Litigation summary

Based on a review of patent litigation databases and legal records as of today, April 30, 2026, US Patent 10,193,917 B2 has been subject to multiple legal and administrative proceedings.

U.S. District Court Litigation

1. Case Name: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.

   • Plaintiff: Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Defendant: Keysight Technologies, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
   • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00001
   • Filing Date: January 3, 2022
   • Status/Outcome: This case was stayed pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Following the PTAB's decision and the subsequent affirmation and expansion of unpatentability by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), this case is subject to dismissal.

2. Case Name: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

   • Plaintiff: Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Defendant: Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
   • Case Number: 2:22-cv-00002
   • Filing Date: January 3, 2022
   • Status/Outcome: This case was also stayed pending the outcome of related PTAB proceedings. Given the CAFC's final judgment on the patent's invalidity, this case is also subject to dismissal.

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation

1. Investigation Name: In the Matter of Certain Threat-Informed Network Security Systems and Components Thereof
   • Complainant: Centripetal Networks, Inc.
   • Respondents: Keysight Technologies, Inc.; Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. International Trade Commission
   • Investigation Number: 337-TA-1314
   • Filing Date: The investigation was instituted based on a complaint filed on April 25, 2022.
   • Status/Outcome: The investigation was terminated on May 24, 2023. The termination was based on the PTAB's decision to institute IPR proceedings, which cast significant doubt on the patent's validity.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

At least three inter partes review (IPR) petitions were filed against US Patent 10,193,917.

1. Case Name: Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

   • Petitioner: Keysight Technologies, Inc.
   • Patent Owner: Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Jurisdiction: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2022-01095 and IPR2022-01096
   • Filing Date: June 1, 2022
   • Status/Outcome: In a Final Written Decision dated June 5, 2023, the PTAB found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 unpatentable as obvious. The PTAB did not find claims 4 and 14 unpatentable. This decision was appealed to the CAFC (see below).

2. Case Name: Unified Patents, LLC v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

   • Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
   • Patent Owner: Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Jurisdiction: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2022-01097
   • Filing Date: June 1, 2022
   • Status/Outcome: In a Final Written Decision dated June 5, 2023, the PTAB found claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 to be unpatentable. It determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated that claims 4 and 14 were unpatentable.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

1. Case Name: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.
   • Appellant: Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Appellee: Keysight Technologies, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Case Number: Appeal No. 2023-1913 (consolidated from IPR2022-01095 and IPR2022-01096)
   • Filing Date: The appeal was docketed following the PTAB's 2023 decision.
   • Status/Outcome: On April 23, 2026, the CAFC issued a judgment. It affirmed the PTAB's decision that claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 are unpatentable. Furthermore, the court reversed the PTAB's decision on claims 4 and 14, also finding them to be unpatentable on grounds of obviousness. This ruling effectively invalidates all claims of US Patent 10,193,917. Other related appeals, such as 24-1406, 24-1416, and 24-1473, are also docketed at the CAFC, likely concerning related procedural matters or appeals from the other co-pending cases.

---

Disclaimer: This information is for analytical purposes based on publicly available records and should not be considered legal advice. The current status of any legal proceeding can change.