Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Centripetal Networks, Inc., a cybersecurity solutions provider specializing in intelligence-driven, proactive network defense, initiated this patent infringement litigation against Cisco Systems, Inc. Centripetal Networks offers products and services like its RuleGate® appliance and CleanINTERNET® platform, designed to operationalize threat intelligence and block malicious network activity in real-time. Cisco Systems, Inc. is a global technology conglomerate known for its networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and cybersecurity products and services.

While the initial prompt identified US9917856 as the patent at issue, court documents indicate that Centripetal Networks asserted multiple patents in this litigation, including a patent related to "rule-based network-threat detection." Specifically, US9917856, titled "Efficient SSL/TLS proxy," generally describes systems and methods for selectively decrypting encrypted communications (like SSL/TLS) to inspect their contents for potential cyber threats without significantly impacting network performance. The accused products or services from Cisco are related to their cybersecurity functionality, particularly those involving network threat detection and mitigation, though specific product names were not detailed in the initial search results for this case.

This case, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:17-cv-00383), was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA). The EDVA is often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its expedited trial schedules and efficient case management, making it an attractive venue for patent holders seeking quicker resolutions. Patent cases in the EDVA are randomly assigned among all district judges across its divisions, and while there are no specific patent local rules, the court's procedures are known for compressing trial preparation. For this particular case, a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding patent ineligibility for US9917856 was denied in September 2018 because disputed issues of fact existed, indicating the court allowed the eligibility challenge to proceed past the pleading stage. The case is related to another significant patent infringement lawsuit, 2:18-cv-00094, between the same parties. This litigation is notable due to the substantial cybersecurity market involved, the assertion by an operating company (Centripetal) against a major technology incumbent (Cisco), and its linkage to parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO.Centripetal Networks, Inc., a cybersecurity solutions provider specializing in intelligence-driven, proactive network defense, initiated this patent infringement litigation against Cisco Systems, Inc. Centripetal Networks develops and markets platforms such as its RuleGate® appliance and CleanINTERNET® service, which are designed to operationalize threat intelligence and block malicious network activity in real-time. Cisco Systems, Inc. is a prominent American multinational technology conglomerate that develops, manufactures, and sells a wide array of networking hardware, software, telecommunications equipment, and cybersecurity solutions.

In this case, Centripetal Networks asserted multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, titled "Efficient SSL/TLS proxy." This patent broadly describes systems, devices, and methods for selectively decrypting encrypted communications (such as SSL/TLS traffic) to enable content inspection for cyber threats and then re-encrypting them, aiming to improve network security without degrading performance. The litigation alleged that Cisco's products and services, particularly those related to cybersecurity functionality and network threat detection, infringed upon Centripetal's patents. Specific accused Cisco products, while generally categorized under network security, were not explicitly detailed in the publicly available summaries for this particular case in the initial searches. However, discussions in related IPR proceedings and court documents suggest the claims relate to how Cisco's systems detect and mitigate network threats.

The case, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:17-cv-00383), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, and was assigned to Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. ("HCM") and Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard ("LRL"). The EDVA is widely recognized as a "rocket docket" due to its expedited litigation process, which features a consistently speedy docket, rigid discovery rules, and strict enforcement of deadlines. This venue is attractive to patent plaintiffs seeking swift resolutions, though its rapid pace also presents challenges for unprepared litigants. The procedural posture saw a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of patent ineligibility for US9917856 denied in September 2018, as the court found disputed issues of fact existed that prevented a ruling on eligibility at that early stage. This litigation is notable not only for the substantial financial stakes in the cybersecurity industry and the assertion by an operating company against a market leader, but also for its close ties to a related case (2:18-cv-00094) between the same parties and numerous inter partes review (IPR) challenges initiated by Cisco against Centripetal's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The patent infringement litigation Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Case No. 2:17-cv-00383) in the Eastern District of Virginia has seen a complex series of legal developments, intricately tied to a broader patent dispute with Cisco, primarily encompassing a related case, 2:18-cv-00094. While 2:17-cv-00383 dealt with initial motions and claim construction, the major trial and subsequent appeals for the Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems litigation largely transpired within the related case.

