Centripetal Networks, LLC v. International Trade Commission et al.

Case Overview — Centripetal Networks, LLC v. International Trade Commission, No. 2024-1416 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties and business context. Centripetal Networks, LLC (Reston, Virginia) is an operating cybersecurity company—not a non-practicing entity—that develops network-security products such as its CleanINTERNET solution (comprising the RuleGATE gateway, Advanced Cyber Threat (ACT), and QuickTHREAT components), which it asserted as its domestic-industry product. The complaint in the underlying ITC investigation was filed by "Centripetal Networks, Inc.," while the appeal is captioned by "Centripetal Networks, LLC," reflecting the entity's restructuring; the company is best known for its prior $2.75 billion jury verdict against Cisco (later remitted) and parallel litigation against Palo Alto Networks and Keysight. The appellee is the U.S. International Trade Commission; the respondent-intervenor is Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Santa Rosa, California), the electronic test-and-measurement and network-visibility equipment maker (spun off from Agilent/Hewlett-Packard). On appeal, Centripetal was represented by a notable team including former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall (Patexia docket, Doc. 26, Jul. 8, 2024).

Accused products and patents. Centripetal alleged that Keysight's imported network traffic-monitoring and security-enforcement equipment—specifically the Vision One, Vision X, Vision 7300, Vision 7303, Vision Edge 1S, and Trade Vision products (plus ThreatArmor 1G/10G per the complaint)—infringe three patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,264,370 ("Correlating Packets in Communication Networks"), covering systems that provision rule-configured devices on both sides of a network device, log and correlate packets received versus transmitted to unmask flows obfuscated by packet rewriting (e.g., by proxies/NAT) and identify malicious endpoints; U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917, covering a packet-filtering device that applies allow/block rules, generates packet log entries containing threat indicators, maintains/updates packet flow entries, and displays packet flow analysis data (threat ID, time data, blocked status); and U.S. Patent No. 10,284,526, covering selective decryption, action, and re-encryption of encrypted communication flows matched against identification-data lists. Centripetal did not appeal the Commission's invalidity/non-infringement findings on the '526 patent (Fed. Cir. opinion, No. 24-1416, Apr. 23, 2026).

Procedural posture and venue significance. The case originated as ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 (Certain Computer Network Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same), instituted May 18, 2022, based on Centripetal's April 19, 2022 complaint; it was assigned to ALJ MaryJoan McNamara (per Chief ALJ Clark Cheney's assignment notice; USITC News Release 22-062; Lexology, May 19, 2022). On December 5, 2023, the Commission affirmed no Section 337 violation and terminated the investigation, resting on three independent grounds for the '370 patent: failure to prove the technical prong of the domestic-industry requirement, failure to prove infringement, and patent ineligibility under § 101. Venue matters because Section 337 provides in rem jurisdiction over imported articles and unique remedies (limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist order), and the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over Commission final determinations (28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6)). On April 23, 2026, a nonprecedential panel (oral argument Jan. 8, 2026; the transcript reflects participation by Judges Prost and Stark, with the third panelist not identified in available sources) affirmed: substantial evidence supported the Commission's technical-prong finding (Centripetal's RuleGATE "ports" were merely electrical interfaces, not claim-22 "devices" that can be provisioned, log, and communicate), and Centripetal waived its challenge to non-infringement; the court did not reach eligibility (Fed. Cir. No. 24-1416, Apr. 23, 2026).

Why the case is notable. The appeal is the ITC flank of a multi-front war over Centripetal's packet-security patents, and its outcome was dictated by the parallel IPR flank: in companion appeal No. 24-1406 (argued with 24-1416; the clerk treated 24-1406, 24-1416, and 24-1929 as companion cases per docket entry of July 25, 2024), the Federal Circuit the same day affirmed the PTAB's obviousness finding that claims 11 and 20 of the '917 patent were unpatentable over Cisco's Sourcefire product—which "mooted" the '917 issues in the ITC appeal. The case illustrates several recurring themes in modern patent litigation: (1) the ITC's domestic-industry technical prong as a demanding, sometimes dispositive requirement that effectively requires a complainant to prove its own product practices the claims; (2) the use of inter partes review (Keysight's Sourcefire-based IPRs) to dismantle asserted patents in parallel with Section 337 proceedings; and (3) the § 101 abstract-idea line for information collection/analysis claims (the Commission's eligibility finding, citing cases like Electric Power Group, was left unreviewed). For an operating company that had previously secured one of the largest patent verdicts in history, the decision is a significant setback, underscoring how ITC procedural requirements and PTAB invalidity can combine to wipe out otherwise lucrative assertions.

