Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

Case Overview & Background

Parties and technology. The underlying dispute is a patent-infringement campaign by Centripetal Networks, LLC (Reston, VA/Portsmouth, NH), a privately held cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Steven Rogers and Sean Moore that develops and sells rule-based, threat-intelligence-driven network protection technology, against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA; NYSE: PANW), the publicly traded cybersecurity vendor and pioneer of the next-generation firewall (NGFW). In its complaint filed March 12, 2021 — Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Division) — Centripetal accused PAN's Next-Generation Firewall, Panorama, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security Service threat-identification and mitigation products of infringing an initial 12 (later 13) Centripetal network-security patents. The patent at issue in this PTAB matter is U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266 ("Methods and Systems for Protecting a Secured Network," issued Sept. 22, 2020). The '266 patent discloses a "packet security gateway" deployed across the boundary of a protected network and a security-policy management system that automatically creates and updates packet-filtering rule sets from aggregated malicious-host/threat-intelligence feeds (e.g., "malicious host tracker services") and pushes those rule updates to the gateways, which filter "all network traffic" traversing the boundary. The broader suit's other asserted patents — a largely common-specification family including the rule-based network-threat detection patents ('028, '126, '413), correlation/logging and cyberanalysis-acceleration patents, and the '797 patent added by amendment — cover related packet-filtering, threat-correlation, and logging techniques; I have not found uniformly verified titles for every asserted patent, so I limit the technical sketch to the '266 patent at issue here.

Procedural posture. This docket entry is not the district-court case itself but IPR2023-01329, Palo Alto Networks' second inter partes review petition against the '266 patent, filed August 21, 2023. PAN's first petition, IPR2021-01154 (July 2021), was denied institution on January 24, 2022, with the Board crediting Centripetal's showing that the primary reference (Jungck) permitted traffic to bypass its edge servers, failing the "entire interface"/"all network traffic" limitations. Keysight Technologies — which faces its own related Centripetal suit (No. 2:22-cv-00002, E.D. Va.) — then filed IPR2023-00445, which was instituted July 24, 2023 on all claims 1–27. PAN's follow-on petition raised identical grounds (obviousness over Law; Law + Wood; Law + Jungck; Law + Wood + Jungck) and moved for joinder; the Board instituted and joined PAN into IPR2023-00445 on February 22, 2024. On July 22, 2024, the Board issued its Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims 1–27 unpatentable as obvious. Centripetal appealed, and on June 9, 2026, a Federal Circuit panel (Lourie, Cunningham, Stark) entered a Rule 36 per curiam affirmance in Appeals Nos. 2024-2372 (Keysight/IPR2023-00445) and 2024-2373 (PAN/IPR2023-01329). In the parallel district court case — originally before Judge Roderick C. Young (who granted a PTAB stay in March 2022) and later Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (assigned August 2022) — the '266 claims were separately stayed in 2023 pending these IPRs, so the '266 patent never reached the January 2024 jury trial. The E.D. Va. Norfolk Division is the so-called "rocket docket," whose fast patent schedule explains the compressed interplay of serial PTAB challenges, partial stays, and trial.

Why it matters. The case sits at the center of Centripetal's high-stakes enforcement wave against major security vendors. Centripetal previously obtained the largest U.S. patent damages award on record — $2.75 billion against Cisco in 2020 — only to have the Federal Circuit vacate it in 2022 on judicial-recusal grounds (the deceased Judge Morgan's wife held Cisco stock) and Judge Hanes later enter non-infringement for Cisco in December 2023. Against PAN, Centripetal fared better: a January 31, 2024 jury verdict awarded $151.1 million on four non-stayed patents ('437, '903, '573, '797), with no willfulness, while the PTAB was simultaneously invalidating other asserted patents, including the '266 patent here. Strategically, the '266 IPR illustrates both serial-petitioner dynamics — PAN's first petition denied, then success through joinder with Keysight's already-instituted IPR presenting identical grounds — and the value of coordinated multi-defendant validity attacks in a crowded NGFW/threat-intelligence market where Centripetal's claims read broadly across industry-standard firewall functions. Notably, the October 31, 2024 Federal Circuit decision affirming invalidation of related Centripetal '028/'126 patents (Appeal No. 2023-1654), and the June 2026 Rule 36 affirmance here, have substantially eroded the Centripetal family PAN and Keysight faced in district court, though Centripetal's remaining infringement verdicts and the sealed post-trial JMOL proceedings (granted in part October 2024) continue to generate follow-on appellate activity.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Centripetal Networks v. Palo Alto Networks (the underlying infringement litigation to IPR2023-01329)