Here's a chronological overview of key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2017-07-20: Centripetal Networks, Inc. initially filed the patent infringement complaint in Case No. 2:17-cv-00383 in the Eastern District of Virginia against Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Ixia.
• 2018-02-13: Centripetal Networks, LLC initiated an infringement action against Cisco Systems, Inc., asserting 11 U.S. patents. While this is broadly referenced as "this infringement action" for 2:17-cv-00383 by some sources, Cisco was also involved in the separately filed, but related, Case No. 2:18-cv-00094, where the bulk of the litigation against Cisco occurred. An amended complaint in 2:17-cv-00383 later brought Cisco Systems into this case as a defendant.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• 2017-11-15: A motion to dismiss based on patent ineligibility for asserted network security patent claims (likely including US9917856) filed by Keysight Technologies, Inc. in 2:17-cv-00383 was denied without prejudice. The court noted concerns about the breadth of the patents and suggested addressing the issue at the claim construction or summary judgment stage.
• 2018-09-26: A motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding patent ineligibility for US9917856 was denied in 2:17-cv-00383, as the court found disputed issues of fact.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• 2018-05-03: Centripetal Networks, Inc. filed its Rebuttal Markman Brief in 2:17-cv-00383, indicating that claim construction proceedings were underway.
• 2018-09-11: A Markman Order was issued in 2:17-cv-00383 (ECF No. 484), establishing claim constructions for the asserted patents.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• No specific strategically significant discovery milestones for 2:17-cv-00383 are explicitly detailed in the provided information, but a case of this duration and complexity would involve extensive discovery.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions (primarily in related Case 2:18-cv-00094)
It is important to note that the substantial trial and verdict for Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems, Inc. primarily occurred in the related case, 2:18-cv-00094, rather than 2:17-cv-00383 directly, although patents from Centripetal's portfolio were involved in both.

• 2020-05-06 to 2020-06-11: A twenty-two-day bench trial was held via video-conference in the Eastern District of Virginia (associated with the broader Centripetal v. Cisco litigation, mainly 2:18-cv-00094).
• 2020-10-05: The district court entered judgment in favor of Centripetal Networks, finding that Cisco Systems willfully infringed asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,197,193 ('193), 9,207,806 ('806), and 9,686,176 ('176). The court awarded Centripetal over $1.9 billion. Other patents, such as US9,137,205, were found not infringed.
• 2021-03-10: The Federal Circuit issued a judgment affirming the PTAB's final written decisions which found claims of US9,124,552 and US9,160,713 unpatentable as obvious in IPRs filed by Cisco.
• 2021-08-09: The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding that claims of US9,413,722 were unpatentable as obvious in an IPR filed by Cisco.
• 2023-12-11: The district court, following a partial vacatur and remand from the Federal Circuit regarding the initial $1.9 billion judgment, issued a new opinion granting judgment of non-infringement with respect to the '193, '806, and '176 patents.
• 2024-01-08: Centripetal Networks filed a motion for post-judgment relief in response to the district court's December 2023 non-infringement ruling.
• 2026-04-29: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision, affirming the district court's findings of non-infringement for certain claims of the '193, '806, and '176 patents.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• 2025-07: Case No. 2:17-cv-00383 was administratively closed by the district court pending the outcome of appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The district court had previously awarded a Bill of Costs against Centripetal Networks, though the execution of this award was stayed.
• The broader litigation involving Cisco saw an initial $1.9 billion district court judgment in 2020, which was later vacated by the Federal Circuit. The appeals and subsequent district court proceedings, including the latest Federal Circuit decision in April 2026, address the issues related to the vacated judgment concerning patents '193, '806, and '176.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on US9917856 and other Centripetal Patents

• 2021-11: Palo Alto Networks petitioned the PTAB to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of US9917856 ('856 patent), alleging obviousness. Cisco Systems, Inc. and Keysight Technologies, Inc. successfully joined these IPR proceedings.
• Early 2022: A three-member PTAB panel instituted the IPR for the '856 patent.
• 2023-01-05 (approx.): An Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Brian McNamara withdrew from an IPR proceeding involving Centripetal's patents after Centripetal filed a motion for recusal, alleging an appearance of bias due to the APJ's ownership of Cisco stock.
• 2023-05: The PTAB issued its final written decision, finding claims 1, 24, and 25 of the '856 patent unpatentable as obvious.
• 2025-10: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's obviousness ruling for the '856 patent, remanding the matter for reconsideration of Centripetal's evidence of copying as an objective indicium of non-obviousness. The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's denial of Centripetal's motion to recuse the APJ.
• 2026-06-15: Following the Federal Circuit's remand, the PTAB again invalidated the '856 patent.

