In re Centripetal Networks, LLC

Centripetal Networks, LLC is an operating company specializing in intelligence-driven network security, offering products and services such as its CleanINTERNET platform and QuickThreat® Threat Intelligence Gateway, designed to proactively detect and block cyber threats. The company has asserted its patents, including US9917856, in significant patent infringement litigation. The core technology of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 is described as "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection for Encrypted Communications," focusing on methods and systems for identifying and mitigating network threats within encrypted traffic.

This Federal Circuit case, In re Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2023-127, concerned a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Centripetal Networks. The mandamus sought to compel the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to vacate institution decisions related to US9917856 due to alleged recusal issues. The Federal Circuit denied this petition on May 16, 2023. This mandamus action arose from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings (e.g., IPR2022-00182), primarily initiated by Palo Alto Networks, and later joined by Cisco Systems and Keysight Technologies, challenging the validity of Centripetal's patent. The IPRs were themselves a response to prior patent infringement litigation where Centripetal Networks had accused Cisco's switches and routers, including its Stealthwatch threat analysis program, of infringing its network security patents. In that underlying district court case, Centripetal had secured a substantial initial judgment of over $1.9 billion against Cisco in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which was later vacated due to a judge's conflict of interest.

The case is notable for several reasons. Primarily, it highlighted a significant concern regarding potential conflicts of interest at the PTAB, as Centripetal sought recusal of an Administrative Patent Judge (APJ) who held stock in Cisco, a party to the IPRs. While the Federal Circuit in a subsequent appeal (No. 23-2027, an appeal of the PTAB's final written decision, not the mandamus itself) upheld the PTAB's determination that Centripetal's recusal motion was untimely, it also asserted its jurisdiction to review such conflict-of-interest challenges. Furthermore, the ongoing legal battles, including the initial multi-billion dollar verdict against Cisco, underscore the high stakes and the perceived value of Centripetal's network security patent portfolio in the cybersecurity industry.

This case involves extensive litigation in both district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with several appeals to the Federal Circuit.

District Court Litigation: Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. (E.D. Va. Case No. 2:18-cv-00094)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (February 13, 2018): Centripetal Networks, LLC initiated an infringement action against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The initial complaint asserted 11 U.S. patents covering network security technologies, including threat intelligence filtering, encrypted traffic analysis, and rule-based packet inspection. Cisco's ASA firewall, Stealthwatch, and Catalyst switch portfolios were among the accused products. Centripetal filed an amended complaint on March 29, 2018, adding infringement claims for US9917856, bringing the total asserted patents to eleven.

• Pre-Trial Motions & Reassignment (November 6, 2018): Centripetal requested the case be reassigned to Judge Henry C. Morgan, Jr., which was granted on November 27, 2018, over Cisco's opposition.

• Trial Events & Verdict (May 6 - June 11, 2020): A 22-day bench trial was held via video-conference.

  • October 5, 2020: The district court entered judgment in favor of Centripetal Networks, finding that Cisco willfully infringed four of Centripetal's asserted patents: US9203806, US9560176, US9686193, and US9917856. The court awarded enhanced damages of $755,808,545 (2.5 times for willful infringement) and prejudgment interest of $13,717,925, resulting in a total past damages award of $1,903,239,288. Additionally, Judge Morgan ordered Cisco to pay a running royalty of 10% on apportioned sales of the accused products for three years, followed by a 5% royalty for a subsequent three-year term, with total damages ranging from $2.65 billion to $3.25 billion.

• Post-Trial Motions & Recusal Issue (August 2020 - March 2021):

  • On August 11, 2020, while the case was pending, the district judge discovered his wife owned Cisco stock. Centripetal stated it had no objection to the judge continuing, but Cisco filed a motion for recusal. The judge denied Cisco's motion on March 17, 2021, after attempting to comply with statutory requirements by placing his wife's stock in a blind trust.

• First Federal Circuit Appeal (June 23, 2022): The Federal Circuit vacated the district court's judgment, reversed the denial of Cisco's recusal motion, and remanded the case to be assigned to a new judge without regard for the vacated opinions and orders. The court held that placing stock in a blind trust did not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 455(f).

