Centripetal Networks, LLC v. International Trade Commission

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC,
Appellant
v.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,
Appellee
KEYSIGHT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Intervenor
______________________
2024-1416
______________________
Appeal from the United States International Trade
Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-1314.
______________________
Decided: April 23, 2026
______________________
DANIEL J. RICHARDSON, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also represented
by JEFFREY B. WALL; AVIV S. HALPERN, Palo Alto, CA;
ANDREI IANCU, Los Angeles, CA; LAURIE STEMPLER, New
York, NY.
ROBERT JOHN NEEDHAM, Office of the General Counsel,
United States International Trade Commission,
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 1 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 2
Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by
MICHELLE W. KLANCNIK.
JONAH D. MITCHELL, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco,
CA, argued for intervenor. Also represented by SETH
BENJAMIN HERRING, CHRISTINE M. MORGAN, CHRISTOPHER
JOHN PULIDO; GERARD M. DONOVAN, Washington, DC;
JAMES CHRISTOPHER MARTIN, Pittsburgh, PA.
______________________
Before PROST, WALLACH, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
Based on a Complaint filed by Centripetal Networks,
LLC (“Centripetal”), alleging that Keysight Technologies,
Inc. (“Keysight”)1 violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (“Section 337”)
in the importation and sale of articles that infringe certain
claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,264,370 (“the ’370 Patent”),
10,193,917 (“the ’917 Patent), and 10,284,526 (“the ’526
Patent”), the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the
Commission”) instituted investigation No. 337-TA-1314.
J.A. 36225. On August 8, 2023, the administrative law
judge issued a final initial determination (“Final ID”),
finding no violation of Section 337 as to any asserted patent
claim. J.A. 5, J.A. 286–87. Subsequently, the Commission
affirmed the Final ID2 and terminated the investigation.
J.A. 1. Centripetal appeals the Commission’s finding of no
1 On February 23, 2024, Keysight moved for leave to
intervene, ECF No. 15, which the Court granted on
February 28, 2024, ECF No. 16.
2 The Commission modified certain findings
regarding the ’526 Patent and took no position regarding
whether the economic prong of the domestic industry
requirement was satisfied, issues which are not relevant to
this appeal, and otherwise adopted the remainder of the
Final ID as its own. J.A. 1–4.
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 2 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 3
violation, with respect to the ’370 and ’917 Patents.3 We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(6). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
I. The Asserted Patents4
A. The ’370 Patent
Titled “Correlating Packets in Communications
Networks,” the ’370 Patent purports to address “a need for
correlating packets in communications networks.” ’370
Patent at col. 1, ll. 14–15. As the patent explains,
“[c]ommunications between endpoints of packet-switched
networks may be characterized as flows of associated
packets” and “[a] particular flow may include packets
containing information (e.g., within headers of the packets)
that distinguishes the packets from packets associated
with other flows.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 6–10.
The patent explains that in the prior art, “[n]etwork
devices located between endpoints may alter packets
associated with a flow and in doing so may potentially
obfuscate the flow with which a particular packet is
associated from other network devices.” Id. at col. 1, ll. 10–
14.
The ’370 Patent purports to address this potential
obfuscation problem by “[c]orrelating the packets
transmitted by the network device with the packets
received by the network device,” which “may enable the
computing system to determine that the packets
transmitted by the network device are associated with the
3 Centripetal does not appeal the Commission’s
finding that the ’526 Patent is invalid and not infringed.
Appellant Br. at 17 n.1.
4 For reasons explained below, we do not need to
reach a detailed discussion of the ’917 Patent. See infra
Discussion.
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 3 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 3 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 4
flow(s).” Id. at col. 1, ll. 45–49. Figure 4, reproduced below,
“depicts an illustrative environment for correlating packets
in communications networks in accordance with one or
more aspects of the disclosure.” Id. at col. 2, ll. 4–6.
Id. at FIG. 4.
Referring to Figure 4, the patent explains that “at step
402, a computing system may identify packets received by
a network device from a host located in a first network.”
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 4 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 4 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 5
Id. at col. 13, ll. 38–40. “At step 404, the computing system
may generate log entries corresponding to the packets
received by the network device.” Id. at col. 13, ll. 41–43.
