Centripetal Networks v. Cisco Systems: 11-Patent Network Security Dispute (2018–2025)
Centripetal Networks, LLC filed suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting 11 patents covering network security technologies including threat intelligence filtering, encrypted traffic analysis, and rule-based packet inspection — implemented across Cisco’s ASA firewall, Stealthwatch, and Catalyst switch portfolios. The case spanned 2,716 days before being administratively closed in July 2025 while Federal Circuit appeals remain pending.
A landmark network security dispute spanning nearly a decade
Centripetal Networks, LLC initiated this infringement action on February 13, 2018 in the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting 11 US patents against Cisco Systems, Inc. The patents-in-suit cover a range of network security technologies including rule-based packet filtering, threat intelligence correlation, and encrypted traffic analysis. Cisco’s accused products span its widely deployed ASA firewall appliance family, Stealthwatch network detection platform, IOS XE networking software, and Catalyst 9000-series switches — effectively placing Cisco’s core enterprise security portfolio at issue.
The district court previously awarded a Bill of Costs against Centripetal (ECF No. 819), consistent with a finding that Cisco was the prevailing party on at least some issues. However, the case was not finally resolved on the merits at the district level: in July 2025 the court granted Centripetal’s unopposed motion to stay execution of that Bill of Costs, and directed the Clerk to administratively close the docket pending the outcome of appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The administrative closure is procedural — the case will be restored to the active docket once the Federal Circuit proceedings conclude.
A case duration of 2,716 days across multiple trial phases, post-trial motions, and now Federal Circuit appeals is consistent with highly contested multi-patent litigation involving complex network security technology and a large-cap defendant with significant resources to mount an extended defense. The public record does not disclose the full Federal Circuit docket, the specific claims affirmed or invalidated, or any confidential resolution terms, leaving the ultimate commercial outcome contingent on appellate proceedings. The administrative closure and cost-stay suggest that substantive rights on both sides remain genuinely in dispute at the appellate level.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 2716 days
2,716 days — among the longest-running district court patent cases in network security
Administrative closure and cost stay: what the July 2025 order means
Administrative closure is not a final judgment on the merits
The court’s July 2025 order does not resolve the underlying infringement claims. An administrative closure under these circumstances is a docket-management tool: it suspends active proceedings while Federal Circuit appeals are resolved, and the court expressly ordered the case restored to the active docket once those appeals conclude. The Bill of Costs awarded by the district court (ECF No. 819) remains in force but unenforceable until the appellate proceedings are complete.
Procedural — not a merits dismissalCentripetal retains live appellate claims at the Federal Circuit
The stay of the Bill of Costs execution is directly favourable to Centripetal: it avoids immediate financial exposure while the Federal Circuit resolves the appeal. If Centripetal succeeds on appeal and secures a reversal or vacatur of adverse rulings, the district court proceedings would resume under a potentially more favourable posture. The fact the motion was unopposed suggests Cisco did not contest the stay, which is commercially typical where appeals are genuinely pending.
Appeals pending — outcome openCisco holds a Bill of Costs award but faces continued appellate exposure
The district court’s Bill of Costs award is consistent with Cisco having prevailed on at least some issues at first instance. However, Cisco’s non-opposition to the cost stay suggests an acceptance that Federal Circuit proceedings will determine final liability. Should the Federal Circuit affirm adverse district court rulings on infringement or damages, Cisco’s ASA, Stealthwatch, and Catalyst product lines may face continuing royalty obligations or design-around requirements across the asserted patent claims.
Cost award held — appellate risk remainsNetwork security vendors face elevated IP risk from this patent portfolio
Centripetal’s 11-patent portfolio covers foundational network threat intelligence and packet-filtering techniques that appear across multiple product categories — firewalls, network detection and response, and campus switches. The scope of accused Cisco products suggests the patents are broadly applicable across enterprise security architectures. Competitors deploying similar threat-correlation or rule-based filtering capabilities in networking hardware or software should treat this case as a signal to audit their FTO positions against Centripetal’s portfolio pending Federal Circuit resolution.
Broad sector exposure — FTO audit warrantedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Company | Network security IP licensor — holder of US9560176B2 and 10 related threat-intelligence patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cisco Systems, Inc. | Company | Cisco Systems, Inc. — global networking and enterprise security hardware/software vendorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aakash Jariwala | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Mark Frankel | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clark James Belote | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cristina Lynn Martinez | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eileen Patt | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Carl Proctor | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hannah Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hien Khanh Lien | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffery Thomas Martin , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eng | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Caplan | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julian Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Martin O’Donnell | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristopher Kastens | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Linjun Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa Kobialka | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Theresa Giorgi Brenner | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mike H. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Joseph Andre | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Phuong Diem Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shannon Hannah Hedvat | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Edward Noona | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yuridia Caire | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Henry & O’Donnell, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kaufman & Canoles PC (Norfolk) | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kaufman & Canoles PC | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (CA-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Martin Law Group, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alice Egan Snedeker | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles Kalman Seyfarth | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Joseph Letkewicz | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Joseph Tyson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Dabney Jefferson Carr , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel T. McCloskey | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth Moulton | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Heath Brooks | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Youngmin Park | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer H. Forte | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joel Erik Connolly | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Matthew Baird | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Robert Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph A. Powers | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Paul Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis Norwood Jameson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Christopher Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Christopher Gaudet | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Micah Galvin Block | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil Harvey MacBride | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicole Elizabeth Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP (IL-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (CA-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (GA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (GA-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (PA-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris, LLP (DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Hagan Meyer PLLC (Richmond) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Troutman Pepper Locke LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Hale LLP (DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Cisco Systems, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The July 2025 order is procedural rather than dispositive: the court stayed execution of the Bill of Costs and administratively closed the docket solely to reflect the pendency of Federal Circuit appeals. The order’s language — ‘for good cause’ and ‘until the completion of the appeals’ — confirms that no final merits resolution has occurred at the district level. The Bill of Costs award at ECF No. 819 is the closest indicator of the district court’s substantive outcome, suggesting Cisco was the prevailing party on at least some claims, but that finding remains subject to appellate revision. Both parties’ substantive rights are preserved pending the Federal Circuit’s ruling.
