Centripetal Networks LLC v. Centripetal Networks Inc. — Appeal No. 24-2374
A Federal Circuit appeal over US11012474B2 — a patent covering methods and systems for protecting secured networks — was voluntarily dismissed after 171 days, with each side bearing its own costs. A related appeal, No. 2025-1053, remains active and is the proceeding to watch.
Network security patent appeal dropped mid-flight at the Federal Circuit
Filed on 27 September 2024, Appeal No. 24-2374 arose from a patentability/invalidity challenge concerning US11012474B2, a patent held under the Centripetal Networks entity structure that covers methods and systems for protecting a secured network. The case was brought before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — the exclusive appellate venue for U.S. patent matters — with Centripetal Networks LLC appearing as plaintiff-appellant against Centripetal Networks Inc. as defendant-appellee, an unusual configuration that suggests an intra-corporate or post-reorganisation dispute over patent ownership or standing.
The appeal was closed on 17 March 2025 following a voluntary dismissal granted by the Federal Circuit on motion. The court’s order is precise in its scope: Appeal No. 24-2374 is dismissed, costs are split (each side bears its own), and the revised official caption for the surviving appeal — No. 2025-1053 — is formally acknowledged. Keysight Technologies, named in that related proceeding, is directed to file its opening brief no later than 21 April 2025, confirming that the underlying patentability dispute has not been fully resolved.
The 171-day duration from filing to dismissal is consistent with a strategic procedural consolidation rather than a merits-based resolution: the parties likely determined that Appeal No. 2025-1053 was the more appropriate or comprehensive vehicle for the remaining issues, rendering this appeal redundant. The public record does not disclose whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, which carries material consequences for whether the issues raised in 24-2374 can be re-litigated. The involvement of Keysight Technologies in the continuing appeal suggests the dispute has broader commercial dimensions not fully visible in this docket entry alone.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 171 days
171 days from filing to dismissal — relatively swift resolution at the Federal Circuit
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Federal Circuit order means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit — no merits ruling issued
A voluntary dismissal terminates the specific appeal by consent or unopposed motion without the court adjudicating the underlying legal questions. Here, the Federal Circuit granted the motion and dismissed Appeal No. 24-2374, meaning no precedential ruling on the validity of US11012474B2 was issued in this proceeding. The surviving appeal, No. 2025-1053, will carry the merits forward.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Voluntary dismissals can be with prejudice — barring re-litigation of the same claims — or without prejudice, preserving the right to re-file. The court order in this case records only ‘voluntary dismissal’ without specifying either. This ambiguity is significant: if the dismissal is with prejudice, the appellant may be foreclosed from raising the same invalidity arguments outside of Appeal No. 2025-1053. Practitioners should treat the record as silent pending any clarifying order.
Prejudice status unconfirmedAppellant obtains exit from this appeal; 2025-1053 remains its live vehicle
Centripetal Networks LLC, as appellant, secured the dismissal it sought. The strategic inference is that 2025-1053 — where Keysight Technologies is also a party — is the preferred proceeding for litigating US11012474B2’s validity. Voluntarily exiting 24-2374 avoids the risk of an adverse merits ruling in a parallel track while the primary appeal is briefed.
Strategic consolidation likelyKeysight Technologies and the surviving appeal carry the real commercial stakes
The mention of Keysight Technologies in the court’s order — with a briefing deadline in Appeal No. 2025-1053 — signals that the commercial significance of US11012474B2 extends beyond the Centripetal entity dispute. Network security vendors and product teams working in the secured network protection space should monitor 2025-1053 closely, as its outcome will determine the patent’s enforceability.
Monitor Appeal 2025-1053Full party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Company | Network security technology entity — holder of US11012474B2 covering secured network protectionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Centripetal Networks, Inc. | Company | Related Centripetal Networks entity; Reed Smith LLP counsel; respondent in Federal Circuit appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrei Iancu | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aviv S. Halpern | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel J. Richardson | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey B. Wall | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Price | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jenna Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laurie Stempler | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sullivan & Cromwell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gerard M. Donovan | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Christopher Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonah D. Mitchell | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reed Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is narrowly scoped and procedural: it grants a motion to dismiss Appeal No. 24-2374 voluntarily, resolves costs symmetrically, and administratively updates the caption for the surviving Appeal No. 2025-1053. Critically, the order issues no substantive ruling on the patentability or validity of US11012474B2. The reference to Keysight Technologies’s briefing deadline in 2025-1053 confirms that the core invalidity dispute — the Verdict Cause — migrates entirely to that proceeding. The costs neutrality is consistent with a consensual exit rather than a contested dismissal.
