Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. (IPR2022-01199) is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. Keysight Technologies, the petitioner, is a global operating company headquartered in Santa Rosa, California, that develops and manufactures electronic design and test solutions, including hardware and software for various industries such as communications, aerospace and defense, and cybersecurity. Centripetal Networks, Inc., the patent owner, is a cybersecurity solutions provider specializing in proactive network defense and intelligence-driven security. Centripetal's flagship product, RuleGate, is a high-performance TCP/IP packet filter designed to action threat indicators at scale and speed, forming part of their CleanINTERNET service which protects against network infiltration and data exfiltration.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 (the '856 patent), is titled "Rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications." It generally describes a packet-filtering system configured to identify and filter packets, including those with encrypted data, based on network-threat indicators. The accused products or technology, though not explicitly detailed as "accused products" in the IPR context, are related to network traffic monitoring and security enforcement computer equipment and associated software components, such as those offered by Keysight, that allow for network traffic monitoring, packet filtering, and data analysis. The IPR proceeding challenges the patentability of claims within the '856 patent, a common strategy for alleged infringers to invalidate patents being asserted against them in parallel litigation.

This IPR is notable due to its procedural posture, having reached a "Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand" and being joined with IPR2022-00182. This indicates a complex procedural history, including an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and a subsequent remand back to the PTAB for further consideration, particularly regarding objective indicia of non-obviousness. The case is part of a broader, multi-forum patent dispute between Centripetal Networks and several major industry players, including Keysight Technologies, Palo Alto Networks, and Cisco Systems, involving numerous patents related to network security, threat intelligence filtering, and encrypted traffic analysis. The '856 patent itself covers technology central to next-generation firewalls and network security products, making its validity commercially significant for vendors in the network detection and response (NDR) space. The CAFC's remand in related proceedings underscores the rigorous scrutiny of patentability analyses in this technology domain and highlights the ongoing legal battles over foundational network security intellectual property.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-01199, concerns the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. The case was joined with IPR2022-00182 and IPR2022-01151 and concluded with a Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand on June 11, 2026.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (IPR Petition)

• November 2021: Keysight Technologies, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856 ("the '856 patent"). The '856 patent is directed to "rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications."
• The IPR, IPR2022-01199, was subsequently joined with IPR2022-00182 (filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc.) and IPR2022-01151 (filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.) which also challenged the '856 patent.

2. PTAB Institution Decision

• Specific dates for the institution decision for IPR2022-01199 are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but institution occurred, leading to a final written decision by the PTAB.

3. Initial PTAB Final Written Decision

• May 23, 2023: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an initial Final Written Decision in the joined proceedings (IPR2022-00182, IPR2022-01151, IPR2022-01199). The PTAB held claims 1, 24, and 25 of the '856 patent unpatentable as obvious.

4. Federal Circuit Appeal & Remand

• June 15, 2023: Centripetal Networks, LLC appealed the PTAB's final written decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) (Case No. 23-2027).
• October 22, 2025: The Federal Circuit issued a decision, vacating and remanding the PTAB's ruling regarding the '856 patent. The Federal Circuit directed the PTAB to reconsider evidence relating to alleged copying by Cisco. This outcome meant the lower patentability ruling was nullified, and the case was sent back for reconsideration consistent with the CAFC's guidance.

5. Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand

• June 11, 2026: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand for the joined IPRs (IPR2022-00182, IPR2022-01151, IPR2022-01199) concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,917,856. The PTAB invalidated the remaining claims of the patent, making it the last of Centripetal's patents tied to a vacated $1.9 billion district court verdict against Cisco to be invalidated by the PTAB.

I found several strong sources. Let me dig deeper into the specific articles and search for additional coverage angles.

