Litigation

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Administratively closed, pending appeal

2:18-cv-00094 (EWH)

Filed
2018-02-13
Terminated
2025-07

Patents at issue (1)

Defender signal. Patent 9917856 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.

99178563 PTAB invalidations

Summary

Initially, a judgment was issued in favor of Centripetal Networks finding Cisco willfully infringed four patents, including US9917856. This verdict was later vacated by the Federal Circuit due to a conflict of interest, and the case was remanded. The district court administratively closed the case in July 2025, pending appeals.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

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.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

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.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search for coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Press coverage of Centripetal Networks v. Cisco

The December 2023 remand loss drew the widest coverage. Reuters (Blake Brittain, 2023-12-12) reported that Judge Elizabeth Hanes "held new hearings in the case and ruled on Monday that Cisco did not infringe the patents," turning a case that had produced "the largest patent damages award in U.S. history" into a defense win. Reuters framed the number as $2.75 billion and explained its components — Judge Henry Morgan awarded "$1.9 billion in damages, plus royalties that Cisco said increased the total to more than $2.7 billion" — and noted that Morgan disclosed before ruling that his wife owned 100 Cisco shares worth $4,688, that the Federal Circuit held he "either should have recused himself… or made sure the stock was sold," and that the Supreme Court declined review. The story was syndicated broadly, including by U.S. News and, per the news index accompanying this case, by the Times of India, Moneycontrol, Investing.com, CNA and Biztoc. IPWatchdog (Eileen McDermott, 2023-12-12) went deeper on the arithmetic and the "unusual history": $755,808,545 in actual damages enhanced 2.5x to $1,889,521,362.50, plus $13,717,925 prejudgment interest, totaling $1,903,239,288, with a 10% running royalty for three years followed by 5% for three more. It also flagged a detail the mainstream wire omitted — that Centripetal itself "said it had no objection to the judge continuing to preside" while Cisco moved for recusal, and that the PTAB had separately denied Centripetal's bid to recuse an APJ over that judge's own Cisco holdings. Trade coverage echoed the "insufficient evidence" characterization (WorldIPReview) and recycled Cisco's 2020 statement that it was "disappointed… given the substantial evidence of non-infringement, invalidity and that Cisco's innovations predate the patents by many years" (Silicon UK).

The 2024–2026 tail of the litigation was covered almost exclusively by Law360. Law360's case page records "Cisco Clears IP Suit After Axed $2.7B Judgment, Recusal Row" (2023-12-11), then "Judge Cements Decision Clearing Cisco From $2.75B Ruling" (2024-06-17), reporting that "[t]here will be not be a third trial for a cybersecurity startup that has seen its multibillion-dollar patent win turn into nothing at all." It also captured the April 2026 argument ("Cisco's Win After Sunk 10-Figure Judgment Eyed By Fed. Circ.," 2026-04-07), describing a panel grappling with whether the Virginia judge correctly found no infringement of three patents after the earlier judgment was discarded over "another judge's stock conflict," and the PTAB's re-invalidation of the patent at 2026-06-12 in "PTAB Again Invalidates Centripetal Patent In Cisco Case" — noting the Board acted "after the Federal Circuit ordered the board to rethink an earlier invalidity ruling."

The September 2026 cert petition generated a fresh round of analysis. Law360 (Ryan Davis, 2026-09-22) reported that "Centripetal Networks LLC has told the U.S. Supreme Court that a decision clearing Cisco Systems Inc. of infringing its cybersecurity patents in a $2.6 billion case was wrongly based on a new claim construction that a judge entered late in the case, without letting Centripetal respond." IPWatchdog (Steve Brachmann, 2026-09-23) is the most substantive account: it quotes the petition's claim that the case "represents a stark depravation of due process stemming from the Federal Circuit's increasing rudderless invocation of a standardless distinction between a 'new' claim construction… and a so-called 'clarification' or 'elaboration' after trial," and explains that Judge Hanes had granted-in-part Cisco's motion to supplement the record with Centripetal's own IPR briefing before adopting, "for the first time in the history of the case," a limitation requiring "filtration of a subset of packets sent between [endpoint] computers in two different networks," plus a but-for causation reading of the '806 "swap" signal. The petition itself (No. 26-392) is on the Court's docket, and a third-party docket tracker, supremecourt.report, records filing on 2026-09-18 with a response due 2026-10-22 and puts cert odds at roughly 5%.

Where accounts differ, or go beyond the court record. The headline number is unstable across coverage: $1.9 billion (the actual judgment), "more than $2.7 billion" (Cisco's royalty-inclusive figure, per Reuters), $2.75 billion (Reuters and most syndications), $2.6 billion (Law360 and the petition), and $2.6–3.2 billion (Centripetal's own 2020 social-media framing, quoted by Silicon UK). Venue description also varies — Reuters calls Centripetal "Reston, Virginia-based," while the case background here says Herndon. IPWatchdog's 2026 piece describes the 2018 suit as asserting only the '193 and '806 patents, a simplification of the eleven-patent case. Beyond the record, the coverage is mostly firm-side self-promotion: WilmerHale announced that Litigation Daily named partner Mark Fleming "Litigator of the Week" for the 2022 reversal, and a low-quality aggregator, legalnewsfeed.com, reported that US Inventor has urged the Justices to take the case — a claim I could not confirm in primary sourcing. Notably, neither party has given on-record comment in any coverage I found; Reuters reported only that representatives "did not immediately respond."

Contradictions and sourcing caveats. (1) The Patently-O piece cited in the index, "Patent Docket Heading into the Supreme Court's Long Conference" (Dennis Crouch, 2026-09-21), is a docket roundup; the accessible syndicated summary I could retrieve focuses on Google v. VirtaMove and counts thirteen patent cert petitions before the Long Conference, and I could not verify that it discusses Centripetal specifically — treat any suggestion that it does as unconfirmed. (2) The index's 2024-11-01 Cellspin piece and 2024-11-08 "Other Bar

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

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.