Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, Inc. (now Centripetal Networks, LLC)

Case Overview and Background

A note on framing. Although this docket is captioned like infringement litigation, IPR2022-01421 is not a district-court patent case — it is an inter partes review at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board, brought by accused infringer Keysight Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: KEYS; Santa Rosa, CA, a major electronic-measurement and network-test/security company that acquired Ixia in April 2017) against patent owner Centripetal Networks, Inc. (Herndon, VA, cybersecurity firm founded by Steven Rogers, later converted to Centripetal Networks, LLC). Keysight petitioned on August 12, 2022 to invalidate all claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 B2 ("Rule swapping in a packet network," issued June 9, 2020 from App. 16/744,341; inventors David K. Ahn and Steven Rogers). The '009 patent is part of Centripetal's "Rule Swapping" family descended from U.S. Patent No. 9,674,148 ("the '148 patent"), whose claims were previously held unpatentable in a Cisco-initiated IPR (IPR2018-01454, FWD Mar. 5, 2020; aff'd, Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2020-1768, Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021). The '009 claims are directed to a network protection device (e.g., a firewall) that preprocesses multiple rule sets — by merging, splitting, or reordering rules — before those rule sets are implemented/deployed, and that, upon a signal to swap rule sets, caches in-flight packets during reconfiguration and later processes the cached packets under the newly preprocessed rule set. This is precisely the technology Centripetal has asserted against Keysight in the underlying E.D. Va. infringement actions, where Centripetal's complaints accused Keysight/Ixia products including ThreatARMOR, Vision ONE, and Application and Threat Intelligence (ATI) offerings (see Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Techs., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00383-HCH-LRL (E.D. Va. Norfolk, Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.), and Centripetal's Jan. 1, 2022 E.D. Va. complaint, No. 2:22-cv-00002, whose exhibits include the '009 patent; Keysight's SEC filings describe that Virginia district-court suit as stayed pending IPR/ITC appeals).

Procedural posture and key rulings. Keysight's petition (Paper 2) advanced two § 103 grounds: (1) claims 1–5, 8–24, and 26–30 obvious over Roese (US 2006/0048142), Golnabi (2006 IEEE), Huima (US 2004/0015905), and Hayter (US 7,320,022); and (2) claims 6, 7, and 25 obvious over that combination plus Esbensen (US 5,226,141), relying heavily on collateral estoppel from the '148 FWD and the Federal Circuit's affirmance. The Board initially denied institution (Paper 9, Mar. 22, 2023) under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and the Advanced Bionics framework, finding the same art/arguments had been before the Examiner via an IDS and that Keysight had not shown material error. On Keysight's rehearing request, Director Kathi Vidal took sua sponte Director Review and, on August 24, 2023 (Paper 14), vacated and remanded, holding the Office erred materially because the Examiner overlooked the significance of the '148 FWD in allowing the '009 claims (the reasons-for-allowance recited limitations already decided in the '148 IPR). On remand the Board instituted review (Paper 16, Nov. 6, 2023); after the Patent Owner Response (Paper 21), reply/sur-reply (Papers 23, 25), and an oral hearing (Paper 31, Aug. 7, 2024), the panel — APJs Kevin F. Turner (author), Brian J. McNamara, and Stacey G. White — issued its Final Written Decision (Paper 32, Nov. 1, 2024) holding all claims 1–30 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Patent Owner's rehearing request was denied, and Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 2025-1715 (Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.). As of this writing I could not verify a merits disposition of that appeal from available sources; the proceeding is docketed as "Final Written Decision – Appealed." Separately, the Federal Circuit has already affirmed PTAB invalidation of a related Centripetal patent in this same campaign (Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 24-2246, nonprecedential, decided Apr. 2, 2026, affirming unpatentability of the '526 patent).

