, filed 2023-03-29).
• The PTAB instituted and, in its Final Written Decision, held all claims except dependent claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 unpatentable as obvious (primary ground: Law + Golnabi, with secondary references Wood, Ke, Jungck, Johnson for certain claims). The Board found Keysight failed to carry its burden as to those five dependent claims because its petition never substantively addressed them.
• Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2025-1053): Keysight appealed the Board's refusal to cancel the five surviving claims. On 2026-07-21, the Federal Circuit affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion under Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 84 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2023), and Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., 853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017): a petitioner who mentions claims only in a header/chart "failed entirely even to address the unpatentability of claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 in its petition." The court acknowledged the "ghost in the room" — that each surviving claim depends from a base claim found obvious — but declined to opine on those claims' patentability. (Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, Appeal 2025-1053, decided 2026-07-21; PTABWatch commentary, July 2026.)
• Effect on the district court litigation: Keysight's SEC disclosures confirm the district-court stay was entered in part to await these validity challenges and the ITC appeals. The IPR result invalidated the large majority of the '474 patent's claims (28 of 33) but left five dependent claims (6, 14, 22, 30, 33) intact — a partial, not complete, victory for Keysight on that patent. Because the stay remains in place pending "finalization of appeals," the district case has not yet reached merits, damages, or judgment on the '474 patent or any other asserted patent.

---

Source grounding and caveats

Grounded in retrieved sources: Complaint/docket dates (Unified Patents portal for 1:22-cv-00001; Justia docket for 2:22-cv-00002); extension orders (Dkts. 15–16); motion to dismiss (Dkts. 25–26, Justia/UniCourt); stay briefing (Dkts. 42–50, DocketAlarm PDFs); ITC notices and 2023 lift-stay filings (Dkts. 62–65); ITC ID/Commission dates and Federal Circuit outcomes (DocketAlarm Dkt. 65; Keysight FY2025 Form 10-K/10-Q disclosures via SEC EDGAR and stocklight.com; Law360 2026-04-23; CourtListener opinion No. 24-2246, decided 2026-04-02); IPR2023-00448 status (Palo Alto Networks case Dkt. 329-8); Federal Circuit decision in Appeal 2025-1053 (govinfo slip opinion; vitallaw; PTABWatch, 2026-07).

Not independently verified (flagging, not fabricating): the exact text/date of the district court's order granting the stay; the disposition of Keysight's Rule 12(b)(6) motion; whether Keysight ever filed an answer or counterclaims; the precise Final Written Decision date in IPR2023-00448 (bracketed by the 2023-07-06 institution deadline and Keysight's early-2025 appeal, No. 2025-1053). If precise PACER details are required, the next step would be pulling the full 2:22-cv-00002 docket sheet and the PTAB's IPR2023-00448 decision directly from PACER/PTAB.

Press & analysis coverage of Centripetal v. Keysight

Coverage exists but is concentrated on the parallel IPR, ITC, and Federal Circuit fights rather than the merits of the stayed EDVA action itself. The most substantive reporting came in the appeal's aftermath: PTABWatch (July 2026) covered the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2026 affirmance in Keysight Techs., Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2025-1053, explaining that nearly all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,012,474 were canceled as obvious over Law and Golnabi but that dependent claims 6, 14, 22, 30, and 33 survived "not on their merits, but because the petitioner failed to adequately argue they were unpatentable"—the court itself conceding "[t]he ghost in the room here whispers that we are allowing plainly unpatentable claims to continue to live on." Noah Intelligence (July 2026) framed the same ruling as a commercially significant signal for "platform risk, licensing and enforcement," noting the surviving claims remain enforceable and floating Director-ordered ex parte reexamination under 35 U.S.C. § 303 as a possible remedy. Earlier, Law360 reported (May 25, 2022; Jan. 5, 2023; Feb. 7, 2023) on PTAB institution of review of Centripetal patents tied to the vacated ~$2.75–3 billion Cisco judgment, Keysight's joinder of the Cisco-led IPR, and the Board's "frivolous" ethics-complaint warning to Centripetal—context that marks Centripetal's campaign as notable for its scale.

