Litigation

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

Summary judgment of no direct infringement as to '380; jury verdict on other patents; appeal pending

1:21-cv-00313 (transferred to 2:21-cv-00137)

Filed
2021-03-12

Patents at issue (1)

10735380

Summary

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.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Overview: Centripetal Networks, Inc./LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Parties and the dispute. Centripetal Networks (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) is a Reston, Virginia-based network-security technology company — an operating company that develops threat-intelligence gateways and packet-filtering systems but that has in practice monetized its portfolio heavily through litigation (Cisco argued on remand in the parallel case that Centripetal "turned to patent litigation as its main revenue source"; Reuters, Dec. 5, 2022). Centripetal is represented by Kramer Levin (Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka) with local Virginia counsel (Kaufman & Canoles' Stephen Noona; Henry & O'Donnell). Defendant Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PAN) is the Santa Clara, California-based, publicly traded cybersecurity giant whose accused products are its Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW), Panorama, Cortex (XDR/XSOAR/XSIAM), AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security Service offerings. Centripetal alleged that PAN's threat-intelligence ingestion and rule-based packet filtering/correlation features infringe thirteen Centripetal patents directed to network security — filtering network data transfers based on threat indicators, provisioning packet security gateways with filtering rules applied to network-boundary traffic (e.g., '437 patent claim 8), and "correlating packets in communications networks" to detect malicious activity (the '903/'573/'797 "Correlation Patents"), among related family members (all thirteen: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,542,028; 10,757,126; 10,530,903; 10,659,573; 10,567,437; 10,785,266; 10,567,343; 10,735,380; 10,503,899; 10,749,906; 10,091,246; 10,567,413; and 10,931,797; CourtListener opinion listing the patents at issue). The '380 patent (the focus of this case record) is titled "Filtering network data transfers" per Google Patents metadata (issued Aug. 4, 2020; app. 16/791,044); Centripetal asserted claims 16 and 25, which concern filtering network data transfers on the basis of network-threat indicators/security rules (ECF No. 460, PAN's SJ motion specifying claims 16 and 25 of the '380).

Procedural posture and venue. Centripetal filed suit March 12, 2021 in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia (1:21-cv-00313); it was intradistrict-transferred to the Norfolk Division three days later as 2:21-cv-00137 (Justia docket). The case was first assigned to Judge Roderick C. Young (docket header "RCY-RJK" — magistrate judge Robert J. Krask), who in March 2022 granted PAN's motion to stay pending PTAB review, denied Centripetal's unusual motion to disqualify PAN's counsel Ropes & Gray (tied to Ropes & Gray's work for lender Silver Point Finance in a financing deal Centripetal sought while the Cisco judgment was on appeal), and denied PAN's motion to dismiss without prejudice (Casetext; RPX). The case was later reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes with Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard (docket header "EWH-LRL"; VLW 024-3-004). The EDVA ("Rocket Docket") is Centripetal's home venue (Reston sits in the Alexandria Division), and it is also where Centripetal's prior $2.75B bench-trial judgment against Cisco originated (E.D. Va., Judge Henry Morgan) — giving the Norfolk/Alexandria bench deep familiarity with this patent family. After the PTAB stay was lifted in May 2023 (six of the thirteen patents had been invalidated in final written decisions), Judge Hanes denied in part PAN's summary judgment motion on Jan. 2, 2024 (reserving the '380), and on Jan. 13, 2024 granted summary judgment of no direct infringement of the '380 patent (ECF No. 742), holding no reasonable jury could find the accused PAN products/combinations practiced the asserted claims and mooting PAN's Daubert motion against Centripetal's '380 expert, Dr. Mitzenmacher. A jury trial in January 2024 then produced a $151.5M lump-sum verdict against PAN on the four remaining patents ('437, '903, '573, '797), with no willfulness finding (Kramer Levin press release, Jan. 31, 2024; Reuters, Jan. 31, 2024). Post-trial, Judge Hanes granted PAN's JMOL in part — entering judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement of the '437 patent and reducing the award — while denying a new trial (ECF No. 989 order, Oct. 2024, reasoning sealed). Per the case metadata, an appeal is pending at the Federal Circuit (I could not verify the appellate docket number from available sources).

Why the case matters. This is one of the highest-profile cybersecurity patent disputes of the decade and is inseparable from Centripetal's Cisco saga: in October 2020 Judge Morgan awarded Centripetal what was then the largest U.S. patent judgment ever (~$2.75B including enhanced damages and running royalties), but the Federal Circuit vacated it in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022) because the judge's wife owned ~$4,700 of Cisco stock, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in December 2022 (Reuters). On remand before Judge Hanes, Cisco won outright in a second trial (Dec. 2023), turning Centripetal's landmark win into nothing — making the PAN case Centripetal's most important remaining monetization vehicle. PAN countered with an unusually comprehensive PTAB campaign: 13 IPR petitions plus a PGR filed July–August 2021 challenging every claim of every asserted patent (Casetext opinion), with the PTAB instituting review on several (including IPR2021-01156 on the '380, instituted Jan. 2022 per RPX) and ultimately invalidating six patents before the stay lifted. The case also generated an unusual disqualification skirmish over litigation-financing disclosures (the Silver Point transaction was reportedly to fund an insurance premium on the then-pending $2.6–3.5B Cisco judgment; Casetext/RPX), and its "Correlation Patents" validity fight reached the Federal Circuit in Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal Networks, No. 23-1636 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2024), a precedential opinion faulting the PTAB's obviousness analysis on motivation-to-combine. For the industry, the case tests whether threat-intelligence-correlation and policy-enforcement features of modern NGFW/XDR platforms infringe Centripetal's portfolio, and the partially sealed JMOL ruling leaves uncertainty about the final damages figure; only the '380-specific summary judgment (the subject of this case record) is confirmed as removing that patent before trial.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Centripetal Networks, Inc./LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va.)