Centripetal Networks, LLC v. ITC / Keysight Technologies — No. 2024-1416 (Fed. Cir.)

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Important framing: This matter did not originate as a district court patent case. The underlying merits proceeding was a Section 337 investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission — Certain Computer Network Security Equipment and Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1314 — with the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2024-1416) being the final disposition layer. There was, however, a parallel, stayed district court case (E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00002) and parallel PTAB IPRs. The timeline below tracks each stage accordingly.

---

1. Filing and Initial Proceedings (ITC investigation)

• 2022-04-19 — Centripetal Networks, Inc. (Reston, VA) filed a Section 337 complaint with the ITC against Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Santa Rosa, CA), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,264,370 (the "'370 patent"), 10,193,917 (the "'917 patent"), and 10,284,526 (the "'526 patent") against Keysight's network security products (Vision One, Vision X, Vision 7300/7303, Vision Edge 1S, Trade Vision, ThreatArmor 1G/10G). Centripetal sought a limited exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order. (USITC News Release 22-062; 87 FR 31581; Lexology/ITC 337 Law Blog, May 19, 2022.)
• 2022-04-29 — Supplement to the complaint filed.
• 2022-05-18 / 2022-05-24 — The Commission voted to institute Investigation No. 337-TA-1314 (Notice of Investigation published at 87 FR 31581 on 2022-05-24). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII/Staff) was designated a party. Chief ALJ Clark S. Cheney assigned the case to ALJ MaryJoan McNamara. (USITC News Release 22-062; Lexology.)
• The complaint originally asserted '370 claims 22–27, 42–48, 63; '917 claims 1, 5, 11, 15, 20; and '526 claims 1–3, 6, 11–13, 16. (88 FR 85913, Dec. 11, 2023.)
• 2022-01 (approx.) — Parallel district court action Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00002, was filed; it was stayed in deference to the ITC investigation and the IPRs. (Joint Status Report, Dkt. 65, E.D. Va., Sept. 8, 2023.)
• 2023-01-20 — Centripetal noticed a corporate name change to Centripetal Networks, LLC; the Commission amended the caption via Order No. 32 (2023-02-03). (88 FR 85913.)

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (ITC stage)

• 2022-12-28 — Keysight moved for summary determination of non-infringement of the '370 patent (Motion No. 1314-010). Centripetal opposed on 2023-01-09. (Public version of the motion, 163 pp., referenced in the '370 patent file history/Google Patents appendix.) The motion was evidently resolved against Keysight's summary posture (the case proceeded to hearing on the '370 patent).
• 2023-01-27 — Partial termination (Order No. 27): the investigation was terminated as to '370 claims 23–27, 42, 44–48, 63; '917 claims 1, 5, 15; and '526 claims 2, 6, 12, following Centripetal's partial withdrawal of the complaint. The Commission declined to review. (88 FR 85913.)
• 2023-03-29 — Commission notice declining to review an ID terminating the investigation as to two patent claims. (USITC Commission Notices index.)
• 2023-08-11 — Centripetal moved to modify procedural deadlines (petition-for-review deadlines), citing a conflict with its expert-report deadline in Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks (E.D. Va. 2:21-cv-00137). Keysight opposed, noting the August 8, 2023 ID deadline had been set since Order No. 5 (2022-06-06). (Keysight opposition filed in 337-TA-1314.)
• No motion to dismiss or transfer existed (ITC practice has no such motions); no stay-pending-IPR motion was needed at the ITC because the IPRs and ITC case ran in parallel.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) — ITC stage

• Pursuant to Order No. 7, the parties and Staff submitted a Joint Claim Construction Chart covering all three patents. Key disputes: for the '370 patent, "configured to," "device," "network device," and "log entries" (Keysight argued "device" means a "network element that interfaces a network device with a network," and "configured to" requires actual configuration); for the '917 patent, "configured to"; for the '526 patent, "identification data" and "list of identification data." The parties agreed on "threat indicator" and "threat identifier" ('917) and "flow identification data" ('526). (Joint Claim Construction Chart, 337-TA-1314, on file via USPTO PTACTS.)
• The ALJ's Final ID (2023-08-08) adopted constructions and resolved the dispositive issues on that basis — in particular, the '370 "device" limitation (RuleGATE ports as mere electrical interfaces) and the "configured to" limitation. (Final ID, § VII, "Adopted Claim Terms.")

