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

Case Overview

Parties and the dispute. Centripetal Networks, LLC (formerly Centripetal Networks, Inc.) is a Reston, Virginia-based cybersecurity technology company that develops and licenses "threat-intelligence gateway" technology — rule-based systems that filter, log, and correlate network packets to block malware and other threats. It is an operating/technology company rather than a classic non-practicing entity, though its monetization model is heavily litigation- and license-driven (it has sued Cisco, Keysight/IXIA, and Palo Alto Networks in the same Norfolk court over overlapping families). Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: PANW), the defendant, is the Santa Clara, California-based global cybersecurity vendor and pioneer of next-generation firewalls. Centripetal's March 12, 2021 complaint alleged that PAN's Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW) platforms, Panorama management console, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security service infringed Centripetal patents covering rule-based packet filtering, threat-intelligence correlation, and packet-threat logging — i.e., the core functionality by which PAN's products inspect traffic at the network boundary and correlate malicious-communication logs. The operative complaint asserted 13 patents (added the thirteenth, the '797, via amendment in July 2021): the '437, '903, '573, and '797 "Correlation" and packet-filtering patents that went to trial; plus the '028, '126, '413, '246, '906, and '899 (rule-based threat detection/logging family); the '266 and '343 (network-threat detection and threat-intelligence filtering); and the '380 (dynamic security policy/packet transformation). In technical shorthand: the '437 claims provisioning packet-security gateways with rules applied to all traffic crossing a boundary to drop malicious packet portions; the '903/'573/'797 ("Correlation Patents") claim correlating packets received/transmitted by a proxy (including encrypted traffic) via log timestamps and using that correlation to generate rules provisioning a packet-filtering device; the '028/'126/'413/'906/'899/'246/'266/'343 family members cover variants of rule-based network-threat detection, threat-identifier scoring, digest logging, and packet-by-packet transformation operations. One metadata caveat: the case record lists U.S. Patent No. 9,565,213 ("'213," Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection) as a patent at issue, but I could not verify that in this suit's operative complaint — public filings identify the 13 patents above, with PAN itself characterizing the '213 (and 9,137,205) as "Related Patents" from Centripetal's prior Cisco (2:18-cv-94) and Keysight (2:17-cv-383) actions that share families with the patents asserted here (ECF No. 194; IPR2021-01148 ex. 1069). If the '213 is in scope, it is the family's foundational rule-based threat-detection patent (boundary packet filter applying threat-indicator-based rules and logging events).

Procedural posture and venue. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division (No. 2:21-cv-00137), initially assigned to Judge Roderick C. Young (RCY) with Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask (RJK); by late 2023/early 2024 it had been reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (EWH) with Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard (LRL), who handled summary judgment, trial, and post-trial motions. Venue in EDVA was strategic: it is the "Rocket Docket," known for fast time-to-trial, and Centripetal is headquartered in Reston, Virginia (the Cisco and Keysight cases were tried in the same Norfolk division). PAN counterattacked at the PTAB, filing 13 IPR petitions and one PGR (July–August 2021) challenging all asserted patents; Judge Young stayed the case in March 2022 after five IPRs were instituted (also denying a motion to dismiss and Centripetal's bid to disqualify Ropes & Gray over a Silver Point Finance deal). After the PTAB invalidated six patents ('028, '126, '413, '246, '906, '899), the stay was lifted in May 2023, the '343/'266 claims were re-stayed, and the case went to trial in January 2024 on the '437 and the three Correlation Patents ('903, '573, '797) after summary judgment eliminated the '380. On January 31, 2024, the jury found PAN directly infringed all four remaining patents, awarded a $151.5 million lump-sum royalty, and rejected willfulness (Reuters, Jan. 31, 2024; Jury Verdict, ECF No. 851). Post-trial, Judge Hanes granted PAN's JMOL in part — entering non-infringement on the '437 and reducing the award — denied JMOL on the Correlation Patents (rejecting PAN's § 101 eligibility and evidentiary challenges) and denied a new trial (Mem. Op., ECF Nos. 970/989); judgment was entered October 3, 2024, and the case was closed. PAN appealed (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1167) and Centripetal cross-appealed (No. 25-1168); the appeals were consolidated and deactivated pending resolution of Centripetal's post-judgment motions for interest and fees (Justia Fed. Cir. docket 25-1168; ECF No. 1013).

