Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

Parties and Technology at Issue Shape Cybersecurity Patent Dispute

This case involves a challenge to a cybersecurity patent held by Centripetal Networks, LLC, an operating company that develops and sells "threat intelligence gateway" products and services under the brand "CleanINTERNET". The petitioner, Keysight Technologies, Inc., is a major publicly traded company that produces a wide array of electronic test and measurement equipment, as well as software for network testing, visibility, and security. The dispute centers on Centripetal's U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917, which discloses a "rule-based network-threat detection" system. This technology involves a packet-filtering device that inspects network data packets and applies rules to block or allow them based on whether they correspond to known network threats. Keysight was accused of infringing this and other Centripetal patents in parallel district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) litigation, prompting Keysight to file for inter partes review (IPR) to challenge the '917 patent's validity at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

PTAB and Federal Circuit Review Central to High-Stakes Litigation

The procedural history of this case places it at the critical intersection of district court litigation and administrative patent challenges. Keysight filed two IPR petitions, IPR2022-01095 and IPR2022-01096, against the '917 patent, which were consolidated. This move is a common strategy for defendants in patent infringement lawsuits, as a successful IPR can invalidate the asserted patent claims, thereby ending the infringement case. The PTAB, a specialized tribunal within the USPTO, is often favored by petitioners for its technical expertise and lower burden of proof for invalidating a patent compared to federal court. The PTAB's Final Written Decision found most, but not all, of the challenged claims unpatentable. Both parties appealed the mixed decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the primary appellate court for patent cases. In a recent decision, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's invalidation of most claims and, siding with Keysight on its cross-appeal, reversed the PTAB's decision on the remaining claims, finding them unpatentable as well.

This case is notable for several reasons. It is part of a broader, aggressive patent enforcement campaign by Centripetal Networks against major players in the networking and cybersecurity space, including Cisco and Palo Alto Networks. A prior, now-vacated district court judgment against Cisco had resulted in a record-breaking award of over $2.5 billion, signaling the high stakes of Centripetal's litigation efforts. The IPR proceedings against Keysight ran in parallel with infringement actions, illustrating the multi-forum nature of modern, high-tech patent disputes. The Federal Circuit's ultimate decision to invalidate all challenged claims of the '917 patent represents a significant victory for Keysight and a major setback for Centripetal's broader litigation campaign.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917 was challenged by Keysight Technologies in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which were later consolidated and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

Chronological Developments:

• 2022-06-01: Filing of IPR Petitions
  Keysight Technologies, Inc. filed two separate petitions for inter partes review against Centripetal Networks, LLC's U.S. Patent No. 10,193,917. The petitions were assigned case numbers IPR2022-01095 and IPR2022-01096. The petitions argued that claims of the '917 patent were unpatentable as obvious over various combinations of prior art references. These filings were a direct response to patent infringement allegations made by Centripetal against Keysight in U.S. district court and the International Trade Commission (ITC).

• 2022-12-08: Institution and Consolidation of IPRs
  The PTAB issued decisions instituting trial for both IPR petitions, finding that Keysight had established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim in each petition. The Board also exercised its discretion to consolidate the two proceedings under IPR2022-01095.

• 2023-06-05: PTAB Final Written Decision
  The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision with a mixed outcome. The Board found that Keysight had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 of the '917 patent were unpatentable as obvious. However, the PTAB concluded that Keysight had failed to prove that claims 4 and 14 were unpatentable. The Board's reasoning for upholding claims 4 and 14 turned on its interpretation of the claim limitation requiring the application of filtering rules "in a particular order," finding that the prior art did not disclose this specific feature.

• 2023-08-04: Appeal and Cross-Appeal to the Federal Circuit
  Unsatisfied with the split decision, both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Centripetal appealed the PTAB's decision finding the majority of claims unpatentable, while Keysight cross-appealed the decision upholding the patentability of claims 4 and 14. The case was docketed at the Federal Circuit under appeal number 23-20 Keysight was docketed at the Federal Circuit as Case No. 23-2054.

• 2024-05-20: Federal Circuit Oral Argument
  A three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments from counsel for both Keysight and Centripetal.

• 2024-08-16: Federal Circuit Decision
  The Federal Circuit issued a significant decision that ultimately favored Keysight. In a precedential opinion authored by Judge Dyk, the court affirmed the PTAB's finding that claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 were unpatentable. More importantly, the court reversed the PTAB's decision regarding claims 4 and 14. The CAFC held that the PTAB had erred in its claim construction and that, under the correct interpretation, the prior art did teach the limitation of applying rules "in a particular order." Consequently, the Federal Circuit found claims 4 and 14 to be unpatentable as well.

Outcome:

The final outcome of this multi-stage proceeding was a complete victory for the petitioner, Keysight Technologies. The Federal Circuit's decision invalidated all challenged claims (1-20) of Centripetal's '917 patent. This result significantly impacted Centripetal's parallel infringement litigation against Keysight, as the patent claims asserted against Keysight's products were now deemed invalid. The decision represents a substantial setback for Centripetal's broader patent enforcement campaign, which relied on the '917 patent, among others.

Counsel for Petitioner Keysight Technologies, Inc.

Keysight Technologies, Inc. was represented by attorneys from the law firm Alston & Bird LLP in the inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Based on the PTAB's Final Written Decision and other public filings, the following attorneys appeared on behalf of petitioner Keysight:

• Kirk T. Bradley (Lead Counsel): A partner in Alston & Bird's Atlanta office. Mr. Bradley has extensive experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, having represented clients in numerous IPRs and district court cases involving complex technology.
• Stephen A. Luth (Counsel): A senior associate in Alston & Bird's Charlotte office. Mr. Luth focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent disputes in federal courts and before the PTAB.
• Zachary T. Gladney (Counsel): An associate in Alston & Bird's Atlanta office. Mr. Gladney's practice centers on intellectual property litigation, with experience in patent infringement and validity challenges.
• Ryan E. Johnson (Counsel): A senior associate in Alston & Bird's Atlanta office, specializing in patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.

These attorneys successfully argued for the invalidity of the challenged claims of Centripetal's '917 patent. The Final Written Decision in IPR2022-01095, issued on June 5, 2023, lists Kirk T. Bradley as lead counsel and Stephen A. Luth and Zachary T. Gladney as backup counsel for the petitioner. Ryan E. Johnson is also listed on the petition documents.

Counsel for Patent Owner Centripetal Networks, LLC

The following attorneys were counsel of record for patent owner Centripetal Networks, LLC in the inter partes review proceedings IPR2022-01095 and IPR2022-01096 before the PTAB and the subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit.

• Paul J. Andre (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Note: Andre is a prominent patent trial lawyer known for securing large verdicts, including a now-vacated $2.75 billion judgment for Centripetal against Cisco Systems.

• Lisa Kobialka (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Note: Kobialka has extensive experience in patent, trade secret, and technology litigation, frequently co-counseling with Paul Andre on major cases.

• James R. Hannah (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Menlo Park, CA)
  • Note: Hannah focuses on patent litigation and has been involved in Centripetal's broader litigation campaign, including cases before the ITC.

• Benjamin R. Sodey (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Sodey is an intellectual property litigator with experience in both district court and PTAB proceedings.