Patent 9686193
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review at the USPTO. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs.
Cases on file (1)
Group view →Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9686193. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
- Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.filed 2018-022:18-cv-00094United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).terminated Apr 29, 2026judgment
Defendants: Cisco Systems, Inc.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
US Patent 9686193, titled "Filtering network data transfers," has been involved in significant litigation, primarily a patent infringement case filed by Centripetal Networks, LLC against Cisco Systems, Inc.
The known litigation involving US Patent 9686193 is as follows:
- Case Name: 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:
- District Court: 2:18-cv-00094
- CAFC: 24-2097 (for the most recent appeal)
- Filing Date:
- District Court: 2018 (Centripetal sued Cisco in 2018)
- CAFC (latest appeal): April 29, 2026
- Outcome/Current Status:
- Initial District Court Judgment (2020): The district court originally entered judgment in favor of Centripetal Networks, finding that Cisco willfully infringed US Patent 9686193 (among others) and awarded over $1.9 billion in damages, including future royalties.
- First CAFC Appeal (2022): The Federal Circuit vacated this judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings with a new judge. This decision was based on the discovery that the original district judge's wife owned Cisco stock, leading to a required recusal.
- Second District Court Proceedings (Post-Remand): After reassignment to a new judge in August 2022, the district court subsequently entered a judgment of noninfringement in favor of Cisco Systems, Inc.
- Second CAFC Appeal (April 29, 2026): Centripetal Networks, LLC appealed the district court's judgment of noninfringement. On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment of noninfringement, meaning Centripetal Networks' appeal was denied.
Generated 6/26/2026, 12:46:02 PM