What the reporting says happened. According to Keysight's own SEC disclosures, Centripetal filed the Virginia district-court suit on January 1, 2022, Keysight challenged validity of claims of eight Centripetal patents at the USPTO with "all or most claims being found invalid in each patent," the ITC issued its no-violation notice on December 5, 2023, and—critically—"the lawsuit before the Federal District Court in Virginia is stayed pending the finalization of appeals of the ITC findings and validity challenges" (Keysight 10-Q via SEC/ADVFN, fiscal Q1 2026). Law360 (April 23, 2026) reported that the Federal Circuit "backed a U.S. International Trade Commission's decision relieving Keysight Technologies Inc. from Centripetal Networks LLC's case accusing it of infringing cybersecurity patents, and separately said many claims in one of the patents were invalid." In the '474-specific IPR (IPR2023-00448), the Board's June 3, 2024 Final Written Decision canceled claims 1–5, 7–13, 15–21, 23–29, 31, and 32 but not 6, 14, 22, 30, or 33—a split Keysight itself flagged as an "unexplained inconsistent" departure from the institution decision in its July 3, 2024 request for Director review (PTACTS filing).

Where accounts diverge and go beyond the record. Reed Smith's victory announcement (Keysight's counsel) paints a clean sweep—"prevailing on all asserted patents at the ITC… securing PTAB decisions that found 185 claims across eight asserted patents unpatentable, and obtaining multiple Federal Circuit affirmances," plus UPC and German wins—and quotes Keysight GC Jeffrey Li asserting Keysight "develops its technology through its own innovation." That framing sits awkwardly beside the PTABWatch/Noah analyses, which stress that the '474 patent's five surviving claims were left standing purely on petition-drafting grounds, with their validity "unresolved" and the IPR record indicating the same prior art "invalidated the parent claims." No outlet reported any damages figure sought or awarded in the EDVA case, settlement terms, or market-impact numbers; the only dollar figures in coverage reference Centripetal's separate vacated Cisco judgment (Law360: "$2.75B Loss"/"nearly $3 billion judgment"), which gave the broader campaign its news hook. Also note: one aggregator post mislabels the case—PatSnap headlined it "Centripetal Networks v. Centripetal Networks"—and it adds no independent reporting beyond describing the procedural consolidation of Federal Circuit appeals 2024-2374 into 2025-1053. I found no substantive coverage of this specific case in mainstream/tech outlets (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or EFF all returned nothing case-specific); the meaningful record is Law360's paywalled PTAB/IPR pieces, PTABWatch, the Reed Smith release, and Keysight's SEC risk disclosures, which remain the best source for the EDVA action's stayed posture.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2026) - CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• keys-20250731 - On January 1, 2022, Centripetal Networks filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court in Virginia, alleging that certain Keysight p...
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• Decision | Unified Patent Court
• KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC, Appellee
• Technology : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Methods and systems for protecting a secured network - - Exhibit 1003 as cited in Inter Partes Review of U
• N.H. patents through May 23 - Granite Geek

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies, No. 1:22-cv-00001 / 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.)

Based on the initial complaint and the early EDVA filings (Docket Nos. 1, 8, 10, 14, 45, 49), the plaintiff's litigation team is a Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP trial team backed by two Virginia local-counsel firms. The signature blocks on the complaint and subsequent filings identify the following attorneys "for Plaintiff Centripetal Networks, Inc." (Doc. 8, Doc. 10, Doc. 49, DocketAlarm E.D. Va. records):

Lead/trial counsel — Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

• Paul J. Andre — Lead counsel / partner and IP practice co-chair. Office: Kramer Levin, Menlo Park, CA (990 Marsh Road), relocated to Redwood Shores, CA (333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700) effective July 22, 2022 (Doc. 49). Signed the complaint with "pro hac vice forthcoming" (Docs. 8, 10) and appears as "pro hac vice" by Doc. 49. Notable: led Centripetal's litigation campaign against Keysight across EDVA, the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1314), and the PTAB, and led the team that won the $151.5M verdict for Centripetal against Palo Alto Networks in EDVA (2024). (Firm note: Kramer Levin combined with Herbert Smith Freehills in June 2025 to form Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer; on Aug. 5, 2026, Andre and a 34-lawyer IP group moved to Brown Rudnick — Reuters Legal, Aug. 5, 2026.)

• Lisa Kobialka — Partner (trial team). Menlo Park/Redwood Shores office. Signed the complaint (PHV forthcoming; later PHV). Experience: co-lead on the Centripetal-Palo Alto Networks trial team; recognized repeatedly for CAFC and district-court patent work; co-chair of Brown Rudnick's IP litigation group after the 2026 group move.