Why this case matters. The proceeding is notable for at least three reasons. First, it showcases the Director Review process: Director Vidal's remand rejected a PTAB § 325(d) institution denial and produced a published-style lesson that limitations absent from an Examiner's Notice of Allowability can be material when a related Final Written Decision was disclosed to the Office (see Jones Day PTAB Litigation Blog, "Limitations Absent from a Notice of Allowability May be Material"; Mondaq/JD Supra coverage). Second, it is a leading example of serial, collateral-estoppel-driven attacks across a patent family: the same Roese/Golnabi/Huima/Hayter/Esbensen combination that invalidated the parent '148 patent (and a sibling '572 patent) was used to invalidate the continuation-bred '009 claims even though they were drafted during the '148 IPR with timing language ("preprocessing ... prior to being implemented") aimed at dodging that art. Third, it is one front of a sprawling cross-forum war: Centripetal — whose E.D. Va. $2.75 billion jury verdict against Cisco was later vacated — has pursued Keysight in the E.D. Va. (Norfolk/Alexandria), the ITC (Inv. No. 337-TA-, where a Dec. 5, 2023 no-violation determination was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in early 2026 per Keysight's SEC disclosures and Reed Smith's announcement), and in German national courts, the UPC, and EPO oppositions, while Keysight counters with IPRs that, according to its counsel Reed Smith, resulted in PTAB decisions finding 185 claims across eight Centripetal patents unpatentable. That makes this IPR a test case both for § 325(d)/Director-Review doctrine and for how effectively a cybersecurity patent owner can enforce a network-security portfolio against test-equipment and network-security vendors after its flagship family has been repeatedly invalidated. One caveat: much of the underlying infringement-case detail (exact accused products in the 2022 suit, the presiding judge there, and the current status of Appeal No. 2025-1715) is drawn from press releases, SEC filings, and secondary sources rather than PACER-verified docket entries, so those specifics should be confirmed before formal use.

Important framing note

The docket you supplied — IPR2022-01421 — is not itself a patent infringement action; it is a PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,009 (the "'009 patent") brought by Keysight against Centripetal. The district-court infringement litigation in which the '009 patent is actually asserted is:

Centripetal Networks, Inc. (now LLC) v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00002 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.)

That case involves 11 Centripetal patents, of which the '009 patent is one. Below is the chronology you requested for that infringement litigation, with the parallel ITC and PTAB proceedings integrated. Where a fact is not well sourced, I say so.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings — E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00002

• 2022-01-01 — Centripetal Networks, Inc. filed its complaint against Keysight Technologies, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk), alleging infringement of 11 patents: '370 (9,264,370), '917 (10,193,917), '526 (10,284,526), '572 (10,511,572), '343 (10,567,343), '062 (10,609,062), '573 (10,659,573), '009 (10,681,009), '266 (10,785,266), '456 (10,924,456), and '474 (11,012,474). (UniCourt docket; Centripetal's July 1, 2022 stay opposition, Dkt. 45 at 5, lists the full set and identifies the '009 as one of the patents not before the ITC.) Case assigned to Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, with Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller (docket caption "AWA-DEM"); the case was later reassigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (by Sept. 2023 filings the caption reads "EWH-DEM").
• 2022-02-25 — Keysight filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 25, with Dkt. 26 memorandum), directed principally at § 101 patent-eligibility of the '917 and '062 patents. Centripetal opposed, arguing the claims were eligible and alternatively seeking leave to amend (see Centripetal's opposition brief at Dkt. 28). I have not found a docket entry showing a ruling on this motion; the case was stayed (below) before merits resolution.
• Keysight also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings at roughly the same time (referenced in Centripetal's Dkt. 28 opposition). Again, no ruling located in my search.
• Keysight's answer and any counterclaims in 2:22-cv-00002 are not visible in the sources I retrieved; I will not speculate on their contents or date. (For completeness: in the earlier related case, 2:17-cv-00383, Keysight/Ixia filed an answer at Dkt. 29 in Sept. 2017 — see below.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance — stay pending ITC/IPR (the decisive event)

• 2022-06/07 — Keysight moved (Dkt. 44) to stay the district case pending completion of the parallel ITC investigation (Inv. No. 337-TA-1300) and Keysight's planned IPR petitions. Centripetal opposed on 2022-07-01 (Dkt. 45), arguing that 8 of the 11 asserted patents — including the '009 patent — were not in the ITC investigation and that Keysight had not yet filed the promised IPRs.
• The court granted a stay of the entire case. Keysight's SEC disclosures confirm: "The lawsuit before the Federal District Court in Virginia is stayed pending the finalization of appeals of the ITC findings and validity challenges" (Keysight 10-Q/10-K, FY2025–FY2026). I have not retrieved the stay order itself (date/entry number not confirmed).
• 2023-09 — After the ITC issued its final no-violation determination (below), Centripetal moved to lift the stay and reopen the case as to patents not in the ITC and not subject to instituted IPRs (reply at Dkt. 63; Keysight's opposition at Dkt. 65, filed 2023-09-08). Outcome not found in my search — the stay appears to have remained in place per Keysight's later disclosures.