Why the case is notable. This is the highest-profile installment of Centripetal's serial EDVA enforcement campaign against major network-security vendors. It follows the $2.75 billion bench-trial award Centripetal won against Cisco in 2020 — then the largest U.S. patent verdict ever — which the Federal Circuit vacated for judicial-conflict reasons and a different Virginia judge wiped out on retrial, making Centripetal's damages theory (built around its Keysight settlement) a flashpoint here. PAN's comprehensive IPR/PGR blitz created an unusually tight district-court/PTAB coupling: the PTAB invalidated six asserted patents (Federal Circuit affirmed as to '413 and the '028/'126 pair on Oct. 31, 2024), while the Board upheld the '903's patentability and the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded that decision on Dec. 16, 2024 (No. 23-1636) for the Board to reassess motivation-to-combine. The case also put § 101's Alice framework and the "Correlation Patents" squarely before a jury, tested the admissibility of litigation settlements as reasonable-royalty comparables, and — because the accused products are PAN's flagship NGFW, Panorama, and Cortex lines — carried real market significance for the enterprise-cybersecurity industry. As of this date, the trimmed verdict, post-JMOL damages reduction (exact reduced figure is in the sealed/public judgment record, which I could not fully verify), and the PTAB decisions remain the subject of active Federal Circuit proceedings.

Sources: Reuters (Jan. 31, 2024); RPX Litigation (verdict/IPR chronology); E.D. Va. docket ECF Nos. 194, 285, 702, 851, 956, 989, 1012–1013 (via CourtListener, DocketAlarm, Justia); Kramer Levin announcement; Federal Circuit decisions in Nos. 23-1654, 23-1785 (Oct. 31, 2024) and 23-1636 (Dec. 16, 2024); A&O Shearman IP blog; BankInfoSecurity. The '213-patent metadata discrepancy is flagged above because public filings do not list it among the 13 asserted patents.

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va.)

A preliminary docket note: The case metadata you supplied lists "patent 9565213" as the patent at issue. I could not confirm that patent number anywhere in this case's public record. The operative complaints and the Court's opinions identify 13 asserted patents, and the case that actually went to trial involved four. The 13 patents named in the court's March 2022 stay/disqualification opinion (ECF No. 285) are: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,542,028; 10,757,126; 10,530,903; 10,659,573; 10,567,437; 10,785,266; 10,567,343; 10,735,380; 10,503,899; 10,749,906; 10,091,246; 10,567,413; and 10,931,797. No. 9,565,213 does not appear in this action (it appears in Centripetal's litigation campaign against other defendants). All substantive developments below are grounded in the public docket and opinions for this case.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2021)

• 2021-03-12 — Complaint filed. Centripetal Networks, Inc. sued Palo Alto Networks (PAN) in the Norfolk Division of the E.D. Va., No. 2:21-cv-00137, asserting infringement of 12 patents through PAN's Next-Generation Firewall (NGFW), Panorama, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security products (ECF No. 1). The case was originally assigned to Judge Roderick C. Young (later reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes) with Magistrate Judges Krask/Leonard handling discovery. Centripetal pleaded direct infringement, induced and contributory infringement, and willfulness, seeking damages, trebling, and injunctive relief.
• April 2021 — PAN's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. PAN moved to dismiss, arguing (a) Alice/§ 101 ineligibility of the '126, '028, and '246 patents as directed to the abstract idea of "filtering and sorting data based on rules," and (b) pleading deficiencies on willfulness (no plausible pre-suit knowledge), contributory infringement (no allegations of no substantial non-infringing uses), and the specificity of direct/indirect infringement allegations (ECF No. 96, filed 2021-07-30, is PAN's renewed brief).
• July 2021 — Amended Complaint. Centripetal amended to add a newly issued 13th patent, the '797 patent (10,931,797); PAN renewed its dismissal motion against the amended pleading.
• Answer/counterclaims. PAN answered with invalidity, non-infringement, and other defenses (the precise counterclaim pleading date is not well-sourced in public summaries, but the docket reflects PAN's merits defenses throughout).

2. Parallel PTAB proceedings — and their controlling effect on the district case (2021–2024)

This is the single most important structural feature of the litigation: PAN challenged every asserted patent at the PTAB within months of suit, and the district case was stayed, partially lifted, and re-stayed in lockstep with the PTAB.

