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

Case Overview

Parties and their roles. Centripetal Networks, Inc. (now Centripetal Networks, LLC after a January 2023 name change, per the ITC's notice) is a privately held, venture-backed cybersecurity operating company headquartered in Herndon/Reston, Virginia. It sells the "CleanINTERNET" managed security service and RuleGATE/QuickTHREAT hardware-software gateways that operationalize third-party threat-intelligence feeds, and it is also an unusually aggressive patent enforcer (it previously won a roughly $2.75B jury verdict against Cisco in EDVA in 2020, later set aside and settled, and has sued Palo Alto Networks and others). Keysight Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: KEYS) is a large, Delaware-incorporated test-and-measurement/network-testing company headquartered in Santa Rosa, California, which entered the network-security visibility market through its April 2017 acquisition of Ixia (operated as the "Ixia Solutions Group"). Keysight's accused lines — built around the Ixia acquisition — include its Vision network-visibility/security appliances, ThreatARMOR threat-intelligence gateway, BreakingPoint security-testing platforms, and the "Application and Threat Intelligence" (ATI) subscription feeds; Centripetal's complaint and ITC filings allege Keysight continued selling products embodying Centripetal technology after a three-year license Centripetal granted to settle the parties' 2017 EDVA suit (2:17-cv-00383-HCM-LRL) expired on December 31, 2021 — this 2022 case was filed the very next day. The accused products in this specific docket are described only generically ("certain Keysight products") in Keysight's SEC disclosures; the more detailed product-by-product allegations in the parallel ITC investigation centered on Vision One/Vision X/Vision 7300-series products, which is suggestive but not dispositive of what is accused in 1:22-cv-00001.

Patent and technology. Per the case metadata, the patent at issue in this action is U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 (issued June 9, 2020; application 16/744,341), which the IPR petition analyses caption as "Network Protection Device with Pre-processing of Rule Sets." In one line: the '009 patent claims a network protection (packet-filtering) device that pre-processes/optimizes a rule set (e.g., merging, reordering, or otherwise transforming firewall rules) before that rule set is "implemented" on the device, and repeats that pre-processing for successive rule sets — with dependent claims adding dynamic memory-buffer sizing — so that traffic filtering can continue accurately when rule sets are swapped without packets being evaluated against stale or partially installed rules. (Note: at least one database, Patexia, lists a different title — "Rule swapping in a packet network" — for the same patent number; the "pre-processing of rule sets" title tracks the PTAB's own characterization of the claims and is the better-sourced description.)

Procedural posture and venue. The case is Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00001 (E.D. Va.), filed January 1, 2022 in the Alexandria Division and transferred intradistrict to the Norfolk Division on January 4, 2022 (Unified Patents/RP X-style docket reflects the same-day transfer). I could not confirm the assigned district judge from available sources and will not speculate. Venue in EDVA is deliberate and significant: it is the "Rocket Docket" where Centripetal previously litigated Keysight I and its Cisco case, Centripetal is headquartered in Virginia, and Keysight/Ixia historically maintained Virginia offices (Chantilly and Vienna) — supporting both venue and Centripetal's preference for fast, patentee-friendly dockets. The case is stayed pending finalization of appeals of the ITC no-violation determination (Inv. No. 337-TA-1362, Notice of Determination Dec. 5, 2023) and of PTAB validity rulings — per Keysight's FY2025 10-Q: "The lawsuit before the Federal District Court in Virginia is stayed pending the finalization of appeals of the ITC findings and validity challenges."

Why it matters. This is one node of a coordinated, multi-forum campaign by a small Virginia operating company against a large test-equipment maker, spanning the EDVA suit, an ITC Section 337 investigation, eight PTAB IPRs (Keysight says 185 claims across eight asserted patents were found unpatentable), German national courts, the EPO, and the UPC. The '009 patent specifically is tied to IPR2022-01421 (Keysight v. Centripetal, filed Aug. 12, 2022): the Board initially denied institution under § 325(d), the Director sua sponte vacated and remanded (finding the Office erred given the near-identical prior IPR on parent patent 9,674,148 in IPR2018-01454), the Board then instituted and on Nov. 1, 2024 issued a Final Written Decision holding all claims 1–30 unpatentable as obvious over Roese/Golnabi/Huima/Hayter (± Esbensen); that decision is on appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1715). The broader litigation has now largely resolved against Centripetal on appeal — the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's no-violation finding and the '917 patent invalidation on April 23, 2026 (24-1416; 24-1406) and affirmed the '526 patent's invalidation on April 2, 2026 (IPR2022-01525) — which is why the stayed EDVA case, focused on the '009 patent, is unlikely to revive unless Centripetal's remaining appeals succeed. The case is notable as a case study in serial, license-expiry-driven enforcement against a diversified defendant, and in how PTAB collateral-estoppel/related-IPR strategy (invalidating parent and sibling patents) can neutralize a district court case without a merits adjudication.

Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00001 (E.D. Va.) — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

A threshold note on case identity. The case was filed in the Alexandria Division on 2022-01-01 and administratively transferred intradistrict to the Norfolk Division on 2022-01-04; post-transfer dockets and filings carry the Norfolk number 2:22-cv-00002 (see Unified Patents docket portal listing "1:22-cv-00001 – Centripetal Networks LLC v. Keysight Technologies Inc," noting "Intradistrict Transfer to Norfolk Division," 2022-01-04; DocketAlarm filings captioned Case 2:22-cv-00002-EWH-DEM). Initial assignment per UniCourt was to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen and Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller; later 2023 filings bear Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes' initials (EWH-DEM), indicating a reassignment (this is inferred from caption initials and is not independently confirmed). Plaintiff counsel included Stephen E. Noona (Kaufman & Canoles), Kevin O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell), and Kramer Levin attorneys (Paul Andre et al.); Keysight was represented by William R. Poynter (Kaleo Legal) and Reed Smith attorneys (Christine Morgan, Jonah Mitchell, Christopher Pulido, Seth Herring).

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2022-01-01 — Centripetal filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement (35 U.S.C. § 281), the same day a limited-term license that had resolved the parties' earlier EDVA litigation (Centripetal v. Keysight/Ixia, No. 2:17-cv-00383 (E.D. Va.)) lapsed. RPX noted the new suit came "the day after the lapse of a limited term license agreement that ended prior litigation between the two parties" (RPX Insight, 2022-01-24).
• 2022-01-04 — Complaint docketed (fee receipt AVAEDC-8176270); the court ordered intradistrict transfer to the Norfolk Division; Centripetal filed a notice of additional exhibits (Dkt. 9) and its Local Rule 7.1 financial interest disclosure (Dkt. 10) (Unified Patents final civil docket 2022-01-04).
• 2022-02-06 to 2022-02-16 — Keysight's Reed Smith trial team made pro hac vice appearances (Dkts. 17–20; granted by orders Dkts. 21–24, signed 2022-02-16).
• 2022-02-25 — Keysight filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 25) with a supporting memorandum (Dkt. 26) (UniCourt docket). The court's disposition of that motion is not confirmed in available public sources; it appears to have been subsumed by the early stay (below). Whether Keysight ever filed a formal answer with counterclaims in this action is likewise not confirmed in the sources reviewed — an answer/counterclaim record exists only from the earlier 2:17-cv-00383 action.

2. Substantive pre-trial motions

• Motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)) — filed 2022-02-25 (Dkts. 25–26). Outcome not confirmed; the case was stayed before any reported merits decision.
• No § 1404(a) transfer motion. The Norfolk transfer was an intradistrict administrative transfer ordered 2022-01-04, not a contested venue motion.
• Stay pending PTAB/ITC. Keysight filed a wave of IPR petitions beginning August 2022 (see § 7), and the district court stayed the case pending the USPTO challenges and the parallel ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1314, instituted June 2022). Keysight's later SEC disclosures confirm "[t]he lawsuit before the Federal District Court in Virginia is stayed pending the finalization of appeals of the ITC findings and validity challenges" (Keysight Forms 10-K/10-Q, 2024–2026).
• 2023-08/09 — Centripetal moved to lift the stay and reopen the case (Dkt. 62) after the ITC ALJ's Initial Determination issued 2023-08-08; Keysight opposed on 2023-09-08 (Dkt. 65, which summarized the ITC ID: no § 337 violation; non-infringement of the '370 and '526 patents; asserted claims of the '370, '917, and '526 patents invalid; mixed domestic-industry findings). The stay was evidently maintained — the case remains stayed today.
• No summary judgment was reached.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• The district court did not reach a Markman stage; the stay preceded it. Claim-construction disputes were instead litigated in the PTAB (e.g., "preprocessing . . . prior to . . . being implemented," "caching the one or more packets") and in the ITC proceeding.