Below is a chronological development-by-development record, keyed to docket entries (ECF No.), opinion citations, and press/PTAB sources. Where a date or event could not be independently verified from the available sources, that is flagged. Case-level context: the suit began as a 12-patent case in the Alexandria Division, grew to 13 patents by amendment, was winnowed to 5 patents by PTAB decisions and stays, lost the '380 patent on pre-trial summary judgment, and ended (post-trial and post-JMOL) in a $113.625M judgment on three "Correlation Patents," now on appeal.

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2021)

Date Event Source/Notes
2021-03-12 Complaint filed in the Alexandria Division, E.D. Va., No. 1:21-cv-00313, asserting 12 network-security patents against PAN's NGFW, Panorama, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security Service products (direct, induced, contributory infringement; 26 claims of infringement after amendment). RPX litigation report; DocketAlarm header; original complaint ECF No. 1 (2:21-cv-00137).
2021-03-15 Intra-district transfer to the Norfolk Division as No. 2:21-cv-00137 (originally before Judge Roderick C. Young, MJ Robert J. Krask; docket "RCY-RJK"). Justia/DocketAlarm docket.
~2021-04 PAN filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the original complaint, arguing the '126, '028, and '246 patents were ineligible under Alice (rule-based "filtering and sorting" as abstract) and that the complaint was deficient on direct/indirect infringement, contributory infringement, and willfulness. RPX (Feb. 4, 2024) litigation report; PAN's briefing cited in ECF No. 96.
2021-07 Centripetal filed an Amended Complaint adding a newly issued 13th patent, the '797 (10,931,797), bringing the asserted set to: '028, '126, '903, '573, '437, '266, '343, '380, '899, '906, '246, '413, '797. RPX; agreed order ECF No. 64; patent list in ECF No. 285 (stay opinion).
2021-07-30 PAN renewed its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 96), re-urging Alice ineligibility of the '028/'126/'246 and pleading deficiencies. ECF No. 96 (DocketAlarm PDF).
Not verified PAN's answer/counterclaims date is not independently confirmed in the sources reviewed. The March 2022 stay order denied PAN's motion to dismiss without prejudice to refile after the PTAB stay (ECF No. 285), so it appears the merits answer/posture ripened only after the stay was lifted in May 2023. Flag for PACER verification. ECF No. 285; RPX.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR campaign (2021–present) — and its effect on the case

Date Event Source/Notes
2021-07 to 2021-08 PAN filed 13 IPR petitions plus 1 PGR petition challenging every claim of all 13 asserted patents (the '797 was challenged only by PGR). Notice filed 2021-08-04 (ECF No. 100). ECF No. 285 at 3; RPX.
2021-07-19 IPR2021-01156 filed against the '380 patent (challenging claims over Sourcefire and related art); a second '380 IPR, IPR2021-01270, was also filed. RPX Insight (IPR2021-01156); PTAB POP order referencing IPR2021-01156 and -01270 (both '380).
2022-01-24 PTAB instituted IPR2021-01156 on the '380. RPX Insight.
2022-03-16 PTAB denied requests for rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) review in IPR2021-01156, IPR2021-01270 (and IPR2021-01155). PTAB order (DocketAlarm).
By 2022-03 Of 13 IPRs + 1 PGR: 5 IPRs instituted, 6 IPRs denied institution, PGR denied, 2 undecided — per the district court's March 2022 stay opinion. ECF No. 285 (filed ~2022-03-02); RPX.
2023-01 to 2023-05 PTAB Final Written Decisions invalidating six patents: '028, '126, '413, '246, '906, and '899 (e.g., '246 FWD IPR2021-01152, dated 2023-01-24). The '380 was not among the invalidated patents — its IPRs resolved without claim cancellation, which is why the '380 stayed in the district case. Precise FWD/termination posture of the '380 IPRs not independently verified. ECF No. 319-1 (FWD filed in district court 2023-01-25); RPX; IPWatchdog.
2023-08 After the PTAB newly instituted IPRs on the '343 and '266 patents, the parties jointly moved to stay those claims; court granted the partial stay, leaving only '437, '380, '573, '903, and '797 active. RPX; ECF No. 399 (earlier '343 partial-stay reference in Markman opinion).
2024-10-31 Federal Circuit (No. 23-1654) affirmed PTAB obviousness invalidations of the '028 and '126 patents. A&O Shearman IP blog; IPWatchdog.
2024-12-16 Federal Circuit (No. 23-1636, precedential) vacated and remanded the PTAB's decision favorable to Centripetal on the '903 patent — one of the three judgment patents — for an inadequately reasoned motivation-to-combine analysis. IPWatchdog 2024-12-16; CourtListener opinion 10293067.
2025-10-22 Federal Circuit (No. 23-2027) vacated and remanded a PTAB invalidation of the related '856 patent, rejecting Centripetal's APJ-recusal/due-process challenges but finding the Board failed to consider copying evidence (secondary considerations). CAFC opinion 10-22-2025; Schwabe/JD Supra summary.

Net effect of the PTAB campaign: eight patents were removed from the trial track (six invalidated; '343/'266 stayed) before trial, and the '380 — although twice challenged at the PTAB — survived to the merits phase where it was then disposed of by summary judgment.