“At step 408, the computing system may generate log
entries corresponding to the packets transmitted by the
network device.” Id. at col. 13, ll. 48–50. Finally, “[a]t step
410, the computing system may correlate, based on the log
entries corresponding to the packets received by the
network device and the log entries corresponding to the
packets transmitted by the network device, the packets
transmitted by the network device with the packets
received by the network device.” Id. at col. 13, ll. 51–56.
Claim 22, which is representative of the ’370 Patent
claims at issue,5 recites:6
22(a). A system comprising: at least one processor;
and a memory storing instructions that when
executed by the at least one processor cause the
system to:
(b) provision a device in a communication
link interfacing a network device and a
first network with one or more rules
configured to identify a plurality of packets
received by the network device from a host
located in the first network;
(c) provision a device in a communication
link interfacing the network device and a
second network with one or more rules
configured to identify a plurality of packets
5 See Appellant Br. at Cover; Appellee Br. at Cover
(ITC).
6 This recitation of claim 22 is annotated with the
claim element identifiers used by the Commission in its
Final ID. See J.A. 46.
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 5 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 5 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 6
transmitted by the network device to a host
located in a second network;
(d) provision the device in the
communication link interfacing the
network device and the first network and
the device in the communication link
interfacing the network device and the
second network with one or more rules
specifying a set of network addresses and
configured to cause the system to log
packets destined for one or more network
addresses in the set of network addresses;
(e) configure the device in the
communication link interfacing the
network device with the first network to:
identify the plurality of packets
received by the network device;
generate a plurality of log entries
corresponding to the plurality of
packets received by the network
device; and
communicate, to the system, the
plurality of log entries
corresponding to the plurality of
packets received by the network
device;
(f) configure the device in the
communication link interfacing the
network device with the second network to:
identify the plurality of packets
transmitted by the network device;
generate a plurality of log entries
corresponding to the plurality of
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 6 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 6 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 7
packets transmitted by the
network device; and
communicate, to the system, the
plurality of log entries
corresponding to the plurality of
packets transmitted by the
network device;
(g) correlate, based on the plurality of log
entries corresponding to the plurality of
packets received by the network device and
the plurality of log entries corresponding to
the plurality of packets transmitted by the
network device, the plurality of packets
transmitted by the network device with the
plurality of packets received by the
network device; and
(h) responsive to correlating the plurality of
packets transmitted by the network device
with the plurality of packets received by
the network device:
generate data identifying the host
located in the first network; and
communicate, to a device located in
the first network, the data
identifying the host located in the
first network.
J.A. 46.
II. The Accused Products and Asserted Domestic
Industry Product
The accused products relating to the ’370 Patent are
several versions of Keysight’s Vision products. J.A. 500.
Specifically, Vision One, Vision X, Vision 7300, Vision
7303, Vision Edge 1S, and Trade Vision (collectively, “the
Accused Products”). J.A. 500. Generally, the Accused
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 7 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 7 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 8
Products are network traffic monitoring and security
enforcement computer equipment, as well as related
software components, which allow users to monitor
network traffic, filter packets based on different aspects of
that traffic, and organize, analyze, and review data on the
packets that are received. J.A. 51612–13. The asserted
domestic industry product for both patents is Centripetal’s
CleanINTERNET solution (“DI Product”), which includes
RuleGATE, ACT, and QuickTHREAT components. J.A. 51;
J.A. 51609.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“This court reviews the Commission’s legal
determinations without deference and its factual findings
for substantial evidence.” Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2010). We review
the Commission’s factual findings regarding infringement
and satisfaction of the technical prong for substantial
evidence. Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361,
1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
“Substantial evidence is something less than the
weight of the evidence but more than a mere scintilla of
evidence.” In re Nuvasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1369
(Fed. Cir. 2000)). The substantial evidence standard
“involves examination of the record as a whole, taking into
account evidence that both justifies and detracts from an
agency’s decision.” TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
942 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citation omitted).