4. Discovery milestones

• Discovery was largely suspended by the stay. The strategic milestone of record is 2022-06-02: Centripetal filed a Notice of Institution of Related ITC Investigation (Dkt. 42) disclosing Inv. No. 337-TA-1314 (Certain Computer Network Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same), which involved the same parties and overlapping technology/patents (DocketAlarm, Doc. 42).
• 2023-09-08 — Keysight's opposition (Dkt. 65) to the motion to lift stay detailed the completed ITC trial record (trial Mar. 1–7, 2023; ALJ MaryJoan McNamara's ID of Aug. 8, 2023), confirming that substantive fact development occurred primarily in the ITC and IPRs rather than the district court.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fees) occurred in the district court; the case has been stayed throughout.

6. Final disposition / present posture

• No final judgment or settlement has been entered. The action remains stayed pending finalization of appeals of (a) the ITC's no-violation determination (Notice of Determination issued 2023-12-05 terminating Inv. No. 337-TA-1314) and (b) USPTO/PTAB validity findings against Centripetal's asserted patents, including the '009 patent (Keysight SEC filings, 2024–2026).
• Federal Circuit activity that bears on the stay's lift conditions:
  • Keysight's FY2026 quarterly disclosure reports that in January 2026 the Federal Circuit affirmed a USPTO decision invalidating all claims of one of the challenged patents, and that oral argument was held in January 2026 on the ITC appeal and related PTAB findings (Keysight Form 10-Q).
  • Law360 reported on 2026-04-23 ("Fed. Circ. Sides With Keysight On Centripetal Network Patents") that the Federal Circuit backed the ITC's determination relieving Keysight and separately held many claims of one asserted patent invalid; a separate Law360 item dated 2026-04-02 is headlined "Centripetal Loses Fed. Circ." CourtListener shows a CAFC docket, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 24-2372, with a judgment entered 2026-06-09, and a second CAFC docket, No. 24-2246 — the precise mapping of each appeal number to the IPR vs. ITC appeals is not confirmed from available sources.
• Practical consequence: with the PTAB having invalidated all '009 claims and the Federal Circuit now ruling against Centripetal on the parallel appeals, the stayed district case is very likely to be dismissed or resolved without a merits trial if the '009 invalidity stands, though no such order has been identified as of the current date (2026-09-04).

7. Parallel PTAB IPRs and their effect on the litigation

• IPR2018-01454 (Cisco v. Centripetal, U.S. Patent 9,674,148) — Final Written Decision 2020-03-05 invalidating the '009 patent's parent ('148) claims; affirmed by the Federal Circuit 2021-05-11. This FWD became the collateral-estoppel predicate for Keysight's later IPRs, including against the '009 patent (IPR2022-01421 FWD; Director review decision).
• IPR2022-01421 (Keysight v. Centripetal, U.S. Patent 10,681,009 — the '009 patent at issue here) — this is the controlling parallel proceeding:
  • 2022-08-12 — Keysight petitioned, challenging claims 1–30 as obvious over Roese + Golnabi + Huima + Hayter (and + Esbensen for claims 6, 7, 25), relying on collateral estoppel from the '148 FWD.
  • 2023-03-22 — PTAB denied institution (Paper 9) exercising § 325(d) discretion under Advanced Bionics.
  • 2023-08-24 — Director Kathi Vidal vacated and remanded (Paper 14), finding the Office erred in overlooking the '148 FWD's significance.
  • 2023-11-06 — On remand the Board instituted review of all challenged claims (Paper 16) (Jones Day/Mondaq, 2024-01-09).
  • 2024-02-07 — Centripetal's Patent Owner Response (Paper 21).
  • 2024-08-07 — Oral hearing (Paper 31).
  • 2024-11-01 — Final Written Decision (Paper 32): all claims 1–30 of the '009 patent held unpatentable as obvious (DocketAlarm FWD).
  • 2024 — Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit (CAFC No. 24-2372 per CourtListener).
• IPR2022-01607 (Keysight v. Centripetal, U.S. Patent 10,511,572) — FWD 2024-04-16 invalidating all challenged claims of another Centripetal family member; cited in IPR2022-01421's reply record as corroborating the Board's approach.
• Effect on the litigation: Keysight's SEC disclosures state that Keysight challenged claims of eight patents Centripetal asserted (across the EDVA and ITC matters) and "all or most claims [were] found invalid in each patent"; Centripetal appealed seven of those findings. The '009 patent's all-claims invalidation at the PTAB (now affirmed on appeal per Keysight's disclosures and the 2026 Federal Circuit rulings reported by Law360) is the principal reason the EDVA case remains stayed and is expected to be resolved against Centripetal absent reversal.

