Centripetal Networks v. ITC — Federal Circuit Affirms No Section 337 Violation for Keysight’s Cybersecurity Products After Multiple Waiver Findings

Background

Centripetal Networks filed a Section 337 complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging that Keysight Technologies violated the Tariff Act by importing and selling cybersecurity products that infringed three of Centripetal’s network security patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,264,370 (“Correlating Packets in Communications Networks”), 10,193,917, and 10,284,526. The patents generally describe methods for identifying, correlating, and analyzing network packets to detect security threats.

After a full investigation, the ITC’s administrative law judge issued a final initial determination finding no Section 337 violation for any asserted claim. The Commission affirmed and terminated the investigation. Centripetal appealed to the Federal Circuit, challenging only the findings related to the ’370 and ’917 Patents (it abandoned its ’526 Patent arguments).

The Court’s Holding

The Federal Circuit affirmed across the board. The opinion, authored by Judge Wallach, resolved the case on two independent grounds:

1. Domestic Industry (Technical Prong): To establish a Section 337 violation, a complainant must show it practices its own patents through a domestic industry. The Commission found that Centripetal’s own products—the CleanINTERNET Solution—did not practice claim 22 of the ’370 Patent because the RuleGATE appliance’s physical ports are merely “electrical interfaces for connecting network cables” and cannot independently perform the functions required by the patent claims (provisioning rules, identifying packets, generating log entries). The Federal Circuit held this finding was supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from both sides’ experts.

2. Infringement Waiver: Even setting aside the domestic industry issue, the court found that Centripetal had waived multiple appeal-dispositive infringement arguments. Centripetal’s opening brief failed to address the Commission’s findings regarding the “communicate” and “identify” aspects of key claim limitations, and it failed to challenge the Commission’s finding of waiver regarding limitation (h). These waivers independently required affirmance.

Key Takeaways

• ITC complainants must rigorously prove that their own products practice the asserted patents. Generic descriptions of product functionality are insufficient—specific evidence linking product components to each claim limitation is required.
• Waiver rules at the ITC and on appeal are strictly enforced. Failing to address the Commission’s specific findings on individual claim limitations in an opening brief can forfeit the entire appeal.
• This decision is part of a broader pattern of Centripetal’s cybersecurity patent assertions failing across multiple forums—the company has also lost at the Federal Circuit in its parallel litigation against Cisco Systems and in PTAB proceedings involving related patents.

Why It Matters

For companies pursuing ITC investigations to block competing imports, this case is a reminder that the domestic industry requirement is a substantive hurdle, not a formality. Complainants must demonstrate with specificity that their own products embody the patented technology. The case also illustrates the risks of imprecise appellate briefing—Centripetal’s failure to squarely address the ITC’s detailed findings on individual claim elements proved fatal to its appeal.