Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2024-2372

Case Overview & Background — Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2024-2372 (Fed. Cir.)

Parties. Appellant/patent owner Centripetal Networks, LLC (formerly Centripetal Networks, Inc.) is a Portsmouth, NH/Reston, VA-based cybersecurity company that sells rule-based network security gateways, but is best known as one of the most aggressive enforcers of network-security patents in the country (e.g., its vacated ~$2.75B jury verdict against Cisco in E.D. Va., and serial assertions against Cisco, Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, and Keysight). Appellee Keysight Technologies, Inc. is the Santa Rosa, CA-based electronic test-and-measurement giant (formerly part of Agilent/HP) that acquired Ixia in 2017; Keysight's accused products are its network-security testing and visibility lines—chiefly the BreakingPoint security-testing appliances and the Application and Threat Intelligence (ATI) subscription feeds that deliver dynamically updated threat data ("Threat Insights"/"Rap Sheets") used to test and filter against malicious IPs and botnets. Keysight is the real party in interest behind the IPR petition (IPR2023-00445), which it filed within the § 315(b) one-year bar after Centripetal sued it on January 1, 2022. (Sources: Keysight Form 10-Q quarterly report, describing the Jan. 2022 E.D. Va. suit and multi-forum defense; Reed Smith client announcement; E.D. Va. Docket No. 2:22-cv-00002, Docs. 1, 45; complaint-chart analyses identifying BreakingPoint and ATI as accused features.)

Patent and technology. The only patent in this appeal is U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266 B2, "Methods and Systems for Protecting a Secured Network" (inventors Steven Rogers and Sean Moore; filed Dec. 26, 2019; issued Sept. 2020; priority to Oct. 2012). In one line: the claims cover deploying multiple packet security gateways (PSGs) that collectively form the entire interface across a protected network's boundary, where each PSG receives from an external security policy management server a dynamic security policy whose filtering rules were automatically created/altered from malicious-host/threat-intelligence data, and applies that common rule set to all traffic traversing the boundary, performing packet-transformation functions beyond simple forward/drop. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and 27 total claims were all challenged and all found unpatentable. Keysight's lead reference was U.S. Patent App. Pub. 2011/0072506 ("Law"), alone or combined with "Wood" (2007/0097976) and/or "Jungck" (2009/0262741); the PTAB's Final Written Decision of July 22, 2024 (APJ Kevin F. Turner, joined by APJs Bryan F. Moore and Steven M. Amundson) held every challenged claim obvious, principally on the ground that Law's perimeter firewalls and third-party "firm 305" rule-generation server disclosed the claimed plurality-of-gateways, common-rule-set, and server-auto-generation limitations. (Sources: PTAB FWD and IPR2023-00445 docket via Patexia/IPVerse/Unified Patents; patent record on patents.justia.com and unifiedpatents.com; Patent Owner's Response, Paper 17, and Petitioner's Reply, Paper 21, on DocketAlarm.)

