Centripetal Networks Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Published: Nov. 6, 2020 | Result Date: Oct. 5, 2020 | Filing Date: Feb. 13, 2018 |Case number: 2:18-cv-00094-HCM-LRL Settlement – $2,650,000,000
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Stephen E. Noona
(Kaufman & Canoles PC)
Eileen M. Patt
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Gregory C. Proctor
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Hannah Yunkyung Lee
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Hien Khanh Lien
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
James R. Hannah
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Kristopher B. Kastens
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Phuong K. Nguyen
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Lisa Kobialka
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Melissa Theresa G. Brenner
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Paul Joseph Andre
(Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
Defendant
Dabney J. Carr IV
(Troutman, Pepper, Hamilton & Sanders LLP )
Kevin P. Anderson
(Duane Morris, LLP)
Christopher J. Tyson
(Duane Morris, LLP)
Jennifer H. Forte
(Duane Morris, LLP)
John M. Baird
(Duane Morris, LLP)
John R. Gibson
(Duane Morris, LLP)
Joseph A. Powers
(Duane Morris, LLP)
Louis N. James
(Duane Morris, LLP)
Matthew C. Gaudet
(Duane Morris, LLP)
Heath A. Brooks
(Wilmer Hale LLP)
Mark C. Fleming
(Wilmer Hale LLP)
Christopher J. Letkewicz
(Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP)
Micah G. Block
(Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP)
Joel E. Connolly
(Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP)
Neil H. MacBride
(Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP)
James Y. Park
(Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP)
Facts
Plaintiff Centripetal Networks, Inc. was founded in 2009 to develop cybersecurity technologies. Specifically, Centripetal's CleanINTERNET solution utilizes Centripetal's patented Threat Intelligence Gateway, which allows organizations to eliminate threats based on threat intelligence enforcement. Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc. is a multinational technology company headquartered in San Jose which primarily sells and distributes IT, networking, and telecommunication solutions to consumers. Plaintiff filed a patent infringement lawsuit against defendant.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant infringed the following patents issued to plaintiff: the '856 patent, the '176 patent, '193 patent and the '806 patent. Plaintiff contended that under a non-disclosure agreement, defendant was exposed to plaintiff's patented technology. Plaintiff contended that upon knowledge of plaintiff's patented technology, defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's patents.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions.
Result
The court found that defendant willfully infringed the following patents: '856 patent, the '176 patent, '193 patent and the '806 patent. Defendant was ordered to pay $2.65 billion with a maximum of $3.25 billion for infringing plaintiff's cybersecurity patents.
Other Information
JUDGE: Hon. Henry C. Morgan Jr.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390