News and analysis coverage of the Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems patent litigation primarily focuses on Case No. 2:18-cv-00094, which resulted in a substantial initial verdict, though it often mentions the earlier related case, 2:17-cv-00383, in passing or as part of the broader dispute. In October 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, presided over by Judge Henry C. Morgan Jr., found that Cisco Systems willfully infringed four of Centripetal Networks' cybersecurity patents related to network security technologies, including packet filters and operationalized cyber-threat intelligence. This ruling, following a 22-day bench trial conducted via Zoom, awarded Centripetal $755.8 million in past damages, which was then nearly tripled to $1.9 billion due to the finding of "willful and egregious" infringement. Additionally, Cisco was ordered to pay ongoing royalties, set at 10% for the first three years and 5% for the subsequent three years on sales of the infringing products, bringing the total potential award to between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion, which was widely reported as one of the largest patent verdicts in U.S. history. The '856 patent, titled "Efficient SSL/TLS proxy" or "Rule-based Network-Threat Detection for Encrypted Communications," was among the patents found infringed.

The significance of the case was amplified by a subsequent and "unusual history" involving the recusal of Judge Morgan. News outlets reported that Cisco moved for the judge's recusal after it was discovered his wife owned a small amount of Cisco stock ($4,687.99). Although Centripetal initially had no objection, and the judge had placed the stock in a blind trust, the Federal Circuit vacated the entire $2.75 billion judgment in June 2022, finding the judge was disqualified from the case and that the error was not harmless. This decision, which did not address the merits of the infringement findings, was seen by some as a blow to small inventors seeking to enforce valid patents against large corporations. The case was remanded for a new judge, who in December 2023, issued a new opinion granting judgment of non-infringement with respect to three key patents ('193, '806, and '176). The Federal Circuit affirmed this non-infringement ruling in April 2026.

Parallel to the district court litigation, Cisco and Palo Alto Networks initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against Centripetal's patents at the PTAB. US9917856, referred to as the '856 patent, was a subject of these IPRs, with claims 1, 24, and 25 being found unpatentable as obvious by the PTAB in May 2023. The Federal Circuit in October 2025 vacated this PTAB decision and remanded it for reconsideration of Centripetal's evidence of copying as an objective indicium of non-obviousness. However, in June 2026, the PTAB again invalidated the '856 patent following the Federal Circuit's remand. This long-running dispute, encompassing both district court proceedings and PTAB challenges, has kept the enforceability of Centripetal's network security patents a significant topic in legal and industry news.

Sources

• bannerwitcoff.com
• rpxcorp.com
• uspto.gov
• centripetal.ai
• crn.com
• ctovision.com
• manatt.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• oceantomo.com
• uscourts.gov
• reddit.com
• ipwatchdog.com

Centripetal Networks, Inc. has been represented by counsel from Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and a local counsel firm in the patent infringement case Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:17-cv-00383). The following attorneys of record represented the plaintiff:

• Craig C. Reilly

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Craig C. Reilly, Esq., Alexandria, Virginia.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Reilly has over 30 years of experience in civil litigation, with extensive work in intellectual property litigation, including patent cases, in the Eastern District of Virginia ("Rocket Docket"). He has handled numerous patent litigation matters involving diverse technologies such as telecommunications, computer encryption, and data terminals, and has experience with jury and bench trials in patent cases.

• Paul J. Andre

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, California.
  • Note on experience: Paul Andre is a managing partner at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel and has a significant background in intellectual property litigation, having secured substantial judgments for clients, including Centripetal Networks in other related patent cases.

• Lisa Kobialka

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, California.
  • Note on experience: Lisa Kobialka is a partner at Kramer Levin, specializing in intellectual property litigation, particularly in the technology sector.