---

Source grounding

• Unified Patents litigation portal — EDVA 1:22-cv-00001 final civil docket (2022-01-04) (complaint, transfer to Norfolk).
• UniCourt — 2:22-cv-00002 case page (filings through Dkt. 26, 2022-02-25; judges; counsel).
• DocketAlarm — Docs. 42 (Notice of Related ITC Investigation, 2022-06-02) and 65 (Keysight's stay opposition, 2023-09-08, summarizing ITC ID).
• RPX Insight (2022-01-24) — prior license lapse context.
• USPTO/PTAB IPR2022-01421 papers: Paper 9 (2023-03-22 denial), Paper 14 (2023-08-24 Director remand), Paper 16 (2023-11-06 institution), Paper 21 (2024-02-07 POR), Paper 31 (2024-08-07 hearing), Paper 32 (2024-11-01 FWD); Jones Day/Mondaq commentary (2024-01-09).
• Keysight SEC Forms 10-K/10-Q (2023–2026, incl. disclosures describing the ITC Notice of Determination of 2023-12-05 and Federal Circuit activity in January and April 2026).
• Law360 (via Lawyers Weekly, 2026-04-23): "Fed. Circ. Sides With Keysight On Centripetal Network Patents"; Law360 UK listing (2026-04-02): "Centripetal Loses Fed. Circ."
• CourtListener CAFC dockets 24-2246 and 24-2372 (judgment entry 2026-06-09 in 24-2372).

Caveats: The disposition of Keysight's 12(b)(6) motion, the existence/content of an answer or counterclaims, and the exact match of CAFC docket numbers (24-2246 vs. 24-2372) to the IPR appeal vs. ITC appeal are not confirmed by the sources retrieved; those items are flagged above as unverified rather than asserted.

Press coverage findings

Direct press coverage of the district-court action itself is thin — no mainstream outlet (Reuters, The Verge, Patently-O, IPWatchdog, etc.) appears to have covered the merits of the stayed EDVA case, and none reported damages figures, a verdict, or settlement terms. Virtually all reporting frames this litigation as one front in a larger multi-forum war — the ITC Section 337 investigation (337-TA-1314), a wave of Keysight-filed IPRs (including IPR2022-01421 against the '009 patent at issue here), and Federal Circuit appeals that the district case is stayed behind. Keysight's SEC Form 10-Q (filed 2025-07-31) is the most direct description of the district case itself: it states that Centripetal sued in Virginia federal court on January 1, 2022, that Keysight challenged claims of eight patents at the USPTO with "all or most claims" invalidated in each, that the ITC issued its no-violation determination on December 5, 2023, and 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 USITC announced institution of Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 on May 18, 2022, based on Centripetal's April 19, 2022 complaint naming Keysight.

The most substantive reporting arrived in late April 2026, when the Federal Circuit resolved the appeals that gate the stayed case. Law360 (Theresa Schliep, 2026-04-23) reported that the Federal Circuit "backed" the ITC's decision relieving Keysight from Centripetal's infringement case and separately invalidated many claims of one of the patents. Defense counsel Reed Smith issued a victory announcement saying the Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's no-violation finding and affirmed PTAB IPR decisions, with partner Jonah Mitchell characterizing the result as a clean sweep: success "on all asserted patents at the ITC," PTAB decisions finding "185 claims across eight asserted patents unpatentable," and wins in the UPC and German courts; Keysight GC Jeffrey Li is quoted saying the outcomes "validate what we've maintained all along." Trade-legal outlets added analytical depth: VitalLaw IP Law Daily (2026-04-06) covered the April 2, 2026 affirmance in Centripetal v. Keysight, No. 24-2246 (all claims of the '526 decryption patent unpatentable as anticipated), while VitalLaw (2026-04-24) and Legal Era (2026-04-23) detailed the April 23, 2026 decision in No. 24-1406 — affirming obviousness of 18 claims of the '917 patent and reversing the PTAB on the remaining two. None of these articles discusses the '009 patent's district case specifically, though PTAB records show IPR2022-01421 ended with a November 1, 2024 Final Written Decision holding all claims 1–30 of the '009 patent unpatentable, now on appeal — the proceeding that the stay order anticipated.