3. The parallel ITC proceeding (337-TA-1300) — strategic context

• 2022-04 — Centripetal filed a Section 337 complaint at the ITC against Keysight alleging unlawful importation of network-security equipment. The ITC investigation covered only three of the 11 district-court patents ('370, '917, '526) — not the '009 patent (Dkt. 45; Keysight 10-Q).
• 2023-03-01 to 03-07 — ITC trial (hearing) held before ALJ MaryJoan McNamara.
• 2023-08-08 — ALJ issued her Initial Determination: no Section 337 violation; Keysight did not infringe the asserted claims of the '370 and '526 patents; asserted claims of all three patents were invalid (Dkt. 65-1 quoting the ID).
• 2023-12-05 — The Commission issued its Notice of Determination affirming no violation and terminated the investigation (Keysight SEC disclosures).
• Centripetal appealed the ITC determination to the Federal Circuit; the Federal Circuit heard argument in January 2026 on the ITC findings (and related USPTO validity findings on an ITC patent) (Keysight FY2026 disclosures). No final appellate decision yet reported in my sources.

4. Claim construction (Markman)

• District court (2:22-cv-00002): The case was stayed before reaching claim construction. No Markman hearing or order has occurred in the '009 infringement case.
• ITC: The ITC construed claims of the three ITC patents in the ID (Aug. 8, 2023), but the '009 patent was not among them.
• PTAB IPR2022-01421: The Board applied Phillips claim-construction principles in the IPR (not a Markman proceeding). Centripetal's preliminary response pressed constructions of certain "based on the logic and …" limitations, but the Board's decisions did not hinge on a formal construction order. I do not have the FWD's specific construction holdings at hand and will not reconstruct them.

5. Discovery milestones

• District court (2:22-cv-00002): Substantive discovery never advanced because the case was stayed in mid-2022. Discovery milestones of record are therefore in the ITC (hearing Mar. 1–7, 2023; post-hearing briefing; ID Aug. 8, 2023) and in the IPR (see below).
• IPR2022-01421 (PTAB): Expert discovery occurred after institution: Keysight noticed the deposition of Centripetal's expert Dr. Michael Goodrich (Paper 22, 2023/2024); Centripetal noticed the deposition of Keysight's expert Dr. Doug W. Jacobson (Paper 24, 2024-05-15); oral hearing held 2024-08-07 (Paper 31).

6. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• No trial, jury verdict, or judgment has occurred in the '009 infringement case (2:22-cv-00002). It remains stayed pending the Federal Circuit appeals.
• For completeness, the earlier Centripetal–Keysight suit — Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Ixia, No. 2:17-cv-00383 (E.D. Va., Norfolk, Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.), filed 2017-07-20 asserting the '370, '205, '722, and '077 patents (the '009 patent had not yet issued) — reached jury trial in October 2018. On 2018-10-09 (Day 5), the parties reported a binding settlement; the court entered a stipulated dismissal without prejudice, with the term sheet sealed (trial transcript in the PTAB record, IPR2022-01151 Ex. 2004). That case did not involve the '009 patent.

7. The parallel IPR on the '009 patent — IPR2022-01421 (the docket you provided)

• 2022-08-12 — Keysight filed its IPR petition challenging all claims 1–30 of the '009 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Roese + Golnabi + Huima + Hayter (claims 1–5, 8–24, 26–30) and with Esbensen added (claims 6, 7, 25). Keysight's core theory was collateral estoppel from IPR2018-01454 (Cisco's IPR of the related '148 patent, whose FWD invalidating those claims was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2020-1768, 2021 WL 1889754).
• 2023-03-22 — Board denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) applying Advanced Bionics (Paper 9), finding the same prior art/arguments had been before the Office and no material error shown.
• 2023-08-24 — Director Kathi Vidal, on sua sponte Director Review, vacated and remanded (Paper 14), finding the examiner materially erred by overlooking the significance of the '148 FWD. (Notable as a significant Director-review precedent.)
• 2023-11-06 — On remand the Board instituted review of all claims (Paper 16).
• 2024-02-07 — Patent Owner Response (Paper 21); 2024-04-30 Petitioner Reply (Paper 23); 2024-06-11 Sur-reply (Paper 25); 2024-08-07 oral argument (Paper 31).
• 2024-11-01 — Final Written Decision (Paper 32): all claims 1–30 found unpatentable (panel: Judges Kevin F. Turner (author), Brian J. McNamara, Stacey G. White).
• 2024-12-02 — Centripetal filed a request for rehearing (Paper 33); denied 2025-02-21 (Paper 34).
• 2025-04-25 — Centripetal filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit (Paper 35); the appeal is docketed as Fed. Cir. No. 25-1715 (per Patexia; case number not independently confirmed on the Federal Circuit docket in my search).
• Posture as of today (2026-09-03): Keysight's FY2026 SEC filings state that in January 2026 the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO decision invalidating all claims of one of the challenged patents — consistent with affirmance of this '009 FWD (the disclosure does not identify the patent number, so this match is my inference, not a confirmed citation). The IPR docket status is "Final Written Decision – Appealed."