US11012474B2 — Methods and systems for protecting a secured network
US11012474B2 (application number US17/027436) protects methods and systems for protecting a secured network — a domain that typically encompasses threat intelligence integration, network traffic analysis, and dynamic policy enforcement to block malicious activity at the network perimeter or core. Patents in this category commonly cover the logic by which network security appliances correlate threat data with live traffic to make filtering or quarantine decisions in real time. The patent was asserted in an invalidity/cancellation action, meaning a challenger contends the claimed invention lacks novelty or inventive step over the prior art.
US11012474B2 sits at the intersection of network security infrastructure and software-defined threat response — a commercially significant zone contested by major vendors including firewall, SIEM, and threat intelligence platform providers. Centripetal Networks has historically pursued an aggressive enforcement posture in this space, and the involvement of Keysight Technologies in the surviving Federal Circuit appeal suggests the patent’s claim scope may read on network test, monitoring, or emulation equipment. Companies building or distributing products that inspect, filter, or route traffic based on threat intelligence should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk until Appeal 2025-1053 is resolved.
Should you run an FTO against US11012474B2?
Any R&D team or product manager working on secured network protection systems — including next-generation firewalls, threat intelligence platforms, network detection and response tools, or traffic filtering appliances — should assess exposure to US11012474B2 now, while Appeal No. 2025-1053 is still in the briefing phase. A Federal Circuit affirmance of the patent’s validity would significantly raise the cost and complexity of designing around or challenging it retrospectively. The Keysight Technologies involvement also signals that network test and measurement equipment may fall within the patent’s asserted claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11012474B2 against your product architecture, flag prior art that may be relevant to the surviving invalidity challenge, and surface design-around pathways before the Federal Circuit rules. Eureka also enables continuous monitoring of Appeal No. 2025-1053 and related Centripetal Networks enforcement activity, so your IP and legal teams receive alerts when the litigation posture changes — not after the fact.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11012474B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in network security patent invalidity
Cases involving network security patent invalidity challenges at the Federal Circuit, particularly those concerning threat intelligence and secured network protection methods.
What this case signals for the network security IP landscape
The dismissal of 24-2374 is procedural, but the surviving Federal Circuit appeal over US11012474B2 keeps high-stakes network security patent risk very much alive.
The real battle is in Appeal No. 2025-1053 — watch Keysight’s opening brief
This dismissal is a procedural consolidation, not a resolution. Keysight Technologies must file its opening brief in Appeal No. 2025-1053 by 21 April 2025. That brief will define the invalidity arguments against US11012474B2 and set the terms of the Federal Circuit’s eventual merits ruling. Network security IP watchers should treat that filing as the next critical milestone.
Own-costs order limits financial exposure but signals no clear winner at this stage
The equal costs allocation — each side bearing its own — is consistent with a consensual or unopposed withdrawal rather than a contested win for either party. It does not signal weakness by the appellant; rather, it reflects the transactional nature of procedural consolidations. No adverse cost inference should be drawn against either Centripetal entity from this order alone.
Centripetal v Centripetal — key questions answered
Appeal No. 24-2374 was voluntarily dismissed at the Federal Circuit on 17 March 2025, 171 days after filing. Each side bears its own costs. The underlying patentability dispute over US11012474B2 continues in related Appeal No. 2025-1053, where Keysight Technologies is also a party.
The Federal Circuit’s order records only ‘voluntary dismissal’ without specifying with or without prejudice. The public record is silent on this point. The distinction is material: a with-prejudice dismissal would bar re-litigation of the same issues, while without prejudice preserves that right. Practitioners should seek any clarifying order before drawing conclusions.
US11012474B2 covers methods and systems for protecting a secured network. It sits in the network security space — covering threat intelligence-driven traffic filtering and dynamic policy enforcement. Its commercial significance is elevated by Centripetal Networks’ enforcement history and the involvement of Keysight Technologies in the surviving Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting the claims may read on network monitoring and test equipment.
Appeal No. 2025-1053 is the surviving Federal Circuit proceeding referenced in the order dismissing 24-2374. The court revised the official caption for 2025-1053 and set Keysight Technologies’s opening brief deadline as 21 April 2025. It carries the merits of the patentability dispute over US11012474B2 forward and is the operative proceeding to monitor.
The plaintiff is Centripetal Networks LLC and the defendant is Centripetal Networks Inc. — distinct legal entities sharing a brand name. This configuration typically arises from corporate reorganisations, spin-offs, or ownership disputes where related entities hold or contest rights to the same patent assets. The public record does not disclose the precise relationship, but the structure suggests a dispute over patent title, standing, or licensing rights between affiliated parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.