Scope note

The case metadata you supplied is the PTAB inter partes review — Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC, IPR2023-01329 (U.S. Patent No. 10,785,266). The "patent infringement litigation" tied to that IPR is the parallel district court action Centripetal Networks, LLC (f/k/a Centripetal Networks, Inc.) v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.) — the same case PAN itself identified in its IPR petition as the "Parallel Litigation." The '266 patent was one of 13 patents originally asserted in that action, and its claims were stayed in the district court while IPRs (including IPR2023-01329) ran. This chronology therefore covers the district court case with emphasis on the '266 patent's role.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2021-03-12 — Centripetal filed the underlying complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk), asserting infringement of 12 patents (ultimately 13 with an amendment) by PAN's Next-Generation Firewall, Panorama, Cortex, AutoFocus, MineMeld, and DNS Security Service products. The asserted list included U.S. Patent Nos. 10,503,899; 10,530,903; 10,542,028; 10,567,343; 10,567,413; 10,567,437; 10,659,573; 10,735,380; 10,749,906; 10,757,126; 10,785,266 ('266); and others (the DocketAlarm caption lists 13 numbers including 10,931,797 added by amendment). (Sources: PAN IPR2023-01329 Petition, Paper 2, identifying "Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00137-RCY-RJK (E.D. Va., filed 3/12/2021)"; RPX litigation report.)
• The case was initially before Judge Roderick C. Young (RCY) and later assigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes (EWH) and Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard — by 2023–2024 the caption was 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL. (Source: CAFC order in No. 2025-1167/1168, referencing "No. 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-LRL, Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes"; DocketAlarm case records.)
• April–May 2021 — PAN moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the '126, '028, and other patents were ineligible under § 101 (abstract idea of "filtering and sorting data ... based on rules") and that the complaint inadequately pleaded willfulness, contributory infringement, and direct/indirect infringement.
• July 2021 — Centripetal filed an amended complaint adding a newly issued 13th patent (10,931,797); PAN renewed its motion to dismiss against the amended pleading. (Source: RPX.)
• 2021-07 through 2021-08 — PAN filed a wall of PTAB challenges targeting essentially all 13 asserted patents (IPRs plus one PGR against the '797 patent).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• March 2022 (Judge Young) — A single order: (a) granted PAN's motion to stay the entire case pending the PTAB IPRs (five IPRs had been instituted by then); (b) denied PAN's motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the stay; and (c) denied Centripetal's motion to disqualify Ropes & Gray (Centripetal's conflict theory arose from R&G's representation of Silver Point Finance in a financing transaction touching Centripetal's Cisco judgment; the court found no attorney-client relationship and rejected the "substantially related/common interest" theories). The PTAB separately rejected a parallel disqualification motion against R&G in PAN's IPRs. (Source: RPX litigation report; Law360 archive.)
• 2023-05 — After the PTAB issued final written decisions invalidating six of the asserted patents (the '028, '126, '413, '246, '906, and '899 patents), the district court lifted the stay as to the surviving patents. (Source: RPX.)
• 2023-08-24 — The parties filed a joint motion for a partial stay of only the '266 and '343 patents pending the Keysight-instituted IPRs (IPR2023-00445 for the '266, instituted 2023-07-24; IPR2023-00446 for the '343, instituted 2023-08-07), agreeing the case would proceed on the other asserted patents. (Source: Joint memorandum filed 2023-08-24, E.D. Va. Dkt., available via DocketAlarm.) The court granted the partial stay (order date not independently verified; the motion is docketed August 2023 and a related memorandum opinion issued 2023-10-11 at Dkt. 452).
• 2023-10-11 (Dkt. 452) — Memorandum Opinion and Order (Judge Hanes) resolving substantive issues; cited by Centripetal in the IPR2023-00445 Patent Owner Response (its precise subject matter — e.g., claim construction or § 101/validity questions — is not confirmed from public summaries and should be verified on PACER).
• 2024-01-03 — Judge Hanes denied PAN's motions to trim the case (evidentiary/limine-type relief) on the eve of trial.
• 2024-01-19 — Court denied Centripetal's request for partial summary judgment, finding genuine disputes (including a validity dispute on a disputed claim).
• 2024 (pre-trial SJ) — Judge Hanes earlier denied in part PAN's summary judgment motion on non-infringement/indirect infringement/willfulness/'437 written-description invalidity, reserving some issues for trial. (Sources: Law360 headlines 2024-01-03 and 2024-01-19; Studicata summary of the 2024 SJ ruling; RPX.)

