Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Centripetal Networks, LLC, a cybersecurity solutions provider based in Herndon, Virginia, specializes in intelligence-driven security, offering its CleanINTERNET service and proprietary RuleGATE® appliance to proactively defend networks against advanced threats. Centripetal asserts its intellectual property against Cisco Systems, Inc., a multinational technology conglomerate headquartered in San Jose, California, known for developing and selling a wide range of networking, cybersecurity, collaboration, and data center hardware and software products. Cisco's accused products in this litigation include its widely deployed ASA firewall appliance family, Stealthwatch network detection platform, IOS XE networking software, and Catalyst 9000-series switches, effectively placing a significant portion of Cisco's enterprise security portfolio at issue.

The core of the dispute involves Centripetal's patents covering various network security technologies, including rule-based packet filtering, threat intelligence correlation, and encrypted traffic analysis. While Centripetal initially asserted 11 U.S. patents, the case's later stages focused on a subset, with U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 ('856 patent) among those initially found infringed, alongside patents such as 9,686,193 ('193 patent), 9,203,806 ('806 patent), and 9,560,176 ('176 patent). The '856 patent generally relates to advanced threat detection methods utilizing dynamically updated rule sets for network security. The case is venued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, with Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes currently presiding. The EDVA is famously known as the "Rocket Docket" due to its expedited litigation process and efficient handling of complex cases, making it a desirable, albeit challenging, venue for patent litigants.

This case is particularly notable for its "unusual history" and significant financial implications. Initially, Centripetal secured a monumental judgment against Cisco, including a damages award of over $1.9 billion for past infringement and future royalties potentially reaching over $3.2 billion, which was, at the time, the largest award in any U.S. patent case. However, this verdict was later vacated by the Federal Circuit due to a conflict of interest involving the presiding judge, Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., who had discovered his wife's ownership of Cisco stock during the trial. The Federal Circuit remanded the case for proceedings before a newly appointed judge. The district court subsequently found non-infringement for several patents on remand, and the case was administratively closed in July 2025, pending further appeals to the Federal Circuit regarding issues of non-infringement and the ongoing status of the '856 patent after PTAB decisions.

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. has undergone a complex and lengthy legal battle, starting in 2018 and continuing through multiple appeals and PTAB proceedings. The case initially involved 11 patents related to network security, including U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2018)

  • Centripetal Networks, LLC filed its initial complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc. on February 13, 2018, in the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint initially asserted 10 U.S. patents.
  • An amended complaint was filed on March 29, 2018, adding U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 and bringing the total to 11 asserted patents.
  • On November 27, 2018, the case was reassigned to Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr., despite Cisco's opposition.

• Pre-Trial Motions & Discovery (2019-2020)

  • At some point, the district court issued a stay pending the outcome of several inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
  • In September 2019, the court lifted the stay for patents not subject to ongoing IPRs, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,137,205, 9,203,806, 9,560,176, 9,686,193, and 9,917,856.
  • A Markman (claim construction) hearing was held during the pre-trial phase.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions (2020-2021)

  • A 22-day bench trial was conducted via video conference from May 6 to June 11, 2020.
  • On October 5, 2020, District Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr. issued a judgment in favor of Centripetal Networks. The court found that Cisco willfully infringed four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,203,806, 9,560,176, 9,686,193, and 9,917,856.
  • The judgment included $755,808,545 in past damages, which was enhanced by 2.5 times to $1,889,521,362.50 due to willful infringement, along with $13,717,925 in prejudgment interest.
  • Additionally, the court awarded a running royalty of 10% on apportioned sales for the first three years and 5% for the subsequent three years, bringing the total potential damages award to a range of $2.6 billion to $3.2 billion. This was noted as one of the largest patent verdicts in U.S. history.
  • After the judgment, Cisco filed a motion for Judge Morgan's recusal, citing a conflict of interest due to his wife's ownership of Cisco stock. Judge Morgan had learned of his wife's approximately $4,687.99 in Cisco shares on August 11, 2020, after nearly completing his opinion, and placed them in a blind trust. He denied the recusal motion on October 2, 2020.
  • Cisco's other post-trial motions, including requests for a new trial, were denied on March 17, 2021.