• July–August 2021 — 13 IPR petitions + 1 PGR petition filed by PAN against all claims of all 13 asserted patents (notice at ECF No. 100, 2021-08-04).
• By 2022-02-23 — Institution status (ECF No. 274 notice): PTAB had instituted 5 IPRs, denied institution on 6 IPRs and the PGR, with 2 pending.
• 2022-03 (approx.) — Judge Young's omnibus order (ECF No. 285): granted PAN's motion to stay pending the PTAB; denied PAN's motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay; and denied Centripetal's motion to disqualify Ropes & Gray (see § 4 below).
• February 2023 — First wave of Final Written Decisions: PTAB invalidated six asserted patents — the '028, '126, '413, '246, '906, and '899 patents. Example FWDs: IPR2021-01152 ('246, FWD 2023-01-24, all challenged claims unpatentable); IPR2021-01148 ('126, FWD 2023-02-09). Conversely, in IPR2021-01150 (the '903 Correlation Patent) the Board found PAN had not shown unpatentability (FWD 2023-02-15) — a decision PAN appealed.
• 2023-05 — Stay lifted for surviving patents. After the six FWDs, Judge Hanes (now presiding) granted Centripetal's motion to lift the stay.
• 2023-08 — Re-stay of two patents. After the PTAB instituted IPRs on the '343 and '266 patents, the court granted the parties' joint motion to stay those claims, leaving five patents active: '437, '380, '573, '903, '797.
• 2024-11-26 — Dismissal of stayed claims. After final judgment (below), the parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice of the still-stayed '266 and '343 claims (ECF No. 1012), which had not been resolved by the judgment.
• Post-judgment PTAB/CAFC tail: Centripetal's appeal from the six invalidation FWDs (Fed. Cir. No. 2023-1654) was affirmed 2024-10-31 (including the '028 and '126 patents). PAN's appeal in IPR2021-01150 (No. 2023-1636) yielded a 2024-12-16 Federal Circuit decision vacating and remanding the Board's patentability finding for inadequate explanation of its "motivation to combine" analysis. Separately, in June 2026 the Federal Circuit (Rule 36) affirmed PTAB FWDs in IPR2023-00445 and IPR2023-01329 (appeal Nos. 2024-2372/2024-2373). A related PAN/Cisco/Keysight IPR appeal over the '856 patent (Fed. Cir. No. 23-2027, decided 2025-10-22) involves a patent not asserted in this case but illustrates the broader Centripetal-PTAB campaign.

3. Motion to dismiss / transfer / summary judgment motions

• Motion to dismiss (2021–2022): Denied without prejudice by Judge Young in the March 2022 stay order (ECF No. 285), with leave to refile after the PTAB stay.
• No venue/transfer motion of substance is reflected in the sources; venue lay in the E.D. Va. (Centripetal's home forum; PAN did not prevail on any transfer).
• Rule 12(c)/Alice motion on the '380 patent (late 2023): PAN's motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the '380 patent was denied; at the 2024-01-04 hearing the court converted and denied the Alice motion as to the '903, '573, and '797 patents, finding genuine issues of material fact on the Alice step-two "inventive concept" question.
• PAN's summary judgment motion (ECF No. 460) — Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2024-01-02 (ECF No. 702): denied in part on direct infringement of the '437 patent and the "Correlation Patents" ('903, '573, '797) (genuine disputes on whether NGFW rules apply to "all network traffic," gateway-array deployment, and correlation logging), and on indirect infringement, § 112 validity, willfulness, and foreign-sales theories; reserved ruling on the '380 patent.
• 2024-01-13 — Summary judgment for PAN on the '380 patent (ECF No. 742): the court granted PAN summary judgment of no direct infringement of claims 16 and 25 of the '380 patent, holding Centripetal could not show the accused products "determine whether a value of the data transfer request field indicates … network exfiltration methods" under the court's claim construction ("application layer header").
• 2024-01-19 — Centripetal's § 112 motion denied (written description of '437 claim 8); its other partial-SJ requests were denied or mooted (ECF No. 463).

4. Attorney-disqualification dispute (a distinctive early skirmish)

Centripetal moved to disqualify PAN's counsel Ropes & Gray based on Ropes & Gray's representation of Silver Point Finance in a potential Centripetal financing deal and alleged access (via NDA and data room) to Centripetal litigation confidences. Judge Young denied disqualification in the March 2022 order (ECF No. 285), holding there was no implied attorney–client relationship, that Centripetal mischaracterized the NDA and the transaction (financing, not patent litigation), and that Centripetal was not Ropes & Gray's former client. The PTAB likewise rejected disqualification in the parallel IPRs.

5. Claim construction (Markman)

• Briefing: Opening briefs 2023-07-14 (ECF Nos. 357, 359); replies 2023-07-28 (ECF Nos. 363, 366); Markman hearing 2023-09-11 (Tr. ECF No. 438); supplemental briefs 2023-10-02 (ECF Nos. 445, 448).
• Memorandum Opinion and Order, 2023-10-11 (ECF No. 452): The court adopted six stipulated constructions and construed ten disputed terms across the five active patents (three families: the Ahn/Correlation patents '903/'573/'797; the Moore/exfiltration '380 patent; and the Rogers/packet-security-gateway '437 patent). Notable outcomes:
  • "Configured/configure to/configured to" — construed to require pre-existing programming of hardware and software to perform the cited functionality without modification, adopting the ITC's construction in Centripetal's parallel ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 (rejecting Centripetal's "capable of" reading).
  • "A plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary of a network" — construed as "two or more packet security gateways arranged such that there is no network path across a boundary of a network that bypasses the packet security gateways."
  • "Header region of the identified at least one application packet" — construed as the application-layer header, a construction that later doomed the '380 patent at summary judgment.
  • "Responsive to [the correlating]" / "based on [the determined correlation]" — construed as "plain and ordinary meaning in the context which it appears, i.e., the correlating or the determined correlation is the impetus for the remedial steps" (the court relied on Centripetal's own PTAB statements distinguishing prior art, but declined PAN's "in reaction to" formulation).
• 2024-01-09 Daubert/estoppel ruling: the court struck portions of Centripetal expert Michael Mitzenmacher's opinions that contradicted PTAB factual findings affirmed on appeal, applying collateral estoppel (per Goodwin/Mondaq summary), while permitting opinions on claim applicability.

6. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• Infringement-contentions battle: PAN moved to compel Centripetal to fully answer Interrogatory No. 1 — demanding product-by-product, limitation-by-limitation claim charts (McGuireWoods/Norton Rose Fulbright/Ropes & Gray motion). Infringement-contentions specificity was also the core of the Rule 12(b)(6) attack. The final pre-trial infringement contentions (ECF No. 462-33) limited the case to: '437 claim 8 (Panorama and Panorama+NGFW); '380 claims 16/25 (NGFW+ATP, NGFW+DNS Security, NGFW+Domain Fronting); and Correlation Patents claims (NGFW; NGFW+Cortex XDR; +XSOAR; +XSIAM).
• PTAB record used offensively in the district case: PAN leveraged appellate-affirmed PTAB factual findings to estop Centripetal's experts (Jan. 2024 order), and Centripetal's PTAB claim-scope concessions were used against it at Markman.
• Expert disclosures: Centripetal's damages model centered on its expired Keysight license — which PAN attacked at trial as non-comparable (a major trial theme in PAN's pretrial bench brief, ECF No. 734).

7. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions (2024)

• Trial: 2024-01-22 through 2024-01-31, before Judge Hanes, on four patents: '437, '903, '573, '797. PAN conceded no § 102/103 invalidity defenses at trial and pressed § 101 and § 112; it also contested damages and extraterritoriality.
• Jury verdict, 2024-01-31 (ECF No. 851):
  • Direct and literal infringement: claim 8 of the '437 patent; claim 10 of the '903 patent; claims 1 and 9 of the '573 patent; claims 1, 12, and 17 of the '797 patent.
  • Induced infringement: claim 1 of the '573 patent and claim 1 of the '797 patent.
  • Doctrine of equivalents: claim 8 of the '437 patent.
  • No willful infringement.
  • Damages: $151.5 million total lump-sum royalty — $37.875 million per patent ($33.709M U.S. sales + $4.166M foreign sales per patent).
• Post-trial motions:
  • 2024-02-29 — PAN's JMOL (ECF No. 900) and motion for a new trial (ECF No. 906): argued the Correlation Patents are directed to abstract ideas and that improper evidence "infected the entire trial."
  • 2024-03-28 — Centripetal's opposition.
  • 2024-10-03 — Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF No. 970) + Final Judgment (ECF No. 972): The court granted JMOL in part and denied it in part, and denied the new-trial motion. Holdings: (1) asserted claims of the '903, '573, and '797 patents are patent-eligible, with substantial evidence supporting infringement and the damages award; (2) insufficient evidence supported the jury's '437 infringement finding — judgment of non-infringement of the '437 patent entered on direct and DOE theories; (3) damages reduced to $113,625,000 ($101,126,250 for U.S. sales; $12,498,750 for foreign sales) as a lump-sum royalty for the life of the '903, '573, and '797 patents. The court also denied Centripetal's post-verdict motions (ECF Nos. 818, 841, 847). Case closed 2024-10-03/17.

8. Post-judgment proceedings, fees, and appeal (2024–present)

• 2024-10-17 — Centripetal post-judgment motions: (1) prejudgment and post-judgment interest (ECF Nos. 978–979); (2) attorney's fees and non-taxable costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (ECF Nos. 983–984). These were fully briefed and pending before the district court through late 2024.
• 2024-11-01 / 2024-11-04 — PAN notice of appeal; Centripetal cross-appeal. Docketed in the Federal Circuit as Nos. 25-1167 (PAN) and 25-1168 (Centripetal) on 2024-11-13.
• 2024-11-26 — Joint stipulation dismissing without prejudice the stayed '266 and '343 claims (ECF No. 1012).
• 2024-12-11 — Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals as appeal/cross-appeal and deactivated them pending the Rule 4(a)(4) post-judgment motions.
• 2025-12-22 — Federal Circuit reactivated the appeal once the district court disposed of the final post-judgment motion; PAN's opening brief was due 2026-02-20 (counsel: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr for PAN; Clement & Murphy / Dowd Scheffel and Kramer Levin/Herbert Smith Freehills for Centripetal).
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-02): the appeal and cross-appeal are pending and active in the Federal Circuit (Nos. 25-1167/25-1168), challenging the October 3, 2024 judgment — including the JMOL reversal of the '437 verdict and the damages reduction, the eligibility holdings, and the denial of a new trial. No Federal Circuit merits decision in the district-court appeal had issued as of the information available.