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• 2022-06-23 — Centripetal served its Notice of Priority and Conception Dates, setting the priority framework for all three patents. ('370 patent file-history appendix.)
• The IPR petitions (below) were filed in June 2022, and the ITC case proceeded with an expedited Section 337 schedule (target date 2023-12-08 per Order No. 3; ID deadline 2023-08-08 per Order No. 5).
• Expert discovery and pre-hearing briefing produced the waiver rulings that later proved dispositive: the ALJ found Centripetal waived its technical-prong argument because it "completely changed its argument from the pre-hearing brief to the post-hearing brief," and separately found waiver on the '370 limitation (h) "communicate" argument because Centripetal's pre-hearing brief did not address it. (Oral argument audio, CourtListener; Final ID; CAFC opinion 24-1416.)
• 2023-09-13 — The E.D. Va. court ordered the parties in 2:22-cv-00002 to file a status report on the ITC outcome and IPR filings (the report was filed 2023-09-08, Dkt. 65). (DocketAlarm.)

5. Evidentiary Hearing, Initial Determination, and Commission Review

• 2023-03-01 to 2023-03-07 — Evidentiary hearing (the ITC "trial") before ALJ McNamara. (Joint Status Report, Dkt. 65.)
• 2023-08-08 — Final Initial Determination (Final ID) — no Section 337 violation. Key findings:
  • No infringement of '370 claims 22 and 43; asserted '370 claims invalid (including patent-ineligibility under § 101); technical prong of the domestic industry requirement not satisfied for the '370 patent.
  • '917 claims 11 and 20 infringed but invalid (obviousness).
  • '526 claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 16 not infringed and invalid (anticipation, including by Check Point R77.30).
  • Economic prong of the domestic industry requirement satisfied; recommended limited exclusion order, cease-and-desist order, and 100% bond if a violation were found. (ID, Aug. 8, 2023, as summarized in E.D. Va. Dkt. 65 and 88 FR 85913.)
• 2023-08-23 — Centripetal petitioned for Commission review of the ID (challenging invalidity of all three patents, non-infringement of the '370 and '526, and the no-technical-DI finding on the '370). Keysight did not petition. Keysight and OUII responded 2023-09-01 opposing review. (88 FR 85913; E.D. Va. Dkt. 65.)
• 2023-12-05 — Commission Final Determination: reviewed in part; on review affirmed the Final ID's no-violation finding and terminated the investigation. The Commission: (i) reversed the ALJ's waiver finding on '526 claims 3 and 13; (ii) affirmed under modified reasoning the Check Point anticipation of those claims; and (iii) took no position on the economic prong. (88 FR 85913, published 2023-12-11; USITC docket.) This is the decision Centripetal appealed.

6. Federal Circuit Appeal — No. 2024-1416

• 2024 — Centripetal filed its notice of appeal from the Commission's final determination. (Docket entries at the Federal Circuit begin in June 2024 with briefing.)
• 2024-07-25 — The Federal Circuit ordered appeals 24-1406, 24-1416, and 24-1929 treated as companion cases before the same merits panel (24-1406 = IPR appeal on the '917 patent; 24-1929 = IPR appeal on the '526 patent). (Patexia docket, Doc. 31, entered 2024-07-25.)
• 2024-06-26 / 2024-07-08 — Centripetal's opening brief filed (corrected version 2024-07-08); counsel of record included Andrei Iancu (former USPTO Director), Jeffrey B. Wall, Laurie N. Stempler, Daniel J. Richardson, and Aviv S. Halpern. (Patexia docket, Docs. 23–28.)
• 2024-07-15 — ITC's response-brief deadline extended to 2024-10-04. (Patexia docket, Doc. 30.)
• 2026-01-08 — Oral argument (audio posted by the Federal Circuit). At argument, the panel flagged the waiver issues and the interplay with the companion IPR appeal (24-1406), where claims 11 and 20 of the '917 patent were at stake. (CAFC oral-argument page; CourtListener audio.)
• 2026-04-23 — Nonprecedential opinion (Doc. 86): affirmed. The court held:
  1. Because the companion case 24-1406 affirmed the PTAB's unpatentability of '917 claims 11 and 20 (obvious over Sourcefire), the '917 issues were moot.
  2. For the '370 patent, the no-violation finding rested on three independent grounds — failure of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, non-infringement, and patent ineligibility. Centripetal had to win on all three.
  3. Technical prong: substantial evidence supported the Commission's finding that Centripetal's domestic industry product (the CleanINTERNET solution: RuleGATE, ACT, QuickTHREAT) did not practice limitations (b)–(f) of claim 22 — RuleGATE "ports are simply electrical interfaces for connecting network cables" and cannot perform the claimed functions.
  4. Non-infringement: Centripetal waived its challenge to the Commission's non-infringement finding by failing to squarely address limitations (e) and (f), and by failing to contest the Commission's own waiver finding on limitation (h) "communicate."
  5. The court did not reach patent ineligibility. (CAFC opinion, 24-1416, 2026-04-23; Justia; VitalLaw; IP Law Daily summary, 2026-04-24.)