3. The stay, reassignment, and disqualification skirmish (2022)

  • 2022-03 (~03-02): Judge Young issued a single order (ECF No. 285): (1) granted PAN's motion to stay the entire case pending the PTAB; (2) denied PAN's motion to dismiss without prejudice to refile after the stay; and (3) denied Centripetal's motion to disqualify Ropes & Gray, which Centripetal had tied to Ropes & Gray's representation of Silver Point Finance in a financing deal Centripetal sought (reportedly to fund an insurance premium on the then-pending ~$2.75B Cisco judgment). The court found no implied attorney–client relationship and rejected the "common interest" theory. The PTAB separately rejected a parallel disqualification motion. | ECF No. 285 (Justia PDF); RPX; Casetext summary.
  • 2022-08: Case reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (MJ Lawrence R. Leonard; docket "EWH-LRL") — the same judge who later handled the Cisco remand retrial. | RPX; docket header.
  • 2023-05: Following the PTAB's invalidation of six patents, the court lifted the stay as to the surviving patents. | RPX.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — 2023

Date Event Source/Notes
2023-07-14 Opening claim-construction briefs (ECF Nos. 357 [PAN], 359 [Centripetal]). ECF Nos. 357, 359.
2023-07-28 Responsive briefs (ECF Nos. 363, 366). ECF Nos. 363, 366.
2023-09-11 Markman hearing (transcript ECF No. 438). ECF No. 438.
2023-10-11 Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 452): six terms stipulated; ten disputed terms construed across the five asserted patents ('437, '380, '573, '903, '797). Constructions material to the '380's later exit:
• "network exfiltration methods" (claims 16 & 25) = "the unauthorized transfer of data from a computer by malware or a malicious actor" (PAN's construction, adopted over Centripetal's "plain meaning" objection);
• "header region of the identified at least one application packet" (claim 16) = "application layer header of the identified at least one application packet" (PAN's construction).
Other notable rulings: "configured to" = requires pre-existing programming… without modification (PAN's, following the parallel ITC 337-TA-1314 construction); "packets" and "malicious network traffic" = plain meaning; "provision… with rules" and "rule(s)" = Centripetal's broader constructions; "responsive to/based on [the correlating]" = plain meaning with correlating as the impetus.		 ECF No. 452 (Justia PDF; 32 pp., full text in search results).

These '380-specific constructions — restricting exfiltration to unauthorized transfers by malware/malicious actors and limiting the inspected field to the application-layer header — were decisive predicates for PAN's no-infringement summary judgment two months later.

5. Merits motions and summary judgment phase (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024)

Date Event Source/Notes
2023-10-26 PAN filed its Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 460) directed to the five trial-track patents: no direct infringement of '380 claims 16 and 25 (and the other four), no indirect infringement, '437 §112 written-description invalidity, no pre-/post-suit willfulness, and no damages for foreign sales/use. PAN also filed a Daubert motion to exclude portions of Centripetal's '380 expert, Dr. Michael Mitzenmacher. ECF Nos. 460, 461-462 (briefing); DocketAlarm.
2023-10/11 Centripetal filed its cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Invalidity (ECF No. 463) and opposed PAN's SJ motion (ECF No. 515, filed ~Nov. 2023); expert reports of Drs. Mitzenmacher, Villasenor, Goodrich, and Nielson were the battleground (e.g., ECF Nos. 462-1, 518-2, 525). ECF Nos. 463, 515, 565; Casetext/Jan. 19 opinion.
2024-01-02 SJ Order on the five patents (ECF No. 702): denied PAN's motion in part (genuine disputes on the '437 "all network traffic" and "entire interface" limitations, on the Correlation Patents, indirect infringement, willfulness, and foreign sales) but reserved ruling on the '380 for the January 4 hearing. Denied PAN's '437 written-description argument (genuine dispute per Dr. Goodrich). ECF No. 702 (VLW PDF / Justia; full text in search results).
2024-01-04 Hearing: court denied PAN's Alice motion (judgment on the pleadings/§101 as to the '903, '573, '797 — and '380), converting it to summary judgment and denying on genuine issues of material fact on "inventive concept" (the Berkheimer step-two question). RPX; Jan. 19, 2024 opinion (ECF No. 792) recounting the Jan. 4 rulings.
2024-01-13 Summary judgment of NO direct infringement of the '380 patent GRANTED (ECF No. 742). The court held no reasonable jury could find the accused PAN products/combinations practiced claims 16 and 25 (as construed); PAN's Daubert motion against Dr. Mitzenmacher was denied as moot. The '380 exited the case ~9 days before trial. (The opinion's analysis is largely sealed; its operative conclusion is confirmed by ECF No. 742's public text and the Jan. 19 opinion's recitation.) ECF No. 742 (DocketAlarm PDF); Jan. 19, 2024 opinion; case record.
2024-01-19 Court denied Centripetal's remaining SJ motion — that claim 8 of the '437 is not invalid for lack of written description — and mooted the rest (incl. Centripetal's '380-related no-invalidity motions, mooted by the Jan. 13 SJ; its §101 no-invalidity motion as to the Correlation Patents had been denied at the Jan. 4 hearing). Jan. 19, 2024 opinion (ECF No. 792; CourtListener/Casetext).