---

Bottom line

Centripetal won a $151.5M jury verdict (2024-01-31) on four patents; the court reduced it to $113.625M on JMOL (2024-10-03) by vacating the '437 infringement finding while upholding eligibility and infringement on the three Correlation Patents; the new-trial motion was denied; the case was closed; and the dispute is now on appeal at the Federal Circuit (briefing underway since December 2025), with parallel PTAB appeals having produced a mix of affirmances (invalidating several asserted patents) and remands. Fee and interest motions were resolved in the district court, clearing the way for the active appeal.

Sourcing caveats: Dates and docket numbers are drawn from the E.D. Va. docket documents and opinions located via Justia/CourtListener/Docket Alarm, the RPX litigation summary, Law360 summaries, A&O Shearman and Lexology digests, and Federal Circuit opinions/orders. A few items I could not independently verify and so flagged inline: the precise date of PAN's answer/counterclaims, the formal reassignment order from Judge Young to Judge Hanes, and the resolution specifics of Centripetal's fee motion (the Federal Circuit's reactivation order indicates it was resolved by December 2025, but the docket text of that ruling was not retrieved).

Press coverage summary

Coverage of the EDVA case centers on the January 2024 jury trial and the resulting eight-figure verdict. Reuters reported on 2024-01-31 that a Virginia jury awarded Reston-based Centripetal Networks $151.5 million after finding Palo Alto Networks' Cortex platform, NextGen firewalls and other software infringed four patents covering Centripetal's "threat intelligence gateway" technology. The Wall Street Journal noted the award amounted to roughly $37.9 million per infringed patent, and the Silicon Valley Business Journal reported on 2024-02-02 that Palo Alto said it would pursue post-trial relief. Post-verdict docket coverage is tracked on Law360's case page, which reported that Palo Alto moved to set aside the $151.5 million verdict or win a new trial (2024-02-29), Centripetal urged Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes to keep it (2024-03-28), and the court on 2024-10-31 ruled Palo Alto didn't infringe one of the four patents, cutting the award to $113.6 million. Palo Alto's annual report filed with the SEC confirms the October 3, 2024 judgment affirmed infringement on three patents ('903, '573, '797), reversed on the '437 patent, reduced damages to about $113.6 million plus interest, and that Palo Alto posted a surety bond preventing execution while appeals are pending.

Outlets frame the significance through Centripetal's history of enforcing its network-security portfolio against major vendors. Reuters noted Centripetal previously won a $2.75 billion award—then the largest in U.S. patent history—against Cisco in 2020, only to see it thrown out on appeal and a rehearing end in Cisco's favor. SC Media covered the March 2021 filing as another instance of Centripetal pursuing "industry titans," alleging that 2016 partnership and investment talks with Palo Alto (including a meeting with MineMeld's developer) disclosed the patented technology before Palo Alto declined the deal. The Silicon Valley Business Journal added market-color reporting: Palo Alto was then the world's most valuable public cybersecurity company at a roughly $108.5 billion market cap, while Centripetal is privately held with about $46.4 million raised from venture backers. The case also drew professional recognition—Kramer Levin (plaintiffs' counsel, now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer) announced in April 2025 that the matter won Managing IP's 2025 "Impact Case of the Year" award, and its trial team earned "Runners-up Honors" in Litigation Daily's Litigator of the Week column on 2024-02-02.

Reporting also goes beyond the court record with executive statements, analyst takes, and later disclosures. Palo Alto told Reuters the verdict was "contrary to both the law and the extensive evidence we presented at trial," while Centripetal COO Jonathan Rogers told the Silicon Valley Business Journal the company "strongly believe[s] in the protection of intellectual property." Trade press was more skeptical: SC Media quoted SW Labs researcher Adrian Sanabria warning that some asserted claims described "basic IDS/IPS functionality that has been around for 20-plus years" and "would apply to nearly every network security vendor," and BankInfoSecurity characterized the outcome as "patent theft" in its headline. Figures also diverge slightly across outlets: the headline of RPX's litigation tracker says $151.1 million even though its text and every other outlet report $151.5 million ($37.875 million × four patents). Palo Alto's SEC annual report adds financial detail absent from verdict coverage: it accrued $184.4 million for the verdict plus estimated interest as of July 31, 2024, later releasing $38.8 million as the judgment was reduced to a $145.6 million accrual, and disclosed parallel Centripetal infringement contentions at the EPO and UPC in Germany. Notably, Kramer Levin's own announcement touts that the jury found Palo Alto's firewalls infringed "all four" patents—a statement the post-trial judgment partially walked back.