Where reporting goes beyond the court record, it is largely partisan or analytical framing rather than independent journalism. Reed Smith's release is advocacy — touting "major success" and quoting Keysight's GC — and Keysight's 10-Q is the company's own risk disclosure, so both should be read as party characterizations (the 10-Q, for instance, emphasizes that Centripetal is appealing seven of the PTAB invalidity findings). The one quasi-analyst take found, from PatSnap, concerns the related Palo Alto/Cisco/Keysight fight over the '856 encrypted-threat-detection patent (Fed. Cir. No. 23-2027) rather than this case, but it articulates the industry-level significance that other coverage implies: Centripetal's encrypted-traffic and rule-set-switching patents sit "at the core of next-generation firewall and network security products," so validity outcomes create continued freedom-to-operate risk for vendors in that space. Finally, Jones Day's PTAB Litigation Blog (Oct. 2023) is the only dedicated legal analysis of the '009 patent proceeding itself, examining Director Vidal's August 24, 2023 vacatur-and-remand of the PTAB's denial of institution in IPR2022-01421 — the unusual Director-level intervention that put the '009 patent's claims back in play before they were ultimately all invalidated. I found no coverage reporting any damages sought or awarded, any settlement, or any market-impact figures for the district action.

Sources

• CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2026) - CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC, Appellee
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Network security patent claims held unpatentable in dispute between cybersecurity companies
• 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
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC, Appellant v. KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Cross-Appellant
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Patent decision against Centripetal affirmed for obviousness, two claims denied on obviousness grounds reversed.
• Petition analysis | IPR2022-01607 | Keysight Technologies Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc | Ex Parte
• Ex. 1009 | IPR2022-01607 | Keysight Technologies Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc | Ex Parte
• IPR2022-01199 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. IPR of US9917856B2 | RPX Insight

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00001 (E.D. Va.)

Based on the initial docket of 1:22-cv-00001 (filed Jan. 1, 2022, Alexandria Division; intra-district transfer to the Norfolk Division on Jan. 4, 2022 — see docket entry "Intradistrict Transfer to Norfolk Division (epri), entered 01/04/2022," per the Justia and Unified Patents docket logs), the plaintiff's counsel of record are the Virginia local counsel who filed/ECF-docketed the pleadings plus the out-of-state trial team that sought pro hac vice admission. The signatures on the Complaint, Notices of Additional Exhibits (Dkt. 2–9), and Financial Interest Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 10) are consistent and are the controlling source. None of the underlying filings appear to be sealed.

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (the national trial team)

(Note: Kramer Levin's U.S. LLP merged into Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP; current bios and 2026 Federal Circuit opinions list these attorneys there.)

1. Paul J. Andre — Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice; listed as "pro hac vice forthcoming" at filing, admitted by mid-2022)

• Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP — Menlo Park, CA (990 Marsh Rd.), later Redwood Shores, CA (333 Twin Dolphin Dr.); now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
• One line: Managing Partner of the Silicon Valley office and Head of U.S. IP; co-led the Kramer Levin team that won the $2.75 billion Centripetal v. Cisco verdict in E.D. Va. (2020) and has since represented Centripetal through ITC Section 337 investigations, PTAB IPRs, and Federal Circuit appeals against Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, and Keysight.
• Sources: Dkt. 10 FIDS signature block (DocketAlarm copy); ITC complaint counsel listing; Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer attorney bio.

2. Lisa Kobialka — Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Kramer Levin (Menlo Park, then Redwood Shores, CA); now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP.
• One line: Managing Partner, Disputes, U.S. (Silicon Valley); longtime co-lead with Andre for Centripetal, including the Cisco trial and the Centripetal–Keysight multi-forum campaign.
• Sources: Same signature blocks; Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer bio; Law.com coverage of the Cisco $2.75B judgment.

3. James R. Hannah — Trial/appellate counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Kramer Levin (Menlo Park, then Redwood Shores, CA); now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
• One line: Argued Centripetal's Federal Circuit IPR appeal in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2020-1768 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021, aff'd per curiam), and continues to appear for Centripetal in the related Keysight appeals (e.g., Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-1406/24-1416, argued 2026).
• Sources: Fed. Cir. judgment in 20-1768; CourtListener opinion 10831831 (April 2026 Fed. Cir. decision listing Andre, Finn, Hannah).