Discovery milestones with strategic significance (noted in the orders):

  • The 2022–2023 stay suspended merits discovery for ~14 months while the PTAB campaign ran — strategically, PAN used IPR to shrink a 13-patent case to 5 before fact/expert discovery resumed.
  • The disqualification skirmish generated a collateral record (Jonathan Rogers declarations, ECF Nos. 75/78/135) about Centripetal's Silver Point financing — a recurring theme in later opinions (Judge Young criticized Rogers's declarations as conclusory; the same critique resurfaced in the Cisco case).
  • Expert discovery produced dueling reports (Mitzenmacher/Goodrich for Centripetal; Villasenor/Nielson for PAN) whose "genuine dispute" showings drove the Jan. 2, 2024 SJ order's denial in part — but whose '380 opinions could not overcome the construed claim limitations at the Jan. 13 SJ stage.
  • Claim construction briefing and the Markman hearing (Sept. 11, 2023) and SJ motions (Oct. 26, 2023) were compressed into the "Rocket Docket" window after the May 2023 stay lift, with trial set for January 22, 2024.

6. Trial and verdict (Jan. 2024)

Date Event Source/Notes
2024-01-22 Jury trial began before Judge Hanes on four patents — the '437, '903, '573, and '797 (the '380 having been dismissed on Jan. 13). Law360/Reuters; Kramer Levin releases.
2024-01-31 Verdict (8th day): jury found PAN directly and literally infringed claim 8 of the '437, claim 10 of the '903, claims 1 and 9 of the '573, and claims 1, 12, and 17 of the '797; induced infringement of '573 claim 1 and '797 claim 1; and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of '437 claim 8. Awarded $37.875M per patent as a lump sum = $151.5M total. No willfulness. Jury allocated $33.709M (US) / $4.166M (non-US) per patent, and found the '903/'573/'797 claims were not shown to be "well-understood, routine, and conventional" (preserving them against the pending Alice challenge). Reuters (2024-01-31); Law360 (2024-01-31); RPX (pegs total at $151.1M — a discrepancy noted below); Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer release.

7. Post-trial motions, judgment, and damages (2024)

Date Event Source/Notes
2024-02-29 PAN filed renewed JMOL / motion for new trial, arguing the asserted claims were directed to abstract ideas and that improper evidence "infected the entire trial." Law360 case tracker; RPX.
2024-03-28 Centripetal opposed PAN's post-trial motion. Law360 case tracker.
2024-10-03 Final judgment entered: $113,625,000 lump-sum royalty on the three Correlation Patents ('903, '573, '797). Case record; Law360 (2024-10-31).
2024-10 (Oct. order, reasoning sealed; ~ECF No. 989) Judge Hanes granted PAN's JMOL in part: entered judgment of non-infringement of the '437 patent (removing the fourth patent's $37.875M share — hence $151.5M → $113.625M) while denying a new trial. Law360 (2024-10-31, Adam Lidgett); ECF No. 989 (Oct. 2024 order); case record.
2024-10-31 PAN filed its opposition to prejudgment interest (ECF No. 997), arguing Centripetal should get none (or at most ~$8.6M at the T-bill rate) given its delayed filing, assertion of 13 patents (10 invalid/not infringed), and "limited success." ECF No. 997 (DocketAlarm PDF).
Pending Post-judgment motions (prejudgment interest; any fee motion) remained pending into late 2024, triggering the FRAP 4(a)(4) hold on the appeal (see §8). CAFC dockets (Dec. 11, 2024 Clerk's notices).

No settlement occurred; the case ended in an appealed money judgment for Centripetal on three patents.

8. Appeal — present posture (2024–present)

Date Event Source/Notes
2024-11-13 Two notices of appeal filed from the final judgment: PAN's appeal (CAFC No. 25-1167) and Centripetal's appeal/cross-appeal (CAFC No. 25-1168). Centripetal (now "Centripetal Networks, LLC, fka Centripetal Networks, Inc.") is appellee in 25-1167 and appellant in 25-1168. Unicourt/Justia CAFC dockets 25-1167, 25-1168.
2024-11-27 Appearances entered: WilmerHale (Mark C. Fleming, William F. Lee, Arthur W. Coviello, Laura E. Powell, Harry Hanson) for PAN; Clement & Murphy (Paul D. Clement, Matthew D. Rowen, Joseph J. DeMott, Kyle R. Eiswald) for Centripetal. CAFC dockets.
2024-12-11 Federal Circuit consolidated 25-1167 (lead) and 25-1168 (member) as appeal and cross-appeal and deactivated the appeals pending the district court's disposition of outstanding FRAP 4(a)(4) post-judgment motions (i.e., the prejudgment-interest/fee determinations). CAFC order, Dec. 11, 2024 (Justia/Unicourt).
As of record reviewed The appeals remain deactivated/hold-pending; no merits briefing schedule or oral argument date confirmed in the sources reviewed. Status as of today (2026-09-04) should be checked on PACER/CAFC — the public docket entries located run only through early 2025. —

What is (and is not) on appeal, in substance: Centripetal seeks to restore the '437 verdict share and otherwise challenge the reduced judgment; PAN challenges the liability/eligibility/damages rulings on the three Correlation Patents. The '380's summary-judgment exit (ECF No. 742) is not part of the appeal (Centripetal did not pursue the '380 after losing it pre-trial; no cross-appeal issue regarding the '380 appears in the CAFC dockets reviewed).