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Centripetal timely appealed on September 23, 2024 (amended notice of appeal); the case was docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 2024-2372 on September 27, 2024, with the PTAB (not a district court) as the originating forum, and related IPR2023-01329 (a joinder proceeding) folded in. The Federal Circuit is the exclusive appellate venue for IPR appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). The appeal stems from the parallel E.D. Va. action, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002-AWA-DEM (Norfolk Division, Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, Mag. Judge Douglas E. Miller)—the "Rocket Docket" where Centripetal is headquartered and won its Cisco verdict—which is stayed pending the IPR/ITC appeals. Oral argument was heard June 3, 2026, and on June 9, 2026 the Federal Circuit entered a non-precedential Rule 36 summary judgment AFFIRMING the PTAB's unpatentability decision. (Caveat: the case-metadata in your prompt lists status as "Pending/Appealed," but the CAFC's own judgment page, CourtListener docket (entry dated June 9, 2026), and a June 10, 2026 Bloomberg Law case digest all reflect a Rule 36 affirmance; counsel for the parties and panel composition are not confirmed in public sources I found.) The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it is one of ~seven Federal Circuit appeals Centripetal filed from Keysight's eight-IPR sweep, in which Keysight says 185 claims across eight asserted patents were invalidated—part of a broader defensive war spanning the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-1314, no violation affirmed), the E.D. Va. stay, and European proceedings (EPO/German/UPC wins); (2) it showcases the Federal Circuit's controversial Rule 36 summary-affirmance practice in PTAB appeals; and (3) it raised issue-preclusion tactics (Keysight invoking the final '474-patent IPR finding against the '266 patent) alongside substantial-evidence review of the Board's obviousness findings on a firewall/threat-intelligence family Centripetal has asserted against multiple network-security vendors. (Sources: CAFC Rule 36 judgment posting, June 9, 2026; CourtListener docket 73434618; RPX Insight entry for 24-2372; Reed Smith announcement; Bloomberg Law, June 10, 2026; Law360/Fed. Circ. roundup via The Lawyers Daily, Jan. 12, 2026—though that January item concerns a different Centripetal appeal and should not be conflated with this one.)

Preliminary orientation

One threshold point before the chronology: No. 2024-2372 is not a district-court patent-infringement docket. It is Centripetal Networks, LLC's appeal to the Federal Circuit from the PTAB's Final Written Decision ("FWD") in IPR2023-00445 (Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC), in which the Board found all challenged claims (1–27) of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266 ("the '266 patent") unpatentable. The infringement litigation in which the '266 patent was asserted runs parallel to, and was substantially shaped by, that IPR. The relevant infringement actions are:

• Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va.) — asserted 11 patents (including the '266) against Keysight, filed 2022-01-01; stayed and never tried to verdict.
• Centripetal Networks, Inc./LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va.) — asserted 13 patents (including the '266 and its sister patent '343) against PAN; partially stayed as to the '266/'343 while other patents went to a jury trial in 2024.

The web record also shows the appeal has now been decided: a per curiam Rule 36 affirmance entered 2026-06-09 (Lourie, Cunningham, Stark), i.e., the "Pending/Appealed" status in the case metadata is outdated as of today's date (2026-09-03).

---

Chronological key legal developments

1. Underlying infringement filings and initial pleadings

• 2021-03-12 — Centripetal filed the PAN complaint in E.D. Va. (No. 2:21-cv-00137) asserting a 13-patent portfolio (including the '266, issued 2020-09-22, and the '343) against PAN's NGFW, Panorama, Cortex, MineMeld, and DNS Security products. Amended complaint filed 2021-07-09. (Ex Parte/PACER complaint analysis; PatSnap case summary.)
• 2022-01-01 — Centripetal filed the Keysight complaint, No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va.), asserting 11 patents (including the '266) against Keysight's network-visibility/security products. (PTAB Ex. 1010, IPR2023-00445; Ex Parte docket summary.)
• 2022-04 — Centripetal filed a companion ITC Section 337 complaint; Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1314 on 2022-05-18. (Keysight 10-Q; Centripetal opposition papers.)

2. Stay motion practice in the Keysight case; ITC phase

• Mid-2022 — Keysight moved to stay the E.D. Va. action pending the ITC investigation and anticipated IPRs (Dkt. 44). Centripetal opposed on 2022-07-01 (Dkts. 45–46), arguing eight non-overlapping asserted patents/products should proceed. The district court action was thereafter stayed, and per Keysight's SEC disclosures remains "stayed pending the finalization of appeals of the ITC findings and validity challenges." (Keysight Form 10-Q, Q1 FY2026.)
• 2022-06 through 2022-09 — Keysight filed a wave of IPRs against the asserted portfolio (IPR2022-01097, -01199, -01421, -01525, -01535, -01607), with a further statutory deadline of 2023-01-06 for additional petitions on non-ITC patents. (Keysight notice to court, Dkt., 2022-10-03.)
• 2023-03-01 to 03-07 — ITC trial before ALJ MaryJoan McNamara. 2023-08-08 — Initial Determination: no Section 337 violation; non-infringement and invalidity findings on the asserted patents (e.g., '370, '917, '526). 2023-12-05 — Commission's Notice of Determination affirming no violation; investigation terminated. (Keysight court filing Dkt. 65, 2023-09-08; Keysight 10-Q; Centripetal's later Federal Circuit ITC appeal.)