4. Hannah Lee — Associate/counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Kramer Levin, Menlo Park/Redwood Shores, CA.
• One line: Appeared on the district court complaint-era filings for Centripetal in the Keysight matters; little independent public profile beyond the docket signature blocks — do not overstate her role.
• Source: Complaint-era signature blocks (Dkt. 2–10).

5. Kristopher ("Kris") Kastens — Associate/counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: Kramer Levin, Menlo Park/Redwood Shores, CA.
• One line: Same as above — appeared on Centripetal's E.D. Va. and ITC filings against Keysight (e.g., ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1314 complaint); role beyond docket signatures is not well-sourced publicly.
• Source: ITC complaint counsel list; Dkt. 10 signature block.

Virginia local counsel (E.D. Va. bar members; ECF filers on the docket)

6. Stephen Edward Noona — Local counsel of record / ECF filing attorney

• Firm: Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., 150 W. Main St., Suite 2100, Norfolk, VA (VSB No. 25367).
• One line: Longtime E.D. Va. local counsel for Centripetal in its Cisco and Keysight patent litigations (Norfolk bench trials before Judge Morgan and successor judges); virtually every initial docket entry in 1:22-cv-00001 was filed by "(Noona, Stephen)."
• Source: Justia docket log for 1:2022cv00001 (entries 1–10); Dkt. 10 and change-of-address filings.

7. Kevin O'Donnell — Local counsel of record

• Firm: Henry & O'Donnell P.C., 300 N. Washington St., Suite 204, Alexandria, VA (VSB No. 30086).
• One line: Alexandria-based Virginia patent litigator serving as co-local counsel on the Centripetal–Keysight E.D. Va. complaints; beyond the signature blocks, public detail on his specific division-of-labor is limited.
• Source: Dkt. 10 FIDS signature block; DocketAlarm copies of 2:22-cv-00002 filings (same counsel team).

Important caveats

• Case number mechanics: 1:22-cv-00001 was transferred intra-district to Norfolk on Jan. 4, 2022, two days after filing. Later substantive filings by the same plaintiff's team appear under the Norfolk-assigned related dockets (e.g., 2:22-cv-00002, before Judge Arenda Wright Allen/Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller), and the Justia docket for 1:22-cv-00001 stops at the transfer. I cannot confirm from public sources whether any additional plaintiff's attorneys entered appearances in the transferred Norfolk docket after 2022 without a PACER pull; the case is stayed pending the Federal Circuit/PTAB appeals, and no substitution of counsel has surfaced in the searches.
• Entity/conversion: The plaintiff filed as "Centripetal Networks, Inc." but later converted to Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.), the name used in the PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings. District-court docket captions still reflect "Inc."
• Firm successor: If you need current addresses, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP merged into Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (announced 2025), which is the firm name on the 2026 Federal Circuit opinions in the related Keysight appeals (e.g., Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Techs., Inc., No. 24-1406/24-1416, argued by Daniel N. Lerman of HSF Kramer DC, with Andre and Hannah of the Redwood Shores office).
• Not district-court counsel: The Foster Murphy Altman & Nickel, PC attorneys (James B. Altman, Barbara A. Murphy, Susan Koegel, Matthew N. Duescher, Washington, DC) and appellate specialists (Andrei Iancu, Jeffrey B. Wall, etc. of Sullivan & Cromwell / Clement & Murphy) appeared for Centripetal in the parallel ITC investigation (337-TA-1314) and Federal Circuit appeals, respectively — not as counsel of record in this stayed district-court action. Do not conflate them with the district-court roster above.

Bottom line: The plaintiff's counsel of record in 1:22-cv-00001 is the Kramer Levin team (Andre, Kobialka, Hannah, Lee, Kastens — lead trial counsel) together with Virginia local counsel Noona (Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk) and O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell, Alexandria). If you need the exact current docket text of the appearances post-transfer, a PACER query on the Norfolk-related case number (2:22-cv-00002 or the consolidated Keysight matter) would be the confirmatory source.

I'll research the counsel of record for Keysight in this case through multiple sources.

I have some leads. Let me dig into the specific docket for this case and the related filings to identify who appeared for Keysight.

Let me dig into the specific docket entries and any motion to dismiss/answer filings by Keysight in this case.