Coverage of the parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit track is extensive and explains how a 13-patent case shrank to four tried patents. RPX documented that Palo Alto filed IPRs against essentially all 13 asserted patents, six were invalidated by the PTAB in 2023, and the case was stayed and unstayed repeatedly before trial. IPWatchdog reported on 2024-10-31 that the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB obviousness findings invalidating Centripetal's '028, '126, and '413 patents (also covered by A&O Shearman and JD Supra); then, per IPWatchdog and Lexology, the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision that had spared the '903 patent—the very patent that survived to trial and the $113.6 million judgment—because the Board's motivation-to-combine analysis was inadequately explained. One caveat: although the case metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,565,213 as at issue, none of the located press coverage discusses that patent by number; reporting focuses on the 12-13 asserted patents (notably the '903, '573, '797, and '437 patents tried in 2024) and treats the dispute as a verdict-driven, unresolved-until-appeal matter rather than one with any reported settlement.

Sources

• The following matters arose in the ordinary course of business
• A&O Shearman | IP Blog | Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Unpatentability Findings Regarding Network Security Patents
• Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks — Network Threat Detection Patent | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division
• UPC Invalidates Cyberanalysis Patent in Centripetal v Palo Alto | EIP
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Invalidity of Centripetal's network threat detection patent affirmed on appeal
• Federal Circuit Vacates And Remands PTAB Decision In Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal Networks Over Motivation To Combine Prior Art - Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.
• Virginia Jury Returns $151.1M Verdict for Centripetal Networks - News | RPX Empower
• Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• A&O Shearman | IP Blog
• Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - This case was last updated from U
• IPR2021-01150 - Palo Alto Networks Incorporated v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. IPR of US10530903B2 | RPX Insight

I'll research counsel of record for Centripetal in this case through docket sources, firm pages, and press coverage.

I have strong initial leads (Kramer Levin + Kaufman & Canoles). Let me dig into the docket's attorney lists, pro hac vice motions, in-house counsel, and appellate counsel.

Good progress. Now let me verify the full docket counsel list (including any in-house counsel), the pro hac vice admissions, and the Federal Circuit appeal counsel for Nos. 25-1167/25-1168.

I have reached the search-step limit, so I'll now compile the answer from the verified docket and firm sources gathered above. Where a fact could not be confirmed, I flag it explicitly rather than guess.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Centripetal Networks, Inc./LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2:21-cv-00137)

Two law firms carried the representation: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (lead/out-of-state trial counsel, appearing pro hac vice) and Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. (Virginia local counsel). (Note on firm identity: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel merged with Herbert Smith Freehills in early 2025 to become Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP; the firm's own victory announcements for this case now appear on hsfkramer.com.)

Lead / trial counsel — Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Offices: originally 990 Marsh Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025 (complaint and 2021 filings); later 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (2024 filings).

Kramer Levin's firm release also credits associates Cristina L. Martinez, Aakash Jariwala, Linda Xu, Violaine Brunet, Dana Anderson, and Zehra Jafri on the trial team (HSF Kramer, "Kramer Levin Centripetal Trial Team Named 'Runners-up'…," Feb. 2024). Whether each of those associates formally entered an appearance as counsel of record is not something I could verify from the sources retrieved.

Local Virginia counsel — Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.

Other names that appear in the record (with caveats)

• "Henry & O'Donnell P.C." appears in the signature area of docket entry No. 7 (March 12, 2021) in search snippets. Its precise role — e.g., additional local counsel, or counsel for a third party involved in that exhibit filing — could not be confirmed from the materials retrieved; all subsequent Centripetal filings I located are signed only by Kaufman & Canoles and Kramer Levin.
• In-house counsel: I found no in-house attorney of record for Centripetal in this case in the sources available. That does not rule one out (filings may exist that I could not retrieve), but I will not invent one.
• Appellate counsel (Fed. Cir. Nos. 25-1167/25-1168): The district-court appeals were docketed in late 2024 and later deactivated pending post-judgment motions; I could not retrieve the Federal Circuit party/counsel pages for those specific numbers before hitting the search limit. For context, in Centripetal's parallel Federal Circuit IPR appeals the company has been represented by Kramer Levin (e.g., Hannah in No. 23-1731; Andre listed with Banner & Witcoft attorneys Jeffrey Price, John R. Hutchins, Scott M. Kelly, and Bradley Charles Wright) and, in the consolidated No. 23-2027 appeal, by Paul D. Clement, Joseph DeMott, and Matthew Rowen (Clement & Murphy, PLLC) and Matthew J. Dowd and Robert J. Scheffel (Dowd Scheffel PLLC). But those are PTAB-appeal counsel, not the counsel of record in this EDVA case, and I have not verified who signed the notice of appeal in 25-1167/25-1168.