US9560176B2 and 10 further patents — network threat intelligence and packet filtering
The 11 patents-in-suit span application filing dates ranging from approximately 2012 to 2015, placing them in the generation of network security innovation that addressed the rise of advanced persistent threats and encrypted malware traffic. The patents collectively cover systems and methods for correlating external threat intelligence feeds with real-time packet inspection, generating and enforcing dynamic filtering rules on network appliances, and detecting anomalous traffic patterns in encrypted network flows. These are foundational techniques in what the industry now labels next-generation firewall (NGFW) and network detection and response (NDR) architectures.
For Cisco’s competitive position, the breadth of the accused product set — spanning the ASA 5500-X firewall series, Stealthwatch (now Cisco Secure Network Analytics), IOS XE software, and Catalyst 9000 switches — indicates that Centripetal’s claims target core architectural decisions embedded across Cisco’s enterprise security and networking stack. Any competitor or vendor deploying threat intelligence-driven filtering, encrypted traffic analytics, or rule-based packet processing in a commercial product should assess their exposure to this portfolio, particularly given the patents’ survival through extended post-grant and trial proceedings.
Should you run an FTO against Centripetal’s network security patent portfolio?
Any R&D team or product organisation building next-generation firewall, NDR, or network access control products that incorporate threat intelligence correlation, dynamic rule generation, or encrypted traffic analysis should treat Centripetal’s portfolio as a priority FTO target. The Eastern District of Virginia case confirms these patents were commercially asserted against Cisco’s flagship security products at scale — the same architectural patterns appear in products from Palo Alto Networks, Fortinet, Juniper, and cloud-native network security vendors. With Federal Circuit appeals pending and no public settlement, the enforcement posture of this portfolio remains active.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map each of the 11 Centripetal patents against their specific product claims, identify relevant claim elements, surface prior art that may constrain claim scope post-appeal, and flag design-around opportunities before a Federal Circuit ruling crystallises liability. Eureka’s citation network analysis also surfaces related Centripetal continuation and family members that may not yet be asserted but carry similar claim coverage — critical intelligence for any long-term product roadmap in the enterprise security space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9560176B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network security patent cases in the Eastern District of Virginia
Explore patent infringement cases involving network security, threat intelligence, and firewall technologies litigated in the Eastern District of Virginia.
What this case signals for the network security IP landscape
An 11-patent assertion against Cisco’s flagship security products over nearly eight years signals the strategic weight Centripetal places on its threat-intelligence portfolio.
Multi-patent assertions against product portfolios create compounding risk
Centripetal’s strategy of asserting 11 patents across ASA firewalls, Stealthwatch, and Catalyst switches simultaneously raises the cost and complexity of defense. In-house IP teams at network security vendors should map their product lines against Centripetal’s full patent portfolio now — not only the patents litigated here — given the breadth of the asserted claims.
Federal Circuit outcome will set the commercial terms for the entire portfolio
The administrative closure means the district court’s findings are effectively on hold. Once the Federal Circuit rules, the surviving patent claims will be significantly more or less enforceable. Monitoring the Federal Circuit docket (consistent with the appeals referenced in ECF No. 819) is essential for any company with exposure to network threat intelligence IP.
Centripetal v Cisco — key questions answered
As of July 22, 2025, the case is administratively closed in the Eastern District of Virginia. The court stayed execution of the Bill of Costs awarded against Centripetal (ECF No. 819) and closed the docket pending resolution of appeals before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case will be restored to the active docket once those Federal Circuit proceedings conclude.
Centripetal asserted 11 US patents: US9560176B2, US9674148B2, US9137205B2, US9560077B2, US9203806B2, US9917856B2, US9124552B2, US9413722B1, US9160713B2, US9686193B2, and US9565213B2. The patents cover network threat intelligence correlation, dynamic packet filtering, rule-based security policy enforcement, and encrypted traffic analysis — technologies implemented across Cisco’s ASA firewalls, Stealthwatch, IOS XE, and Catalyst switch products.
The accused products include the full Cisco ASA 5500-X and ASA 5585-X firewall appliance families, Cisco Stealthwatch (including Stealthwatch Endpoint License and Stealthwatch Cloud), Cisco IOS XE 16.6 networking software, and the Catalyst 9300 and 9400 switch series. This product set spans Cisco’s core enterprise network security and switching portfolios.
A Bill of Costs is typically awarded to the prevailing party at the district court level under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, covering litigation expenses such as filing fees, deposition transcripts, and expert costs — distinct from attorney fees. Its award in this case (ECF No. 819) is consistent with Cisco having prevailed on at least some issues at first instance. Execution of the award was stayed by court order in July 2025 pending Federal Circuit appeal, meaning Centripetal is not yet required to pay.
Once the Federal Circuit issues its decision, the Eastern District of Virginia will restore the case to its active docket per the July 2025 order. Depending on the appellate outcome, the district court may need to reconsider damages, infringement findings, or validity determinations on remand. If the Federal Circuit affirms all district court rulings, the Bill of Costs becomes immediately enforceable. A reversal or vacatur could reopen substantive proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.