Keysight Technologies' Counsel of Record — Findings and Caveats

Bottom line up front. The publicly available record identifies Reed Smith LLP as Keysight's defense firm in the Centripetal multi-forum campaign that includes this EDVA action, with Seth B. Herring expressly identified (on his own firm biography) as Reed Smith's lawyer representing Keysight in the EDVA proceedings. However, I could not verify from open sources the exact notice-of-appearance list on the 1:22-cv-00001 docket itself, because the case was stayed early and the public docket mirrors (Unified Patents/RPX) show only the plaintiff's initial filings (complaint, exhibits, financial disclosure, and the Jan. 4, 2022 intradistrict transfer to the Norfolk Division). The most granular signature-block evidence of Keysight's district-court team comes from the related Norfolk Division case, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va.) (Judge Arenda Wright Allen), which appears to be part of the same January 1, 2022 filing campaign. Nothing indicates that filings are sealed; rather, the stays and the multi-case posture make the "of record" line-up per-case harder to pin down without PACER.

Attorneys identified as representing Keysight (with sourcing)

Lead/EDVA litigation counsel

• Seth B. Herring — Reed Smith LLP. His firm biography states he is "[r]epresenting Keysight in multi-forum patent infringement dispute with litigation proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia (11 patents), the ITC (3 patents), the UPC (1 patent) and Germany (3 patents) and multiple inter partes reviews before the USPTO" under the matter heading "Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies, Inc." He also represented Keysight in the related settlement-royalty arbitration. This makes him the best-sourced lead counsel for Keysight in the EDVA district-court proceedings. Signature blocks in the Norfolk Division case place him at Reed Smith's San Francisco office (101 Second Street, Suite 1800) and designate the team as pro hac vice counsel, implying Virginia local counsel also appeared (name not verified). Experience: veteran patent/trademark trial lawyer with substantial multi-forum IP litigation practice.

Counsel appearing on Keysight filings in the parallel Norfolk case and at the Federal Circuit

• Jonah D. Mitchell — Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Signed Keysight's March 28, 2022 Notice of Request for Hearing in No. 2:22-cv-00002 (ECF No. 40) as pro hac vice counsel; also appeared for appellee Keysight in the Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Techs., Inc., Fed. Cir. No. 24-1416; and the April 2, 2026 IPR appeal). Likely co-lead/appellate counsel in this dispute.
• Christine M. Morgan — Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Co-signed the same Norfolk filing (pro hac vice) for Keysight.
• John P. Bovich — Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Co-signed the same Norfolk filing (pro hac vice) for Keysight.

Federal Circuit/appellate counsel for Keysight in this dispute (relevant because the EDVA case is stayed pending these appeals)

• Gerard M. Donovan — Reed Smith LLP (Washington, DC). Argued for appellee Keysight in the Federal Circuit (per the CourtListener/Justia opinions in the April 2026 decisions, including Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight, and the IPR-related appeals). He is the most likely senior appellate strategist for Keysight in the parallel proceedings whose finalization controls the stay here.
• Peter J. Chassman — Reed Smith LLP (Houston, TX). Appeared on the appellee briefs for Keysight at the Federal Circuit.
• Michael John Forbes — Reed Smith LLP (Houston, TX). Appeared on the appellee briefs for Keysight at the Federal Circuit.
• Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe — Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco, CA). Appeared on the appellee briefs for Keysight at the Federal Circuit.

Important caveats

• Counsel in the sibling case 2:22-cv-00002 may not be identical to the of-record list in 1:22-cv-00001. The DocketAlarm materials show 2:22-cv-00002 filings (dated as early as Jan. 1, 2022) whose text references "Case No. 1:22-CV-00001," which suggests some cross-referencing or renumbering between the Alexandria-origin case and the Norfolk docket. Because Centripetal filed multiple complaints against Keysight at the same time, I cannot state with certainty that the 2:22-cv-00002 signature block is the same team as the 1:22-cv-00001 (post-transfer) docket without PACER confirmation.
• Virginia local counsel: not verified. Keysight's San Francisco-based Reed Smith team was admitted pro hac vice in the Norfolk case, which by EDVA local rules requires accompanying Virginia-licensed local counsel, but no local-counsel name surfaced in my searches. I will not speculate.
• In-house counsel: not verified. Keysight's in-house IP litigation counsel likely exists but no reliable public source naming the responsible in-house attorney for this docket was found.
• Recommended verification step: Pull the PACER docket for the post-transfer Norfolk case (search Keysight's notices of appearance, the motion-to-dismiss briefing that appears in the parallel docket, and any stay motion) to confirm the precise of-record list for the '009-patent action.