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

Case Overview and Background

Plaintiff Centripetal Networks, LLC, a cybersecurity company, has engaged in significant patent litigation to protect its intellectual property. Founded in 2009, Centripetal develops technology to proactively defend computer networks by applying large-scale threat intelligence. The company's products, including its Threat Intelligence Gateway named RuleGATE® and its CleanINTERNET® service, are designed to filter network traffic and block threats in real time. Centripetal has asserted its patents against major players in the networking and cybersecurity industry, including a notable prior lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. that resulted in a multi-billion dollar judgment, which was later vacated and remanded on other grounds. This history establishes Centripetal as an operating company actively enforcing its patent portfolio. The defendant, Palo Alto Networks, Inc., is a major competitor in the cybersecurity market, offering a wide range of products including next-generation firewalls (NGFWs), cloud security solutions under the "Prisma" brand, and AI-powered security operations platforms under the "Cortex" brand.

In this case, filed January 3, 2022, Centripetal alleges that Palo Alto Networks' products infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917. The '917 patent, titled "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection," covers a packet-filtering device that receives network packets and determines whether they correspond to criteria specified by a packet-filtering rule, which may include network threat indicators. Palo Alto Networks' allegedly infringing products include its next-generation firewalls and other security platforms that perform traffic inspection and threat prevention. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), a venue well-known for its fast-paced docket, often referred to as the "Rocket Docket," which can be advantageous for plaintiffs seeking a speedy resolution. The court's location near the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and its judges' experience with complex patent cases also make it a popular forum for IP litigation.

The case is notable for its connection to a broader, multi-front legal battle involving Centripetal, Palo Alto Networks, and other technology companies like Keysight Technologies and Cisco Systems. The validity of the '917 patent has been challenged in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a decision issued on April 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB ruling that found most claims of the '917 patent unpatentable as obvious, and reversed the PTAB on the few claims it had found non-obvious, effectively invalidating all challenged claims of the patent. This appellate ruling has had a direct impact on the district court litigation, which was stayed pending the outcome of the PTAB proceedings. Given the Federal Circuit's final judgment on the patent's invalidity, the district court case is now subject to dismissal.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

This litigation was short-lived in the district court, quickly being overtaken and rendered moot by parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The definitive invalidation of the asserted patent in those other forums led to the stay and likely dismissal of this case.

Chronological Developments

• 2022-01-03: Complaint Filed. Centripetal Networks, LLC filed its complaint against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW) in the Eastern District of Virginia, accusing PANW's next-generation firewalls and other security products of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917. Centripetal was represented by Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP.

• 2022-02-14: Palo Alto Networks' Answer and Counterclaims. PANW filed its answer, denying infringement and asserting counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the '917 patent.

• 2022-03-24: Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (IPR). Less than three months into the case, PANW moved to stay the district court litigation. The motion argued that a stay was warranted pending the outcome of IPR proceedings that PANW's co-defendant in a related case, Keysight Technologies, had initiated against the '917 patent (IPR2021-01368 and IPR2021-01369). PANW contended that the PTAB's review would simplify or dispose of the issues in the district court case, promoting judicial economy.

• 2022-04-26: IPR Institution Decision. The PTAB issued decisions instituting trial on all challenged claims in the IPRs filed by Keysight against the '917 patent. This development significantly increased the likelihood that the district court case would be impacted by the PTAB's findings.

• 2022-06-23: Case Stayed. Following the institution of the IPRs, Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller granted the motion to stay the case. The court found that the pending IPRs could be dispositive of the entire case and that a stay would serve the interests of judicial efficiency. All case deadlines were suspended pending the final resolution of the PTAB proceedings, including any appeals.

• 2023-04-28: PTAB Final Written Decision. In its Final Written Decision for IPR2021-01368, the PTAB found that petitioner Keysight had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 6, 8, 14–16, 19, and 21 of the '917 patent were unpatentable as obvious. However, the Board found that claims 24-28 were not proven to be unpatentable.