3. The IPR2023-00445 proceeding on the '266 patent (the subject of this appeal)

• 2023-01-06 — Keysight filed the IPR petition challenging claims 1–27 of the '266 patent (IPR2023-00445), relying principally on Law (US 2011/0072506), Wood, Jungck, and Assurent VRS materials, with Dr. Doug Jacobson's declaration. (PTAB Papers 1–2.)
• 2023-07-24 — Board (APJs Turner, Moore, Amundson) instituted IPR on all challenged claims (Paper 10). Centripetal sought Director Review of institution (Paper 13); the Director denied review (Paper 14). Notably, Centripetal had raised General Plastic discretionary-denial arguments premised on Keysight's alleged "significant relationship" with PAN and the prior PAN petition IPR2021-01154 (institution denied) — arguments Keysight rebutted in its 2023-05-30 preliminary reply. (Institution decision cited at 2023 WL 5165893.)
• 2023-08-21 — PAN filed a substantively identical joinder petition (IPR2023-01329) and moved for joinder with IPR2023-00445 under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), timed within one month of institution and aimed at the same claims/grounds (Paper 3).
• 2023-08-24 — In the PAN district case, the parties filed a joint motion for partial stay of the '266 and '343 patent claims pending the instituted Keysight IPRs (IPR2023-00445 for the '266; IPR2023-00446 for the '343), agreeing the case would proceed on the other five active patents. (Memorandum in support of joint motion, Dkt. 400.)
• 2023-10-11 — E.D. Va. (Judge Henry E. Hudson) entered Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. 452, granting the partial stay of the '266/'343 claims in the PAN case. (Cited in Centripetal's IPR Patent Owner Response.)

4. IPR claim construction and merits stage

• 2023-10-20 — Centripetal's Patent Owner Response (Paper 17), opposing patentability challenges; Centripetal argued, inter alia, that Law does not disclose a "network protected by a plurality of packet security gateways that collectively provide an entire interface across a boundary" or application of the same "first set of filtering rules" to "all network traffic traversing the boundary." Expert: Dr. Michael Goodrich (Ex. 2012).
• 2024-01-24 — Keysight's Reply (Paper 21); expert depositions occurred in the interim (Petitioner's notice of deposition of Dr. Goodrich, 2024-01-09; Centripetal's notice to depose Dr. Jacobson, 2024-02-28).
• 2024-02-22 — Board granted PAN's joinder and instituted IPR2023-01329 on the same claims/grounds (per Patexia/IPVerse records), consolidating PAN into IPR2023-00445's schedule.
• 2024-04-03 — Centripetal's Sur-reply (Paper 28).
• 2024-04-22 — Oral hearing (Paper 30 transcript).
• 2024-07-22 — Final Written Decision (Paper 31): all challenged claims 1–27 of the '266 patent unpatentable (anticipation/obviousness over the Law-based grounds), entered by APJ Turner. The Board's claim construction resolved the disputed gateway/"boundary"/rules limitations against Centripetal; specific construction analysis is in the FWD (Paper 31). IPR2023-01329 (PAN) received a parallel FWD the same day.