8. Other parallel IPRs on patents asserted in 2:22-cv-00002

• Keysight challenged 8 of the 11 asserted patents in IPRs at the USPTO; per Keysight's disclosures, "all or most claims [were] found invalid in each challenged patent," and Centripetal is appealing seven of those adverse PTAB decisions. (Keysight 10-Q, FY2026.)
• In the district court record, Keysight's notice filed 2022-10-03 disclosed its IPR on the '572 patent (filed 2022-09-30) and its intent to file further petitions by the 2023-01-06 § 315(b) deadline. The '009 IPR (IPR2022-01421, filed 2022-08-12) and an IPR on the '917 patent were among the filed petitions. A complete patent-to-IPR-number mapping is not fully confirmed from my sources; treat the specific list beyond IPR2022-01421 as partially sourced.

9. Net effect on the infringement litigation

• The '009 patent's 30 claims have been held unpatentable in the FWD (Nov. 1, 2024), and that decision now stands on appeal (Centripetal's appeal; argued/decided around Jan. 2026 per Keysight disclosures).
• Because the E.D. Va. case (2:22-cv-00002) is stayed pending finalization of the ITC and validity appeals, the '009 infringement claims remain suspended. If the FWD is affirmed and becomes final, the '009 claims would be eliminated for the litigation — likely disposing of the '009 counts (subject to any § 315(e) estoppel analysis, though estoppel binds Keysight as petitioner, not Centripetal).
• No settlement, final judgment, damages award, or fee award has been entered in the '009 infringement action. The earlier 2017–2018 case settled at trial (Oct. 9, 2018) but did not involve the '009 patent.

Sourcing caveats

• Well-sourced: IPR2022-01421 timeline (DocketAlarm/PTAB papers/USPTO PDF); the existence, filing date, party identities, and 11-patent list for 2:22-cv-00002 (UniCourt, DocketAlarm); the ITC timeline and no-violation determination (district-court Dkt. 65 quoting the ID; Keysight SEC filings); the 2017 case and 2018-10-09 settlement (Casetext; trial transcript in PTAB record); Director Vidal's Aug. 24, 2023 remand (PTAB Paper 14; PTAB Litigation Blog; Jones Day client alert).
• Less well-sourced / not confirmed: the precise date and text of the district court's stay order; rulings (if any) on the Rule 12(b)(6) and judgment-on-the-pleadings motions; the existence/timing of Keysight's answer and counterclaims in 2:22-cv-00002; the outcome of Centripetal's Sept. 2023 motion to lift the stay; and the exact Federal Circuit appeal number (25-1715 per Patexia).

The searches confirm this is a PTAB IPR (Petitioner/Patent Owner nomenclature) rather than a conventional infringement suit, so I need to map the "plaintiff" concept carefully and pull full counsel details for both sides. Let me verify the attorney designations and offices.

I have the core counsel lists. Now I need to verify backup-counsel designations, offices, and any Banner & Witcoff role/withdrawal, plus attorney bios.

Threshold point on "plaintiff" nomenclature

IPR2022-01421 is an inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action, so there is no formal "plaintiff." The parties of record are Petitioner Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Patent Owner Centripetal Networks, Inc. (now Centripetal Networks, LLC). In the case metadata/caption convention here, Keysight is the first-named ("plaintiff"-styled) party — it is the petitioner that challenged the '009 patent. The actual plaintiff in the related infringement litigation is Centripetal (Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., Civ. No. 2:22-cv-00002, E.D. Va., expressly identified in Centripetal's updated mandatory notices in this IPR). Accordingly, I identify counsel for both sides below; the "plaintiff's" counsel per the caption is the Reed Smith team representing Keysight.