7. Final Disposition / Present Posture

• The Federal Circuit's affirmance (2026-04-23) is the final disposition of the appeal; the case is concluded (no indication of a petition for rehearing or certiorari in the sources reviewed). The ITC investigation had already been terminated with a finding of no violation on 2023-12-05.
• The parallel district court case (E.D. Va. 2:22-cv-00002) remained stayed and is now effectively moot as to the asserted patents given the ITC affirmance and the IPR outcomes.

8. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

• IPR2022-01097 — Keysight v. Centripetal ('917 patent), filed 2022-06-02, challenging all claims 1–20. Grounds: claims 1–5, 11–15, 20 obvious over Sourcefire (Sourcefire 3D System User Guide v4.10); claims 6–10, 16–19 obvious over Sourcefire + Macaulay (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0207809). Keysight leaned heavily on collateral estoppel from IPR2018-01760, where the PTAB (affirmed by the Federal Circuit) held claims of the related '722 patent unpatentable over the same Sourcefire reference.
  • The Board's Final Written Decision found claims 1–3, 5, 11–13, 15, 20 obvious over Sourcefire; claims 6–10, 16–19 obvious over Sourcefire + Macaulay; and claims 4 and 14 not proven obvious.
  • Federal Circuit Nos. 24-1406 & 24-1473 (2026-04-23): affirmed in part, reversed in part — the court affirmed the Board's obviousness findings as to claims 1–3, 5–13, 15–20 and reversed as to claims 4 and 14, rendering all claims 1–20 of the '917 patent unpatentable. (IPWatchdog, 2026-04-23; CAFC opinion 24-1406; Paterson Sheridan weekly summary.)
  • Effect on 24-1416: Because claims 11 and 20 of the '917 patent (the only '917 claims at issue in the ITC appeal) were affirmed unpatentable, the Federal Circuit deemed the '917 issues moot and decided only the '370 patent.
• IPR on the '526 patent (appeal No. 24-1929): The PTAB invalidated the challenged '526 claims as anticipated (e.g., by the Cisco IronPort AsyncOS 7.1 user guide and other references); the Federal Circuit affirmed, rejecting Centripetal's claim-construction and public-accessibility challenges. (ScaleJuris/Reuters-style summary of the April 23, 2026 rulings; companion-case designation in Doc. 31.) Centripetal did not appeal the ITC's '526 non-infringement/invalidity findings, consistent with the case summary metadata.
• No IPR on the '370 patent was identified in the sources reviewed — the '370 patent was instead disposed of at the ITC through the no-violation findings (non-infringement, § 101 ineligibility, and failure of the technical prong), all of which survived appeal (the eligibility ground being mooted by the other two).

Outcome Summary

Bottom line: Centripetal lost at every layer — the ITC (ALJ and Commission), the PTAB (all challenged '917 and '526 claims invalidated), and the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the no-violation determination on 2026-04-23. The affirmance rested primarily on Centripetal's failure to prove the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '370 patent and its appellate waiver of the non-infringement challenge.

Source citations: USITC News Release 22-062 (2022-05-18); 87 FR 31581 (2022-05-24); 88 FR 85913 (2023-12-11); Centripetal Networks, LLC v. ITC, No. 24-1416 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) (nonprecedential); Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Techs., Inc., Nos. 24-1406, 24-1473 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2026); IPR2022-01097 (Keysight v. Centripetal, '917 patent); E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00002, Dkt. 65 (2023-09-08); CAFC docket (Patexia) Docs. 23–31; IPWatchdog (2026-04-23); IP Law Daily/VitalLaw (2026-04-24).