• James Hannah

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, California.
  • Note on experience: James Hannah is a partner at Kramer Levin with a focus on intellectual property litigation and complex commercial disputes.

• Hannah Lee

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Menlo Park, California.
  • Note on experience: Hannah Lee is an attorney at Kramer Levin, engaged in patent litigation and intellectual property disputes.

• Christina L. Martinez

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, New York.
  • Note on experience: Christina Martinez is an intellectual property litigator at Kramer Levin, with experience in patent, trade secret, and copyright matters.

• Shannon H. Hedvat

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (at the time of the case).
  • Note on experience: Shannon Hedvat was associated with Kramer Levin in the context of this case. She has since moved to Pretium as Director, Legal Opportunities.

• Linjun Xu

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (at the time of the case).
  • Note on experience: Linjun Xu was associated with Kramer Levin and involved in intellectual property matters.

These attorneys are identified from court filings, specifically a "Centripetal Rebuttal Markman Brief" from May 2018 in the case, which lists Centripetal's counsel. Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP is consistently identified as the law firm for Centripetal Networks, Inc. in filings related to this case.

Cisco Systems, Inc. has been represented by a combination of outside counsel from prominent intellectual property litigation firms and its in-house legal team in the Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:17-cv-00383) case, as well as the related 2:18-cv-00094 litigation. Cisco's patent litigation strategy involves leveraging specialized legal experts to manage and defend its innovations.

Here's an overview of the defense counsel:

• Jeffrey Homrig

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (previously Latham & Watkins LLP). Office location: Texas (formerly Silicon Valley).
  • Note on experience: Co-Head of Weil's IP, Technology & Science Litigation practice, he is a nationally acclaimed IP and commercial trial lawyer with 25 years of experience in high-stakes intellectual property and commercial cases. He co-authors the Federal Judicial Center's guide for federal judges on patent litigation. Homrig has represented clients in complex patent and trade secret matters, with expertise in both software and hardware cases. He served as senior trial counsel for Arista in an ITC patent infringement enforcement proceeding relating to switching operating systems and protocols, securing non-infringement findings. He also teaches Patent Litigation II at Berkeley Law, focusing on post-grant review challenges at the PTAB.

• David A. Nelson

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Office location: Chicago, IL.
  • Note on experience: Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel's National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, he specializes in patent infringement litigation and has led over 150 patent litigation matters, trying over 35 jury cases and a dozen bench trials. He has a degree in Electrical Engineering and has successfully defended clients like Symantec in patent infringement trials involving security offerings. He has handled matters for a range of tech companies in various districts, including the Eastern District of Virginia.

• In-House Counsel (Cisco Systems, Inc.)

  • Jennifer Yokoyama
    • Role: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Intellectual Property and Technology (as of November 2023).
    • Note on experience: Oversees Cisco's legal strategy for IP, AI Governance, Data & AI Strategy, and related policy. Prior to Cisco, she held senior IP roles at Microsoft, Apple, and Nike, and was an IP litigator and partner at McDermott Will & Emery and White & Case.
  • Sarita Venkat
    • Role: VP & Deputy General Counsel of Global Litigation.
    • Note on experience: Manages complex patent and commercial litigations worldwide for Cisco. She previously held similar in-house positions at Apple, ServiceNow, and Abbott Laboratories Inc. and is a registered patent attorney.
  • John Zhu
    • Role: Director, Associate General Counsel within Cisco Systems' intellectual property group.
    • Note on experience: Leads the patent marketplace team in evaluating third-party IP threats, works on patent strategy, manages patent litigation matters, and negotiates IP licenses for Cisco.
  • Dan Lang
    • Role: Vice President, Intellectual Property.
    • Note on experience: Leads Cisco's intellectual property strategy, including portfolio development, licensing, standards IPR, patent pools, disputes, and marketplace activity. Prior to Cisco, he was a partner at a patent boutique firm.

While specific appearance details for all these individuals in case 2:17-cv-00383 were not universally available, these attorneys and firms are consistently associated with Cisco's patent litigation efforts, particularly in the related, larger case (2:18-cv-00094). Cisco also partners with other specialized legal counsel for localized expertise in different jurisdictions. For instance, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP represented Cisco in a recent patent trial in the Eastern District of Texas, resulting in a complete defense victory.