5. Appeals to the Federal Circuit — and final outcome

• 2024-09-23 — Centripetal filed its Notice of Appeal (Papers 32–33) from the IPR2023-00445 FWD. The appeal was docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 2024-2372 (filed 2024-09-27 per RPX). A companion appeal from the PAN IPR2023-01329 FWD became No. 2024-2373; the two were consolidated.
• 2026 (argued) — Oral argument before Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark. Daniel J. Richardson (Sullivan & Cromwell) argued for Centripetal; Jonathan Detrixhe (Reed Smith) argued for appellees Keysight (with Gerard Donovan) and PAN (Andrew Radsch, Munger Tolles).
• 2026-06-09 — Judgment: AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (per curiam, nonprecedential), affirming the PTAB in both IPR2023-00445 and IPR2023-01329. (CAFC judgment PDF, Case 24-2372, Doc. 63.) The mandate presumably issued shortly thereafter; there is no public indication of further review as of 2026-09-03.

6. The PAN district-court trial (parallel, on non-'266 patents)

Although stayed as to the '266/'343, the PAN case proceeded on other patents and produced the most significant district-court milestone in the ecosystem:

• 2024-01-31 — After an eight-day trial, an E.D. Va. jury found PAN infringed the '437, '903, '573, and '797 patents (literal and induced infringement; no willfulness) and awarded $151.5M ($37.875M per patent, lump sum). (RPX; Kramer Levin release; Dkt. 851.)
• 2024-10-03 — Judge Hudson granted in part PAN's JMOL, vacating the infringement finding on the '437 patent for insufficient evidence and reducing the award to $113,625,000 on the '903, '573, and '797 patents; denied PAN's new-trial motion; entered Final Judgment and closed the case (Dkt. 970–972). A later order (2024-10-30) denied new trial on the "book of wisdom" damages issue.
• The '266 patent's stayed claims in the PAN case therefore track the IPR/appeal result: with the Board's invalidity FWD affirmed on 2026-06-09, Centripetal cannot assert the invalidated '266 claims in that case (subject to estoppel and the terms of the stay). PAN's FY2025 10-K references a further trial setting (2026-02-17) in ongoing Centripetal litigation, but I could not confirm from the public record whether that setting concerns the remaining stayed '266/'343 claims or a separate action.

---

Present posture (as of 2026-09-03)

• Federal Circuit appeal (2024-2372 / 2024-2373): closed by Rule 36 affirmance on 2026-06-09 — Centripetal's challenge to the PTAB's unpatentability findings on the '266 patent failed on all grounds.
• IPR2023-00445 / IPR2023-01329: FWDs (2024-07-22) holding claims 1–27 unpatentable are now final following affirmance.
• Keysight E.D. Va. case (2:22-cv-00002): remains stayed pending the ITC appeal and validity appeals (Keysight 10-Q, FY2026 Q1); with the '266 claims invalidated and affirmed, that patent is no longer enforceable against Keysight.
• PAN E.D. Va. case (2:21-cv-00137): final judgment entered 2024-10-03 on the tried patents ($113.625M); the stayed '266 claims are effectively moot as to validity given the affirmance.

---

Sourcing caveats

• The PTAB docket dates (Papers 10–33) and FWD content are well-sourced from USPTO/DocketAlarm mirrors, Patexia, and GreyB/IPVerse summaries. The CAFC Rule 36 judgment is from the court's own PDF (24-2372.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.6-9-2026).
• District-court docket details for 2:21-cv-00137 and 2:22-cv-00002 come from DocketAlarm, RPX, Ex Parte/PACER-derived summaries, Keysight SEC filings, and Kramer Levin announcements — not from a full PACER run, so individual docket numbers beyond those cited (Dkts. 400, 452, 851, 970–972) are approximations from secondary sources.
• I did not find a public Markman order specifically construing '266 claims in district court (the '266 was stayed before any such ruling in the PAN case, and the Keysight case was stayed early), nor verified the mandate date, any petition for rehearing/certiorari, or the precise scope of the 2026-02-17 PAN trial setting. Those items should be verified on PACER/CAFC if needed.