• James R. Hannah — Partner (trial team). Menlo Park/Redwood Shores office. Signed the complaint (PHV forthcoming; later PHV). Notable: argued Centripetal's IPR hearings before the PTAB against Keysight (e.g., IPR2022-01421 hearing, Sept. 2024) and argued Centripetal's Federal Circuit appeal in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2020-1768 (Fed. Cir. 2021, affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36).

• Kristopher "Kris" B. Kastens — Partner (trial team). Menlo Park/Redwood Shores office. Signed the complaint (PHV forthcoming; later PHV). Longtime member of the Kramer Levin Centripetal trial group in the Keysight and Palo Alto Networks matters.

• Hannah Lee — Counsel (trial team). Menlo Park/Redwood Shores office. Signed the complaint (PHV forthcoming; later PHV). Handled motion practice and expert-report coordination in the parallel Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks case.

Virginia local counsel of record

• Stephen Edward Noona (VSB No. 25367) — Local/EDVA counsel of record. Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., 150 W. Main Street, Suite 2100, Norfolk, VA 23510. Signed the complaint and every significant EDVA filing; designated on the summons (Doc. 14) as the attorney for service. A veteran EDVA patent litigator who also served as Centripetal's Virginia counsel in the 2021 Palo Alto Networks case (2:21-cv-00137) and the earlier Keysight I litigation (2:17-cv-00383).

• Kevin O'Donnell (VSB No. 30086) — Local counsel. Henry & O'Donnell P.C., 300 N. Washington St., Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314. Signed the complaint and subsequent filings alongside Noona.

Other Centripetal counsel in the parallel campaign (appellate/PTAB/ITC — not EDVA counsel of record)

If you want the broader representation picture, the following appeared for Centripetal in related forums rather than on the EDVA docket: Christina M. Finn and Daniel Noah Lerman (Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Washington, DC/Redwood Shores — argued the April 2, 2026 CAFC appeal in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Techs., Inc., No. 24-2246); Jeffrey H. Price and Jenna Fuller (Kramer Levin, New York) and Bradley C. Wright, Scott M. Kelly, John R. Hutchins (Banner & Witcoff, Washington, DC) in the Keysight IPRs; James B. Altman, Barbara A. Murphy, Susan Koegel, Matthew N. Duescher (Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel, PC) on the ITC complaint; and Andrei Iancu, Jeffrey B. Wall, Laurie N. Stempler, Daniel J. Richardson, Aviv S. Halpern (Sullivan & Cromwell) entering appearances on Centripetal's Federal Circuit appeal of the ITC decision (per CAFC docket entries, Sept. 2024).

Caveats and flags

• Plaintiff-party naming: The complaint and 2022–23 EDVA filings name only Centripetal Networks, Inc. as plaintiff; the metadata's second plaintiff, Centripetal Networks, LLC, reflects the company's conversion ("Centripetal Networks, LLC f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc." is the patent-owner name in the PTAB IPRs and later CAFC appeals). I found no EDVA filing affirmatively showing the LLC substituted in the district docket, so treat the LLC's district-court appearance as unconfirmed.
• Pro hac vice mechanics: The Kramer Levin attorneys signed as "pro hac vice forthcoming" (Jan. 2022) and are listed as "pro hac vice" by the July 26, 2022 notice of change of address (Doc. 49), confirming their appearances were perfected, but I could not retrieve the specific PHV motion/order docket numbers in the available sources.
• In-house counsel: I found no in-house attorney of record for Centripetal on the EDVA docket; the record is entirely outside counsel.
• Post-filing firm changes: If you are tracking current firm affiliations as of today (Sept. 3, 2026): Kramer Levin merged into Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (June 2025), and Andre, Kobialka, Hannah, and Kastens (with a 34-lawyer IP group) joined Brown Rudnick (announced Aug. 5, 2026). Noonan remained at Kaufman & Canoles; O'Donnell at Henry & O'Donnell.

Primary sources: E.D. Va. Docs. 8, 10, 14, 45, 47, 49 (2:22-cv-00002, DocketAlarm); ITC complaint in Inv. No. 337-TA-1314; PTAB papers in IPR2022-01097, IPR2022-01421, IPR2023-00448; CAFC opinions in Nos. 24-2246 (Apr. 2, 2026) and 24-1416 (Apr. 23, 2026); Reed Smith and HSF Kramer attorney bios; Reuters Legal (Aug. 5, 2026) group-hire report.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Keysight Technologies, Inc.