Press & Analysis Coverage of Keysight v. Centripetal (IPR2022-01199 / '856 patent)

Press coverage of this IPR has come almost entirely from specialized IP and trade outlets rather than general news media; no dedicated Reuters, Bloomberg, or consumer-tech coverage of the IPR itself surfaced in searching, though the underlying Centripetal–Cisco verdict that gives the case its commercial significance drew broader attention. The most recent reporting centers on the June 11, 2026 remand decision: Law360 (June 12, 2026, by Ryan Davis) reported that the PTAB "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." IP Fray went further in its headline — "PTAB invalidates final Centripetal patent tied to vacated $1.9 billion Cisco verdict" — reporting that the Board on remand found claims obvious over a single prior art reference and held that "even credible evidence of copying by Cisco couldn't overcome a 'strong case of obviousness' where the prior art was 'essentially anticipatory.'" Notably, the two outlets differ on the vacated award: IP Fray pegs it at $1.9 billion, while the PTAB Litigation Blog describes a "$2.75 billion damages award" vacated in the related Centripetal v. Cisco case (38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022)); Law360 simply calls it "multibillion-dollar."

The October 22, 2025 Federal Circuit decision that set up the remand was widely covered. Law360 ("Fed. Circ. Faults PTAB Ax In Centripetal Case But Not Recusal," by Ryan Davis) reported that the court vacated the PTAB's invalidation in the "high-stakes dispute" while rejecting Centripetal's argument that the case was tainted by a PTAB judge's Cisco stock ownership. IPWatchdog (Eileen McDermott) provided the most detailed account, noting the precedential opinion by Judge Cunningham, that APJ Brian McNamara disclosed owning "between $1,001 and $15,000 in Cisco stock," that the court found Centripetal's recusal motion untimely (filed more than three months after the disclosure became known), and that the vacatur was driven solely by the Board's failure to consider Cisco-copying evidence — while the court "expressly invited" the Board to consider assigning new APJs on remand. US Patent blog (Jeremy J. Gustrowsky) echoed that the "real turning point" was the Board's statement that it was "not in a position to evaluate" the copying evidence. Earlier procedural coverage includes the PTAB Litigation Blog's May 2023 write-up of the Federal Circuit's denial of Centripetal's mandamus petition seeking vacatur of the institution decision on recusal grounds.

Analyst and industry commentary goes beyond the docket to emphasize commercial stakes. PatSnap framed US 9,917,856 as covering "rule-based threat detection in encrypted traffic" at "the core of next-generation firewall and network security products," warning that vendors in the NGFW/NDR space "face continued FTO risk" and that the remand "signals that the Federal Circuit views the patentability analysis as insufficiently rigorous." Keysight's side is captured in a Reed Smith press release (which addresses the broader multi-forum war rather than this IPR alone), quoting lead counsel Jonah Mitchell that Keysight "prevailed on all asserted patents at the ITC," secured "PTAB decisions that found 185 claims across eight asserted patents unpatentable," and won in the UPC and German courts, with GC Jeffrey Li saying the outcomes "validate what we've maintained all along." Finally, Law360's IP news feed indicates that by July 14, 2026, Centripetal had asked USPTO Director John Squires to "undo" the PTAB decision invalidating the patent, arguing the ruling "flouted the law" — a development that, if confirmed on the docket, would extend the case's life beyond the Final Written Decision on remand.

Sources

• IPR2022-01199 - Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. IPR of US9917856B2 | RPX Insight
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered - - All Courts
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Trials@uspto
• United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
• IPR2022-01199, No. 18 Notice Other - Panel Change Notice (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2026) - IPR2022-01199, No
• UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
• Rule-based network-threat detection for encrypted communications - - Exhibit 2006—Order, Centripetal Networks, Inc
• In Re CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• Centripetal v. Palo Alto Networks — Network Threat Detection Patent | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• APJ Stock Ownership Insufficient To Vacate - Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. was represented by attorneys from Reed Smith LLP and also had in-house counsel involved in this IPR.