• Reassignment and Proceedings on Remand (August 23, 2022 - December 11, 2023): The case was reassigned to a new judge on August 23, 2022.

  • December 11, 2023: The new district court judge issued an opinion granting judgment of non-infringement in favor of Cisco for US9686193, US9203806, and US9560176, concluding that Centripetal failed to show Cisco's technology performed each claim limitation. The court noted that infringement questions for US9917856 remained pending but issued a Rule 54(b) judgment for the three patents found not infringed.

• Second Federal Circuit Appeal (April 29, 2026): Centripetal appealed the district court's judgment of non-infringement regarding US9686193, US9203806, and US9560176. The Federal Circuit affirmed all three rulings, thus affirming the district court's judgment of non-infringement for these patents.

• Final Disposition (July 22, 2025): The district court case was administratively closed in July 2025, pending Federal Circuit appeals. The administrative closure is procedural, meaning the case will be restored once the Federal Circuit proceedings conclude.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• Multiple IPR Filings (July 2018 - November 2021): Cisco filed numerous petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against nine of Centripetal's patents.

  • IPRs for US9124552 and US9160713 (July 2018): Cisco petitioned for IPRs of US9124552 and US9160713, asserting obviousness based on a user manual for the Sourcefire 3D System.
    • January 23, 2020: The PTAB issued final written decisions, agreeing with Cisco that the Sourcefire manual was a prior art "printed publication" and that all claims of both patents were unpatentable as obvious.
    • March 10, 2021: The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decisions regarding US9124552 and US9160713.
  • IPR for US9413722 (September 2018): Cisco petitioned for IPR of US9413722, also alleging obviousness based on the Sourcefire user guide.
    • May 18, 2020: The PTAB ruled that claims 1-7, 10-12, 14-21, 24, and 25 of US9413722 were unpatentable for obviousness in view of Sourcefire.
    • March 10, 2021: The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on US9413722.
  • IPR for US9917856 (IPR2022-00182, November 2021): Palo Alto Networks petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR of US9917856, alleging obviousness. Cisco and Keysight Technologies later filed identical petitions and sought joinder. A three-member PTAB panel instituted the IPR in early 2022.

• PTAB Recusal Issues for US9917856 (September 2022 - October 2025):

  • By September 29, 2022, Centripetal became aware that one administrative patent judge (APJ) on the panel held a financial interest (between $1,001 and $15,000) in Cisco stock.
  • December 30, 2022: Centripetal filed a motion seeking recusal of the entire panel and vacatur of the institution decision, arguing the stockholding compromised the panel's impartiality.
  • January 4, 2023: The PTAB panel denied the rehearing request and granted the institution and joinder requests related to Cisco's and Keysight's IPR petitions. The APJ in question withdrew from the panel the next day.
  • May 23, 2023: The PTAB issued its final written decision, finding claims 1, 24, and 25 of US9917856 unpatentable as obvious.
  • October 22, 2025: On appeal (No. 23-2027), the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB's finding that Centripetal's recusal motion was untimely but vacated the PTAB's final written decision on obviousness for US9917856 and remanded the matter. The court determined that the PTAB failed to adequately consider Centripetal's evidence of copying by Cisco, an objective indicium of non-obviousness. The Federal Circuit's decision clarified its jurisdiction to review conflict-of-interest challenges in PTAB institution procedures.

• Second PTAB Review on Remand for US9917856 (June 12, 2026): A new PTAB panel, appointed in March 2026, issued its Final Written Decision on Remand. It again found the challenged claims of US9917856 unpatentable as obvious, addressing the Federal Circuit's directive to reconsider evidence relating to alleged copying by Cisco.

Centripetal Networks, LLC was represented by the following counsel in In re Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2023-127 at the Federal Circuit:

• Scott W. Breedlove
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Carter Arnett, Dallas, TX
  • Note: Mr. Breedlove is a registered patent attorney with an electrical engineering background and a trial lawyer who has successfully represented clients in patent litigation across various technologies, including securing defense jury verdicts and favorable dismissals for clients, and obtaining significant payments for patent owners.