Docket-sourced appearances (E.D. Va., 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM)

Per the UniCourt docket for Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002, the defendant attorneys of record are five lawyers, all of whom appeared in early 2022 via pro hac vice motions (Dkts. 17–20) certified by local counsel, with orders granting admission entered February 16, 2022 (Dkts. 21–24, Judge Wright Allen):

Signature blocks on later stay-briefing filings (e.g., DocketAlarm Doc. 49, filed July 26, 2022, a Centripetal notice whose service list includes Keysight's counsel) confirm the same Reed Smith San Francisco lineup: "Christine M. Morgan (pro hac vice), Jonah D. Mitchell (pro hac vice), Christopher J. Pulido …," with the remaining pro hac vice attorneys Seth B. Herring and Reed Smith colleagues completing the block.

Reed Smith team context (related proceedings — flagging as not necessarily separate court-appearances in this docket)

The broader Keysight engagement is a Reed Smith-run, multi-forum campaign, and several additional Reed Smith attorneys appeared for Keysight in the parallel ITC, PTAB, and Federal Circuit matters (and some in the predecessor 2017 EDVA case, Centripetal v. Keysight/Ixia, 2:17-cv-00383):

• Gerard M. Donovan — Reed Smith LLP, Washington, DC. Argued Keysight's successful appellee side at the Federal Circuit in the '526 IPR appeal (No. 24-2246, decided 2026-04-02) and the ITC appeal (No. 24-1416, decided 2026-04-23).
• Peter J. Chassman and Michael John Forbes — Reed Smith LLP, Houston, TX; co-counsel on the Federal Circuit briefing for Keysight in No. 24-2246.
• Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe — Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; also on the No. 24-2246 brief.
• John Patrick Bovich and James Aaron Daire — Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; appeared for Keysight/Ixia in the 2017 EDVA case (2:17-cv-00383) and continued on related IPR/ITC work; I did not confirm separate appearances by them on the 2:22-cv-00002 docket from the retrieved sources.

Experience notes

• Christine M. Morgan: IP/complex-commercial trial lawyer with repeated defense wins for tech companies accused of infringing computer-hardware/software patents; tried cases in EDVA, E.D. Tex., N.D. Cal., the ITC, and the PTAB; her Reed Smith profile expressly claims the Keysight result — "Prevailed on motion to stay EDVA action," an 8-for-8 IPR institution rate, and the ITC no-violation finding affirmed by the Commission.
• Seth B. Herring: First-chair trial lawyer (formerly Howrey LLP; Reed Smith 2011–2026); representative defense work includes Open Text v. Box (~$270M demand, ~2% award), Fujitsu v. Netgear, and Ericsson v. Netgear/D-Link/Acer; his profile expressly lists the Keysight multi-forum dispute (EDVA 11 patents, ITC 3, UPC 1, Germany 3, plus multiple IPRs).
• Jonah D. Mitchell: Trial lawyer in the same Reed Smith (now Kilpatrick Townsend, SF) group; handles the same computer/network patent defense docket (IAM Patent 1000 recognition).
• Christopher J. Pulido: Reed Smith associate-level litigator on the Keysight defense team dating back to the 2017 EDVA case.
• William R. Poynter: Virginia IP litigator (Washington & Lee; UVA Law); was also local counsel for Keysight/Ixia in the 2017 Keysight I case before Judge Morgan, giving him continuity across both EDVA rounds.

Caveats

• In-house counsel: None identified as counsel of record in the retrieved docket sources. Keysight's legal department supervised the campaign but no in-house attorney appears of record in this case based on available records.
• Firm-affiliation timing: All five pro hac vice/Reed Smith counsel were at Reed Smith at the time of their February 2022 admissions. Note that as of May–August 2026, Herring, Morgan, and Mitchell moved from Reed Smith to Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP (San Francisco) — a post-filing change that would not retroactively alter the docket's counsel-of-record entries.
• Poynter's 2022 firm: His certification-of-local-counsel filings (Dkts. 17–20) list him as local counsel, but the retrieved summaries do not state his then-firm; current directories place him at Kaleo Legal in Virginia Beach. His 2025 filings in other EDVA cases confirm the Kaleo affiliation and VSB No. 48672.
• The case has been stayed since ~2022 (stay remains in force per Keysight's FY2025 SEC disclosures), so no later-stage counsel substitutions, withdrawal orders, or additional appearances were identified in the retrieved record beyond the early-2022 lineup. If exact PACER verification is needed, Dkts. 17–24 of 2:22-cv-00002 contain the governing admissions.