However, “the possibility of drawing two inconsistent
conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an
administrative agency’s finding from being supported by
substantial evidence.” Consolo v. Fed. Mar. Comm’n,
383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 8 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 8 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 9
DISCUSSION
Relevant here, today, in a separate appeal, we affirmed
the unpatentability of claims 11 and 20 of the ’917 Patent
in view of Sourcefire. See Centripetal Networks, LLC v.
Keysight Techs., Inc., No. 24-1406 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2026).
Given that affirmance, which moots the issues relating to
the ’917 Patent, the only remaining issues relate to the ’370
Patent.
For the ’370 Patent, the Commission’s finding of no
Section 337 violation rests on three independent grounds—
the failure to establish the technical prong of the domestic
industry requirement; the failure to show infringement;
and patent ineligibility. J.A. 83, 93, 150. Centripetal must
therefore prevail on all three grounds in this appeal. For
the reasons explained below, we hold that substantial
evidence supports the Commission’s finding that
Centripetal’s DI Product failed to satisfy the technical
prong of the domestic industry requirement. We also find
Centripetal waived any challenge to the Commission’s
finding of non-infringement. Because these grounds
independently support the Commission’s finding of no
Section 337 violation, we do not need to reach the patent
ineligibility ground, and we affirm.
I. Section 337 — The ’370 Patent
To show a violation under Section 337, a complainant
must meet at least the following requirements. “First, the
respondents named in the Commission proceeding must be
importing ‘articles that . . . infringe’ a United States
patent.” Lashify, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 130 F.4th 948,
954 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)).
“Second, there must be (already or in process of
establishment) an industry in the United States that
relates to the articles protected by the patent.” Id. (citing
§ 1337(a)(2)). This second requirement, which is commonly
referred to as “the domestic-industry requirement,” is
commonly described as having two requirements: (1) the
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 9 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 9 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 10
“economic prong” and (2) the “technical prong.” Id. As to
the technical prong, the test “is essentially same as that for
infringement, i.e., a comparison of domestic products to the
asserted claims.” Alloc, Inc., 342 F.3d at 1375. “Put
simply, the complainant must practice its own patent.”
Crocs, Inc., 598 F.3d at 1307.
Starting with the domestic industry requirement, the
Commission found that Centripetal failed to establish the
technical prong because it failed to identify a Centripetal
product that meets limitations (b) through (f) of claim 22.7
See J.A. 87. On appeal, Centripetal argues the
Commission’s finding “that the physical hardware in the
CleanINTERNET Solution products could not, on their
own, meet the claim’s ‘device’ limitations” is not supported
by the record. Appellant Br. at 62. In support of its
argument, Centripetal asserts that “Dr. Moore
demonstrated that the devices were the combination of
hardware (physical ports on the RuleGATE appliance) and
software (Advanced Cyber Threat, or ‘ACT,’ and
QuickTHREAT).” Appellant Br. at 63. Centripetal
maintains that it “argued throughout the proceedings
below that the ‘device’ in the CleanINTERNET Solution
products was the combination of the RuleGATE ports and
their accompanying software.” Appellant Br. at 64.
Centripetal also argues that both its witnesses, Dr. Moore
and Dr. Medvidovic, testified that the RuleGATE “ports
could be provisioned with rules and generate log entries.”
Appellant Br. at 63. We disagree and hold that the
Commission’s finding is supported by substantial evidence.
7 The Commission found that Centripetal waived
any argument with respect to claim 43 regarding the
technical prong. J.A. 84 n.38. Centripetal does not
challenge this finding on appeal. See Appellant Br. at 62–
65.
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 10 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 10 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 11
As the Commission explained, claim 22 requires,
among other things, two “devices” that can be provisioned
with rules, identify packets, generate log entries, and
communicate the log entries to the system. J.A. 86.