• Appeal and Remand (2022-2023)

  • Cisco appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging both the infringement findings and the denial of the recusal motion.
  • On June 23, 2022, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment. The Federal Circuit found that Judge Morgan was required to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) due to his wife's financial interest in Cisco, and that placing the stock in a blind trust did not cure the conflict. The appellate court vacated all orders and opinions entered on or after August 11, 2020, and remanded the case for reassignment to a new judge, who was instructed to decide the case without regard for the vacated opinions.
  • Judge Morgan passed away in May 2022.
  • On August 23, 2022, the case was reassigned to a new judge, Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes.
  • On December 2, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Centripetal's petition for certiorari, which sought to challenge the Federal Circuit's recusal ruling.
  • On December 11 or 12, 2023, the newly assigned district judge, Judge Hanes, issued a ruling on remand. The court found that Centripetal failed to prove that Cisco infringed three of the previously asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,203,806, 9,500,176, and 9,686,193. The court therefore entered partial final judgment in favor of Cisco for these three patents. The status of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 remained pending after this ruling.

• Subsequent Appeals and Current Posture (2025-2026)

  • On April 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 9,686,193, 9,203,806, and 9,560,176 on appeal from the remand proceedings.
  • In July 2025, the district court administratively closed the case, pending further appeals before the Federal Circuit. This is a procedural closure, and the case will be restored to the active docket once appellate proceedings conclude.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

  • Cisco filed numerous IPR petitions against Centripetal's asserted patents. The PTAB invalidated claims of several of these patents.
  • For example, in March 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB decisions from January 2020 that invalidated claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,124,552 and 9,160,713 based on obviousness.
  • Claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,769,722 were also found unpatentable in May 2020.
  • Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, Palo Alto Networks (joined by Cisco and Keysight Technologies) filed an IPR petition in November 2021.
  • Centripetal sought recusal of an Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) on the PTAB panel for the '856 IPR due to his ownership of Cisco stock in September 2022. While the APJ withdrew, the panel initially denied Centripetal's motion to vacate the institution decision. The PTAB ultimately held claims 1, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 unpatentable as obvious.
  • In October 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB's final written decision concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. The Federal Circuit directed the PTAB to reconsider evidence relating to alleged copying by Cisco.
  • On June 15, 2026, the PTAB reportedly invalidated U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, following the Federal Circuit's remand, effectively invalidating the last remaining Centripetal patent tied to the vacated Cisco verdict.

The litigation between Centripetal Networks, LLC and Cisco Systems, Inc. has garnered significant media attention due to its substantial financial implications and unusual procedural history, particularly the judicial recusal issue. Initially, in October 2020, various outlets widely reported on the Eastern District of Virginia's judgment ordering Cisco to pay Centripetal Networks approximately $1.9 billion for willful patent infringement, with potential total damages reaching between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion including future royalties. This award was noted as one of the largest in U.S. patent history at the time. News coverage from CRN, TechTarget, Network World, and Data Center Knowledge highlighted Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.'s finding that Cisco's infringement was "willful and egregious," which led to the enhancement of damages. Centripetal's CEO, Steven Rogers, stated that the ruling affirmed the opportunity for innovative companies like theirs, while a Cisco spokesperson expressed disappointment and vowed to appeal, asserting their innovations predated Centripetal's patents.

