Centripetal Networks v. Palo Alto Networks: 13-Patent Cybersecurity Firewall Dispute
Centripetal Networks asserted 13 patents covering next-generation firewall, threat intelligence correlation, and DNS security technologies against Palo Alto Networks’ NGFW, Cortex, and Panorama product lines. After 1,301 days of litigation in the Virginia Eastern District Court, the court granted PAN’s motion for judgment as a matter of law in part — one of the largest multi-patent cybersecurity enforcement actions in recent district court history.
A landmark cybersecurity patent battle — partially decided on JMOL
Centripetal Networks, LLC filed suit against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. on March 12, 2021, in the Virginia Eastern District Court, asserting infringement of 13 U.S. patents directed at core cybersecurity technologies — including network threat intelligence correlation, next-generation firewall packet filtering, DNS security services, and automated threat response. The accused products included PAN’s flagship NGFW platform, Cortex, MineMeld, DNS Security Services, and Panorama management software.
The case closed on October 3, 2024, after 1,301 days. The court granted PAN’s post-trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) in part and denied it in part, while separately denying PAN’s Motion for a New Trial. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Case Dismissed in Part,’ consistent with a JMOL partially vacating jury findings on certain claims without disturbing others. The Memorandum Opinion was filed under seal, limiting public visibility into the specific claims resolved in PAN’s favour.
The 43-month duration and 13-patent assertion scope signal a highly contested, resource-intensive dispute — consistent with both parties fielding teams of 15-plus attorneys from elite IP litigation firms. The partial JMOL outcome suggests the jury’s findings survived scrutiny on at least some claims, which may preserve Centripetal’s ability to seek damages or injunctive relief on surviving claims. The sealed opinion means the full contours of liability, if any, remain unknown from the public record as of the case closure date.
Filing to Case Dismissed in Part in 1301 days
1,301 days — roughly 43 months, well above the median district court patent case duration of ~24 months
JMOL granted in part: what the split ruling means for both parties
What ‘JMOL granted in part’ means post-trial
A post-trial judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) under FRCP 50(b) allows a court to overturn a jury verdict where no reasonable jury could have found for the prevailing party on the evidence presented. A partial grant means the court found that standard met for some — but not all — of the asserted claims or damages components. Claims or issues on which JMOL was denied remain intact, preserving those jury findings.
FRCP 50(b) post-trial standardCentripetal retains wins on surviving claims
Because the JMOL was only partially granted, Centripetal’s jury verdict survives on at least some of its 13-patent assertion. This is commercially significant: any surviving infringement finding or damages award could still support injunctive relief or a licensing negotiation. However, the sealed Memorandum Opinion means the precise scope of what Centripetal retains is not publicly confirmed — the actual damages quantum, if any, is unknown from the public record.
Partial verdict survivalPAN wins partial relief but faces residual exposure
Palo Alto Networks succeeded in obtaining JMOL on some claims — likely arguing insufficient evidence of infringement or damages for those patents or products. The denial of the new trial motion confirms the trial process itself was not found defective. However, partial denial of JMOL means PAN remains exposed on surviving claims, and the sealed opinion limits its ability to build a clean public narrative around the outcome pending further proceedings.
Partial JMOL success13-patent NGFW assertion raises sector-wide licensing risk
A partial JMOL outcome in a 13-patent cybersecurity assertion signals that at least some of Centripetal’s threat-intelligence and NGFW patent portfolio has cleared the sufficiency-of-evidence bar at trial. For competitors deploying next-generation firewall, DNS security, or threat correlation platforms, this case suggests Centripetal’s portfolio warrants serious FTO analysis. The case may also encourage further licensing demands across the NGFW and XDR vendor ecosystem.
NGFW sector licensing risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Centripetal Networks, LLC | Company | Cybersecurity patent licensing company — holder of US10567343B2 and 12 related threat-intelligence and NGFW patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. | Company | Palo Alto Networks, Inc. — global cybersecurity vendor, NGFW, Cortex XDR, and DNS Security product linesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aakash Bharatkumar Jariwala | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christina Marie Finn | 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 | Hannah Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph John DeMott | 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 | Matthew Rowen | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Hao Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Clement | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Joseph Andre | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Edward Noona | Attorney | Counsel for Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Clement & Murphy, PLLC | 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 | Law Firm | Representing Centripetal Networks, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Levin Nafalls & Frankel LLP (CA/NA) | 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Townsend Radsch | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Arthur Coviello | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brett Christopher Govett | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carolyn Louise Redding | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Prati | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Scott Leventhal | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Evan Finkelson | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Brinn Hall | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacqueline Groves Baker | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Richard Batchelder | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Stephen Renard | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Paul Harmon | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Saul Franklin | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Josef B Schenker | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph David Piorkowski | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle Steven Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Christopher Fleming | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel William Mannebach | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard S. Zembek | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert William McFarland | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie Nicole DeBrow | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Talbot Hansum | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Frank Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McGuire Woods LLP (NC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McGuireWoods LLP | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McGuireWoods LLP (Richmond) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (MN-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (TX-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray LLP | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP (NA) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (CA/NA) | Law Firm | Representing Palo Alto Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order presents a nuanced post-trial disposition: JMOL granted in part and denied in part across PAN’s motion, with the new trial motion fully denied. The ‘granted in part’ language indicates the court found legally insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict on at least some of the 13 asserted patents or their associated damages components. Critically, the full reasoning is contained in a sealed Memorandum Opinion, meaning the specific claims, patents, or damages heads affected by the JMOL grant are not publicly confirmed. The denial of the new trial motion suggests the court found no procedural or evidentiary error warranting retrial on any issue — only that certain substantive findings lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The parties were directed to file sealing motions by October 17, 2024, with the court signalling a narrow approach to continued redaction.
