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

In a legal battle between major players in the network security industry, Centripetal Networks, Inc., a Virginia-based cybersecurity firm, initiated an investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in April 2022. Centripetal, an operating company known for its "Threat Intelligence Gateway" and "CleanINTERNET" service, accused competitors Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. of patent infringement. Both Keysight, a major manufacturer of electronic test and network-monitoring equipment, and Palo Alto Networks, a global leader in cybersecurity and firewall products, were alleged to have infringed on Centripetal's technology. The complaint targeted the importation of computer network security equipment and software, including versions of Keysight's "Vision" products, which are used for monitoring and filtering network traffic. The sole patent asserted in this investigation was U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917, which covers a system and method for rule-based network threat detection using packet-filtering.

The case was filed as a Section 337 investigation (337-TA-1314) at the ITC, a specialized venue chosen by patent holders for its rapid proceedings and powerful remedies. Unlike federal district courts that award monetary damages, the ITC can issue exclusion orders that block infringing products from entering the United States, posing a significant commercial threat to accused importers. However, this investigation was short-lived. The proceeding was terminated in May 2023, just over a year after it began. The termination was directly influenced by parallel validity challenges against the '917 patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

This ITC case is notable primarily for its connection to a broader, multi-forum patent enforcement campaign by Centripetal against major network security companies, including a high-profile, multi-billion dollar lawsuit against Cisco. The termination highlights a common strategy where defendants in an ITC investigation file for inter partes review (IPR) to challenge a patent's validity at the PTAB. Keysight filed an IPR petition against the '917 patent, and the PTAB's decision to institute that review—finding a reasonable likelihood that the patent claims were invalid—cast significant doubt on the patent's viability and directly led to the ITC terminating its investigation. Subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit regarding both the ITC and PTAB decisions underscore the complexity and high stakes of this sprawling intellectual property dispute.

Here are the key legal developments and the outcome of the patent infringement litigation in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. et al., Investigation No. 337-TA-1314, before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

2022-04-19: Complaint Filed at the ITC
Centripetal Networks, Inc. ("Centripetal") filed a complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, alleging that Keysight Technologies, Inc. ("Keysight") and Palo Alto Networks, Inc. engaged in unfair trade practices by importing and selling computer network security equipment that infringed three of Centripetal's patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,264,370, 10,193,917, and 10,284,526. The complaint requested a limited exclusion order to block the importation of the accused products and a cease and desist order. Palo Alto Networks was later terminated from the investigation, leaving Keysight as the primary respondent.

2022-05-18: Investigation Instituted
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) voted to institute an investigation based on Centripetal's complaint. The investigation was designated No. 337-TA-1314, and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara was assigned to preside over the case. The ITC’s Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII), which acts as a third party representing the public interest, also participated in the investigation.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings Initiated
Following the institution of the ITC investigation, respondent Keysight filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the asserted patents. Notably, petition IPR2022-01097 was filed against U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917, the patent at issue in this summary.

Pre-Trial Motions & Discovery
The case proceeded through an expedited discovery schedule typical of ITC investigations. While specific docket entries for all motions are not publicly detailed, any motion by Keysight to stay the ITC investigation pending the outcome of the newly filed IPRs would have been denied, consistent with standard ITC practice. ALJs routinely deny such motions because the ITC is statutorily mandated to conclude its investigations "at the earliest practicable time," a timeline that is almost always shorter than the PTAB's deadline for a final written decision. The case, therefore, continued in parallel with the PTAB's validity review.

2023-08-08: ALJ Finds No Violation of Section 337
After the evidentiary hearing and post-hearing briefing, ALJ McNamara issued her Final Initial Determination (ID) on the merits of the case. The ID found that Keysight had not violated Section 337. The determination was based on several independent grounds, including Centripetal's failure to satisfy the "technical prong" of the domestic industry requirement. This crucial requirement in Section 337 litigation mandates that the complainant prove it has a significant economic presence in the U.S. related to products that actually practice the asserted patent claims. The ALJ found Centripetal's products did not meet certain limitations of the asserted patent claims. Additional grounds for the no-violation finding included non-infringement and patent ineligibility for certain claims.

2023-12-05: Commission Affirms No Violation and Terminates Investigation
Centripetal petitioned the full Commission to review the ALJ's Final ID. On December 5, 2023, the Commission issued its decision, determining to review certain parts of the ID but ultimately affirming the ALJ's finding of no violation of Section 337. With this decision, the Commission officially terminated the investigation. This outcome contradicts the initial case summary's assertion that the investigation was terminated in May 2023 due to the PTAB's institution decision; rather, the case proceeded to a final adjudication on the merits.

PTAB Final Written Decision on the '917 Patent
In the parallel IPR proceeding (IPR2022-01097), the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 of the '917 patent unpatentable as obvious. However, the Board found that the petitioner, Keysight, had failed to prove that claims 4 and 14 were unpatentable.

