Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. et al.

Case overview. Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. et al. is a patent infringement and business-tort case filed September 14, 2021 in the Alexandria Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 1:21-cv-01051) and transferred intra-district two days later to the Richmond Division as No. 3:21-cv-00597 (Dkt. 1, E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2021; Justia dockets 1:2021cv01051 and 3:2021cv00597). Plaintiff Centripetal Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Herndon, Virginia — a cybersecurity operating company (network packet-filtering/threat-detection products) that also litigates aggressively; it is separately known for its huge, later-vacated damages award against Cisco in E.D. Va. and its later suit against Palo Alto Networks in the same district. Defendants are LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc., a Delaware cybersecurity/threat-intelligence company headquartered in Reston, Virginia, plus individual/VC defendants: Gilman Louie (LookingGlass's CEO and a principal of the Alsop Louie investment entities), Alsop Louie Management LLC, Alsop Louie Capital 2, L.P., and Alsop Louie Partners 2, LLC (San Francisco-based investors). The complaint asserts patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 plus state-law claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and was filed under seal with a redacted public version and motion to seal (Dkt. 1–6) — meaning the non-patent theories (which appear aimed at LookingGlass's CEO and VC backers, presumably for misuse of confidential information gained through a business/investment relationship with Centripetal) are largely shielded from public view. The publicly available complaint describes the accused conduct generically as LookingGlass's use, sale, and offer of "telecommunication products, including networking switches, routers, and cloud products" in the district; product-level infringement contentions sit in sealed exhibits and are not publicly verified.

Patents and technical posture. The case asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 10,757,126, 10,735,380, and 10,785,266 (Centripetal's portfolio of gateway packet-filtering and threat-intelligence enforcement patents). The '126 patent (U.S. 10,757,126, "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection," issued Aug. 25, 2020) is directed to a packet-filtering device that applies rules tied to network-threat indicators (addresses, ports, FQDNs, URLs) with allow/block "operators," logs the action taken, and communicates threat information to a user interface — Centripetal also asserted this same patent (with siblings) against Palo Alto Networks in E.D. Va. (2:21-cv-00137). The '380 patent (U.S. 10,735,380, "Filtering Network Data Transfers," issued Aug. 4, 2020) is directed to filtering data transfers by inspecting data-transfer-request header fields to determine whether a transfer protocol implicates network-exfiltration methods specified in packet-filtering rules. The '266 patent (U.S. 10,785,266) is likewise from Centripetal's packet-filtering security portfolio; its asserted title/specification could not be independently verified from the sources retrieved in this analysis, but the record confirms Centripetal pleaded it here (Palo Alto Networks' mandatory notice in IPR2021-01154, which challenges the '266 patent, expressly cites this E.D. Va. action as asserting it), and it was later challenged in Keysight Technologies' IPR2023-00445. Docket trackers (UniCourt, DocketAlarm) list Judge David J. Novak as the presiding judge (note: some trackers label him "District Judge," though E.D. Va. sources identify Novak as a magistrate judge; the exact assignment posture is not independently verified). The case is listed as closed as of roughly mid-2023 (UniCourt's last update, May 31, 2023), but the specific disposition — settlement, stipulation, or dismissal — is not verifiable from publicly retrieved docket text and should be confirmed on PACER.

Why the case matters. First, venue and parties: both operating companies are Northern Virginia cybersecurity firms (Herndon and Reston) squarely inside E.D. Va. — the "Rocket Docket" — and the complaint invoked LookingGlass's Reston facility for venue and personal jurisdiction, so this is a home-forum fight between competitors rather than a typical NPE case. Second, the case is procedurally unusual because Centripetal paired infringement with contract/fiduciary-duty claims against not just the competitor but its CEO and its venture-capital backers, a minority/investor-liability theory that tracks Centripetal's broader post-Cisco enforcement campaign; the sealing of those allegations makes the case's full theory opaque. Third, there is a direct IPR linkage: the asserted '266 and '126 patents sit at the center of Palo Alto Networks' multi-petition IPR assault on Centripetal's portfolio (e.g., IPR2021-01154 on the '266; IPR2021-01148 on the '126), and in October 2024 the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB obviousness findings invalidating claims of the related '126 (and '028/'413) patents in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2024) — developments that would have materially undermined the '126 assertions in this now-closed case had it remained active. Sources: Justia dockets (1:21-cv-01051; 3:21-cv-00597); UniCourt; DocketAlarm (complaint text, Dkt. 1); PAN IPR2021-01154 mandatory notice (Oct. 19, 2021); IPWatchdog Patent Filings Roundup (Sept. 22, 2021); Fed. Circuit Blog and A&O Shearman/Stone's summaries of the Oct. 31, 2024 Federal Circuit rulings. Unverified items flagged above: the specific accused LookingGlass products, the substance of the sealed fiduciary-duty/contract allegations, the '266 patent's title, and the exact closing event.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches to piece together the procedural history, key rulings, and outcome.