9. Where the accounts differ or are unverified

  • Verdict figure: RPX's headline says $151.1M; Reuters, Law360, Kramer Levin, and the arithmetic ($37.875M × 4 = $151.5M) say $151.5M. The final judgment amount ($113.625M = $37.875M × 3) is consistent with the latter.
  • '380 PTAB outcome: the '380 patent survived its two IPRs (IPR2021-01156, instituted 2022-01-24; IPR2021-01270) — it was not among the six patents invalidated and remained in suit until Jan. 13, 2024. The precise final written decision/termination language of those '380 IPRs was not locatable in the sources available and should be verified on USPTO PRPS.
  • '380 SJ reasoning: ECF No. 742's public text confirms the grant and the mooted Daubert motion, but the substantive analysis is sealed/redacted; the linkage between the Markman constructions (application-layer header; unauthorized exfiltration) and the non-infringement holding is inferential from the record, not from the opinion's text.
  • Answer/counterclaims date and pre-stay answer practice: not verified (see §1).
  • Current appellate status: the CAFC dockets reviewed end in Dec. 2024/Jan. 2025 (consolidation + deactivation). Any 2025–2026 activity (briefing, argument, decision) is outside the sources retrieved and should be checked on PACER (CAFC Nos. 25-1167/25-1168).

Sources relied on (selected)

  • ECF Nos. 96, 285, 319-1, 452, 460, 702, 742, 792, 989, 997 (2:21-cv-00137) via DocketAlarm, Justia, CourtListener, and Virginia Lawyers Weekly (VLW 024-3-004).
  • Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137, claim-construction order (E.D. Va. Oct. 11, 2023) (ECF No. 452); SJ order (Jan. 2, 2024) (ECF No. 702); '380 SJ order (Jan. 13, 2024) (ECF No. 742); SJ order on written description (Jan. 19, 2024).
  • Reuters (2024-01-31); Law360 (2024-01-31; 2024-10-31); RPX litigation report (2024-02-04); IPWatchdog (2024-10-31; 2024-12-16; 2025-10-22); Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer releases; A&O Shearman IP blog; CAFC dockets 25-1167/25-1168; PTAB records for IPR2021-01152, IPR2021-01155, IPR2021-01156, IPR2021-01270.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Press coverage summary

The most substantive mainstream coverage of this case came at the verdict stage. Reuters reported on 2024-01-31 that a Virginia federal jury awarded Centripetal Networks $151.5 million after finding Palo Alto Networks' security software infringed four patents covering Centripetal's "threat intelligence gateway" network-security technology, and quoted a Palo Alto spokesperson saying the verdict was "contrary to both the law and the extensive evidence we presented at trial" and that the company planned to appeal. Reuters also flagged the case's significance by tying it to Centripetal's prior $2.75 billion award against Cisco in 2020 — the largest in U.S. patent history — which was thrown out on appeal and followed by a ruling for Cisco after rehearing. Law360 (Kelly Lienhard, 2024-01-31) reported the jury found Palo Alto infringed all four patents with its Next-Generation Firewalls, and Law360's case tracker shows earlier entries — a 2024-01-03 item describing Palo Alto's failure to trim claims from "a small, litigious startup's patent lawsuit" before trial, and a 2024-01-19 item on Judge Elizabeth Hanes' rejection of Centripetal's partial summary judgment motion on written description. Virginia Lawyers Weekly (2024-01-22) detailed Judge Hanes' January 2, 2024 order denying in part Palo Alto's summary judgment motion on the '437, '380, '903, '573, and '797 patents (including disputes over "all network traffic," indirect infringement, willfulness, and foreign sales), while reserving ruling on the '380 patent — which the court then resolved by granting Palo Alto's no-direct-infringement motion on January 13, 2024, a ruling that appears to have received no standalone press coverage and was instead folded into the trial narrative.

Reported numbers and post-trial events

Law360 (Adam Lidgett, 2024-10-31) reported that the judge later ruled Palo Alto did not infringe one of the four trial patents (the '437), slashing the award from $151.5 million to $113.6 million while denying a new trial — consistent with the October 3, 2024 final judgment entering a $113,625,000 lump-sum royalty for the three "correlation patents" ('903, '573, '797). Law360's tracker also reflects Palo Alto's 2024-02-29 motion to discard the verdict, arguing the patents covered abstract ideas and that improper evidence "infected the entire trial," and Centripetal's 2024-03-28 opposition. The plaintiff's own counsel touted the result: Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer announced the $151.5 million verdict and later announced that the matter won Managing IP's 2025 "Impact Case of the Year" award, noting the jury found Palo Alto's next-generation firewalls infringed all four asserted patents after a two-week trial. Trade outlet IAM ranked Centripetal's $151.5 million award among the biggest patent jury verdicts of Q1 2024.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the court record

RPX — whose headline oddly pegs the award at "$151.1M" against every other outlet's $151.5 million — offers the deepest litigation-history context, reporting that Centripetal originally asserted 13 patents, that Palo Alto filed IPR/PGR challenges against all of them, that Judge Roderick Young stayed the case in March 2022 pending the PTAB, that the PTAB invalidated six patents, and that Judge Young denied Centripetal's unusual motion to disqualify Ropes & Gray based on the firm's work for Silver Point Finance in a financing deal Centripetal sought to fund insurance on the Cisco judgment. IPWatchdog's coverage is confined to the parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit war between the same parties rather than the EDVA trial itself: on 2024-10-31 it reported the Federal Circuit affirming obviousness rulings against other Centripetal network-security patents ('028, '126, '413) challenged by Palo Alto; on 2024-12-16 it reported the Federal Circuit vacating a PTAB decision favorable to Centripetal on the '903 patent — one of the three on which the $113.6 million judgment rests — for an inadequately explained motivation-to-combine analysis; and on 2025-10-22 it reported the Federal Circuit vacating a PTAB invalidation of Centripetal's '856 patent in an IPR Palo Alto brought, over the Board's failure to consider copying evidence (with an administrative patent judge's Cisco stock ownership at issue). The overall press picture is thus verdict-centric: coverage of the '380 patent's pretrial exit is minimal, and the reporting that exists emphasizes the blockbuster numbers, Centripetal's litigious history, and the unresolved validity questions pending in the PTAB and Federal Circuit.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs — Centripetal Networks, Inc./LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va.)

