Litigation

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand (joined)

IPR2022-01151

Filed
2021-11
Terminated
2026-06-11

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

Cisco Systems filed this IPR, which was joined with IPR2022-00182. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand for this joined case.

Case overview & background

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

This case, IPR2022-01151, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated by Cisco Systems, Inc. against Centripetal Networks, Inc. Cisco Systems is a global technology conglomerate known for its networking hardware, software, and cybersecurity products. Centripetal Networks, Inc. is a Virginia-based cybersecurity solutions provider specializing in intelligence-driven network defense, offering products like its RuleGate® appliance and CleanINTERNET® service. Centripetal Networks is also characterized in some legal contexts as a patent assertion entity, actively enforcing its intellectual property portfolio. The IPR specifically challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 ('856 patent), which describes rule-based detection of network threats within encrypted communications, aiming to inspect encrypted traffic for malicious behavior without requiring decryption.

The IPR is intertwined with a significant underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Centripetal against Cisco in the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 2:18-cv-00094). In that district court litigation, Cisco was accused of infringing multiple Centripetal patents, including the '856 patent, with its ASA firewall, Stealthwatch network detection platform, IOS XE networking software, and Catalyst switches. The district court initially found Cisco liable for willful infringement in 2020, awarding Centripetal over $1.9 billion in damages, a sum that could have reached up to $3.2 billion with running royalties, marking one of the largest patent damages awards in U.S. history. However, this judgment was later vacated by the Federal Circuit due to the district judge's undisclosed financial interest in Cisco stock, leading to a remand for further proceedings with a new judge.