The case's trajectory shifted dramatically when the Federal Circuit vacated the initial judgment in June 2022, a decision widely covered by legal news outlets such as IPWatchdog and legal analysis blogs. The vacatur stemmed from Judge Morgan's failure to recuse himself due to his wife's ownership of Cisco stock, even after placing it in a blind trust. This judicial ethics issue was a central point of discussion, with some analysts and Centripetal arguing that the Federal Circuit's ruling, which effectively wiped out the largest patent damages award in U.S. history on a procedural technicality, could disadvantage small inventors and foster "efficient infringement" by large corporations. The Supreme Court's subsequent denial of Centripetal's petition for certiorari further cemented the Federal Circuit's recusal ruling, a development reported by IPWatchdog in January 2023.

More recently, news reports have focused on the post-remand proceedings and parallel PTAB actions. In December 2023, IPWatchdog reported that the newly assigned district judge, Judge Hanes, found Centripetal failed to prove infringement for three of the previously asserted patents. Additionally, in October 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a PTAB decision concerning the '9917856 patent, instructing the PTAB to reconsider evidence of alleged copying by Cisco, as reported by ip fray and IPWatchdog. The saga continued in June 2026 when ip fray reported that the PTAB invalidated the '9917856 patent following this remand, effectively invalidating the last remaining patent tied to the vacated Cisco verdict. These developments underscore the complexity and protracted nature of high-stakes patent litigation, where outcomes can swing dramatically based on procedural issues and appellate review.

Sources

• crn.com
• techtarget.com
• centripetal.ai
• bannerwitcoff.com
• ctovision.com
• novotechip.com
• datacenterknowledge.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• manatt.com
• networkworld.com
• oceantomo.com
• haugpartners.com

Centripetal Networks, LLC has been represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from several prominent law firms throughout the course of this extensive litigation.

Current and Recent Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLC:

• ArentFox Schiff LLP

  • William R. Peterson (Partner, Washington, D.C. or Boston, MA) - Appears to be lead counsel, with extensive experience in patent litigation, including in the Eastern District of Virginia. ArentFox Schiff is noted for its patent litigation capabilities, particularly in complex technology and Hatch-Waxman cases, and its attorneys have experience in district court and Federal Circuit appeals.
  • Michael A. Ward (Partner, Washington, D.C.) - Likely plays a significant role in the litigation, given ArentFox Schiff's representation of Centripetal.
  • Michael J. Flibbert (Partner, Washington, D.C.) - Known for extensive experience in patent law, focusing on appeals and district court litigation, particularly in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and chemistry. He serves as lead counsel in IPR proceedings, district court litigations, and Federal Circuit appeals.

• Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (formerly Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP)

  • James R. Hannah (Partner, Redwood Shores, CA) - Argued for Centripetal Networks at the Federal Circuit in prior proceedings related to this case and in PTAB appeals. He has been a consistent presence in Centripetal's appellate matters.
  • Jeffrey Price (Counsel or Partner, New York, NY) - Also represented Centripetal Networks in PTAB appeals, indicating involvement in the strategic aspects of the patent's validity.
  • Jenna Fuller (New York, NY) - Also represented Centripetal Networks in PTAB appeals.
  • Paul J. Andre (Partner, Menlo Park, CA) - Argued for Centripetal Networks at the Federal Circuit in the initial appeal that led to the vacating of the verdict. He was quoted celebrating the initial district court judgment for Centripetal.

• Kirkland & Ellis LLP

  • While Kirkland & Ellis is a prominent firm in patent litigation, including "high-stakes, bet-the-company cases" and Federal Circuit appeals, and has represented Centripetal Networks in other matters, the provided search results do not explicitly name individual attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis as counsel of record for Centripetal in this specific Centripetal v. Cisco case or related appeals concerning the '9917856 patent. Their involvement might be for other related litigation or for appellate strategy.

• Banner & Witcoff LTD

  • Bradley Wright (Washington, DC) - Represented Centripetal Networks in PTAB appeals concerning the patents at issue.
  • Scott Kelly (Washington, DC) - Also represented Centripetal Networks in PTAB appeals.
  • John Hutchins (Washington, DC) - Also represented Centripetal Networks in PTAB appeals.
  • Blair A. Silver (Washington, DC) - Listed as representing Centripetal Networks in the initial Federal Circuit appeal.

