PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

Contradiction Notice: The "PTAB proceedings on file" section of the prompt indicated no AIA trial proceedings for US Patent 10,193,917. However, the "Litigation summary" provided within the prompt, as well as live web search results, clearly show that this patent has been subject to multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. I will proceed with the information from the "Litigation summary" and web searches as they provide a more current and comprehensive view.

Three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were filed against US Patent 10,193,917. All challenged claims (1-20) were found unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in their Final Written Decisions, and this determination was subsequently affirmed and expanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Consequently, all claims of US 10,193,917 have been invalidated, giving a defendant a strong defensive posture where the patent is unenforceable.

IPR2022-01095 — Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: June 1, 2022 (as per the prompt's litigation summary)
• Status: Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 found unpatentable by PTAB. Claims 4 and 14 found not unpatentable by PTAB. Subsequently, all claims (1-20) found unpatentable by Federal Circuit on appeal.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The specific prior art relied upon included Sourcefire (Sourcefire 3D System User Guide Version 4.10) and Macaulay (Application # 2015/0207809). Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 20 were argued as obvious over Sourcefire, while claims 6-10 and 16-19 were argued as obvious over Sourcefire in view of Macaulay.
• Institution decision: Instituted (date not explicitly found in search results, but the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, indicating institution). The PTAB instituted review of claims 1-20.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on June 5, 2023. The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 unpatentable for obviousness. The PTAB found claims 4 and 14 not unpatentable for obviousness.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 2023-1913 (consolidated with IPR2022-01096). The CAFC issued its judgment on April 23, 2026. Centripetal Networks appealed the PTAB's obviousness determinations for claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20, while Keysight cross-appealed the PTAB's non-obviousness determination for claims 4 and 14. The CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision on claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20, and reversed the PTAB's decision on claims 4 and 14, finding them unpatentable for obviousness as well. The CAFC found that the PTAB's reasoning regarding why Sourcefire did not disclose an existing flow log entry (relevant to claims 4 and 14) was "contrary to its prior factfinding" for claim 1, and that if Sourcefire could update a flow log entry, then the entry must already exist.
• Defensive value: This proceeding, culminating in the CAFC's decision, means that all claims (1-20) of US 10,193,917 have been found unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on any of these claims is baseless and the patent is unenforceable.

IPR2022-01096 — Keysight Technologies, Inc. v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: June 1, 2022 (as per the prompt's litigation summary)
• Status: Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 found unpatentable by PTAB. Claims 4 and 14 found not unpatentable by PTAB. Subsequently, all claims (1-20) found unpatentable by Federal Circuit on appeal.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Similar to IPR2022-01095, challenging claims 1-20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, using prior art such as Sourcefire and Macaulay.
• Institution decision: Instituted (date not explicitly found). The PTAB instituted review of claims 1-20.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on June 5, 2023. The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 unpatentable for obviousness. The PTAB found claims 4 and 14 not unpatentable for obviousness.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 2023-1913 (consolidated with IPR2022-01095). The CAFC issued its judgment on April 23, 2026, affirming the unpatentability of claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20, and reversing the PTAB's decision to also find claims 4 and 14 unpatentable.
• Defensive value: This proceeding's outcome at the Federal Circuit confirms the invalidity of all claims (1-20) of US 10,193,917, rendering it unenforceable.

IPR2022-01097 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Centripetal Networks, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: June 1, 2022 (as per the prompt's litigation summary)
• Status: Claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 found unpatentable by PTAB. Claims 4 and 14 found not unpatentable by PTAB. Subsequently, all claims (1-20) found unpatentable by Federal Circuit on appeal (via appeal of IPR2022-01095/01096).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20. Ground 1: Claims 1-5, 11-15, and 20 are obvious over Sourcefire. Ground 2: Claims 6-10 and 16-19 are obvious over Sourcefire in view of Macaulay. Petitioner also relied on collateral estoppel based on prior IPRs against a related '722 patent.
• Institution decision: Instituted (date not explicitly found). Petitioner argued against discretionary denial, asserting minimal investment in parallel litigations and stipulating that it would not pursue in parallel litigation any invalidity ground raised or reasonably could have been raised if IPR were instituted.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on June 5, 2023. The PTAB found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 unpatentable. It determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated that claims 4 and 14 were unpatentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement.
• Appeal: This specific IPR's FWD appears to have been part of the broader appeal context that led to CAFC Appeal No. 2023-1913, which comprehensively addressed the patentability of all claims 1-20. The CAFC's decision in Appeal No. 2023-1913 effectively covers the claims considered in IPR2022-01097.
• Defensive value: Unified Patents' successful challenge at the PTAB, which invalidated a significant portion of the claims, contributed to the overall invalidation of the patent. The subsequent CAFC ruling confirming and expanding this invalidation renders the entire patent unenforceable.

Strategic summary

As a result of multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and a subsequent appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), all claims of US Patent 10,193,917 are now CANCELED. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initially found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 to be unpatentable for obviousness in its Final Written Decisions for IPR2022-01095, IPR2022-01096, and IPR2022-01097 on June 5, 2023. While the PTAB initially sustained claims 4 and 14, this was reversed by the Federal Circuit. On April 23, 2026, the CAFC, in Appeal No. 2023-1913, affirmed the unpatentability of the claims found invalid by the PTAB and additionally found claims 4 and 14 to be unpatentable on grounds of obviousness.

The estoppel landscape for this patent is now comprehensive. Since the Federal Circuit has ruled that all claims (1-20) are unpatentable, any potential petitioners or defendants would benefit from this judgment. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), a petitioner (and its privies) are estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in an IPR. However, given that all claims have been declared unpatentable, the practical impact of estoppel is minimal for defendants facing assertion, as there are no enforceable claims remaining.

The involvement of Unified Patents, LLC (IPR2022-01097) signals that this patent was identified as a target by a defensive aggregator, which often indicates patents being asserted in litigation or deemed of questionable validity. The aggressive pursuit of these IPRs by Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Unified Patents, culminating in a full Federal Circuit review, demonstrates the significant challenge to the patent's validity.

Recommended next steps

For any defendant currently being asserted against under US Patent 10,193,917, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Federal Circuit's decision that all claims (1-20) are unpatentable.

• Explicitly cite the Federal Circuit's judgment: Reference the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., Appeal No. 2023-1913, issued on April 23, 2026. This decision directly states that the PTAB's finding of unpatentability for claims 1–3, 5–13, and 15–20 was affirmed, and the PTAB's decision regarding claims 4 and 14 was reversed, with those claims also being found unpatentable for obviousness.
• Request dismissal or summary judgment: File appropriate motions with any relevant district court or the ITC, arguing that the patent-in-suit is invalid and unenforceable based on the CAFC's final judgment. The litigation summary in the prompt already notes that Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. (1:22-cv-00001) and Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (2:22-cv-00002) in the Eastern District of Virginia are subject to dismissal following the CAFC ruling.
• Provide the CAFC opinion: Link to the CAFC opinion when making arguments, for example, via CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's docket, to provide the authoritative legal basis.
• Cease licensing discussions: If involved in licensing discussions, the complete invalidation of the patent significantly weakens the patent owner's position.
• Monitor for further appeals: While unlikely for this specific patent given the CAFC's comprehensive ruling, monitor for any potential (though highly improbable) petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court.