This IPR, IPR2022-01151, was joined with IPR2022-00182 and faced its own complex appellate journey. Following an initial Final Written Decision by the PTAB, the case was remanded by the Federal Circuit in October 2025, with the directive for the PTAB to reconsider evidence related to alleged copying by Cisco. The PTAB serves as a critical forum for challenging patent validity and has been a key battleground in Centripetal's broader patent enforcement strategy, which also includes litigation and IPRs against other cybersecurity vendors like Palo Alto Networks and Keysight Technologies. The termination of the IPR with a "Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand (joined)" on June 11, 2026, as per case metadata, signifies a significant procedural milestone in this long-running and notable dispute over essential network security technologies.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Centripetal Networks, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 2:18-cv-00094) on February 13, 2018. An Amended Complaint followed on March 29, 2018, asserting infringement of eleven U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. Cisco, in turn, filed numerous petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against nine of Centripetal's patents and moved to stay the district court litigation.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings (2018-02-13): Centripetal Networks, LLC filed its initial complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting 11 patents related to network security. An amended complaint was filed on March 29, 2018, specifically asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,566,077, 9,413,722, 9,160,713, 9,124,552, 9,565,213, 9,674,148, 9,686,193, 9,203,806, 9,137,205, 9,917,856, and 9,500,176.
  • Pre-Trial Motions & Stay Pending IPR (2019-02-25): Cisco filed several IPR petitions against Centripetal's patents between July 12, 2018, and September 18, 2018. The district court granted Cisco's motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of these IPR proceedings on February 25, 2019. The stay was partially lifted on September 18, 2019, for patents not subject to IPR proceedings, setting the case for trial.
  • Trial and Initial Verdict (2020-10-05): A 22-day bench trial, conducted via video-conference, took place from May 6 to June 11, 2020. On October 5, 2020, Judge Henry C. Morgan Jr. issued a 178-page opinion finding that Cisco willfully infringed four of the five asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,203,806, 9,560,176, 9,686,193, and 9,917,856). The court found the '9,137,205 patent not infringed. Judge Morgan awarded Centripetal $755.8 million in past damages, which was then tripled to $1.9 billion due to the finding of willful and egregious infringement, along with prejudgment interest. The judgment also included a running royalty of 10% on apportioned sales for three years, followed by 5% for another three years, bringing the total potential award to between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion.
  • Judicial Recusal and Federal Circuit Remand (2022-06-23): After Judge Morgan drafted his opinion, he discovered his wife owned Cisco stock. Despite his denial of Cisco's recusal motion, the Federal Circuit, on June 23, 2022, reversed the district court's decision, vacated all orders and opinions entered on or after August 11, 2020, including the final judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings before a different district court judge. The U.S. Supreme Court denied Centripetal's petition for certiorari regarding the recusal issue in December 2022.
  • Proceedings on Remand and New District Court Judgment (2023-12-11): The case was reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes on August 23, 2022. On December 11, 2023, the new district court judge issued an opinion granting judgment of noninfringement in favor of Cisco for three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,686,193, 9,203,806, and 9,560,176. The court noted that issues of infringement for the '856 patent remained pending but entered a partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) for the three non-infringed patents.
  • Federal Circuit Appeal of Remand Decision (2026-04-29): Centripetal appealed the district court's December 11, 2023, judgment of noninfringement. On April 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of noninfringement regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 9,686,193, 9,203,806, and 9,560,176. The Federal Circuit again specified that infringement issues for the '856 patent were still pending.
  • District Court Administrative Closure (2025-07-22): The district court case was administratively closed on July 22, 2025, pending the outcome of Federal Circuit appeals. This is a procedural step, and the case is to be restored to the active docket once the appellate proceedings conclude. A Bill of Costs was awarded against Centripetal (ECF No. 819), but its execution was stayed until the appeals are resolved.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • Initial IPR Filings & Institution (2021-11 onwards): Cisco filed numerous IPR petitions against Centripetal's patents. Specifically for U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856, Palo Alto Networks initiated IPR2022-01151 in November 2021, challenging claims related to rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications. Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies later filed substantively identical petitions and were joined with IPR2022-01151 (and IPR2022-00182, IPR2022-01199). An initial PTAB panel, including Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) Brian McNamara, instituted review.
  • APJ Recusal Issue at PTAB (2022-09 onwards): In September 2022, Centripetal became aware that APJ McNamara owned Cisco stock and filed a motion for recusal, which was initially denied. However, APJ McNamara subsequently withdrew from the panel to simplify the briefing, as did APJ Amundson.
  • PTAB Final Written Decision & CAFC Remand (2023-05-23 & 2025-10-22): The PTAB, with a new panel, issued a final written decision on May 23, 2023, holding claims 1, 24, and 25 of the '856 patent unpatentable as obvious. Centripetal appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-2027). On October 22, 2025, the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's final written decision and remanded the case, directing the PTAB to reconsider evidence relating to alleged copying by Cisco, while affirming the Board's recusal analysis.
  • PTAB Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand (2026-06-11): Following the Federal Circuit's remand, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a new Final Written Decision on June 11, 2026, for the joined IPRs (IPR2022-01151, IPR2022-00182, and IPR2022-01199). In this decision, the PTAB invalidated the remaining Centripetal patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856.

In the news

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

News & Analysis Coverage of Cisco v. Centripetal (IPR2022-01151 and Related Litigation)

Press coverage of this dispute has tracked the litigation's two parallel tracks — the vacated multi-billion-dollar district court verdict and the PTAB validity fight over U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. Reuters reported on 2023-12-12 that U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes rejected Centripetal's infringement claims, describing how Judge Henry Morgan had awarded Centripetal "$2.75 billion" in 2020 — "the largest patent damages award in U.S. history" — before the Federal Circuit overturned it on ethics grounds because Morgan's wife owned 100 shares of Cisco stock worth $4,688. Reuters noted Morgan had died in the interim and that the Supreme Court declined to review the recusal ruling. That framing ($2.75 billion inclusive of running royalties) is echoed in syndicated versions at The Economic Times and Investing.com, which also quoted the "$1.9 billion in damages, plus royalties that Cisco said increased the total to more than $2.7 billion" figure — a slightly different number than the "$2.75 billion" in Reuters' headline, reflecting how outlets variously counted the base award versus the royalty add-ons.