A note on the plaintiff entity. The case was filed by "Centripetal Networks, Inc." (ECF No. 1, filed Mar. 12, 2021), and all pleadings through the summary-judgment phase on the '380 patent bear that caption. By the January 2024 trial and on appeal the entity appears as "Centripetal Networks, LLC" (e.g., trial minute entries state counsel appeared "on behalf of Centripetal Networks, LLC"; the Federal Circuit caption in No. 25-1167 reads "CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC, fka Centripetal Networks, Inc."). The docket metadata listing both "Inc." and "LLC" reflects the same corporate entity under its former and current names; there is a single plaintiff-side counsel team throughout. Two teams of outside counsel appear of record: (1) Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP as lead pro hac vice trial counsel, and (2) Virginia-licensed local counsel.

Lead counsel — Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Menlo Park, CA)

All Kramer Levin attorneys listed below were admitted pro hac vice and appear on the plaintiff signature blocks of the complaint-related filings (ECF No. 7, Mar. 12, 2021), the agreed order on the amended complaint (ECF No. 64, July 2021), and dozens of later filings (ECF Nos. 76, 135, 144, 227, etc.; signature blocks on DocketAlarm). The January 29, 2024 trial minute entry confirms this team in the courtroom: "Stephen Noona, Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Christina Finn and Hannah Lee, present on behalf of Centripetal Networks, LLC" (Law360/Ropes & Gray docket page).

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
Paul J. Andre Lead trial counsel (argued motions; first chair) Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA (Managing Partner, Silicon Valley office; Head of IP). Note: moved with a 34-lawyer group to Brown Rudnick in Aug. 2026 after the June 2025 Herbert Smith Freehills merger (Reuters, Aug. 5, 2026). Co-led Centripetal's $2.75B bench-trial judgment against Cisco (vacated on judicial-recusal grounds in Centripetal v. Cisco, 38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022)) and the $151.5M jury verdict against PAN in this case; won Managing IP "Impact Case of the Year" (2021, 2025).
Lisa Kobialka Co-lead trial counsel Kramer Levin, Menlo Park (Managing Partner, Disputes, US, Silicon Valley); joined the Brown Rudnick move in 2026 as co-chair of its IP litigation group (Reuters). Longtime Centripetal trial lawyer alongside Andre on the Cisco and PAN litigations; firm spokesperson on the $151.5M verdict.
James (R.) Hannah Partner, trial team Kramer Levin, Menlo Park (Partner, Silicon Valley); part of the 2026 Brown Rudnick move (Reuters). Kramer Levin trial-team member at the January 2024 PAN trial; also involved in related Federal Circuit/PTAB work for Centripetal.
Hannah (Y.) Lee Partner, trial team Kramer Levin, Menlo Park (Partner). Trial-team member; filed a declaration in support of Centripetal's opposition to PAN's motion to stay (Dkt. No. 86, July 2021) and handled the disqualification-motion correspondence with PAN's counsel (2021–22 filings).
Kristopher "Kris" Kastens Partner (appeared 2021–22 filings) Kramer Levin, Menlo Park (Partner); part of the 2026 Brown Rudnick move (Reuters). On plaintiff signature blocks from the complaint onward (ECF No. 7) through the stay/disqualification phase; later filings were primarily signed by Andre/Kobialka/Hannah/Lee/Finn.
Christina (a/k/a Cristina) M. Finn Special counsel, trial team Kramer Levin, Menlo Park (Special Counsel per firm bios; email cfinn@kramerlevin.com appears on ECF No. 227 signature block). Present in court for Centripetal at the January 2024 trial (minute entry); listed on the firm's trial-team announcement.

Trial-team associates (Kramer Levin). The firm's own announcement identifies associates Christina L. Martinez, Aakash Jariwala, Linda Xu, Violaine Brunet, Dana Anderson, and Zehra Jafri as part of the Centripetal trial team (Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer releases, Feb. 2024). I could not confirm from public sources whether each obtained individual pro hac vice admission in the EDVA docket, so their exact "counsel of record" status should be verified against PACER; they are confirmed as team members by the firm.

Local Virginia counsel

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
Stephen Edward Noona (VSB No. 25367) Lead local counsel; Virginia-licensed attorney who signed/served essentially every plaintiff filing Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., 150 W. Main St., Suite 2100, Norfolk, VA 23510 The EDVA "Rocket Docket" fixture who has served as Centripetal's Virginia local counsel in both the Cisco case (18-cv-94) and this PAN case; present at trial for Centripetal throughout.
Kevin M. O'Donnell (VSB No. 30086) Local/co-counsel (Virginia-licensed) Henry & O'Donnell P.C., 300 N. Washington St., Suite 204, Alexandria, VA 22314 Longtime Centripetal local counsel in the Alexandria Division (Cisco case and the initial filing here, 1:21-cv-00313); appears on the original complaint filings (ECF No. 7) and the July 2021 agreed-order signature block.