• 2023-07-28: Appeals to the Federal Circuit. Both Centripetal and Keysight appealed the PTAB's split decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Centripetal challenged the invalidity findings, while Keysight cross-appealed the finding that claims 24-28 were patentable. The appeals were consolidated under Case No. 23-2015.

• 2026-04-23: Federal Circuit Decision. The Federal Circuit issued a final judgment that was dispositive for the '917 patent. The appellate court affirmed the PTAB's decision finding most claims unpatentable. Critically, it reversed the PTAB's finding on claims 24-28, holding that those claims were also unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit's decision effectively invalidated all challenged claims of the '917 patent.

Final Disposition

As of today's date (2026-04-30), the case remains administratively closed and stayed in the Eastern District of Virginia. However, given the Federal Circuit's final, binding decision invalidating all asserted claims of the '917 patent, the litigation has no path forward. The parties are expected to file a joint stipulation of dismissal or a motion to dismiss with prejudice in light of the patent's invalidity, which would formally terminate the district court case. The outcome of the parallel PTAB and appellate proceedings was therefore completely dispositive of this litigation.

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

I'm finding useful results. Let me search more specifically for press coverage of the '917 patent dispute and the broader litigation coverage.

Press Coverage of the Centripetal–Palo Alto Networks '917 Patent Dispute

Direct coverage of this specific EDVA action (2:22-cv-00002) is essentially nil — the case was stayed within six months of filing and never produced a trial or damages figure of its own, so no outlet covered it by caption. What the press did cover are the two proceedings that bracketed it: the parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit fight over the '917 patent (which effectively killed this case), and the separate, much larger Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks suit (2:21-cv-00137) that yielded a $151.5 million jury verdict. The most directly on-point reporting is IPWatchdog, which reported on 2026-04-23 that the Federal Circuit in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (No. 24-1406) affirmed the PTAB's obviousness findings on claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917 and reversed the Board's non-obviousness findings on claims 4 and 14 — leaving all challenged claims of the "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection" patent invalid. IP Law Daily / Vital Law covered the same decision on 2026-04-24, explaining the court's reasoning on "packet flow entry" claim construction and Sourcefire/Macaulay prior art, while Patterson + Sheridan's Federal Circuit summary characterized the ruling as effectively holding all claims at issue obvious, with the PTAB's "existing flow log entry" finding lacking substantial evidence. Bloomberg Law likewise flagged on 2026-06-10 that the Federal Circuit affirmed PTAB obviousness rulings in IPRs brought by both Keysight and Palo Alto Networks against Centripetal patents. Notably, the Federal Circuit's own April 23, 2026 opinion in the related ITC appeal (No. 24-1416) referenced that same affirmance as mooting the '917 issues there.

The dominant press narrative around Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks is the $151.5 million verdict, which Reuters reported on 2024-01-31, noting a Virginia jury found Palo Alto's security software infringed four Centripetal "threat intelligence gateway" patents and that Palo Alto called the verdict "contrary to both the law and the extensive evidence we presented at trial." Law360 tracked the full arc — the 2024-01-31 verdict, Palo Alto's post-trial motions (2024-02-29, 2024-03-28), and the 2024-10-31 ruling that Palo Alto didn't infringe one of the patents, cutting the award to $113.6 million. Silicon Valley Business Journal and Channel Futures added business-press color on 2024-02-02: roughly $37.9 million per patent, Centripetal COO Jonathan Rogers' statement that the verdict "protects the patents and innovation central to Centripetal's technology," and Palo Alto's pledge to seek post-trial relief. RPX Insight's litigation analysis provides the most useful industry context for this docket: it details how Palo Alto (and co-defendants like Keysight) blanketed Centripetal's portfolio with IPR petitions as a stay strategy, how Judge Roderick Young stayed the companion case pending PTAB outcomes, and how Centripetal's damages theory leaned on a Keysight license — a strategy Palo Alto attacked post-trial.

Where the reporting diverges from, or goes beyond, the court record: The press accounts of the April 23, 2026 Federal Circuit decision describe a proceeding over claims 1–20 of the '917 patent (with claims 4 and 14 the only ones reversed on cross-appeal), whereas the previously generated case summary for this docket described the PTAB's final written decisions as leaving claims 24–28 intact — a discrepancy suggesting multiple Keysight IPRs (e.g., IPR2021-01368/01369 versus IPR2022-01097) with different claim sets, which the published coverage does not reconcile. Reporting also frames the dispute through the saga of Centripetal's earlier $2.75 billion Cisco judgment — Reuters notes it was the largest U.S. patent award at the time but was thrown out on appeal — and RPX goes beyond the docket to analyze the unusual Ropes & Gray disqualification fight (tied to Centripetal's Silver Point Finance financing), which the court record shows was decided in the companion case. Executive and analyst commentary — Centripetal's COO championing IP protection and Palo Alto's "respectfully disagree" statement, quoted in Silicon Valley Business Journal, Channel Futures, and Reuters — comes from the 2021 case, not from this stayed 2022 action. In sum: the press treated the '917 patent's invalidation (via Keysight's IPR and the 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance) as the dispositive event for the portfolio, but no outlet reported on this specific docket's stay or dismissal directly.

Sources

• A&O Shearman | IP Blog | Federal Circuit Vacates And Remands PTAB Decision In Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal Networks Over Motivation To Combine Prior Art
• 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.
• Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• Ex. 1001 | IPR2021-01151 | Palo Alto Networks Inc v. Centripetal Networks Inc | Ex Parte
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Invalidity of Centripetal's network threat detection patent affirmed on appeal
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Virginia Jury Returns $151.1M Verdict for Centripetal Networks - News | RPX Empower
• CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. , No. 23-1785 (Fed. Cir. 2024) - CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC. , No. 23-1785 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
• PGR2021-00108 - Palo Alto Networks Incorporated v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. PGR of US10931797B2 | RPX Insight
• Methods and systems for protecting a secured network - - Exhibit 1003 in IPR2021-01152—Claim Appendix of U
• Centripetal Networks, Inc
• Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Counsel for Plaintiff Centripetal Networks, LLC

Centripetal Networks is represented by attorneys from the national intellectual property firm Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, along with local counsel from Vandeventer Black LLP. The Kramer Levin team has a long history of representing Centripetal in its significant patent disputes.

• Paul J. Andre (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Note: Co-chair of Kramer Levin's IP practice, Andre has led Centripetal's litigation efforts for years, including securing a now-vacated multi-billion dollar judgment against Cisco Systems.

• James R. Hannah (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Note: An internationally recognized patent litigator who has worked alongside Paul Andre on major Centripetal cases and other high-stakes technology disputes.

• Robert M. Masters (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: A search of public records and news articles does not clearly confirm Robert M. Masters' role with Kramer Levin in this specific case, though the firm has a Washington D.C. office. There is a prominent IP litigator named Robert M. Masters at Sheppard Mullin in Washington D.C., but his affiliation with the plaintiff's counsel team here is not established in the available search results.

• Stephen B. Kinnard (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Vandeventer Black LLP (Norfolk, VA)
  • Note: Attorneys from Vandeventer Black LLP are listed on the docket as serving as local counsel for Centripetal in the Eastern District of Virginia. While Stephen B. Kinnard is a known appellate litigator, his specific role in this district court case is not detailed in the search results, and it's possible another attorney from his firm handled the day-to-day local counsel duties. His name appears in relation to other unrelated cases in various jurisdictions.

Counsel for Defendant Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Palo Alto Networks is represented by attorneys from the national law firm Paul, Hastings LLP, with local counsel from Pender & Coward, P.C. The legal team is known for its extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

This legal team's composition reflects a common strategy in patent litigation: combining a nationally recognized firm with deep technical and appellate expertise (Paul, Hastings) with seasoned local attorneys (Noona and Greb) who have specific experience with the judges and procedures of the Eastern District of Virginia. The team's strong background in PTAB proceedings was particularly relevant to this case, which was ultimately decided by the outcome of the parallel IPR and subsequent Federal Circuit appeal rather than by district court litigation.