On the PTAB side, Bloomberg Law reported on 2023-05-16 that the Federal Circuit refused Centripetal's mandamus bid to halt the IPR over APJ Brian McNamara's $1,001–$15,000 Cisco stock holding, quoting the court that Centripetal "has not shown that it will be unable to raise its arguments after a final written decision." Bloomberg Law also offered the strategic read that a successful IPR "could undermine Centripetal's district court case against Cisco, which is up for a new trial." IPWatchdog (Eileen McDermott, 2025-10-22) covered the Federal Circuit's precedential decision authored by Judge Cunningham — vacating the PTAB's May 2023 obviousness ruling for failure to consider Cisco-copying evidence while upholding the recusal analysis, including the finding that Centripetal waited over three months after learning of the stock ownership to move for recusal. Law360 (Ryan Davis, 2025-10-22) covered the same decision as "Fed. Circ. Faults PTAB Ax In Centripetal Case But Not Recusal," and Law360 (Ryan Davis, 2026-06-12) reported that the PTAB "has again found" the '856 patent invalid as obvious after the remand. Law360 (2026-02-20) additionally reported that Centripetal asked USPTO Director John Squires to undo the 2022 institution decision as inconsistent with his current policies — a development that goes beyond the court docket into agency-policy territory.

Analysis-oriented outlets added doctrinal framing beyond the raw docket. Finnegan's Federal Circuit IP Blog (2025-11-24, republished via Mondaq and Lexology) explained the Federal Circuit's clarification that the Board "need not scour the entire litigation record" but must engage with copying evidence put before it. IP Law Daily/Vitallaw (2025-10-23) catalogued the procedural history, including the OGE de minimis threshold under 5 C.F.R. § 2640.202. Blog commentary like TechInfoLaw and USPatent.com (Jeremy Gustrowsky) framed the outcome as "When Recusal Fails but Secondary Considerations Revive an IPR," stressing that the case underscores how secondary considerations remain mandatory in obviousness analysis even where the Board is skeptical of parallel district court records. One minor inconsistency across coverage: the docket-level databases (e.g., Patexia and Docket Alarm) show Cisco's IPR2022-01151 as filed June 24, 2022 and joined to Palo Alto's earlier November 2021 petition (IPR2022-00182), whereas the case metadata here lists "Filed: 2021-11" — the earlier date reflects the lead Palo Alto petition that Cisco joined, not Cisco's own filing. No outlet appears to have reported the specific June 11, 2026 remand decision in standalone detail beyond the Law360 lede; the fullest press treatment remains the Law360/Reuters/Bloomberg coverage of the 2023–2025 milestones.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

Cisco Systems, Inc. was represented by the following counsel of record in IPR2022-01151:

  • Theodore M. Foster

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (presumably, as the firm has a significant patent litigation presence there).
    • Note: Theodore M. Foster is mentioned as representing Cisco Systems in this IPR. His firm, Haynes and Boone, LLP, is active in intellectual property litigation.

  • David L. McCombs

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (presumably).
    • Note: David L. McCombs is listed as representing Cisco Systems in IPR2022-01151. He is known for his work in intellectual property litigation.

  • Gregory P. Huh

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX (presumably).
    • Note: Gregory P. Huh also represented Cisco Systems in this IPR.

While other attorneys such as Scott J. Bornstein (Greenberg Traurig), Michael J. Flibbert (Finnegan), and Jonathan E. Singer (Fish & Richardson) have represented Cisco in various patent litigation matters or IPRs, the specific counsel of record for Cisco Systems in IPR2022-01151, as indicated by a recent report on the PTAB's decision, were from Haynes and Boone LLP.