The initial filing and transfer are confirmed. Now let me dig into subsequent docket events, motions, and the PTAB proceedings.

Key facts are emerging: the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by January 2022. Let me verify the full docket history and understand the context (including why it was dismissed and any relationship to later cases).

Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. et al. — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Note on sources: The district docket is thin and partly sealed; the case ended in a little over four months, so most of the typical patent-litigation milestones (answer, Markman, discovery orders, trial) never occurred. Below is what is verifiable from PACER-sourced aggregators (DocketAlarm, Justia, UniCourt), IPWatchdog, and secondary IP press. Where a fact is not well sourced, I say so.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2021-09-14 — Complaint filed (EDVA, Alexandria Division, No. 1:21-cv-01051). Centripetal Networks, Inc. sued LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc., Gilman Louie (LookingGlass CEO and an Alsop Louie principal), Alsop Louie Management LLC, Alsop Louie Capital 2, L.P., and Alsop Louie Partners 2, LLC. The complaint asserted patent infringement plus breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, with a jury demand (ECF No. 1, with 22 exhibits).
• The asserted patents, per the case metadata, were U.S. Patent Nos. 10,785,266 ("Methods and Systems for Protecting a Secured Network"), 10,757,126 ("Rule-based Network-Threat Detection"), and 10,735,380 ("Filtering Network Data Transfers"). The '266 patent's assertion in this case is independently corroborated by Palo Alto Networks' IPR mandatory-notice filing, which lists this EDVA case as related litigation asserting the '266 patent (IPR2021-01154, Paper 6, 2021-10-19).
• Same day — Motion to seal (ECF No. 3). Centripetal moved to seal specified complaint paragraphs (¶¶ 7–8, 11, 39–42, 44–45, 206–211, 218, 223, 229), representing they contained confidential/proprietary/trade-secret information. The complaint was filed in redacted public form (ECF No. 1) with a sealed version (ECF No. 6).
• 2021-09-16 — Intradistrict transfer. The case was transferred from the Alexandria Division to the Richmond Division and re-docketed as 3:21-cv-00597, assigned to Judge David J. Novak (ECV docket text; UniCourt/Justia).
• No answer or counterclaims are reflected in the public docket records retrieved (DocketAlarm shows only ECF Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 8 for the transferred case). The case was voluntarily dismissed before any defendant answer appears to have been filed. I did not find any docket entry showing defendants' counsel or pleadings.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• The only motion located is Centripetal's motion to seal (ECF No. 3). No motion to dismiss, no motion for transfer (the Richmond transfer was sua sponte/intradistrict), no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary-judgment motion appear in the records retrieved.
• 2021-12-13 — Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice (ECF No. 7) filed by Centripetal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral voluntary dismissal of all claims before service of an answer or summary-judgment motion.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• None. The case never reached a scheduling order or claim-construction stage.

4. Discovery milestones

• None of substance. The litigation was terminated roughly four months after filing. No discovery orders, infringement-contentions disputes, or expert-stage events were found in the retrieved docket sources. (Note: the complaint's sealed paragraphs — including ¶¶ 206–211 and 218/223/229, which appear tied to the state-law fiduciary/contract claims — indicate the substance of the dispute involved confidential information, but the underlying details remain under seal.)

5. Trial events and post-trial motions

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion occurred.