Here is the counsel of record for Keysight Technologies, Inc.:

Outside Counsel:

• Peter J. Chassman
  • Role: Partner, serves as firmwide chair of Reed Smith's Intellectual Property Group.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience Note: Distinguished trial lawyer and lead counsel in high-tech patent infringement disputes, with experience across U.S. federal district courts, the ITC, Federal Circuit, and PTAB.
• Jonathan I. Detrixhe
  • Role: Partner, frequently acts as lead counsel in IPR proceedings.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: Seasoned patent litigator with over 15 years of experience securing favorable outcomes for clients in district courts, PTAB, and the ITC, across various technologies including computer hardware/software and communication systems.
• Gerard M. Donovan
  • Role: Partner, IP litigator and counselor.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Computer engineer turned IP lawyer with extensive experience in developing IP strategies, complex IP disputes, and counseling on protecting IP, particularly in medical devices, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence technologies. He guides clients through all stages of complex IP litigation, including trials and appeals.
• Jonah D. Mitchell
  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in complex, high-stakes litigation involving patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and commercial disputes across multiple forums, including PTAB and Federal Circuit appeals.

In-House Counsel:

• Jeffrey Li
  • Role: Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary.
  • Firm: Keysight Technologies, Inc., Santa Rosa, CA.
  • Experience Note: Leads Keysight's legal, compliance, and customer contracts functions, and serves as secretary to Keysight's Board of Directors. Previously managed legal aspects of Keysight's spin-off from Agilent.

Previous Counsel (prior to final decision on remand):

• Sidharth Kapoor
  • Role: Previously listed as counsel for Keysight Technologies in PTAB filings.
  • Former Firm: Reed Smith LLP.
  • Current Firm/Role (as of October 2024): Partner at Pierson Ferdinand LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and patent prosecution, with a strong technical background in engineering and prior experience as a patent examiner at the USPTO and a federal law clerk. Given his move from Reed Smith in October 2024, it is unlikely he was actively involved at the time of the Final Written Decision On CAFC Remand in June 2026.

Centripetal Networks Inc., the defendant (Patent Owner) in IPR2022-01199, was represented by counsel from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP and Banner & Witcoff LTD.

Here is a list of attorneys of record for Centripetal Networks, Inc. in IPR2022-01199:

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

• James Hannah, Partner, Silicon Valley Office (Redwood Shores, CA).
  • Experience includes securing a $151.5 million judgment for Centripetal Networks in a patent infringement case against Palo Alto Networks. He also argued for Centripetal Networks in a Federal Circuit appeal related to another patent.
• Jeffrey Price, unknown role, unknown office location.
• Jenna Fuller, unknown role, unknown office location.
• Paul J. Andre, Managing Partner, Silicon Valley Office and Head of Intellectual Property, US (Redwood Shores, CA).
  • Noted for leading the team that secured the $151.5 million judgment for Centripetal against Palo Alto Networks. Also listed as counsel in a Federal Circuit appeal for Centripetal Networks.
• Christina M. Finn, Special Counsel, Silicon Valley (Redwood Shores, CA).
  • Also listed as counsel in a Federal Circuit appeal for Centripetal Networks.
• Daniel Noah Lerman, unknown role, Washington, DC office.
  • Argued for Centripetal Networks, LLC in a Federal Circuit appeal related to another patent.

Banner & Witcoff LTD:

• Bradley Wright, unknown role, unknown office location.
• Scott Kelly, unknown role, unknown office location.
• John Hutchins, unknown role, unknown office location.

It is worth noting that Centripetal Networks has been involved in extensive patent litigation, including a significant case against Cisco Systems where they were initially awarded a multi-billion dollar judgment that was later vacated on appeal due to a judicial ethics issue. Paul D. Clement of Clement & Murphy, PLLC, and Matthew James Dowd of Dowd Scheffel PLLC, represented Centripetal Networks, Inc. in a Supreme Court petition related to the Cisco case, which was ultimately denied. These attorneys are not specifically listed for the IPR2022-01199 case, which is a PTAB proceeding.