I'll research press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Let me verify the specific articles listed and search for more coverage.

Now let me verify the specific articles listed in the news index and check whether they discuss this case.

I hit my search-step limit before I could verify every item in the index, so I'll be explicit about which articles I actually retrieved and which I could not confirm.

What the press reported

Coverage of the Federal Circuit's April 23, 2026 rulings centered on the litigation's cross-forum nature and the completeness of Keysight's win. Law360 (Theresa Schliep, Apr. 23, 2026) reported that the court "backed a U.S. International Trade Commission's decision relieving Keysight Technologies Inc. from Centripetal Networks LLC's case accusing it of infringing cybersecurity patents, and separately said many claims in one of the patents were invalid" — a concise statement of the two-opinion outcome that tracks the court record. IPWatchdog (Rose Esfandiari, Apr. 23, 2026) went deeper on the companion IPR appeal (Nos. 24-1406/24-1473), explaining that the panel affirmed the PTAB's obviousness holdings on claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 of U.S. Patent 10,193,917 over the Sourcefire reference, but reversed as to claims 4 and 14 on Keysight's cross-appeal — effectively invalidating every claim at issue. IPWatchdog also covered the separate '526 appeal earlier, reporting in an Apr. 2, 2026 article that the Federal Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Lourie, affirmed the PTAB's finding that claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,284,526 was anticipated by the Cisco IronPort AsyncOS 7.1 guide ("IPUG"), resolving claim-construction and printed-publication challenges against Centripetal. A Patterson Sheridan weekly summary similarly distilled the '917 appeal, framing the key point as the PTAB being "limited to the record" and unable to raise unsupported claim interpretations.

The most detailed treatment of the ITC appeal itself came from VitalLaw / IP Law Daily (Robert Margolis, J.D., Apr. 24, 2026), which explained the domestic-industry "technical prong" in lay terms — "the complainant must practice its own patent" — and described the court's holding that Centripetal's CleanINTERNET solution failed the claim-22 "device" limitations, that this ground alone sufficed to affirm, and that the court also found Centripetal had waived its non-infringement challenge (while declining to reach patent eligibility). Legal Era Online (Apr. 23, 2026) ran a near-verbatim digest of the IPWatchdog '917 analysis.

Reporting that goes beyond the court record

The clearest example of advocacy-framed coverage is Keysight's outside counsel's own announcement, which the press and trade outlets picked up. Reed Smith (Apr. 2026) framed the outcome as a "major success" and quoted partner Jonah Mitchell claiming Keysight "prevail[ed] on all asserted patents at the ITC, including non-infringement, invalidity, and domestic industry victories," secured "PTAB decisions that found 185 claims across eight asserted patents unpatentable," and won "in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German national courts." That 185-claim/8-patent figure and the UPC/German-court wins are Keysight's own aggregate characterization of the broader multi-forum dispute and are not part of the Federal Circuit's 24-1416 opinion. The release also carries an executive statement from Keysight SVP/GC Jeffrey Li: "These outcomes validate what we've maintained all along: Keysight respects intellectual property rights and develops its technology through its own innovation." Readers should treat such quotes as party position rather than neutral reporting; notably, I found no comparably prominent public statement from Centripetal in the coverage located, and no coverage reporting any damages figure, settlement, or exclusion order for this ITC matter (the underlying case sought a limited exclusion order and cease-and-desist order, and no violation was ever found).