6. Final disposition

• 2022-01-19 — Order (ECF No. 8): "Granting Motion to Seal, Dismissing Case Without Prejudice." Judge Novak (1) granted the motion to seal the identified complaint portions under Local Rule 5 and (2) dismissed all claims without prejudice pursuant to the plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice, directing that the case is CLOSED (DocketAlarm copy of ECF No. 8).
• Posture: Case closed as of 2022-01-19. UniCourt's later refresh (2023-05-31) confirms the case status is Closed. Because the dismissal was voluntary and without prejudice (no merits adjudication), there was no appeal. The public record does not state the parties' reason for the dismissal (settlement is plausible but unverified); some sources attribute no explanation on the docket.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and effect on this litigation

• The asserted Centripetal patents were heavily litigated in a parallel wave of IPRs filed by Palo Alto Networks in mid-2021 against related Centripetal patents asserted in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va.):
  • IPR2021-01154 (PAN v. Centripetal, '266 patent) was filed 2021-07-06; PAN's 2021-10-19 updated mandatory notice expressly identified the LookingGlass EDVA suit (1:21-cv-01051) as related litigation asserting the '266 patent.
  • PAN petitioned for IPR of each of its asserted patents (including the '126 patent and other members of the same family). In February 2023, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding claims of the '126 patent (and others) unpatentable as obvious over the "Sourcefire User Guide." The Federal Circuit affirmed those unpatentability findings on 2024-10-31 in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1654 (Fed. Cir.), per contemporaneous IP-blog coverage (Lexology/A&O Shearman).
  • Separately, Keysight Technologies petitioned for IPR of the '266 patent (citing its own EDVA litigation, Centripetal v. Keysight, No. 2:22-cv-00002), reflecting continuing validity challenges to the same Centripetal portfolio after this case closed.
  • These PTAB proceedings were brought by third parties (PAN, Keysight), not by LookingGlass or the Alsop Louie defendants — I found no evidence that the defendants here filed IPRs.
• Effect on this litigation: none procedurally. The LookingGlass case was voluntarily dismissed (2021-12-13 notice; 2022-01-19 order) before any PTAB institution decisions issued, so there was no stay motion, no estoppel ruling, and no PTAB-driven termination in this case. The later PTAB/Federal Circuit unpatentability findings (e.g., on the '126 patent) are consequential only as portfolio-wide developments that post-date — and arguably vindicate — the defendants' decision not to litigate this case to a merits stage.

---

Bottom line

This was a short-lived, voluntarily dismissed case: filed 2021-09-14 (Alexandria), transferred intradistrict to Richmond (Judge Novak) on 2021-09-16, and dismissed without prejudice at Centripetal's own initiative (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)) on 2022-01-19 — with the only court action being the sealing order and dismissal order. There were no substantive merits rulings, no Markman, no discovery battles, no trial, and no appeal. The case's significance lies mainly in its role as one front of Centripetal's broader assertion campaign over the '266/'126/'380 patent family, whose validity was later litigated at the PTAB (PAN and Keysight IPRs), with the Federal Circuit affirming unpatentability of at least the '126 patent on 2024-10-31.

News and analysis coverage of Centripetal v. LookingGlass

Coverage is extremely thin. Aggressive searches across the case caption, party names, asserted patent numbers (10,785,266; 10,757,126; 10,735,380), and the "verdict/settlement" angle turned up no substantive article in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog's analysis columns, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, JD Supra, or the trade press that specifically discusses this litigation. The only editorial-media trace found is a passing docket-table mention in an IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" (published 2021-09-22), which lists the newly filed case (3:21-cv-00597) and the asserted patent numbers among that week's district court filings. The roundup does not appear to offer any narrative analysis of the parties' dispute, the breach-of-contract/fiduciary-duty claims, or the requested relief.

What docket databases (not press) show. Public court-record aggregators confirm the procedural history: Justia Dockets and UniCourt show the complaint (patent infringement, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and abetting breach of fiduciary duty) was filed 2021-09-14 in the Alexandria Division and transferred intra-district to Richmond (3:21-cv-00597), where Judge David J. Novak presided. UniCourt's later status snapshot (last updated 05/31/2023) marks the case "Disposed - Other Disposed," which tracks the "closed" status in the case metadata, though no press outlet appears to have reported on the disposition, its terms, or any settlement.