2026-04-23: Federal Circuit Appeals
Both the ITC's final determination and the PTAB's Final Written Decision were appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, leading to two separate decisions issued on the same day:

• ITC Appeal (Case No. 24-1416): The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion affirming the ITC's final determination of no violation. The court agreed with the ITC's finding that Centripetal had failed to establish the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the asserted patents. The court also noted that the separate invalidation of the '917 patent claims in the parallel PTAB appeal rendered the ITC's findings on that specific patent moot.
• PTAB Appeal (Case No. 24-1406): In a separate opinion, the Federal Circuit addressed the cross-appeals from the PTAB's decision on the '917 patent. The court affirmed the PTAB's finding that claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 were invalid. Furthermore, the court reversed the PTAB's decision on claims 4 and 14, finding them unpatentable as well.

Final Outcome
The litigation campaign at the ITC was a definitive loss for Centripetal Networks. The investigation concluded with a final determination of no violation by Keysight, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. In parallel, the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917 were entirely invalidated by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, precluding any future infringement actions based on that patent.

Counsel for Plaintiff Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Centripetal Networks engaged distinct legal teams for the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation and the subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The company's broader patent enforcement campaign has been led by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (now part of Herbert Smith Freehills).

Counsel in the ITC Investigation (337-TA-1314)

Representation for Centripetal before the ITC was handled by the boutique firm Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC, which specializes in Section 337 investigations.

Name	Role	Firm & Office Location	Notable Experience
Susan Koegel	Counsel	Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC (Washington, D.C.)	Focuses her practice exclusively on Section 337 ITC cases and has represented clients in over 45 investigations involving patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Matthew N. Duescher	Counsel	Foster, Murphy, Altman & Nickel, PC (Washington, D.C.)	Represents clients in Section 337 investigations and has participated in over 30 such cases; previously clerked at the ITC's Office of Unfair Import Investigations.

Counsel for the Federal Circuit Appeal

For the appeal of the ITC's final determination, Centripetal retained a high-profile appellate team from Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

Name	Role	Firm & Office Location	Notable Experience
Andrei Iancu	Lead Appellate Counsel	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Los Angeles & Washington, D.C.)	Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with decades of experience in IP litigation.
Jeffrey B. Wall	Appellate Counsel	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Washington, D.C.)	Former acting U.S. Solicitor General who has argued 30 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court; head of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice. (Note: Wall and his team moved to Gibson Dunn in April 2026)
Daniel J. Richardson	Appellate Counsel	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Washington, D.C.)	Member of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice and former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
Laurie N. Stempler	Special Counsel	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (New York, NY)	Focuses on patent litigation and was a key member of the trial team that secured an $82.5 million jury verdict for IBM.
Aviv S. Halpern	Appellate Counsel	Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Palo Alto, CA)	Litigates a broad range of matters with an emphasis on intellectual property, technology, and antitrust disputes.

Lead Counsel in Broader Litigation Campaign

While not counsel of record in the ITC investigation itself, the law firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (which merged to become part of Herbert Smith Freehills) has been the primary firm leading Centripetal's multi-forum patent enforcement campaign, including a major district court case against Cisco and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Name	Role	Firm & Office Location	Notable Experience
Paul J. Andre	Lead Counsel	Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (Silicon Valley, CA)	Known for securing a landmark $1.9 billion judgment (later vacated) for Centripetal against Cisco and other high-stakes patent verdicts.

Defendants' Counsel of Record

The legal representation for the defendants in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 involved a multi-firm strategy, with distinct teams representing Keysight Technologies and Palo Alto Networks.

For Defendant Keysight Technologies, Inc.

Keysight was represented by a combination of attorneys from Reed Smith LLP, AMS TRADE LLP, and Polsinelli PC, showcasing a robust defense team with deep ITC and patent litigation experience.

• Deanna Tanner Okun (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: AMS TRADE LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: A former Commissioner and Chairman of the ITC, she brings unparalleled expertise in Section 337 investigations and international trade matters.

• Jonah D. Mitchell (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Mitchell is a seasoned patent litigator who has led Keysight's defense across multiple forums, including the ITC, PTAB, and federal courts, against Centripetal.

• Christine M. Morgan

  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: A partner in Reed Smith's IP, Tech & Data Group, she has extensive experience in complex patent litigation for technology companies.

• Seth Herring

  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes in federal courts and at the ITC.

• Doyle Johnson

  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP. (Office not specified in sources)
  • Note: An experienced IP litigator involved in defending Keysight in the multi-forum dispute with Centripetal.

• Additional Counsel: A press release noted that Polsinelli PC provided additional legal representation and counsel before the ITC, though specific attorneys were not named.

For Defendant Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

While Palo Alto Networks was a named defendant, specific filings from the ITC investigation 337-TA-1314 identifying their counsel were not available in the public search results. However, counsel from Ropes & Gray LLP has been identified representing Palo Alto Networks in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB and in subsequent appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning Centripetal's patents. It is common for the same firm to handle related multi-forum litigation.

The following attorneys from Ropes & Gray represented Palo Alto Networks in these closely related matters:

• Andrew T. Radsch

  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA.
  • Note: Radsch argued for Palo Alto Networks before the Federal Circuit in an appeal from a PTAB decision involving a Centripetal patent.

• James Richard Batchelder

  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA.
  • Note: An experienced IP litigator who frequently represents major technology companies in high-stakes patent disputes.

• Douglas Hallward-Driemeier

  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Heads Ropes & Gray's appellate and Supreme Court practice and has argued numerous cases before the Federal Circuit.

• Brian Lebow

  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation with an emphasis on patent disputes in the technology sector.