Gaps in the index / unverified items

I could not verify several of the indexed articles as bearing on this case. The Patently-O piece on the Supreme Court's Long Conference (Sept. 21, 2026) is summarized by a third-party aggregator (IPVerse/GreyB) as being about thirteen docketed patent cert petitions and Google v. VirtaMove — not the Centripetal–Keysight/ITC appeal. The IPWatchdog "Other Barks & Bites" roundups (Nov. 2024, Dec. 2023, May 2023, Dec. 2022, June 2022), the Harvard Business Review essay "Big Tech Has a Patent Violation Problem," and The Indian Express's Sonos/Google ITC piece appear from their headlines to concern other matters (the Nov. 8, 2024 roundup's "ITC Finds Semiconductor Company Infringed" item in particular refers to a different ITC investigation); I was unable to retrieve them, so I cannot confirm they discuss Centripetal v. ITC. Separately, the most recent Centripetal item I did find — IPWatchdog (Steve Brachmann, Sept. 23, 2026) — concerns Centripetal's second cert petition, but in the Cisco litigation (claim construction post-Markman), not this Keysight/ITC case. In short, substantive press coverage exists for the April 2026 rulings, but it is largely trade-press and law-firm sourced rather than mainstream; no Reuters/Bloomberg/Ars Technica/The Verge article specifically on 24-1416 surfaced in my searches.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Itc – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• Federal Circuit In Part Reverses PTAB Ruling that Some Centripetal Network Threat Detection Patent Claims are Non-Obvious - Federal Circuit In Part Reverses PTAB Ruling that Some Centripetal Network Threat Detection Patent Claims are Non-Obvious
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Court affirms ITC holding that Centripetal Networks failed to establish 'technical prong' of 'domestic industry requirement' necessary for Section 337 violation
• Cybersecurity & Privacy : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - April 23, 2026
• Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Finding that Centripetal Patent Claims are Unpatentable as Anticipated - Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Finding that Centripetal Patent Claims are Unpatentable as Anticipated
• FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARY FOR WEEK ENDING APRIL 24, 2026
• Cybersecurity & Privacy : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Appellate : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Counsel of Record for Appellant Centripetal Networks, LLC — Case 2024-1416 (Fed. Cir.)

Based on the Federal Circuit docket for 24-1416, Centripetal filed entries of appearance listing five Sullivan & Cromwell LLP attorneys as counsel for the appellant. The docket shows an initial (non-compliant) Entry of Appearance at Doc. 5 (Feb. 13, 2024), a Corrected Entry of Appearance at Doc. 10 (Feb. 15, 2024), and a further Corrected Entry of Appearance at Doc. 26 (July 8, 2024), each naming the same five attorneys (per the Patexia docket mirror of 24-1416). A Vitallaw/IP Law Daily summary of the April 23, 2026 affirmance also identifies Daniel J. Richardson (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP) as counsel for Centripetal.

The five attorneys of record

1. Andrei Iancu — Lead/appellate counsel

• Firm/Office: Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, CA
• Note: Former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the USPTO (2018–2021); argued Centripetal's related Federal Circuit appeal in No. 24-1930 (affirmed per curiam, Jan. 12, 2026), where the judgment caption lists him as the arguing attorney ("ANDREI IANCU, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, CA, argued for appellant").

2. Jeffrey B. Wall — Appellate counsel

• Firm/Office: Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC
• Note: Former Acting Solicitor General of the United States (2017); extensive Supreme Court and Federal Circuit appellate practice; listed on the corrected appearances in 24-1416 and on the related 24-1929/24-1930 captions.

3. Daniel J. Richardson — Lead docketing/appellate counsel

• Firm/Office: Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC
• Note: The attorney who filed the appearances and substantive submissions in 24-1416 (he is the filer on the corrected appearances and the Vitallaw case summary lists him as Centripetal's counsel); experienced Federal Circuit appellate litigator in IP matters.

4. Laurie N. Stempler — Appellate counsel

• Firm/Office: Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY
• Note: Named on the 24-1416 corrected appearances; also on the captions of the companion Centripetal appeals (24-1929, 24-1930), which concerned related '917/'526 patents and Keysight IPRs.

5. Aviv S. Halpern — Appellate counsel

• Firm/Office: Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Palo Alto, CA
• Note: Named on the 24-1416 corrected appearances; patent-litigation and IPR-focused appellate attorney; also appeared for Centripetal in the companion appeals against Keysight (No. 24-1929 and the IPR appeal 24-1930).

Roles and caveats

• Lead counsel / argument: The docket entries do not designate a formal "lead" versus "of counsel" breakdown. Based on the companion-case captions, Iancu argued for Centripetal in the related appeal (24-1930), and Richardson is the attorney of record who filed the 24-1416 appearances; either may have argued at the January 8, 2026 oral argument in 24-1416 (the CAFC oral-argument audio page for 24-1416 does not identify counsel in the snippet). I could not confirm from available sources exactly who argued 24-1416; that specific fact should be verified against the oral argument recording or the CAFC argument calendar if needed.
• Local counsel: Not applicable — this is a Federal Circuit appeal; Federal Circuit Rule 47.3 requires admission to the court's bar, which these S&C attorneys hold.
• In-house counsel: None appears on the Federal Circuit entries of appearance. (Centripetal's in-house team and the ITC-stage trial counsel, including Irell & Manella's Blair Silver who handled Centripetal v. Cisco and the Palo Alto Networks IPRs, are not counsel of record on this appeal.)
• Opposing side, for context: The ITC was represented by Robert J. Needham and Wayne W. Herrington (OIA/General Counsel's office), and Keysight Technologies, Inc. (intervenor) by Gerard M. Donovan and Jonah D. Mitchell, per the docket.