3. Claim construction (Markman)

The docket shows substantive claim-construction-era rulings (notably the 2023-10-11 Memorandum Opinion, Dkt. 452, and a § 101 judgment-on-the-pleadings ruling at Dkt. 455 in which the court deferred the Alice step-one/step-two question for the "Correlation Patents" and submitted factual questions to the jury). However, I could not verify a standalone Markman order or the construction terms from public sources; do not assume a conventional Markman order issued — the specifics should be pulled from PACER Dkt. 452/455 if needed.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• March 2022–May 2023 — Full stay pending PTAB; no merits discovery ran during this window. The strategic milestone was the disqualification fight over Ropes & Gray (denied), and PTAB-side sanctions against Centripetal's counsel (Kramer Levin's managing partner was barred from a related PTAB matter in February 2023 over "baseless attacks" — collateral to, not dispositive of, this case). (Sources: RPX; Law360, 2023-02-07.)
• May 2023 – January 2024 — After the stay was lifted, the parties compressed expert discovery and pre-trial motion practice into roughly eight months for a 2024-01-22 trial, including technical expert reports, damages expert work, and the joint request to keep only the non-stayed patents before the jury.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• 2024-01-22 through 2024-01-31 — Jury trial before Judge Hanes on four patents: the '437 patent and the "Correlation Patents" ('903, '573, '797). (The '266 and '343 claims remained stayed; the other six asserted patents had been invalidated at the PTAB.)
• 2024-01-31 (verdict) — The jury found PAN directly and literally infringed claim 8 of the '437 patent, claim 10 of the '903 patent, claims 1 and 9 of the '573 patent, and claims 1, 12, and 17 of the '797 patent; found induced infringement of claim 1 of the '573 and claim 1 of the '797 patents; found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of '437 claim 8; and awarded $37.875M per patent as a lump sum = $151.5M total. The jury found no willfulness, and answered the Alice step-two question favorably to Centripetal (PAN failed to prove the Correlation Patent elements were well-understood, routine, and conventional). (Sources: Reuters, 2024-01-31; RPX verdict report; Law360, 2024-01-31.)
• 2024-02-29 — PAN moved for judgment as a matter of law and/or a new trial, arguing the Correlation Patents were § 101-ineligible, that improper evidence "infected the entire trial," and that damages were unsupported. (Source: Law360, 2024-02-29.)
• 2024-03-28 — Centripetal opposed, arguing the evidence supported infringement and damages. (Source: Law360, 2024-03-28.)
• 2024-10-30 — Court granted the parties' joint motion to bifurcate post-judgment attorneys' fee motions (Dkt. 976/990), signaling fee litigation under § 285 would proceed separately.
• 2024-10-31 (Dkt. 989 Memorandum Opinion & Order; opinion available at EDVA 2:21-cv-00137-989) — The court:
  • Granted in part PAN's JMOL: no substantial evidence supported the jury's infringement finding on the '437 patent, so the court directed JMOL of non-infringement on '437;
  • Reduced the award by $37.875M to $113.625M ($113.6M);
  • Denied a new trial;
  • Rejected PAN's § 101 JMOL as to the Correlation Patents (finding them patent-eligible and the jury's "conventional" finding supported);
  • Denied Centripetal's own JMOL on remaining issues (willfulness/damages form), finding no clear error.
    (Sources: EDVA Dkt. 989; Law360, 2024-10-31.)

