Litigation summary

The patent US10511572, "Rule swapping in a packet network," has been involved in several litigation actions, primarily with Centripetal Networks LLC as the patent owner.

Here's a summary of the known litigation:

• Case: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Centripetal Networks, LLC
  • Defendant(s): Keysight Technologies, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO.
  • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in the search results for this specific case at the CAFC level, but general CAFC proceedings are mentioned.
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated for the specific CAFC decision date, but PTAB challenges were ongoing.
  • Outcome/Current Status: The CAFC issued a decision on April 23, 2026, affirming in part and reversing in part a PTAB decision. The CAFC found claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 of Centripetal Networks, LLC's patent (though the article primarily references US10193917, another Centripetal patent, in the abstract, but the body mentions that the CAFC confirmed the PTAB decision on "most claims of one of Centripetal's patents invalid, and on Keysight's cross-appeal, ruled that the two claims of that patent that had survived IPR were also invalid.") related to network threat detection unpatentable for obviousness. The court reversed the PTAB's determination regarding claims 4 and 14, finding those claims unpatentable for obviousness as well. Reed Smith, representing Keysight, also stated that Keysight prevailed on all asserted patents at the ITC, secured PTAB decisions invalidating 185 claims across eight asserted patents, and obtained multiple Federal Circuit affirmances, also prevailing in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and German national courts.

• Case: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

  • Plaintiff(s): Centripetal Networks, LLC
  • Defendant(s): Cisco Systems, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
  • Case Number: 2:18-cv-00094 (District Court), 24-2097 (CAFC).
  • Filing Date: Sued by Centripetal in 2018.
  • Outcome/Current Status:
    • Initially, in 2020, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered judgment in favor of Centripetal, finding that Cisco willfully infringed asserted claims of the '193, '806, and '176 patents (US9686193, US9203806, and US9560176, respectively, with '806 likely being relevant to rule swapping as a family member) and awarded Centripetal more than $1.9 billion.
    • The Federal Circuit later vacated this judgment, citing that the district court judge was required to recuse due to his wife owning Cisco stock, and remanded the case for further proceedings with a new judge.
    • On April 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of noninfringement in favor of Cisco Systems, Inc. as to the asserted claims of the '193, '806, and '176 patents. The district court had found non-infringement for the '806 patent because the claim term "responsive to" required but-for causation of "ceas[ing] processing" packets in "respons[e] to" a signal, and Cisco's products did not perform this step.

It is important to note that while US10511572 is the focus, the search results often refer to a family of Centripetal patents related to "Rule swapping in a packet network" and "Rule-Based Network-Threat Detection," including patents like US9203806, US9674148, US10284522, US10541972, US10681009, US11502996, US11539665, and US12463942, as well as US9917856 and US10193917. The core "rule swapping" concept is present across these related patents. Specifically, US10511572 is a continuation of US16/518,190, which is a continuation of US15/610,995, which is a continuation of US14/921,718 (US9674148), which is a continuation of US13/739,178 (US9203806). These are all part of the same patent family. The litigation details above frequently refer to the family as a whole or specific parent/child patents within it.Known litigation involving US patent 10511572 (Rule swapping in a packet network) primarily involves Centripetal Networks LLC as the plaintiff. While the search results frequently refer to a family of related patents, the context indicates that US10511572 is part of this ongoing litigation, often referred to through its parent patents or the overarching "rule swapping" technology.

Here are the details of the known litigation:

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

   • Plaintiff(s): Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Defendant(s): Keysight Technologies, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO.
   • Case Number: Not explicitly provided in the search results for this specific CAFC ruling.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated for the specific CAFC decision date, but PTAB challenges were ongoing.
   • Outcome/Current Status: On April 23, 2026, the CAFC affirmed in part and reversed in part a PTAB decision. The CAFC found most claims of one of Centripetal's patents invalid for obviousness, including claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-20 of US10193917 (a related Centripetal patent for network threat detection, although the specific claim numbers apply to that patent, not directly to 10511572 in this snippet). The CAFC also reversed the PTAB's determination regarding claims 4 and 14 of that patent, finding those claims unpatentable for obviousness as well. Keysight Technologies, represented by Reed Smith, has consistently prevailed across multiple forums, including the ITC, PTAB, Federal Circuit, Unified Patent Court (UPC), and German national courts, securing invalidation of many claims across eight asserted Centripetal patents.

2. Case: Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

   • Plaintiff(s): Centripetal Networks, LLC
   • Defendant(s): Cisco Systems, Inc.
   • Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
   • Case Number: 2:18-cv-00094 (District Court); 24-2097 (CAFC).
   • Filing Date: Centripetal sued Cisco in February 2018.
   • Outcome/Current Status:
     • In 2020, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia initially found that Cisco willfully infringed several Centripetal patents, including US9203806 (a parent patent to US10511572), and awarded Centripetal over $1.9 billion.
     • The Federal Circuit later vacated this judgment and remanded the case due to the district judge's mandatory recusal, as his wife owned Cisco stock.
     • On April 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's subsequent judgment of non-infringement in favor of Cisco Systems, Inc. concerning the asserted claims of US9686193, US9203806, and US9560176. Specifically, for the '806 patent (a direct parent of US10511572), the district court found no infringement because Cisco's products did not meet the "responsive to" claim limitation requiring but-for causation for ceasing packet processing in response to a signal. This ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.