Note on roles: PTAB practice uses lead/back-up counsel designations (there is no "local counsel" concept, and all counsel of record are USPTO-registered practitioners; there are no pro hac vice or local-counsel appearances). Counsel of record are established by the powers of attorney (Papers 1, 4) and updated mandatory notices (Papers 3, 6).

---

Counsel for Keysight Technologies, Inc. (Petitioner / caption "plaintiff")

Firm: Reed Smith LLP (appointed by Keysight's Power of Attorney, Paper 1, dated Aug. 12, 2022; service lists in Papers 2, 9, 11, 14, 32 and the PTAB hearing transcript, Paper 31).

In-house contact: The Power of Attorney (Paper 1) was executed on behalf of Keysight by Jodi Juskie, Assistant General Counsel, Keysight Technologies, Inc. — she is the only Keysight in-house attorney identified in the PTAB record; no in-house attorney appears as counsel of record before the Board.

---

Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLC (Patent Owner; the actual infringement plaintiff in the related E.D. Va. suit)

Per Centripetal's Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 6, dated Oct. 28, 2022) and the hearing transcript (Paper 31), Patent Owner is represented by two firms:

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (lead firm):

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. (co-counsel; Washington, DC office, 1100 13th St. NW, Suite 1200):

---

Important caveats

• Office locations for Chassman and Kapoor (Reed Smith) could not be confirmed from the retrieved PTAB papers (the case caption blocks list only firm and email). Their individual offices should be verified on Reed Smith's website before formal use.
• I could not retrieve firm-published bios for Price, Fuller, Wright, Kelly, and Hutchins within the search budget; their names, Reg. Nos., firms, offices, and roles above come directly from the PTAB mandatory-notice filing (Paper 6) and are reliable as to role and contact, not as to career-history notes.
• The Banner & Witcoff attorneys appear in counsel blocks in the institution decision (Paper 9), the POP notice (Paper 11), and the Director-review decision (Paper 14). I did not locate a withdrawal notice, so they appear to remain of record through the final decision; the arguing counsel at the hearing were Hannah and Price (Paper 31).
• This record covers the IPR itself. The parties' counsel of record in the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2025-1715) and in the underlying E.D. Va. case (2:22-cv-00002) are separate appearances and were not verified; do not assume the same attorneys represent the same parties there.

Key sources: Paper 1 (Keysight POA, Aug. 12, 2022); Paper 2 (Petition, counsel designation block); Paper 6 (Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices, Oct. 28, 2022); Paper 9 (Decision Denying Institution, Mar. 22, 2023 — back-page counsel blocks); Paper 11 (POP receipt notice); Paper 20 (deposition notice); Paper 31 (hearing transcript, Sept. 2024); Paper 14 (Director Review Decision, Aug. 24, 2023); Reed Smith attorney bio for Gerard M. Donovan; PTACTS and Docket Alarm/Ipverse case docket pages for IPR2022-01421.

Counsel of record for the "defendant" — with an important framing note

Threshold point on "defendant." IPR2022-01421 is not an infringement case; it is a PTAB inter partes review. On the IPR docket, Keysight is the Petitioner and Centripetal Networks (Inc./LLC) is the Patent Owner/Respondent — the metadata's "Plaintiff/Defendant" labels map to petitioner/respondent. Below I give (1) Centripetal's counsel of record before the PTAB in IPR2022-01421 (i.e., the "defendant/respondent" on this docket), and (2) because the file wrapper is built around the parallel E.D. Va. suit, Keysight's actual defendant's counsel in that underlying infringement action. Both are sourced from PTAB papers and district-court filings; none of this is sealed.

---

1. Centripetal Networks (Patent Owner / "defendant" in IPR2022-01421) — counsel of record before the PTAB

Source of record: Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (served Oct. 28, 2022, PTAB IPR2022-01421; also reflected in Paper 19's joint stipulation signature block and the Board's Paper 9 decision service list).

Sources: PTACTS/USPTO download of Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Oct. 28, 2022), IPR2022-01421; DocketAlarm Paper 19 (Joint Stipulation, Jan. 16, 2024) signature block listing Hannah/Fuller (Kramer Levin) and Kelly/Wright/Hutchins (Banner & Witcoff); DocketAlarm Paper 31 (Hearing Transcript, dated Sept. 23, 2024 entry) — "James Hannah on behalf of Centripetal, and ... with me, Jeff Price"; USPTO Paper 9 (institution denial) service list.