Post-trial/appellate counsel added to the district docket (2024)

After the jury verdict, a separate appellate team entered the district case pro hac vice on Centripetal's behalf, per docket orders: Paul D. Clement, Matthew D. Rowen, and Joseph J. DeMott (pro hac vice granted Mar. 27–29, 2024, ECF Nos. 933, 934, 942), and Kyle R. Eiswald appeared with them at the Federal Circuit. They are at Clement & Murphy PLLC (706 Duke St., Alexandria, VA 22314, with a Washington, D.C. presence). Rowen, DeMott, and Eiswald are partners/associates of that firm; Clement is the former U.S. Solicitor General and name partner. This team represents Centripetal as appellee in the pending Federal Circuit appeal, No. 25-1167 (entries of appearance filed Nov. 27, 2024).

In-house counsel

None identified. No Centripetal in-house attorney appears of record in the filings reviewed; the company is a small operating company that staffs litigation with outside firms. Individuals who submitted declarations (e.g., Jonathan Rogers, Portsmouth, NH, in support of the disqualification reply, ECF No. 135) were fact witnesses/executives, not counsel.

Firm-transition caveat (important for current contacts)

Kramer Levin merged with Herbert Smith Freehills in June 2025 (becoming Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), and in August 2026 a 34-lawyer group including Andre, Kobialka, Hannah, and Kastens left for Brown Rudnick LLP (Reuters, Aug. 5, 2026), with Kobialka becoming co-chair of Brown Rudnick's IP litigation group. Any current outreach on the pending appeal should account for these moves; the counsel-of-record entries in the case, however, were made under the Kramer Levin banner.

Sources and limitations

  • Signature blocks verified via DocketAlarm/Justia copies of ECF Nos. 7, 64, 76, 135, 144, 227 (2:21-cv-00137) and the July 30/Aug. 16, 2021 joint notices.
  • Trial attendance confirmed by the Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry (Law360 docket feed).
  • Trial team composition: Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer press releases (Feb. 2024; Apr. 2025 Managing IP award announcement); Reuters (Jan. 31, 2024; Aug. 5, 2026).
  • Post-trial pro hac vice orders for Clement/Rowen/DeMott: ECF Nos. 933, 934, 942 (DocketAlarm docket entries, Mar. 2024); CAFC No. 25-1167 entries of appearance (CourtListener/Unicourt).
  • I could not access PACER directly; individual pro hac vice grants for every named associate (Finn, Martinez, Jariwala, Xu, Brunet, Anderson, Jafri) and the exact roster at the time of the sealed Jan. 13, 2024 '380 summary-judgment order (ECF No. 742) were not independently verifiable from public sources. The '380 SJ briefing (PAN's motion at ECF No. 460 and Centripetal's opposition) was filed during the same Kramer Levin/local-counsel representation identified above.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defense counsel for Palo Alto Networks in this case.

I have good initial leads. Let me verify the defense team details — the trial minute entry names eight attorneys, and I need to pin down their firms and roles.

Let me verify the trial team's firm affiliations and the appellate representation.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Defense structure at a glance. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. ("PAN") defended with a three-firm team: Ropes & Gray LLP (national lead for the patent/PTAB strategy and, with Norton Rose Fulbright, the litigation), Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (trial-focused co-counsel), and McGuireWoods LLP (Virginia local counsel). PAN also appeared as a pro hac vice-heavy docket, consistent with the EDVA "Rocket Docket" model. Ropes & Gray was separately an "interested party" during Centripetal's 2021–22 disqualification motion (the Silver Point Finance conflict issue), filing its own opposition (ECF Nos. 108, 119), which Judge Young denied (ECF No. 285, Mar. 1, 2022).

National lead / IP & PTAB counsel — Ropes & Gray LLP

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
James R. Batchelder Lead counsel (district court & IPRs); pro hac vice May 5, 2021 (ECF Nos. 44–45) Ropes & Gray, 1900 University Ave., East Palo Alto, CA (now listed at 525 University Ave., Palo Alto) Veteran IP trial lawyer (Best Lawyers since 2014; IAM Patent 1000); architect of PAN's 13-IPR/1-PGR campaign against all 13 asserted patents, including the '380 IPR (IPR2021-01156).
Andrew T. Radsch Co-lead counsel (district court & IPRs); pro hac vice May 5, 2021 (ECF Nos. 44–45) Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA R&G IP partner; PAN's day-to-day point counsel in this case and in related PTAB appeals; argued before the Federal Circuit for PAN in related Centripetal IPRs (e.g., No. 23-1731).
Carolyn Louise Redding Counsel (pro hac vice, per ECF No. 144 signature block, Aug. 2021) Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA Appeared of record during the stay/disqualification phase; role on later substantive filings not independently confirmed.
Josef Byks Schenker Counsel (pro hac vice) Ropes & Gray, 1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY R&G IP litigator of record on PAN filings through at least 2023 (service lists, ECF No. 380).
Emerson A. Siegle Counsel Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC Listed on Law360's case roster for PAN in this EDVA action.
Scott A. McKeown Lead IPR counsel (PTAB side) Ropes & Gray, 2099 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC Prominent PTAB practitioner; listed first (lead) among petitioner's counsel for PAN in IPR2021-01156 on the '380 patent and other Centripetal IPRs.
Mark D. Rowland IPR counsel Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA Co-counsel for PAN in the '380 IPR (IPR2021-01156) and related IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-00182); appears on CAFC counsel certifications for PAN.
Christopher M. Bonny IPR counsel Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA Member of PAN's petitioner team in IPR2021-01156 (the '380 IPR).
Keyna Chow IPR/appellate counsel Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto/DC PAN counsel in IPRs and in Federal Circuit filings (counsel certification list for appellee PAN, CAFC docket).
Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier Appellate lead (Federal Circuit) Ropes & Gray, 2099 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC R&G appellate partner; argued PAN's Federal Circuit appeals from PTAB decisions involving the same Centripetal patents and handles PAN's appellate posture in this dispute.