Important framing note (read first)

The premise of the question doesn't match the record. This is not a patent infringement case with a "plaintiff." Per the authoritative case metadata (and consistent with the docket), No. 2024-2372 is Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.) — a Federal Circuit appeal from a PTAB inter partes review (IPR2023-00445, consolidated on appeal with IPR2023-01329), in which the Board found claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266 unpatentable. Centripetal is the Appellant/patent owner, not a plaintiff. (The underlying E.D. Va. infringement suit, Centripetal's 2022 case against Keysight, was stayed pending these appeals and is a separate proceeding.)

Also note for accuracy: although the metadata reflects "pending," the appeal has now been decided — oral argument was heard June 3, 2026, and the Federal Circuit entered a Rule 36 judgment of affirmance on June 9, 2026 (per the CAFC's opinion page and the judgment PDF). Nothing is sealed; the filings are public.

Counsel of record for Centripetal Networks, LLC (Appellant)

The most authoritative source — the Federal Circuit's June 9, 2026 Rule 36 judgment in this appeal — lists the following as Centripetal's counsel of record. There is no separately designated "lead/local" counsel in Federal Circuit practice; Daniel J. Richardson argued the appeal, so he functioned as lead appellate counsel.

Opposing appellee counsel (for context): Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe (Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco) argued for all appellees, with Keysight also represented by Jonah D. Mitchell, Gerard M. Donovan (Reed Smith, Washington, DC), and James Christopher Martin (Reed Smith, Pittsburgh); Andrew T. Radsch (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco) appeared for appellee Palo Alto Networks.

Sources and caveats

• Primary source: Rule 36 Judgment, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., Nos. 2024-2372, 2024-2373 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2026) — PDF at cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2372.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.6-9-2026_2706905.pdf (lists all counsel of record quoted above); CAFC docket page for 24-2372 (oral argument audio, June 3, 2026).
• Corroboration: CourtListener docket 73434618 for 24-2372 (entries incl. judgment); companion-appeal docket entries (No. 24-1929) showing corrected entries of appearance for Andrei Iancu, Jeffrey B. Wall, Laurie N. Stempler, Daniel J. Richardson, and Aviv S. Halpern for appellant Centripetal.
• Caveats: The judgment's counsel list is the definitive record for who appeared in this specific appeal; note it does not include Jeffrey B. Wall or Paul J. Andre (who appear in other companion Centripetal appeals), so I have not listed them here for 24-2372. I could not verify from public sources a separately appearing "local counsel" for this appeal (none is required or shown), and I found no indication that any filings or counsel identities are sealed. If you actually need plaintiff's counsel in the underlying stayed E.D. Va. infringement action (Centripetal as plaintiff), that is a different docket and I have not identified those attorneys from these sources — say the word and I can run that down separately.

Scope note on "the defendant(s)"

Case No. 2024-2372 is not itself an infringement case—it is Centripetal Networks, LLC's appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00445, where Keysight Technologies, Inc. was the petitioner (and is the defendant in the stayed underlying E.D. Va. action, No. 2:22-cv-00002). On the Federal Circuit docket, Keysight is the appellee, and it is the party the task refers to as "defendant." There are no other defendants in this appeal; Palo Alto Networks appears as an appellee only in the consolidated companion appeal No. 2024-2373.

The best source for counsel of record is the Federal Circuit's own Rule 36 judgment of June 9, 2026 (24-2372/24-2373, per curiam LOURIE, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK), which expressly lists the attorneys for Keysight, plus the PTAB record designations.

Counsel of record for Keysight Technologies, Inc. (appellee/defendant)

Federal Circuit — counsel of record on the appeal (per the June 9, 2026 Rule 36 judgment)

1. Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe — argued the appeal for appellees (oral argument June 3, 2026).

   • Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, 101 Second Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105.
   • Experience: Lead appellate oral advocate for Keysight in this appeal; was also PTAB back-up counsel in IPR2023-00445 and took the Dr. Jacobson/Dr. Goodrich depositions in that IPR. Long-running member of the Reed Smith team defending Keysight against Centripetal's multi-patent assertion campaign.
   • Source: CAFC Rule 36 judgment, "JONATHAN IAIN MAX DETRIXHE, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for all appellees" (cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2372.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.6-9-2026_2706905.pdf); IPR2023-00445 stipulation signature blocks (DocketAlarm Paper 24); deposition transcripts (Ex. 2014, Ex. 2018).