Sources relied on

Docket entries ECF Nos. 7, 55 (as reflected in the IPR2021-01152 exhibit minute entry of July 21, 2021), 97, 135, 170/172, 807, 860, 963 (DocketAlarm/UniCourt); Law360 docket minute entries for jury-trial days (Jan. 29, 2024) and transcript filings; Kramer Levin / Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer announcements (Feb. 2024 verdict and trial-team releases, Managing IP Impact Case of the Year 2025); Federal Circuit decisions in Nos. 23-1731 (Nov. 6, 2024) and 23-2027 (Oct. 22, 2025, listing Clement & Murphy/Dowd Scheffel as appellate counsel for the IPR appeal); Above the Law (Feb. 2023) on Judge Albright's sanctions order and the PTAB pro hac denial.

Defense counsel of record — Centripetal Networks, Inc. (LLC) v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.)

Palo Alto Networks ("PAN") fielded a multi-firm defense team whose composition shifted over the life of the case: McGuireWoods LLP supplied Virginia local/lead trial counsel throughout; Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP supplied national patent-trial counsel from filing through trial and post-trial motions; Ropes & Gray LLP was the original national lead/IPR counsel (2021–2022, continuing in the parallel PTAB and Federal Circuit IPR appeals); and WilmerHale attorneys were admitted pro hac vice for PAN in February 2024 immediately after the verdict, apparently for post-trial/appellate work. No PAN in-house attorney appears on the public CM/ECF service lists I reviewed.

McGuireWoods LLP (Virginia local counsel; lead trial counsel)

• Robert W. McFarland — Lead Virginia counsel / trial counsel. McGuireWoods LLP, Norfolk, VA (VSB No. 24021). Signed PAN's answer-era pleadings and post-trial filings (e.g., PAN's Request for Hearing on Post-Trial Motions, ECF No. 958), argued for PAN at the July 21, 2021 initial pretrial conference, and was lead name at trial (per Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry and Day 6 trial transcript). Veteran EDVA patent/trial lawyer with a large Norfolk commercial and IP trial practice.
• David E. Finkelson — Local counsel / co-counsel. McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA (VSB No. 44059). Certifying local counsel for essentially all of PAN's pro hac vice admissions in 2021 (ECF Nos. 44–49: Radsch, Batchelder, Redding, DeBrow, etc.); appeared at the initial pretrial conference and at trial. McGuireWoods commercial litigator; EDVA "Rocket Docket" fixture.
• Jonathan Paul Harmon — Co-counsel / trial counsel. McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, VA. Listed for PAN on trial days (Day 6 transcript, ECF No. 828) and on post-reassignment filings captioned EWH–RJK (e.g., discovery correspondence signed with Finkelson). McGuireWoods Richmond litigator.

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (national patent/technical co-lead; trial counsel)

• Brett C. Govett — Lead trial counsel (pro hac vice). Norton Rose Fulbright, Dallas, TX. Appeared for PAN at the July 2021 pretrial conference, throughout discovery, at the January 2024 trial, and on post-trial motions (signature on ECF No. 958). NRF partner and experienced patent/technology trial lawyer (email on the CM/ECF service list: brett.govett@nortonrosefulbright.com).
• James S. Renard — Trial/post-trial counsel (pro hac vice). Norton Rose Fulbright, Dallas, TX. Signed the post-trial request for hearing (ECF No. 958) alongside McFarland and Govett; present at trial.
• Daniel Scott Leventhal — Co-counsel (pro hac vice). Norton Rose Fulbright (Dallas/Austin). On the CM/ECF service list from 2021; trial counsel per the January 2024 minutes.
• Stephanie Nicole DeBrow — Co-counsel (pro hac vice, admitted Apr. 2021, ECF No. 40/41). Norton Rose Fulbright. Discovery correspondence (2021) and trial counsel per the Jan. 29, 2024 minute entry.
• Talbot Hansum — Co-counsel (pro hac vice). Norton Rose Fulbright, Austin, TX (Senior Associate per his 2021 signature block). Wrote discovery meet-and-confer correspondence in Oct. 2021; trial counsel per the January 2024 minutes.
• Also on PAN's early CM/ECF service lists / email chains from Norton Rose Fulbright: Eric Brinn Hall, Jacqueline Groves Baker, Richard Stephen Zembek (and Daniel Prati on email chains). They were involved in 2021 discovery and appearances, but their continuing role through trial is not established from the sources reviewed.