Because of this requirement, the Commission found that
Centripetal’s DI Product does not practice claim 22 because
the RuleGATE “ports are simply electrical interfaces for
connecting network cables” and cannot perform the
required functions. See J.A. 87. The Commission relied on
testimony from Keysight’s expert witness, Dr. Rubin, and
Centripetal’s fact witness, Dr. Moore, in finding that the
RuleGATE ports cannot meet the claim’s “device”
limitations. See J.A. 87–88. A review of this testimony
shows that a reasonable factfinder could have arrived at
the same conclusion as the Commission—Centripetal’s DI
Product does not practice limitations (b) through (f) of
claim 22. For instance, when Dr. Moore was questioned
about RuleGATE, he testified that the rules are stored in
the “RuleGATE appliance,” J.A. 38022, of which the ports
are an “integrated part,” J.A. 38008–09. Dr. Moore did not
testify that the rules are stored in the physical ports
themselves. Moreover, Keysight’s expert answered in the
negative when asked whether he had “seen any evidence
suggesting that the RuleGate device utilizes smart ports to
practice the claimed invention.” J.A. 38583.
While Centripetal argues that both of its witnesses,
Dr. Moore and Dr. Medvidovic, testified that the
RuleGATE “ports could be provisioned with rules and
generate log entries,” Appellant Br. at 63, this argument
fails. First, Centripetal overlooks the fact that Dr. Moore
testified that the RuleGATE appliance itself stores and
applies the rules, not the physical ports. See J.A. 38002
(testifying that the RuleGATE appliance applies the rules);
J.A. 38021–22 (testifying that the RuleGATE appliance
creates and stores the rules). Second, although Centripetal
argues that Dr. Medvidovic testified that the ports can be
provisioned with rules, this singular piece of evidence is not
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 11 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 11 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 12
enough to show a lack of substantial evidence supporting
the Commission’s contrary finding. “[W]here two different,
inconsistent conclusions may reasonably be drawn from
the evidence in record, an agency’s decision to favor one
conclusion over the other is the epitome of a decision that
must be sustained upon review for substantial evidence.”
Pokarna Engineered Stone Ltd. v. United States, 56 F.4th
1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (alteration in original and
citation omitted). Here, the Commission analyzed
testimony from both sides and found that Centripetal
failed to establish the technical prong. This finding is
supported by substantial evidence.
However, even if we concluded otherwise, an
affirmance of no violation would still be warranted because
Centripetal has waived multiple appeal-dispositive issues
of infringement regarding certain limitations of claims 22
and 43 of the ’370 Patent. For the infringement
requirement of Section 337, the Government argues that
Centripetal’s Opening Brief “does not squarely address”
the Commission’s finding that Centripetal failed to show
how the Accused Products meet limitations (e) and (f) of
claims 22 and 43. Appellee Br. at 39–40 (ITC). The
Government asserts that “Centripetal ignores the ‘identify’
and ‘communicate’ aspects” of those limitations, and in so
doing, has “waived any ability to contest those findings.”
Appellee Br. at 39–40 (ITC). We agree. While
Centripetal’s Opening Brief does argue that the Accused
Products include “devices” that satisfy the “generate . . . log
entries” aspect of the claims, Appellant Br. at 48–50, it fails
to address the Commission’s findings regarding the
“communicate” and “identify” aspects of limitations (e) and
(f), see Appellant Br. at 47–53. As such, Centripetal has
waived its ability to contest the Commission’s finding
regarding non-infringement of these two limitations.
Moreover, the Government further argues that
Centripetal waived its limitation (h) “communicate”
arguments by failing to address the Commission’s own
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 12 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 12 of 13 --

CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, LLC v. ITC 13
finding of waiver regarding this limitation. Appellee Br.
at 46 (ITC). Again, we agree. The Commission found that
because Centripetal’s Pre-Hearing Brief “failed to address
the portion of . . . element [(h)] requiring that the system
‘communicate, to a device located in the first network, the
data identifying the host located in the first network,’” “any
argument on this issue is deemed [waived].” J.A. 81–82.
Although Centripetal’s Opening Brief on appeal does
discuss the “communicate” aspect of limitation (h), its brief
is devoid of any analysis regarding the Commission’s
finding of waiver as to this aspect of limitation (h). See
Appellant Br. at 58–62. These waivers, alone, require
affirmance of the Commission’s finding of no violation
regarding the ’370 Patent.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Centripetal’s remaining
arguments but do not find them persuasive. For the
foregoing reasons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
Case: 24-1416 Document: 86 Page: 13 Filed: 04/23/2026

-- 13 of 13 --