Broader context and where reporting diverges. Media coverage of Centripetal's litigation campaign is extensive, but it centers on other disputes — most notably the since-vacated multibillion-dollar judgment against Cisco and the ITC dispute with Keysight. For example, Law360 index headlines dated June 12, 2026 reference the PTAB again finding a Centripetal patent invalid in the Cisco matter, and an April 29, 2026 Law360 index blurb reports the Federal Circuit declining to revive Centripetal's Cisco case; an April 23, 2026 blurb via The Lawyers Daily covers the Keysight/ITC decision. None of these address LookingGlass. Accordingly, any account of why this specific case matters, damages sought or awarded, or settlement terms would have to come from the court record itself — I found no reporter, analyst, or industry commentary making those claims about the LookingGlass suit.

Sources

• Cases
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA DIVISION
• Search court records on patent:(10757126)
• Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. et al
• Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. et al - This case was last updated from U
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Search court records on patent:(10735380), page 11 - - All Courts
• Patent Filings Roundup: Trio of Actions Accuse IP Investments of Coordinated Campaign with Intellectual Ventures Backend; Judge Albright Cancels One of 141 WSOU-Asserted Patents; New Magnetar Entity Surfaces - 3:21-cv-00597 | Filed | Centripetal Networks, Inc
• Appellate : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - June 12, 2026
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Trials : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - April 29, 2026

Based on the available docket records and case-tracking sources (Justia Dockets, Unicourt, Patexia, and DocketAlarm copies of E.D. Va. filings), the only plaintiff's attorney of record affirmatively identified is:

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Stephen Edward Noona (Stephen E. Noona / "Noona, Stephen")

• Role: Lead counsel of record / local Virginia counsel for plaintiff Centripetal Networks, Inc. in the E.D. Va. proceeding (VSB No. 25367). Noona signed the initiating papers — the Complaint (Dkt. 1), Corporate Disclosure Statement (Dkt. 2), Motion to Seal (Dkt. 3), supporting memorandum (Dkt. 4), and sealing notices (Dkt. 5–6) — all filed September 14, 2021, in the originating Alexandria case (1:21-cv-01051) and re-docketed in the Richmond Division after transfer (3:21-cv-00597). Unicourt's case page likewise lists Stephen Edward Noona as the plaintiff attorney.
• Firm and office: Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. — 150 West Main Street, Suite 2100, Norfolk, VA 23510 (tel. 757-624-3239; seonona@kaufcan.com). He chairs the firm's Litigation practice and co-chairs its Intellectual Property practice.
• Experience: Veteran "rocket docket" patent trial lawyer with ~40 years' experience and 125+ E.D. Va. patent appearances; Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He is Centripetal's standing Virginia counsel across its E.D. Va. patent campaigns, including Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:18-cv-00094, Norfolk, which produced one of the largest E.D. Va. patent verdicts before being remanded after the recusal/§ 455 rulings), Centripetal Networks v. Palo Alto Networks (2:21-cv-00137), and Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies (2:22-cv-00002).

Important caveats (what is not verified)

• Additional counsel not confirmed: Centripetal's national patent litigation campaigns are typically staffed by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel (e.g., James Hannah, Jeffrey H. Price) and Banner & Witcoff (e.g., Bradley C. Wright, Scott M. Kelly, Blair A. Silver) — those attorneys are on record for Centripetal as Patent Owner in parallel PTAB IPR2021-01154 (Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal). However, the docket excerpts I was able to retrieve for this LookingGlass case do not show any pro hac vice appearances or notices by out-of-state patent counsel, so I cannot confirm that any Kramer Levin or Banner & Witcoff attorney entered an appearance here. Do not treat them as counsel in this case without PACER verification.
• Post-transfer docket is incomplete in public sources: Justia's docket snapshot stops at the September 16, 2021 transfer entry; DocketAlarm indexes additional entries (e.g., Dkt. 7 dated Dec. 13, 2021, and Dkt. 8 dated Jan. 19, 2022), and Unicourt's last update (Nov. 13, 2021) still showed the case "Open." The case metadata marks the matter "Closed," but the specific disposition (voluntary dismissal, stipulated dismissal, or other termination) and the content of Dkts. 7–8 are unverified — they could contain appearances by additional counsel or the dismissal papers.
• Defense counsel: Not requested, but no defense counsel of record was identified in the sources retrieved; defense appearances would need PACER confirmation.

For a definitive roster (including any pro hac vice counsel, withdrawal/entry orders, and the closing entry), the authoritative source is the CM/ECF docket for Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Inc. et al., No. 3:21-cv-00597 (E.D. Va., Richmond Div.) (originally No. 1:21-cv-01051 (E.D. Va., Alexandria Div.)), Judge David J. Novak presiding.