Ropes & Gray LLP (original national lead patent-litigation counsel; IPR lead; Fed. Cir. IPR-appeal counsel)

• James Richard Batchelder — Lead district-court/IPR counsel (pro hac vice, admitted May 2021, ECF No. 45/48). Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto, CA (firm's 1900 University Ave. office per ECF No. 230). Ropes & Gray IP-litigation leader; the attorney whose Silver Point Finance work for a Centripetal counterparty triggered Centripetal's unsuccessful disqualification motion (denied, ECF No. 285, Mar. 1, 2022).
• Andrew Townsend Radsch — Co-lead district-court/IPR counsel (pro hac vice, ECF No. 44/47). Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto/San Francisco. Appeared for PAN in the IPRs and district court.
• Carolyn Louise Redding — Counsel (pro hac vice, ECF No. 46/49). Ropes & Gray, East Palo Alto.
• Josef Byks Schenker — Counsel (pro hac vice). Ropes & Gray, New York, NY. On the Dec. 2021 attorney list (ECF No. 230).
• Scott A. McKeown — Lead PTAB/IPR counsel. Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC. Argued PAN's IPR oral hearings (e.g., IPR2021-01147/-01148 on Nov. 1, 2022) and handled the PTAB-side disqualification fight. Well-known post-grant/PTAB practitioner.
• Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier — Federal Circuit counsel (IPR appeals). Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC. Signed PAN's Federal Circuit briefs as appellee in the PTAB appeals (e.g., Nos. 23-1654, 23-1785), with Mark Rowland and Keyna Chow. Ropes & Gray appellate partner (the district-court judgment appeal, Fed. Cir. No. 25-1167, may be handled by different counsel — see below).

Caveat: Ropes & Gray does not appear on the January 2024 trial minutes (which list only the McGuireWoods and Norton Rose Fulbright lawyers above), suggesting PAN's trial team had been re-structured by then. A motion to withdraw as attorney (ECF No. 963) was granted on May 14, 2024 (ECF No. 964), but the public snippet I obtained does not identify which firm/attorney withdrew; I could not confirm from open sources whether Ropes & Gray formally withdrew from the district case.

WilmerHale (apparent post-verdict appellate counsel — admitted Feb. 2024)

Immediately after the Jan. 31, 2024 verdict, Judge Hanes granted a series of PAN pro hac vice motions:

• William Frank Lee (order ECF No. 895, Feb. 2024) — WilmerHale partner (Boston), one of the country's most prominent patent trial lawyers (e.g., lead counsel for Apple in Apple v. Samsung; former Harvard Law School dean/interim dean; former co-managing partner of WilmerHale).
• Mark Christopher Fleming (order ECF No. 888, Feb. 2024) — WilmerHale partner (Boston), appellate specialist and former Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General.
• Arthur Coviello (order ECF No. 894, Feb. 2024) and Kyle Steven Smith (order ECF No. 855, Feb. 2024) — appear to be WilmerHale lawyers supporting Lee/Fleming.

Caveat: The docket-order snippets confirm only the names and that they appeared for PAN; the WilmerHale affiliation is inferred from these individuals' well-documented practices (Lee and Fleming are WilmerHale partners; Coviello and Smith appear to be from the same firm) and is consistent with PAN's appeal of the $113.6M judgment (Fed. Cir. No. 25-1167). I could not verify their exact roles (e.g., whether they lead the district-court appeal) from the public record before the search cutoff.

Key sources

• CM/ECF minute entry, July 21, 2021 initial pretrial conference (service list with Ropes & Gray, McGuireWoods, and Norton Rose Fulbright emails); ECF No. 230 (Dec. 29, 2021 attorney list for PAN).
• UniCourt case snapshot (2:21-cv-00137) listing PAN attorneys incl. Hall, Govett, DeBrow, Baker, Zembek, Leventhal, Finkelson; PHV orders ECF Nos. 41, 47–49.
• Law360/Ropes & Gray docket minute entry for Jan. 29, 2024 (Day 6) naming PAN trial counsel; trial transcript Day 6 (ECF No. 828).
• PAN post-trial filing signature block (ECF No. 958) — McFarland (McGuireWoods, Norfolk) with Govett/Renard (Norton Rose Fulbright).
• DocketAlarm order index: PHV orders ECF Nos. 855, 888, 894, 895 (Smith, Fleming, Coviello, Lee — all for PAN, Feb. 2024); ECF No. 964 (withdrawal order, May 14, 2024).
• Mem. Op. ECF No. 285 (Mar. 1, 2022) — disqualification ruling and procedural history of counsel appearances (Batchelder/Radsch PHV motions, Ropes & Gray IPR appearances).
• PTAB/IPR transcripts and Fed. Cir. briefs — McKeown, Radsch (IPR hearings); Hallward-Driemeier, Chow, Rowland (Fed. Cir. Nos. 23-1654, 23-1785).

No filings are sealed in a way that would conceal counsel identities — all of the above appeared on the public docket; the one open question is the post-trial withdrawal (ECF No. 963/964) and the composition of PAN's team for the pending Fed. Cir. appeal (No. 25-1167), which the public snippets did not fully disclose.