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.

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.