Sources

• Patexia docket mirror, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. ITC, No. 2024-1416 (Docs. 5, 10, 26 — Entries of Appearance for Iancu, Wall, Stempler, Richardson, Halpern): https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/Centripetal-Networks-LLC-v-ITC-id-[196407](/patent/196407)/documents
• Vitallaw/IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Court affirms ITC holding that Centripetal Networks failed to establish 'technical prong' (Apr. 24, 2026), identifying Daniel J. Richardson (Sullivan & Cromwell LLP) for Centripetal and Robert John Needham for the ITC.
• Federal Circuit judgment in companion case, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Techs., Inc., No. 24-1930 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 12, 2026), listing Iancu (argued, LA), Halpern (Palo Alto), Richardson and Wall (DC), and Stempler (NY) — all Sullivan & Cromwell.
• CAFC opinion, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. ITC, No. 24-1416 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) (nonprecedential), affirming the ITC's no-violation determination; '526 findings not appealed.

No sealed filings or non-appearing counsel affect this analysis; all five attorneys listed above were confirmed as counsel of record via the corrected entries of appearance on the public docket.

Counsel of Record — Centripetal Networks, LLC v. ITC, No. 2024-1416 (Fed. Cir.)

Threshold point on "defendants"

This is a Federal Circuit appeal of ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1314. The parties adverse to appellant Centripetal Networks, LLC are (1) the U.S. International Trade Commission (named appellee) and (2) Keysight Technologies, Inc. (the sole respondent below, which intervened in the appeal, granted Feb. 28, 2024 — DocketAlarm, Doc. 16, order granting unopposed motion to intervene). Below, in the ITC investigation, Keysight was the sole named respondent (87 FR 31581–82; Lexology, May 19, 2022). Counsel are identified accordingly.

---

I. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (respondent below / intervenor-appellee on appeal)

A. Lead counsel — Reed Smith LLP

Reed Smith's own post-decision announcement confirms the engagement: "Keysight is represented by Jonah Mitchell, Christine Morgan, Seth Herring, Doyle Johnson, Gerard Donovan, Jonathan Detrixhe, James Martin, and Christopher Pulido of Reed Smith LLP," with Polsinelli PC providing additional representation before the ITC (Reed Smith, "Keysight secures major success against Centripetal," Apr. 2026, reedsmith.com). The same roster (plus supporting associates) appears in the certificates of service in the ITC investigation (e.g., Ex. 2018 to PTAB IPR2022-01097; ptacts petition service list, both listing Reed Smith's San Francisco "Keysight-CentripetalITC@reedsmith.com" address).

• Jonah D. Mitchell — Lead counsel / trial and appellate lead (Partner, Reed Smith LLP, 101 Second St., Ste. 1800, San Francisco, CA). Reed Smith's firm bio confirms he led the Keysight defense: "Centripetal Networks v. Keysight Technologies. Defending Keysight in global, multi-forum patent infringement dispute with litigation proceedings in the ITC (three patents), Eastern District of Virginia (11 patents), PTAB (eight patents), Federal Circuit… Prevailed after trial at the ITC with a finding of no violation… 100% institution rate at PTAB on eight IPRs; 95+% invalidation success rate… 185 claims across eight patents invalidated." He is also the partner quoted in the Reed Smith release on the Apr. 23, 2026 affirmances in Nos. 24-1416 and 24-1406. He is presumed to have argued the Jan. 8, 2026 oral argument for Keysight, though the available transcript excerpt does not name counsel (CourtListener audio, No. 24-1416) — flagging this as unconfirmed.
• Christine M. Morgan — Partner, Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Key member of the Keysight ITC/PTAB defense team; listed on ITC and PTAB service lists throughout 337-TA-1314.
• Seth B. Herring — Partner, Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). ITC and PTAB trial counsel for Keysight in the Centripetal campaign.
• Gerard M. Donovan — Partner, Reed Smith LLP (1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C.). Longtime ITC litigator; appears on the 337-TA-1314 service lists and is named in the Reed Smith announcement.
• Jonathan I. Detrixhe — Partner, Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Named in the Reed Smith announcement and on ITC service lists.
• Doyle B. Johnson — Partner, Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Named in the announcement and service lists.
• James Martin — Reed Smith LLP (office not specified in available sources). Named in the Reed Smith announcement.
• Christopher J. Pulido — Reed Smith LLP (San Francisco). Named in the announcement and service lists.
• Supporting Reed Smith attorneys on the ITC service lists (roles not individually confirmed): Quynh La, Adaline J. Hilgard, Afshin Najafi, Fred Ji (San Francisco); Joshua S. Bish (Pittsburgh); Anna M. Targowska (Chicago); Peter J. Chassman (Houston) — per the certificate of service in 337-TA-1314 (PTAB Ex. 2018; ptacts service list).