• Dowd Scheffel PLLC

  • Matthew James Dowd (Washington, D.C.) - Listed as representing Centripetal in an appeal before the Federal Circuit related to an IPR of the '856 patent.
  • Robert James Scheffel (Washington, D.C.) - Also listed as representing Centripetal in an appeal before the Federal Circuit related to an IPR of the '856 patent.

• Clement & Murphy, PLLC

  • Paul D. Clement (Alexandria, VA) - Argued for Centripetal Networks in a Federal Circuit appeal concerning the '856 patent IPR. He is a highly experienced appellate attorney known for arguing before the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit.

• Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

  • Daniel J. Richardson (Washington, DC) - Argued for Centripetal Networks in a Federal Circuit appeal against Keysight Technologies and Palo Alto Networks.

• Irell & Manella LLP

  • Alan J. Heinrich (Los Angeles, CA) - Listed as representing Centripetal Networks in the initial Federal Circuit appeal.
  • Andrei Iancu (Los Angeles, CA) - Also listed as representing Centripetal Networks in the initial Federal Circuit appeal and in a more recent Federal Circuit appeal. He is a former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.

• Bey & Cotropia PLLC

  • Christopher Cotropia (Richmond, VA) - Listed as representing Centripetal Networks in the initial Federal Circuit appeal.

It is important to note that appellate counsel can differ from district court counsel, and firms may be involved in various stages (district court, PTAB, Federal Circuit appeals) or related parallel proceedings. The case's long and complex history also means that counsel representation may have evolved over time.

Cisco Systems, Inc. is represented by a robust legal team comprising both in-house counsel and external law firms.

In-house Counsel (Cisco Systems, Inc.):

• Bryan Sinclair
  • Role: Vice President, Legal & Deputy General Counsel, IP Litigation (previously Senior Director of IP Litigation)
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
  • Note: Leads Cisco's team managing all patent, copyright, and trade secret cases in district courts, the ITC, the Federal Circuit, and IPR proceedings in the PTAB. Prior to joining Cisco in 2017, he was an IP litigation partner at K&L Gates.
• Jennifer Yokoyama
  • Role: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Intellectual Property and Technology
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
  • Note: Holds extensive experience in IP and technology law, having served in senior roles at Microsoft and Apple, and as Assistant General Counsel for IP Litigation/Patents at Nike.
• John Zhu
  • Role: Director, Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
  • Note: Manages some of Cisco's patent litigation matters, works on patent strategy, and evaluates third-party IP threats. Before Cisco, he defended companies against Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Mayer Brown LLP.
• Bryan Sinclair (also listed above)
  • Role: Senior Director, IP Litigation
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc. (San Jose, CA)
  • Note: Leads a team that manages all patent, copyright, and trade secret cases in district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit, as well as IPR proceedings in the PTAB. He has 25 years of litigation experience and was an IP litigation partner at K&L Gates before joining Cisco in 2017.

External Counsel:

While specific counsel from external firms for the current phase of Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems are not explicitly named in the latest search results for the District Court case, information regarding Cisco's representation in related patent matters and earlier stages of this case indicates the involvement of prominent firms.

• In related PTAB inter partes review (IPR) proceedings concerning the '856 patent, Cisco Systems was represented by:
  • Theodore M. Foster
    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone LLP
  • David L. McCombs
    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone LLP
  • Gregory P. Huh
    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone LLP
• In a separate patent trial in Waco, Texas, where Cisco Systems secured a complete victory in January 2025, a team of Gibson Dunn attorneys, led by Brian Rosenthal, represented Cisco, alongside attorneys from Potter Minton Law Firm. While this is a different case, it highlights firms that frequently represent Cisco in patent litigation.

Given the administrative closure of the district court case pending Federal Circuit appeals, the listed external counsel from the PTAB proceedings and other recent patent litigation for Cisco are likely involved in the ongoing appellate matters related to Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems.