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

Centripetal Networks, LLC, a cybersecurity company specializing in intelligence-driven network protection, is the appellant in this case. Centripetal Networks develops and offers solutions like its CleanINTERNET platform and QuickThreat® Threat Intelligence Gateway, designed to proactively detect and block cyber threats using real-time threat intelligence. The appellees are major technology corporations: Palo Alto Networks, Inc., a global cybersecurity leader known for its next-generation firewalls and comprehensive security platform; Cisco Systems, Inc., a dominant force in networking hardware, software, and services; and Keysight Technologies, Inc., which provides electronic measurement, test, and software products across diverse industries like communications, aerospace, and defense.

This Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 23-2027) stems from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2022-00182 and related IPRs) initiated by Palo Alto Networks, and later joined by Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies, challenging Centripetal's U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. The '856 patent is titled "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection for Encrypted Communications" and generally covers systems and methods for identifying cyber threats in encrypted network traffic without needing to decrypt the underlying data. While the specific accused products, services, or technologies offered by Palo Alto Networks, Cisco Systems, and Keysight Technologies are not detailed as "accused products" in the Federal Circuit's review of the PTAB decision, their involvement in the IPRs indicates that Centripetal likely views their respective network security, cloud security, and network visibility offerings as potentially infringing on the '856 patent.

The procedural posture involves an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB had found claims 1, 24, and 25 of the '856 patent unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit, the exclusive appellate court for patent cases, vacated the PTAB's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This venue is critical because the Federal Circuit reviews PTAB decisions, and its rulings set precedents for patentability and IPR procedures. This particular case is notable not only for the high-profile cybersecurity companies involved, but also because the Federal Circuit remanded the case due to the PTAB's failure to adequately consider evidence of copying, an objective indicium of non-obviousness. Additionally, Centripetal had raised concerns about an administrative patent judge's (APJ) stock ownership in Cisco, a joined party, though the Federal Circuit ultimately upheld the PTAB's handling of the recusal issue. The remand thus prolongs the patentability fight and underscores the importance of the PTAB's thorough consideration of all evidence, including secondary considerations like copying, in obviousness determinations.## Case Overview and Background

Centripetal Networks, LLC, a cybersecurity firm specializing in intelligence-driven network protection, is the appellant in this case, seeking to uphold its patent rights. Centripetal develops and offers solutions such as its CleanINTERNET platform and QuickThreat® Threat Intelligence Gateway, which proactively detect and block cyber threats using real-time intelligence. On the opposing side, as appellees, are three prominent technology companies: Palo Alto Networks, Inc., a global leader in next-generation firewalls and comprehensive security platforms; Cisco Systems, Inc., a major provider of networking hardware, software, and services; and Keysight Technologies, Inc., which offers electronic measurement, test, and software products across various high-tech sectors.

This specific litigation, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al. (Federal Circuit Case No. 23-2027), is an appeal from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (IPR2022-00182 and related IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The IPRs were initiated by Palo Alto Networks, later joined by Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies, challenging the validity of Centripetal's U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. The '856 patent generally describes systems and methods for "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection for Encrypted Communications," focusing on identifying cyber threats within encrypted network traffic without requiring decryption of the data itself. While the appeal does not detail specific "accused products" in the same way a district court infringement case would, the appellees' participation in the IPRs suggests their network security, cloud security, and network visibility offerings are the technologies that Centripetal believes fall within the scope of its patent.

The case reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit following a PTAB final written decision that found certain claims of the '856 patent unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, vacated the PTAB's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This outcome is particularly notable because the Federal Circuit found that the PTAB failed to adequately consider evidence of copying, a key objective indicium of non-obviousness. Additionally, the case involved Centripetal's challenge regarding an administrative patent judge's (APJ) financial interest in Cisco, though the Federal Circuit ultimately upheld the PTAB's recusal analysis. The remand effectively reopens the patentability dispute at the PTAB, emphasizing the Federal Circuit's scrutiny of the Board's obligation to thoroughly evaluate all evidence, including secondary considerations, in patent validity determinations.

This case concerns an appeal (23-2027) by Centripetal Networks, LLC to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding a PTAB decision on US9917856. The Federal Circuit ultimately vacated and remanded the PTAB's decision.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• November 2021: Palo Alto Networks, Inc. initiated an inter partes review (IPR) for claims 1, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 ("rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications") with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Initial PTAB Panel & Recusal Issue: The PTAB instituted the IPR with a panel including Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) McNamara. Centripetal later discovered that APJ McNamara owned Cisco stock and, in December 2022, filed a motion seeking the recusal of the entire panel and vacatur of the institution decision.
• January 2023: The PTAB panel (still including APJ McNamara at that time) denied Centripetal's rehearing request but granted joinder requests from Cisco Systems, Inc. and Keysight Technologies, Inc., who had filed similar IPR petitions challenging US9917856. The next day, APJ McNamara and another APJ withdrew from the panel. Subsequently, a mostly new panel denied Centripetal's motion for vacatur.
• May 23, 2023: The PTAB issued its final written decision in IPR2022-00182 (and related IPRs), holding claims 1, 24, and 25 of the '856 patent unpatentable as obvious.

Federal Circuit Appeal (23-2027):

• May 23, 2023: Centripetal Networks, LLC filed its appeal (Case No. 23-2027) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging both the merits of the obviousness determination and the PTAB's handling of the recusal issue. (Note: One source indicates a filing date of June 15, 2023 for the appeal, but the Federal Circuit opinion indicates the PTAB's Merits Decision was May 23, 2023, which is the decision being appealed).
• February 7, 2025: Oral arguments were held at the Federal Circuit.
• October 22, 2025: The Federal Circuit issued its decision. The court reviewed the PTAB's recusal analysis for abuse of discretion and its legal conclusions de novo. While the Federal Circuit found that Centripetal's recusal motion was untimely and the APJ's stock ownership did not violate ethics regulations, and affirmed the PTAB's handling of the recusal issue, it found error in the PTAB's obviousness analysis.
• Outcome: The Federal Circuit vacated the Board's final written decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court specifically cited the PTAB's failure to adequately consider evidence of copying, which is an objective indicium of non-obviousness.

Effect on Litigation:

The Federal Circuit's decision means that the PTAB's prior finding that claims 1, 24, and 25 of US9917856 were unpatentable as obvious has been nullified, and the matter is returned to the PTAB for reconsideration, specifically to properly address the evidence of copying. This extends the litigation and leaves the defendants, Palo Alto Networks, Cisco Systems, and Keysight Technologies, exposed to potential patent enforceability if validity is ultimately confirmed on remand.

Note: There appears to be a separate Federal Circuit appeal, 23-1731, involving Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,503,899, which was affirmed by a Rule 36 judgment on November 6, 2024. Additionally, another Federal Circuit appeal, 2023-1636, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,530,903, was decided on December 16, 2024, vacating and remanding the PTAB's decision for insufficient explanation of motivation to combine. These are distinct from the case 23-2027 concerning US9917856.

News and analysis coverage of Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al. (Federal Circuit Case No. 23-2027) generally focuses on the Federal Circuit's decision to vacate and remand the PTAB's obviousness ruling regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. Several outlets, including PatSnap and VitalLaw.com, highlighted that the Federal Circuit instructed the PTAB to properly consider evidence of copying, which is an objective indicium of non-obviousness. This remand effectively "resets the patentability fight" over the '856 patent, which covers rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications, and means neither party secured a definitive outcome on the merits at the Federal Circuit stage. The case is considered significant for emphasizing the importance of the PTAB's thorough consideration of all evidence, including secondary considerations like copying, in obviousness determinations.

The media also extensively covered the procedural issue concerning an administrative patent judge's (APJ) stock ownership in Cisco, a joined party in the IPR proceedings. IPWatchdog.com reported that while Centripetal raised concerns about the APJ's alleged bias, the Federal Circuit ultimately upheld the PTAB's decision on the recusal issue, finding that Centripetal's motion was untimely and the stock ownership was below the regulatory de minimis threshold. Despite affirming the handling of the recusal, the Federal Circuit still vacated the PTAB's decision on the merits due to the overlooked copying evidence. This indicates that even with the recusal issue resolved in favor of the PTAB, the substantive error in evaluating obviousness was sufficient to warrant a remand.

Several reports, including those from Alston & Bird, also clarified that the Federal Circuit exercised jurisdiction to review the Board's otherwise unappealable institution decisions in connection with the recusal challenge, as it implicated ethics and constitutional concerns, not just the merits of institution. The disposition by the Federal Circuit was "vacated and remanded," meaning the lower patentability ruling was nullified, but the court did not issue a final validity decision itself, sending the case back to the PTAB for further proceedings. No specific damages sought or awarded, or settlement terms, were reported in the context of this Federal Circuit appeal, as it concerns the patentability of the '856 patent rather than an infringement verdict or settlement. However, it is worth noting that in a separate district court case, a jury awarded Centripetal Networks $151.5 million in damages against Palo Alto Networks for infringing other Centripetal patents in January 2024, highlighting the broader litigation landscape between these parties.

Sources

• schwabe.com
• finnegan.com
• justia.com
• vitallaw.com
• alston.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• hsfkramer.com

Centripetal Networks, LLC was represented by the following counsel in Federal Circuit case 23-2027:

• Paul D. Clement

  • Role: Lead Counsel (argued for appellant)
  • Firm: Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA.
  • Experience Note: Paul Clement is a prominent appellate attorney who frequently argues before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, often in high-profile cases involving constitutional law and intellectual property.

• Matthew James Dowd

  • Role: Of Counsel (also represented appellant)
  • Firm: Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Matthew Dowd's practice focuses on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and appellate matters, particularly before the Federal Circuit.

• Robert James Scheffel

  • Role: Of Counsel (also represented appellant)
  • Firm: Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Robert Scheffel specializes in intellectual property law, with experience in patent litigation and appeals at the Federal Circuit.

• Joseph DeMott

  • Role: Of Counsel (also represented appellant)
  • Firm: While the immediate search results did not explicitly state his firm in this context, Joseph DeMott is known to be a partner at Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA. (Information derived from general knowledge of the firm and common practice for counsel listed alongside Paul Clement).
  • Experience Note: Joseph DeMott has experience in appellate litigation, frequently appearing before the Federal Circuit in patent cases.

• Matthew Rowen

  • Role: Of Counsel (also represented appellant)
  • Firm: While the immediate search results did not explicitly state his firm in this context, Matthew Rowen is also known to be a partner at Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA. (Information derived from general knowledge of the firm and common practice for counsel listed alongside Paul Clement).
  • Experience Note: Matthew Rowen focuses on appellate matters, including those before the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, with a focus on patent and administrative law.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. et al., Federal Circuit Case No. 23-2027:

For Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

• Douglas Hallward-Driemeier

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience: Represents Palo Alto Networks in various intellectual property disputes, including IPR appeals.

• James Richard Batchelder

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience: Also represented Palo Alto Networks in the underlying PTAB IPR proceedings related to this patent.

• Andrew T. Radsch

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA (listed for PTAB representation, but also for Federal Circuit in related cases)
  • Experience: Involved in the PTAB proceedings concerning the patent at issue and related appeals.

For Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Mark Christopher Fleming

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA
  • Experience: Argued for appellees, including Cisco Systems, in the Federal Circuit appeal; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP has successfully defended Cisco in patent infringement cases.

• Heath Brooks

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Federal Circuit opinion.

• Gary M. Fox

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Federal Circuit opinion.

• Theodore M. Foster

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Denver, CO
  • Experience: Represented Cisco Systems in the PTAB IPR proceedings. Haynes and Boone has a Palo Alto office with a strong IP practice.

• Debra Janece McComas

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (presumably)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Federal Circuit opinion.

• David L. McCombs

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Represented Cisco Systems in the PTAB IPR proceedings and is listed as counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Federal Circuit opinion.

• Angela M. Oliver

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC (presumably)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Federal Circuit opinion.

• John Zhu

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Experience: Director, Associate General Counsel within Cisco Systems' intellectual property group, managing patent litigation matters and evaluating third-party IP threats.

• Sarita Venkat

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Experience: VP & Deputy General Counsel of Global Litigation at Cisco, with extensive experience managing complex, high-profile patent and commercial litigations.

For Keysight Technologies, Inc.

• Gerard M. Donovan

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Washington, DC
  • Experience: Represented Keysight Technologies in the Federal Circuit appeal and in the underlying PTAB IPR proceedings, securing victories in complex multi-forum patent litigation.

• Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience: Argued for all appellees, including Keysight, in a related Federal Circuit appeal (24-2372, 24-2373) and is part of the Reed Smith team that has represented Keysight in multi-forum litigation.

• Jonah D. Mitchell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience: Part of the Reed Smith team that secured multiple victories for Keysight across various fora, including the ITC, PTAB, and Federal Circuit.

• James Christopher Martin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Keysight Technologies, Inc. in the Reed Smith press release on their victories for Keysight.

• Jeffrey Li

  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Keysight Technologies, Inc.
  • Experience: Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary for Keysight Technologies, leading legal, compliance, and customer contracts functions.