B. ITC-agency / Section 337 specialists (co-counsel before the ITC)

• Deanna Tanner Okun — Of counsel/co-lead for ITC proceedings. Former Chairman of the ITC (2009–2012) and one of the most prominent Section 337 practitioners. Per the July 2023 service list in IPR2022-01097 (Ex. 2018), she was then at Polsinelli PC (1401 Eye St. NW, Ste. 800, Washington, D.C.), alongside Lauren E. Peterson and Sean M. Wesp. A later ITC filing's service list shows the same ITC team (Okun, Peterson, Wesp, plus Juan J. Garcia) at AMS Trade LLP, 1133 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, D.C., with the email domain "@adduci.com" — i.e., Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg LLP — indicating the ITC-specific team moved firms mid-matter (ptacts service list). Reed Smith's 2026 release describes Polsinelli as having "provided additional legal representation and counsel before the ITC," so I flag the firm transition as evidenced by the differing service lists but not separately confirmed by a docket entry.

---

II. U.S. International Trade Commission (appellee)

• Robert J. Needham — Lead counsel for the Commission (Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E St. SW, Washington, D.C. 20436). Confirmed by multiple independent sources: he was the "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT" attorney on the Commission's Federal Register notices in 337-TA-1314 (Nov. 30, 2023 notice; Dec. 11, 2023 final determination notice, 88 FR); he filed the appellee's motion to extend the response-brief deadline in the Federal Circuit docket (Patexia docket, Doc. 29, Jul. 12, 2024, "[Robert Needham]"); and the opinion's attorney listing identifies "Robert John Needham for the ITC" (VitalLaw IP Law Daily, Apr. 24, 2026). He is the Commission's experienced Section 337 appellate counsel in the OGC.
• Other OGC attorneys who may have appeared on the appellee's brief are not identified in any source I could access; do not rely on additional ITC names without checking the filed response brief (due Oct. 4, 2024 per Docket Entry 30). Note: the separate Office of Unfair Import Investigations staff participated in the underlying investigation (Lexology, May 19, 2022), but no OUII staff attorney names were locatable in available sources.

---

III. Related local counsel (parallel district court action — for context only)

In the related Eastern District of Virginia action, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va.), Stephen E. Noona of Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. (150 W. Main St., Ste. 2100, Norfolk, VA) signed as "Attorneys for Defendants Keysight Technologies, Inc." (DocketAlarm, Doc. 42). That is local-counsel work in the companion district-court litigation, not the Federal Circuit appeal, but it is the clearest "local counsel" datapoint for Keysight in the broader Centripetal–Keysight war.

---

IV. Caveats

• PACER access: The Federal Circuit docket was reviewed only through the Patexia mirror (docs. 16, 26, 29, 30, 31) and DocketAlarm; the formal entries of appearance for Keysight and the ITC (and the signature blocks on the Oct. 4, 2024 appellee/intervenor briefs) were not directly retrieved. The attorney roster above is reconstructed from firm announcements, ITC/PTAB service lists, Federal Register notices, and docket-entry metadata.
• Oral argument counsel: The CourtListener audio page for No. 24-1416 was available, but I could not confirm from the accessible transcript excerpt which attorneys argued for Keysight and the ITC; the assumption that Mitchell (Keysight) and Needham (ITC) argued is inference from their lead roles, not a sourced fact.
• In-house counsel: No Keysight in-house attorney names appeared in any source reviewed; do not assume in-house participation without further verification.
• Appellant's counsel (for orientation, not defendants): Sullivan & Cromwell LLP — Andrei Iancu, Jeffrey B. Wall, Laurie N. Stempler, Daniel J. Richardson, Aviv S. Halpern (Patexia Doc. 26, Jul. 8, 2024) — represented Centripetal, including the notable former USPTO Director and former Acting Solicitor General.