Trial co-counsel — Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
Brett C. Govett Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice; signed PAN's Apr. 30, 2021 Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 42; in courtroom at trial) Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, 2200 Ross Ave., Suite 3600, Dallas, TX Seasoned national patent trial lawyer; present for PAN on trial Day 6 (Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry) and still cc'd on PAN's post-judgment supersedeas-bond correspondence (ECF No. 1008, Nov. 2024).
Jacqueline "Jackie" Groves Baker Trial counsel (pro hac vice) NRF, Dallas, TX Appeared with Govett on PAN's earliest district-court filings (ECF No. 42) and through 2023 discovery (ECF No. 380 service lists).
James Stephen Renard Trial counsel NRF, Dallas, TX On PAN's 2023 counsel-of-record service lists and in the courtroom at trial (Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry).
Daniel Scott Leventhal Trial counsel NRF, 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100, Houston, TX On PAN's 2023 service lists; in the courtroom at trial Day 6.
Richard Stephen Zembek Trial counsel NRF, Houston, TX NRF IP partner on PAN's 2023 discovery correspondence/service lists.
Daniel Alejandro Prati / Eric Brinn Hall Trial team NRF, Houston, TX On PAN's 2023 counsel-of-record service lists (ECF No. 380); trial support.
Stephanie Nicole DeBrow Trial counsel NRF, 98 San Jacinto Blvd., Suite 1100, Austin, TX On PAN service lists; in the courtroom at trial Day 6 (Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry).
Talbot Hansum Senior Associate, trial team NRF, Austin, TX Authored/signed PAN discovery meet-and-confer correspondence in late 2023 (Dkt. entries); in the courtroom at trial Day 6.
Jonathon Harmon Trial team (firm unconfirmed) Unconfirmed (listed only in the Jan. 29, 2024 trial minute entry) Named in the minute entry as present "on behalf of Palo Alto Networks, Inc."; I could not verify his firm from public sources — do not treat as confirmed NRF/R&G without a PACER check.

Virginia local counsel — McGuireWoods LLP

Attorney Role Firm / office Experience note
Robert W. McFarland (VSB No. 24021) Lead local counsel McGuireWoods LLP, 101 W. Main St., Suite 9000, Norfolk, VA Veteran EDVA trial lawyer; PAN's courtroom local counsel (Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry) and signatory on PAN filings; the same NRF/McGuireWoods pairing has repeatedly opposed Centripetal's Kramer Levin/Kaufman & Canoles team in EDVA.
David E. Finkelson (VSB No. 44059) Local counsel McGuireWoods LLP, 2812 Emerywood Pkwy., Suite 220, Richmond, VA Appeared with McFarland for PAN from the stay/disqualification phase (ECF No. 144, Aug. 2021) through trial (Jan. 2024 minute entry).

In-house counsel

None identified. No Palo Alto Networks in-house attorney appears of record in the public filings I reviewed (PAN's litigation was staffed entirely by Ropes & Gray, Norton Rose Fulbright, and McGuireWoods). PAN does maintain an in-house IP litigation function, but no individual names tied to this docket could be verified from public sources.

Appellate posture (current, as of Sept. 2026)

PAN is the appellant in the pending Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-1167) from the post-JMOL judgment; PAN posted a $160 million supersedeas bond for that appeal in Nov. 2024 (ECF No. 1008, with the cover letter cc'ing Brett Govett of NRF). Centripetal (appellee) is represented by Clement & Murphy (see prior sections). Ropes & Gray's Hallward-Driemeier/Chow/Rowland appear on PAN's Federal Circuit counsel certifications in the related PTAB appeals; I could not verify from public sources whether Ropes & Gray or Norton Rose Fulbright is designated lead on the No. 25-1167 appellate briefs themselves — that is confirmable on the CAFC docket.

Caveats and verification notes

  • Firm/role inferences: The division of labor between Ropes & Gray and Norton Rose Fulbright is inferred from filings and minute entries, not from any formal "lead counsel" order. Ropes & Gray's Batchelder/Radsch were the named pro hac vice attorneys on the district-court disqualification fight and the IPR campaign (including the '380 IPR, IPR2021-01156); NRF's Govett signed the early dispositive motions (ECF No. 42) and was in the courtroom at trial, suggesting NRF took the trial lead while R&G drove the PTAB/validity track. Both firms remained on service lists through 2023–24.
  • Trial-day attendance: The Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry (Day 6) lists only McFarland, Govett, Finkelson, Hansum, Leventhal, Renard, Harmon, and DeBrow in the courtroom for PAN — all NRF/McGuireWoods (Harmon unverified). Minute entries from other trial days (which might show R&G attendance) were not located in public sources.
  • Sealed materials: The '380-specific summary-judgment ruling (ECF No. 742, Jan. 13, 2024), the JMOL rulings (ECF No. 989), and much of the post-trial record are sealed, so the signing attorneys on those specific sealed briefs (PAN's SJ motion on the '380 was ECF No. 460) could not be confirmed from public sources. The representation structure above is drawn from unsealed docket entries, signature blocks, service lists, the March 2022 published opinion (ECF No. 285), trial minute entries, and CAFC counsel certifications.
  • Firm stability: No defense-side lateral/firm moves affecting this team were identified; Ropes & Gray and Norton Rose Fulbright remained PAN's counsel through the Nov. 2024 bond filing (ECF No. 1008 cc list).
Record id: 10735380-1-21-cv-00313-transferred-to-2-21-cv-00137 · edit in Admin