6. Settlement, judgment, appeal — present posture (active)

• Judgment was entered after Dkt. 989 (final judgment docketed late 2024 — exact entry number/date not verified); fee motions proceeded under the bifurcation order.
• 2024/2025 — Both sides appealed: PAN as Defendant-Appellant in Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1167, and Centripetal as Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant in No. 2025-1168, both from the E.D. Va. judgment (Judge Hanes). The appeals were held in abeyance pending disposition of Rule 4(a)(4) post-judgment motions (fee motions).
• 2025-12-22 — Federal Circuit reactivated the appeals (Nos. 2025-1167/1168) effective December 22, 2025, ordering PAN's opening brief due 2026-02-20. (Source: CAFC order, E.D. Va. Dkt. 1017.)
• As of 2026-09-03 — No settlement is reported; the district court case and the consolidated Federal Circuit appeals (25-1167/25-1168) remain active, with post-judgment fee proceedings at the district court and full appellate briefing underway.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings and their effect on the litigation

This is the crux for the '266 patent (your IPR2023-01329):

• IPR2023-00445 (Keysight Technologies v. Centripetal) — Petition filed 2023-01-06; institution granted 2023-07-24 for all claims (1–27) of the '266 patent.
• IPR2023-01329 (Palo Alto Networks v. Centripetal) — PAN filed its substantively identical petition and a § 315(c)/§ 42.122(b) motion for joinder on 2023-08-21; the Board granted institution and joinder with IPR2023-00445 on 2024-02-22. (Sources: PAN Petition and Joinder Motion, PTAB Papers; Patexia/IP Verse records.)
• Effect in the district court — At the parties' joint request (2023-08-24), the district court partially stayed the '266 (and '343) claims pending these IPRs — which is why the '266 patent never went to the January 2024 jury.
• Final Written Decision — 2024-07-22 — The Board (Judges Turner, Moore, Amundson) found all challenged claims 1–27 of the '266 patent unpatentable (obviousness over the prior art at issue). (Source: PTAB FWD, IPR2023-01329; Patexia.)
• Federal Circuit appeal — Centripetal appealed the '266 FWDs in Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-2372 (Keysight) and 2024-2373 (PAN). On 2026-06-09, a per curiam panel (Lourie, Cunningham, Stark) entered a Rule 36 judgment AFFIRMING the Board's unpatentability findings. (Source: CAFC Rule 36 judgment, 2024-2372/2024-2373, dated 2026-06-09; Bloomberg Law, 2026-06-10.)
• Practical outcome for the litigation — With the FWD affirmed, the stayed '266 claims are finally invalid, eliminating that patent (and, via the parallel Keysight IPR2023-00446 track for the '343 patent) from the district court case. The live damages exposure is the $113.6M reduced judgment on the '903/'573/'797 Correlation Patents (the '437 patent was eliminated by JMOL), now pending on appeal.
• Related but distinct PTAB/appellate threads (do not conflate with the '266): the Federal Circuit on 2024-10-31 affirmed PTAB invalidations of the '028/'126 patents (Appeal No. 2023-1654 and related Nos., e.g., 23-1785) that had been part of the original 13-claim complaint; and in a different Centripetal patent case (U.S. Patent 9,917,856 — the Cisco-related '856 IPR), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded on 2025-10-22 for the Board to consider copying evidence (Fed. Cir. No. 23-2027) — not involving the '266 patent.

---

Bottom line

The infringement litigation (E.D. Va. 2:21-cv-00137) produced a $151.5M jury verdict (2024-01-31), reduced by JMOL to $113.6M (2024-10-31) on three surviving patents, with both sides' appeals (Nos. 2025-1167/1168) active as of late 2025. For the '266 patent specifically, the parallel PTAB track (IPR2023-01329, joined with IPR2023-00445) ended in a Final Written Decision (2024-07-22) finding all claims unpatentable, which the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 on 2026-06-09 — so the '266 claims are now finally out of the litigation, and the case's remaining value turns on the $113.6M judgment and the pending appeal/fee proceedings.

Caveats: (1) I could not verify from public sources the contents of every pre-trial order (e.g., Dkt. 452) or a discrete Markman order — treat those as unconfirmed; (2) fee-motion outcomes and any post-December 2025 district court entries are not yet publicly summarized; (3) the RPX headline rounds the verdict to $151.1M while Reuters/Law360 and the per-patent math ($37.875M × 4) support $151.5M — I have used the latter.

Threshold clarification (important)

The docket you're asking about — IPR2023-01329, Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC (PTAB) — is an inter partes review, not a patent infringement case, so it has no "plaintiff." Palo Alto Networks is the petitioner; Centripetal Networks is the patent owner. I've set out counsel below under both plausible readings:

1. Petitioner-side counsel (Palo Alto Networks, the initiating party in IPR2023-01329) — the counsel "of record" in the PTAB proceeding; and
2. Plaintiff-side counsel in the parallel E.D. Va. infringement case (Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.), in case that is the case you intended.