I'll research the defense counsel of record in this case through multiple search approaches.

I found a key document — Dkt. 7 (Dec. 13, 2021) is Centripetal's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Now I need to determine whether defense counsel ever appeared before dismissal. Let me dig into the docket details.

Findings: Defense Counsel of Record

Bottom line: Based on every publicly accessible source I could retrieve, no defense attorney of record can be identified in this case — and the procedural record strongly suggests no defendant ever entered an appearance before the case was voluntarily dismissed three months after filing. I did not find (and will not invent) names for defendants LookingGlass Cyber Solutions, Gilman Louie, Alsop Louie Management LLC, Alsop Louie Capital 2, L.P., or Alsop Louie Partners 2, LLC.

What the record actually shows

1. Every substantive docket entry through dismissal is plaintiff-driven.

• Dkts. 1–6 (filed Sept. 14, 2021, in the originating Alexandria case 1:21-cv-01051; re-docketed in Richmond as 3:21-cv-00597 after the Sept. 16, 2021 intra-district transfer) are Centripetal's Complaint, Corporate Disclosure Statement, Motion to Seal and supporting papers — all bearing only plaintiff counsel Stephen E. Noona's signature (Justia Dockets; UniCourt; Patexia document lists).
• UniCourt's case page, last updated Nov. 13, 2021, lists only one attorney under "Attorney/Law Firm Details": plaintiff's counsel Stephen Edward Noona. No defense attorney appears.
• Justia's snapshot (retrieved Sept. 16, 2021) ends at the transfer entry with no defense filings of any kind.

2. The case ended before an answer was due/served — explaining the absence of defense counsel.

• DocketAlarm's copy of Dkt. 7, filed December 13, 2021, is Centripetal's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), "with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys' fees." Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits dismissal only before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment — which means, as of Dec. 13, 2021, no defendant had answered (and no summary-judgment motion had been filed). Nothing in the free docket sources shows a waiver of service, an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a notice of appearance from any defendant in the intervening three months.
• Dkt. 8 (Jan. 19, 2022) exists on DocketAlarm's index but its contents are not publicly retrievable/verified; it most plausibly is the clerk's post-dismissal closing/termination entry, but I could not confirm its text.

3. The dismissal notice's signature block corroborates that only plaintiff-side counsel were on the record. The notice is signed by Noona (Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk), Kevin O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell P.C., Alexandria — plaintiff's additional local counsel), and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel attorneys Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Kristopher Kastens, and Hannah Lee (Menlo Park) — i.e., Centripetal's full trial team. No defense counsel signed or was copied as counsel of record.

Caveats (explicit, as required)

• PACER verification is needed for a definitive "no appearance" statement. Free aggregators (Justia, UniCourt, Patexia, DocketAlarm's index) do not always capture every entry, and portions of this docket were sealed at filing (Centripetal filed a sealing motion with the complaint). It is conceivable that defense counsel filed a notice of appearance or that service/waiver documents exist that are not indexed in the free sources — but nothing I retrieved evidences that.
• Sealed filings: The complaint and exhibits were filed under seal with a public version (Dkt. 1), and the underlying contract/fiduciary-duty allegations were sealed. If any defense-side document was filed under seal, it would not surface in the sources above.
• Timing inference: Because the dismissal notice was filed only ~90 days after the complaint and invokes the pre-answer dismissal rule, the most probable explanation for the absence of identified defense counsel is that the defendants had not yet answered or appeared when Centripetal elected to dismiss (possibly reflecting a settlement, bankruptcy of LookingGlass, or a strategic retreat — none of which is confirmed by any source I found).

Recommendation for confirmation

The authoritative check is CM/ECF for No. 3:21-cv-00597 (E.D. Va., Richmond Div.; orig. 1:21-cv-01051, Alexandria Div.), Judge David J. Novak — specifically PACER docket entries 7–8 and any summons/waiver-of-service entries, plus the docket report's attorney list. If the task requires an affirmative roster of defense counsel (e.g., because a related case or refiled action exists), the natural candidates would be whoever represented LookingGlass in its contemporaneous matters, but I have no verified source tying any specific lawyer or firm to these defendants in this case and will not speculate further.