US10567343B2 — network threat intelligence filtering and NGFW correlation
The 13 asserted patents — anchored by US10567343B2 (application US15/614956) and extending through US10931797B2, US10091246B2, US10567437B2, US10530903B2, US10567413B2, US10659573B2, US10785266B2, US10757126B2, US10542028B2, US10503899B2, US10735380B2, and US10749906B2 — collectively cover the architecture of intelligent network security: correlating threat intelligence feeds with live packet flows, filtering DNS queries against known threat indicators, and automating policy enforcement in next-generation firewall environments. The application dates span across the 2017–2020 window, suggesting a deliberately constructed portfolio tracking the evolution of NGFW and XDR platforms.
Centripetal’s portfolio targets the exact technical layer where modern NGFW vendors compete most aggressively — the integration of real-time threat intelligence into packet-level filtering and DNS security decisions. Palo Alto Networks’ Cortex and DNS Security Services products represent precisely the commercial embodiment of these architectural patterns. For the broader cybersecurity sector, the trial survival of at least some of these claims signals that Centripetal’s IP strategy is technically grounded and litigation-tested, elevating portfolio risk for any vendor whose platform ingests threat feeds and applies them to live traffic decisions.
Should you run an FTO against Centripetal’s NGFW and threat-intelligence portfolio?
Any organisation developing or deploying next-generation firewall platforms, DNS security services, threat intelligence correlation engines, or XDR/SIEM integration layers should treat this case as a direct FTO signal. Centripetal’s 13-patent portfolio has now been tested at trial in a major district court, and the partial JMOL survival means these claims are not easily dismissed. Product teams building automated threat response, DNS filtering, or threat feed ingestion architectures face the highest exposure — particularly where packet-level policy enforcement intersects with external intelligence sources.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of Centripetal’s 13 asserted patents against your product architecture at the claim element level — identifying which technical features create overlap and which design-around paths are viable. Eureka’s claim charting tools allow R&D and IP teams to run structured analyses across the full portfolio simultaneously, flagging both literal and doctrine-of-equivalents risk before product launch or licensing negotiation. Given the sealed Memorandum Opinion, tracking claim-level developments via Eureka’s docket monitoring will be essential as the case record becomes public.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10567343B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NGFW and threat-intelligence patent cases in US district courts
Cases involving next-generation firewall, DNS security, and threat-intelligence correlation patents litigated in Virginia Eastern and related US district courts.
What this case signals for the cybersecurity and NGFW IP landscape
A partial JMOL in a 13-patent cybersecurity action sets a significant precedent for threat-intelligence and NGFW patent enforcement.
Centripetal’s portfolio has demonstrated trial durability across NGFW claims
The partial denial of JMOL confirms that at least some of Centripetal’s 13 asserted patents survived the post-trial sufficiency challenge. For any vendor deploying next-generation firewall, DNS security, or threat intelligence correlation — including Fortinet, Check Point, and Cisco — this outcome suggests Centripetal’s portfolio may represent active licensing exposure, not just litigation noise.
Sealed opinions create strategic uncertainty for both sides
The Memorandum Opinion was filed under seal with a short window for redaction motions. Until unsealed, the industry cannot determine which specific patents or claim elements survived JMOL. This uncertainty benefits Centripetal in licensing discussions — defendants cannot easily distinguish surviving from invalidated claims without full disclosure. IP teams monitoring this space should track any unsealing or appeal filings closely.
Centripetal v Palo — key questions answered
The Virginia Eastern District Court granted Palo Alto Networks’ post-trial Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law in part and denied it in part, while denying PAN’s Motion for a New Trial. The case was recorded as ‘dismissed in part’ as of October 3, 2024. The full Memorandum Opinion was filed under seal, so the specific claims resolved in PAN’s favour are not publicly confirmed.
Centripetal asserted 13 U.S. patents: US10567343B2, US10931797B2, US10091246B2, US10567437B2, US10530903B2, US10567413B2, US10659573B2, US10785266B2, US10757126B2, US10542028B2, US10503899B2, US10735380B2, and US10749906B2. The patents collectively cover next-generation firewall threat intelligence filtering, DNS security, and automated network threat response architectures.
The accused products included Palo Alto Networks’ NGFW platform, Cortex, MineMeld, DNS Security Services (alone or in conjunction with other products), and Panorama. These products span PAN’s core firewall, threat intelligence, and security management portfolio.
A partial JMOL grant under FRCP 50(b) means the court found legally insufficient trial evidence to sustain the jury verdict on some — but not all — of the asserted claims or damages. Claims on which JMOL was denied retain their jury findings, potentially including infringement determinations or damages awards. This preserves Centripetal’s ability to enforce or license surviving claims, though the sealed opinion limits public confirmation of exactly which claims survived.
The case ran for 1,301 days, from filing on March 12, 2021, to closure on October 3, 2024 — approximately 43 months. This is significantly longer than the median U.S. district court patent case duration, consistent with the complexity of a 13-patent assertion against multiple product lines and the involvement of large litigation teams from both sides.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.