---

1. Counsel of record for Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Petitioner) in IPR2023-01329

Sources: Petitioner's Power of Attorney filed Aug. 21, 2023 (Ropes & Gray LLP, USPTO Customer No. 28120) and the Board's order granting pro hac vice admission (Paper 7, Sept. 2023), which list only two designated practitioners.

Note: The related Federal Circuit appeal of this FWD (Nos. 2024-2372 and 2024-2373, argued Centripetal v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Palo Alto Networks, Inc.) was resolved by nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance on June 9, 2026, with Andrew T. Radsch (Munger, Tolles & Olson) appearing for appellee Palo Alto Networks. (CAFC Rule 36 Judgment, 24-2372/24-2373.)

---

2. If you meant the plaintiff in the underlying patent infringement suit (Centripetal's E.D. Va. case against Palo Alto Networks)

In that action, Centripetal Networks is the plaintiff and Palo Alto Networks the defendant. Centripetal's public reporting and firm announcements identify its trial team as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (the U.S. IP group that later combined into Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer), which obtained a $151.5 million jury verdict against Palo Alto Networks on Jan. 31, 2024, in the Eastern District of Virginia. Counsel identified in those public sources include:

Caveat on the E.D. Va. trial docket: I was not able to pull the PACER appearance/entry-of-appearance docket for the E.D. Va. case in this search run. The individuals above are corroborated by the Kramer Levin/HSF Kramer client announcement of the $151.5M judgment, firm bios, and the PTAB record — but if you need the exact attorney-appearance entries on the E.D. Va. docket sheet, that should be verified against PACER for the district case (Centripetal filed suit in 2021; the verdict case was in the Eastern District of Virginia). Also note that counsel-of-record designations in IPRs use "lead/back-up counsel," not the "lead/of counsel/local/in-house" categories used in district-court appearances, and no in-house counsel from either company appeared of record in the PTAB filing I reviewed.

---

Bottom line

• In IPR2023-01329 itself, there is no plaintiff — Palo Alto Networks (petitioner) was represented of record by James L. Davis Jr. (lead) and Andrew T. Radsch (back-up, pro hac vice), both Ropes & Gray LLP, East Palo Alto.
• If you meant plaintiff Centripetal Networks in the parallel infringement case, its counsel of record/publicly identified trial counsel were Paul J. Andre, Lisa Kobialka, James Hannah, Jeffrey Price, Jenna Fuller (Kramer Levin / now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer) with Banner & Witcoff attorneys as IPR back-up counsel, plus Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (Daniel J. Richardson et al.) representing Centripetal as appellant in the related Federal Circuit appeal (2024-2372/2024-2373), which ended in a Rule 36 affirmance for the appellees on June 9, 2026.

Important framing note

The case you're asking about (IPR2023-01329) is not a district-court patent infringement action — it's an inter partes review before the PTAB, with Palo Alto Networks as Petitioner and Centripetal Networks, LLC as Patent Owner defending U.S. Patent 10,785,266 against unpatentability challenges. There is no "defendant" in the IPR sense; the party adverse to Palo Alto Networks is Centripetal Networks, LLC (Patent Owner/Respondent), which I treat below as the "defendant-side" party. (For completeness: in the parallel infringement suit, Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00137-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.), Centripetal is the plaintiff and Palo Alto is the defendant — so if you meant PAN's district-court defense counsel, say so and I can run that separately.)

Counsel of record for Centripetal Networks, LLC in IPR2023-01329, as designated in the Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices (Paper 5, filed Sept. 11, 2023), is:

---

PTAB counsel of record — Centripetal Networks, LLC (Patent Owner)

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (now Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP after the 2025 merger)

1. James R. Hannah — Lead Counsel (also listed in the CAFC appeal as "JAMES R. HANNAH, Redwood Shores, CA")

• Firm/Office: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 (firm's Silicon Valley practice; USPTO Reg. No. 56,369).
• Note: Longtime lead PTAB counsel for Centripetal across its entire IPR portfolio (vs. Cisco, Keysight, and Palo Alto Networks); member of the Kramer Levin trial team that won the $151.5M E.D. Va. jury verdict for Centripetal against Palo Alto Networks in January 2024 (the parallel litigation over related patents). Sources: Mandatory Notices, IPR2023-01329, Paper 5; HSF Kramer news (Feb. 2024); CAFC Rule 36 judgment, No. 24-2372/24-2373.

