Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.
Patentability filed 27 Sep 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 9 Jun 2026, with US10785266B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10785266B2
- Application no.
- US16/728766
- Case no.
- 24-2372
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Sep 2024 – 9 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 620 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Methods and systems for protecting a secured network
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Methods and systems for protecting a secured network
Methods and systems for protecting a secured network are presented. For example, one or more packet security gateways may be associated with a security policy management server. At each packet security gateway, a dynamic security policy may be received from the security policy management server, packets associated with a network protected by the packet security gateway may be received, and at least one of multiple packet transformation functions specified by the dynamic security policy may be performed on the packets. Performing the at least one of multiple packet transformation functions specified by the dynamic security policy on the packets may include performing at least one packet transformation function other than forwarding or dropping the packets.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 22 Sep 2020
- Est. expiry
- 22 Oct 2032
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2021-01154 · filed by Palo Alto Networks, Inc.IPR2023-01329 · Patentability · filed by PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INCIPR2023-00445 · Patentability · filed by Keysight Technologies
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ROGERS, STEVEN · MOORE, SEAN
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Prosecution counsel
- BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
- Examiner
- CHANG, KENNETH W
Parties of record
Centripetal Networks, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Counsel
- Andrei Iancu · Aviv S. Halpern · Daniel J. Richardson · James R. Hannah · Jeffrey Price · Jenna Fuller · Laurie Stempler
- Firm
- Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Centripetal Networks, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Counsel
- Gerard M. Donovan · James Christopher Martin · Jonah D. Mitchell · Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe
- Firm
- Reed Smith LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrei Iancu | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Aviv S. Halpern | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Daniel J. Richardson | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James R. Hannah | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey Price | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jenna Fuller | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Laurie Stempler | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Gerard M. Donovan | Centripetal Networks, Inc. | Defendant |
| James Christopher Martin | Centripetal Networks, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jonah D. Mitchell | Centripetal Networks, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe | Centripetal Networks, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.”
Case 24-2372 · Fed. Cir. · closed 9 June 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 24-2372?
24-2372 is a patent patentability brought by Centripetal Networks, LLC against Centripetal Networks, Inc., filed on 27 Sep 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 9 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 24-2372?
US10785266B2 (“Methods and systems for protecting a secured network”), assigned to CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Methods and systems for protecting a secured network.
How was case 24-2372 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.”
How long did case 24-2372 take?
620 calendar days, from filing on 27 Sep 2024 to closure on 9 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-2372?
Andrei Iancu, Aviv S. Halpern, Daniel J. Richardson, James R. Hannah, Jeffrey Price, Jenna Fuller and Laurie Stempler are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Centripetal Networks. Gerard M. Donovan, James Christopher Martin, Jonah D. Mitchell and Jonathan Iain Max Detrixhe appear for defendant Centripetal Networks.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-2372 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.