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

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.

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.

I'll research press coverage across multiple angles — the IPR number, the parties, the patent, and the district court verdicts.

Let me verify the specific listed articles and search for coverage of the recent PTAB remand decision.

Found a key 2026 Law360 article. Let me verify the listed articles and search additional angles.

Below is what I was able to verify through web search. Two caveats up front: (1) my searches were cut off before I could independently retrieve the full text of several items in the supplied news index (notably the Patently-O "Long Conference" post and the two IPWatchdog pieces), so I flag those as unverified rather than describe their contents; and (2) I did verify the Reuters original that underlies most of the December 2023 syndications.

Press coverage of Cisco v. Centripetal / IPR2022-01151

Mainstream coverage is dominated by the district court saga, not the IPR itself. Reuters (Blake Brittain, Dec. 12, 2023) reported that U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Hanes in the Eastern District of Virginia rejected Centripetal's infringement claims against Cisco, ending a fight that had produced "the largest patent damages award in U.S. history." Reuters recounted the arc: Judge Henry Morgan awarded Centripetal $1.9 billion in damages plus royalties that Cisco said pushed the total above $2.7 billion (the "roughly $2.75 billion" figure used in headlines), a bench ruling Reuters said came after Morgan disclosed his wife's ownership of 100 Cisco shares worth $4,688. Reuters (Jonathan Stempel, June 23, 2022) reported the Federal Circuit's 3‑0 decision throwing out the award on ethics grounds, quoting Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk ("seriously inimical to the credibility of the judiciary…") and Centripetal COO Jonathan Rogers saying the company "will continue to fight to protect its rights." The Dec. 12–13, 2023 verdict story was then syndicated verbatim across business wires and aggregators — the wire copy appearing at The Times of India, Moneycontrol, Investing.com and CNA (Dec. 12–13, 2023), and at Biztoc (Dec. 12, 2023) under the "Cisco defeats Centripetal patent case that led to $2.75 billion award" headline, and again at Biztoc (Dec. 13, 2023) as "Cisco Dodges A Legal Bullet." (I retrieved the Biztoc URLs from the supplied index but the search results surfaced the identical Reuters text; I could not independently confirm the Biztoc repackaging.)

The PTAB track — i.e., the proceeding that is the subject of this case — is covered mainly by Law360. Law360's docket page for the matter carries an article dated June 12, 2026 headlined "PTAB Again Invalidates Centripetal Patent In Cisco Case," reporting that the Board "has again found that a Centripetal Networks cybersecurity patent that was part of a since-vacated multibillion-dollar judgment against Cisco Systems is invalid as obvious, after the Federal Circuit ordered the board to rethink an earlier invalidity ruling" (Law360). Note a one-day discrepancy: the case metadata lists the FWD on CAFC remand as June 11, 2026, while the Law360 item is dated June 12, 2026. Law360's earlier PTAB coverage of the same proceeding includes "PTAB Nixes Patent Tied To Scrapped $2.75B Cisco Loss" (May 23, 2023), "PTAB Criticizes Centripetal For 'Frivolous' Ethics Complaint" (Feb. 7, 2023), "PTAB Won't Undo Review Of Centripetal Patent, Adds Cisco" (Jan. 5, 2023) — the decision adding Cisco and Keysight by joinder — and "PTAB To Review Patent Tied To Cisco's $2.75B Loss" (May 25, 2022). Law360's separate Centripetal v. Cisco case page adds district-court items including "Cisco Clears IP Suit After Axed $2.7B Judgment, Recusal Row" (Dec. 11, 2023) and "Judge Cements Decision Clearing Cisco From $2.75B Ruling" (June 17, 2024), the latter reporting there would be no third trial (Law360).

Legal-industry and analyst coverage frames the October 2025 remand as an unresolved validity question and a market risk. The Federal Circuit's opinion in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2023‑2027 (Oct. 22, 2025) — the appeal that produced the remand now at issue — is itself the primary "source" document (CAFC opinion PDF); it affirms the Board's recusal analysis but vacates the final written decision "for failure to adequately consider evidence of copying." Law firm Oliff summarized the holding the same way, emphasizing that the APJ's Cisco stock was "quite small, fully disclosed, and within the limits of Office of Government Ethics regulations." A PatSnap litigation blog went further than the court record, characterizing the vacatur as restoring "enforcement optionality" for U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 and warning that NGFW/NDR vendors "should treat US9917856B2 as a priority FTO target" while validity remained "unresolved." Law-firm self-reporting also appears in the coverage: WilmerHale publicized its partner Mark Fleming as Litigation Daily's "Litigator of the Week" for the 2022 reversal, and a Duane Morris/Legal 500 profile touts a "complete defense verdict in December 2023 for Cisco" in the retrial (Legal 500).

Reporting limits / what I could not verify. Coverage of the IPR specifically (as opposed to the district court) is thin outside Law360: the June 2026 remand decision appears to have been picked up essentially as a Law360 item plus the underlying opinion and law-firm summaries, with no Reuters/Bloomberg/Ars Technica treatment I could locate. I was unable to independently retrieve or read the Patently-O "Patent Docket Heading into the Supreme Court's Long Conference" post (Sept. 21, 2026), the IPWatchdog "Other Barks & Bites" (Nov. 8, 2024) and "Cellspin Attempt at Recusal… Fitbit" (Nov. 1, 2024) pieces, or the CNA report on the January 31, 2024 Palo Alto Networks $151.5 million verdict, so I cannot confirm whether or how they discuss IPR2022-01151 — the search results surfaced only Patently-O archive/index pages without the article body. Likewise, the CNA, Moneycontrol, Times of India, Investing.com and Biztoc items in the index are, per the Reuters text I retrieved, syndications of the single Dec. 12, 2023 Reuters wire story rather than independent reporting, and I would treat them as one source for citation purposes.

Sources

• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Trials@uspto
• In the '182 POPR, Centripetal pointed out PAN's failure to address known and published findings and evidence of objective indici...
• Cisco appealed the district court's judgment, but never challenged the judge's validity findings with respect to the '856 Patent...
• Appellees’ attempt to defend the merits of the Board’s sua sponte construction of “URI” is weaker still
• None of this can stand
• Networks, Inc
• Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 2:18-cv-00094 - CourtListener.com - Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (2:18-cv-00094)
• Judge Morgan found Centripetal's '856 patent valid, rejecting Cisco's arguments that it was anticipated, obvious, or lacked an a...
• Search court records on patent:(9917856)
• Cisco defeats Centripetal patent case that led to $2.75 bln award - Cisco defeats Centripetal patent case that led to $2.75 bln award
• Cisco wins reversal of $2.75 bln damages award because judge's wife owned stock - Cisco wins reversal of $2.75 bln damages award because judge's wife owned stock

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.

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.