2. Jeffrey H. Price — Backup Counsel

• Firm/Office: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036 (USPTO Reg. No. 69,141). On the CAFC appeal he appears under Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, New York.
• Note: Kramer Levin IP partner who has served as backup PTAB counsel for Centripetal in multiple IPRs (e.g., IPR2022-01421, IPR2023-00445/01329) and on Centripetal's Federal Circuit appeals (including the Cisco § 455 appeals). Source: Mandatory Notices, Paper 5; CAFC Rule 36 judgment (June 9, 2026).

3. Jenna Fuller — Backup Counsel

• Firm/Office: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, Redwood Shores, CA (USPTO Reg. No. 74,212); on the CAFC appeal listed with Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, New York.
• Note: PTAB litigator on Centripetal's IPR defense team in the Keysight/Palo Alto '266 patent proceedings; also of record on the Federal Circuit appeals in Nos. 24-2372/24-2373. Source: Mandatory Notices, Paper 5; CAFC Rule 36 judgment.

Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. (co-designated backup counsel)

4. Bradley C. Wright — Backup Counsel

• Firm/Office: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., 1100 13th Street NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005 (USPTO Reg. No. 38,061).
• Note: Longtime Centripetal IP counsel — his Banner & Witcoff team drafted/prosecuted the Centripetal patents underlying the ~$2.6–3.2B Cisco verdict and serves as co-counsel defending Centripetal patents in PTAB proceedings. Source: Mandatory Notices, Paper 5; Banner & Witcoff client alert (Oct. 2020).

5. Scott M. Kelly — Backup Counsel

• Firm/Office: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, DC (USPTO Reg. No. 65,121).
• Note: Part of the Banner & Witcoff team representing Centripetal on patent procurement and PTAB defense (alongside Wright). Source: Mandatory Notices, Paper 5.

6. John R. Hutchins — Backup Counsel

• Firm/Office: Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, DC (USPTO Reg. No. 43,686).
• Note: Banner & Witcoff PTAB practitioner designated as additional backup counsel for Centripetal in the joined Keysight/Palo Alto '266 proceedings. Source: Mandatory Notices, Paper 5; IPR2023-00445 FWD counsel listing.

---

Related Federal Circuit appellate counsel (Nos. 2024-2372/2024-2373)

Centripetal appealed the PTAB's July 22, 2024 Final Written Decision (all challenged claims of the '266 patent unpatentable) to the Federal Circuit. The appeals were consolidated with the Keysight appeal and affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on June 9, 2026 (Lourie, Cunningham, and Stark, JJ.), per the CAFC opinion/order. Counsel of record on the appeal:

• Daniel J. Richardson (argued) — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC.
• Aviv S. Halpern — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
• Andrei Iancu — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, CA (former USPTO Director).
• Laurie Stempler — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY.
• Jenna Fuller and Jeffrey Price — Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, New York, NY (post-merger successor firm to Kramer Levin).
• James R. Hannah — Redwood Shores, CA (same lead PTAB counsel above).

Source: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. / Palo Alto Networks, Inc., Nos. 2024-2372, 2024-2373, Rule 36 Judgment (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2026), available at cafc.uscourts.gov.

---

Caveats

• No in-house or local counsel of record: Centripetal designated no in-house attorney in its PTAB mandatory notices, and PTAB practice does not use "local counsel" designations. No filings in IPR2023-01329 are sealed so far as the public record shows.
• Role-label caution: The Kramer Levin/Hannah-Fuller-Price team's office designations shifted between documents (mandatory notice lists Redwood Shores for Hannah/Fuller; other firm materials list the Menlo Park office at 990 Marsh Road); the merger into Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP postdates the PTAB Final Written Decision and appears only at the CAFC stage.
• If by "defendant" you meant Palo Alto Networks as the defendant in the E.D. Va. infringement suit (2:21-cv-00137), that is a different docket — the petitioner-side PTAB counsel (Ropes & Gray's James L. Davis Jr., pro hac vice Andrew T. Radsch — later of Munger, Tolles & Olson on appeal — and Ropes & Gray's James Batchelder) would be the relevant names, and I can develop that separately.