While specific counsel for In re Centripetal Networks, LLC (the mandamus action) are less explicitly detailed in public records compared to the underlying IPR appeals, general counsel for Centripetal Networks in related Federal Circuit appeals challenging PTAB decisions on US9917856 and other patents provide insight into their legal representation. It is highly probable that the same or a closely related team represented Centripetal in the mandamus petition given the interconnectedness of these proceedings.

Other attorneys associated with Centripetal Networks in related Federal Circuit appeals include:

• Matthew Rowen
  • Role: Argued for Plaintiff-Appellant (in a related case, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., before the Federal Circuit).
  • Firm: Clement & Murphy, PLLC, Alexandria, VA.
  • Note: Mr. Rowen has argued on behalf of Centripetal Networks in appeals concerning patent infringement claims against Cisco Systems.

Attorneys listed in general searches for "Centripetal Networks LLC counsel" or similar terms who do not appear to be directly involved in the In re Centripetal Networks, LLC mandamus or its immediate underlying appeals of the US9917856 IPRs, or whose experience is not clearly in patent litigation, include:

• Joseph A. Spiegler: Primarily has experience in legal, compliance, and international roles in life sciences and high-tech industries, previously a litigation partner at Winston and Strawn LLP, and held in-house roles at Baxter International and Uber Technologies.
• Dara L. Shindel (also appears as Doreen J. Shindel): Specializes in catastrophic injury and medical malpractice, with a background as a registered nurse.
• Celia Goldfarb (also appears as Celia W. Lee): Focuses on civil litigation, investigations, and advice for public agencies, nonprofit, and private entities in municipal, real estate, housing, land use, and business law disputes.

The "defendant(s)" in In re Centripetal Networks, LLC, No. 2023-127, at the Federal Circuit, were the petitioners in the underlying IPRs: Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., and Keysight Technologies, Inc. This mandamus action originated from IPR proceedings where these companies challenged Centripetal's US9917856 patent.

Here is the counsel information for each of the involved defendants:

For Palo Alto Networks, Inc.:

• Mark D. Rowland (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Experienced litigation attorney with familiarity in patent infringement cases and IPR proceedings.
• James R. Batchelder (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto, CA
• Scott McKeown (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP, Washington, DC
• Keyna Chow (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Ropes & Gray LLP
• Andrew Radsch (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (Previously identified as with Ropes & Gray LLP in other related proceedings).
  • Note: Experienced litigation attorney with extensive experience in patent infringement cases across various District Courts and the International Trade Commission, including drafting briefs, performing validity and infringement analyses, and managing expert witnesses.

For Cisco Systems, Inc.:

• Theodore M. Foster (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone LLP, Denver, CO
• David L. McCombs (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone LLP, Dallas, TX
• Gregory P. Huh (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone LLP
• Mark C. Fleming (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA
• Heath A. Brooks (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC
• L. Norwood Jameson (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA
• Matthew C. Gaudet (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP, Atlanta, GA
• Bryan Sinclair (In-house Counsel)
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Note: Senior Director of IP Litigation at Cisco Systems, Inc., managing patent, copyright, and trade secret cases in district courts, the ITC, the Federal Circuit, and IPR proceedings in the PTAB.
• John Zhu (In-house Counsel)
  • Firm: Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Note: Director, Associate General Counsel within Cisco Systems' intellectual property group, leading the patent marketplace team and managing patent litigation matters.

For Keysight Technologies, Inc.:

• Gerard Donovan (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Washington, DC
• Jonah Mitchell (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Named among Daily Journal's Top IP Lawyers of 2026.
• Christine Morgan (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Seth Herring (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Doyle Johnson (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Jonathan Detrixhe (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• James Martin (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Christopher Pulido (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Peter Chassman (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Sidharth Kapoor (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP
• Jeffrey Li (In-house Counsel)
  • Firm: Keysight Technologies, Inc.
  • Note: Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary of Keysight Technologies, leading the legal, compliance, and customer contracts functions.