Firm-identity caveat (important for "current" counsel of record): Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP merged with Herbert Smith Freehills effective June 1, 2025, becoming Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP ("HSF Kramer") (veritaglobal.net notice of firm-name change, June 18, 2025; Above the Law, June 2, 2025). Then on Aug. 5, 2026, Reuters reported that a 34-lawyer IP-litigation group — including Paul Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Kristopher Kastens, Michael Lee, Jonathan Caplan, and Aaron Frankel (the very team that won Centripetal's $151.5M Palo Alto Networks verdict in 2024) — left HSF Kramer for Brown Rudnick, which is opening a Silicon Valley office. I cannot verify from available sources whether updated appearances reflecting the Brown Rudnick move have been filed in the still-pending Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-1715); treat the firm affiliations above as "as-of-filing" designations unless confirmed on the appellate docket.

---

2. If "defendant" means the actual defendant in the underlying infringement suit (E.D. Va. No. 2:22-cv-00002) — Keysight Technologies, Inc.

There, Keysight is the defendant, and its counsel of record per docket filings (e.g., Defendant's Notice of Request for Hearing, Dkt. 40, dated Mar. 28, 2022) and UniCourt's attorney roster is Reed Smith LLP:

• Jonah D. Mitchell — Reed Smith, 101 Second St., Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105 (pro hac vice). Reed Smith's bio confirms he leads Keysight's defense across the ITC, E.D. Va. (11 patents), PTAB (8 patents), Fed. Cir., Germany, UPC, and EPO fronts against Centripetal.
• Christine M. Morgan — Reed Smith, San Francisco (pro hac vice). Same multi-forum Keysight defense; bio notes the successful motion to stay the E.D. Va. action and 8-for-8 PTAB institution rate.
• John P. Bovich — Reed Smith, San Francisco (pro hac vice).
• Seth B. Herring — Reed Smith, San Francisco (pro hac vice).
• Christopher John Pulido — Reed Smith (per UniCourt defendant-attorney list; location/role not independently confirmed).
• William Rueger Poynter — listed on UniCourt as a defendant attorney; firm and role (likely Virginia local counsel) not confirmed in my sources — flag before formal use.

Source: Dkt. 40 (DocketAlarm PDF) — "Reed Smith LLP (CA-NA), 101 Second St., Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94105 ... PRO HAC VICE Counsel for Keysight Technologies, Inc."; UniCourt case page for 2:22-cv-00002; Reed Smith attorney bios for Mitchell, Morgan, Herring.

(For completeness: Centripetal's plaintiff-side counsel in that suit is Stephen E. Noona (Kaufman & Canoles, Norfolk), Kevin O'Donnell (Henry & O'Donnell, Alexandria), and Kramer Levin's Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Hannah Lee, and Kris Kastens (Menlo Park) per Dkt. 10 — but that is the plaintiff's team, not the defendant's.)

---

3. Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-1715) — counsel side note

Centripetal appealed the FWD as appellant. Justia's docket for Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., No. 25-1715 (filed Apr. 30, 2025, appeal from IPR2022-01421) lists the parties as represented by "James R. [Hannah]" (appellant) and "Gerard M. [Donovan]" (appellee) — i.e., James Hannah for Centripetal and Gerard M. Donovan (Reed Smith, Washington, DC) for Keysight, consistent with Keysight's Reed Smith team throughout the IPRs. In the parallel '526-patent appeal (No. 24-2246, decided Apr. 2, 2026), Centripetal was represented by Daniel Noah Lerman of (then) HSF Kramer, per Vital Law.

---

Bottom line

• PTAB "respondent/defendant" Centripetal's counsel of record in IPR2022-01421: James R. Hannah (lead, Kramer Levin — now Brown Rudnick per Aug. 2026 reports), with Jeffrey H. Price, Jenna Fuller (Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer), and Banner & Witcoff's Bradley C. Wright, Scott M. Kelly, John R. Hutchins as backup counsel.
• If you meant the infringement-case defendant: Keysight's E.D. Va. defense is led by Reed Smith's San Francisco team — Jonah D. Mitchell, Christine M. Morgan, John P. Bovich, Seth B. Herring, and Christopher J. Pulido — with one Virginia local-counsel entry (Poynter) whose firm I could not verify.
• Caveats: firm changes (Kramer Levin → HSF Kramer effective June 1, 2025; 34-lawyer Centripetal team → Brown Rudnick announced Aug. 5, 2026) postdate the PTAB papers; current entries of appearance on the Fed. Cir. docket should be checked on PACER for No. 25-1715 before formal use.