2. Gerard M. Donovan — counsel of record on appeal; lead counsel for Keysight before the PTAB in the underlying IPR.

   • Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, 1301 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005 (USPTO Reg. No. 67,771).
   • Experience: Keysight's national lead in the eight-IPR/seven-appeal war against Centripetal; argued the appellee side in related Centripetal–Keysight Federal Circuit appeals (e.g., a related April 2, 2026 merits decision, and appeal No. 24-1929, where he entered his appearance in June 2024). Signatory on Keysight's PTAB filings in IPR2023-00445.
   • Source: Rule 36 judgment ("also represented by … GERARD M. DONOVAN, Washington, DC"); CourtListener opinion 10831831 (Apr. 2, 2026, "GERARD M. DONOVAN, Reed Smith LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee"); Patexia/IPVerse IPR2023-00445 counsel listing ("Petitioner Counsel: Donovan, Gerard et al.").

3. Jonah D. Mitchell — counsel of record on appeal.

   • Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA (appears alongside Detrixhe in the firm's S.F. office in related filings).
   • Experience: Member of the Reed Smith appellate/IP team representing Keysight across the Centripetal IPR appeals (also entered appearance with Donovan in related No. 24-1929 in June 2024).
   • Source: Rule 36 judgment ("also represented by JONAH D. MITCHELL"); CourtListener opinion 10831831 listing "JONATHAN IAIN MAX DETRIXHE, JONAH D. MITCHELL" together.

4. James Christopher Martin — counsel of record on appeal.

   • Firm/office: Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA (the name/location is consistent with Reed Smith partner James C. Martin of the firm's Pittsburgh office and appellate/IP practice—I could not independently confirm his registration/appearance details from the documents I retrieved, so treat the specific practice bio as an inference, not a verified fact).
   • Source: Rule 36 judgment ("JAMES CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Pittsburgh, PA").

PTAB counsel of record below (IPR2023-00445) — same Reed Smith team

Keysight's mandatory-notice designations and later filings (e.g., the Joint Stipulation to Modify Due Date 3, Paper 24) list, in addition to the above:

• Peter J. Chassman, Reed Smith LLP, 811 Main Street, Suite 1700, Houston, TX (Reg. No. 38,841)—back-up counsel; also appears on Keysight briefs in related Federal Circuit appeals.
• Sidharth Kapoor, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA (Reg. No. 68,159)—back-up counsel in the IPR.

These two appeared for Keysight in the PTAB proceeding and in other CAFC appeals, but I found no evidence they entered appearances in appeal No. 24-2372 itself; the Rule 36 judgment does not list them for this appeal.

Caveats

• No in-house counsel or local (E.D. Va.) counsel identified. I found no filing in this record identifying Keysight in-house counsel or Virginia local counsel for the underlying stayed district-court action; do not assume any without checking the E.D. Va. docket (2:22-cv-00002).
• The USPTO Director is the nominal statutory appellee in IPR appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 143 but is not listed as appearing in the judgment; no Director's counsel participated.
• No filings in this appeal appear sealed; the counsel list above is drawn from the court's own judgment and the PTAB docket, not from PACER fee records.

One-line bottom line

Keysight Technologies, Inc. is represented by Reed Smith LLP across all forums: Jonathan I. Detrixhe (S.F., argued), Gerard M. Donovan (D.C., PTAB lead), Jonah D. Mitchell (S.F.), and James Christopher Martin (Pittsburgh) are counsel of record in Federal Circuit No. 2024-2372, with Peter J. Chassman (Houston) and Sidharth Kapoor (S.F.) appearing for Keysight in the underlying IPR2023-00445.