Additionally, John Zhu is identified as Director, Associate General Counsel within Cisco Systems' intellectual property group, where he manages some of Cisco's patent litigation matters and works on patent strategy, indicating an in-house role.

Defendant representatives

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

Centripetal Networks, Inc., the defendant in this IPR, has been represented by several law firms and attorneys throughout its various patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, including in matters directly related to the '856 patent and its dispute with Cisco. It's important to note that Centripetal Networks, Inc. changed its corporate name to Centripetal Networks, LLC on January 31, 2023.

Here is a list of counsel who have represented Centripetal Networks in related matters, focusing on their involvement with the '856 patent and the broader Cisco litigation, which is highly relevant to this IPR:

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

  • Paul J. Andre (Lead Counsel) - Silicon Valley Office, Managing Partner, Head of Intellectual Property, US.
    • Notable Experience: Has served as lead counsel for Centripetal in multiple significant patent infringement cases, including securing large jury verdicts.
  • James R. Hannah (Lead Counsel) - Silicon Valley Office, Partner.
    • Notable Experience: Represented Centripetal in the Federal Circuit appeal of the Cisco district court case and in PTAB proceedings, including the IPRs related to the '856 patent.
  • Jeffrey Price (Counsel) - New York Office.
    • Notable Experience: Listed as counsel for Centripetal in PTAB proceedings concerning the '856 patent and in related Federal Circuit appeals.
  • Jenna Fuller (Counsel) - Firm office not specified in search results.
    • Notable Experience: Represented Centripetal Networks in the PTAB proceedings for the IPRs related to the '856 patent.
  • Lisa Kobialka (Counsel) - Silicon Valley Office, Managing Partner, Disputes, US.
    • Notable Experience: Counsel for Centripetal in Federal Circuit appeals, including the appeal of the Cisco district court judgment.
  • Christina M. Finn (Special Counsel) - Silicon Valley Office.
    • Notable Experience: Represented Centripetal in Federal Circuit appeals, including a case against Keysight Technologies.
  • Daniel Noah Lerman (Counsel) - Washington, DC Office.
    • Notable Experience: Argued for Centripetal Networks in a Federal Circuit appeal against Keysight Technologies.

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

  • Bradley Wright (Counsel) - Firm office not specified in search results.
    • Notable Experience: Represented Centripetal Networks in the PTAB proceedings for the IPRs related to the '856 patent.
  • Scott Kelly (Counsel) - Firm office not specified in search results.
    • Notable Experience: Represented Centripetal Networks in the PTAB proceedings for the IPRs related to the '856 patent.
  • John Hutchins (Counsel) - Firm office not specified in search results.
    • Notable Experience: Represented Centripetal Networks in the PTAB proceedings for the IPRs related to the '856 patent.
  • Blair A. Silver (Counsel) - Washington, DC.
    • Notable Experience: Listed as counsel for Centripetal in the Federal Circuit appeal of the Cisco district court case.

Irell & Manella LLP

  • Andrei Iancu (Of Counsel) - Los Angeles, CA.
    • Notable Experience: Former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Joined the Irell & Manella team to defend Centripetal's multi-billion dollar award against Cisco on appeal.
  • Alan J. Heinrich (Counsel) - Los Angeles, CA.
    • Notable Experience: Part of the team defending Centripetal's judgment against Cisco.
  • Philip J. Warrick (Counsel) - Washington, DC.
    • Notable Experience: Part of the team defending Centripetal's judgment against Cisco.

Bey & Cotropia PLLC

  • Christopher Cotropia (Counsel) - Richmond, VA.
    • Notable Experience: Listed as counsel for Centripetal in the Federal Circuit appeal of the Cisco district court case, indicating local counsel involvement in Virginia-based litigation.

It is important to note that specific roles like "lead counsel" or "local counsel" can vary by individual proceeding (district court, PTAB, Federal Circuit) and may not always be explicitly defined in public search results. The roles provided are based on the context of their appearance and the general practice in patent litigation.