Centripetal Networks, LLC filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging that Keysight Technologies, Inc. violated Section 337 by importing and selling network monitoring products that infringed three of Centripetal's patents. The Administrative Law Judge issued a final initial determination finding no violation of Section 337, and the Commission affirmed that decision, terminating the investigation. Centripetal appealed the Commission's finding of no violation regarding two of the patents, arguing that the Commission's factual findings were unsupported. The core dispute centered on whether Centripetal's own products met the specific technical limitations of the patent claims and whether the accused Keysight products infringed those claims.
The Federal Circuit applied a deferential substantial evidence standard to the Commission's factual findings. The court focused on the 'technical prong' of the domestic industry requirement, which mandates that a complainant must practice its own patent. The Commission found that Centripetal's CleanINTERNET solution did not meet limitations (b) through (f) of Claim 22 because the physical ports of the RuleGATE appliance were merely electrical interfaces and could not independently perform the claimed functions of provisioning rules or generating log entries. The court agreed, noting that testimony from both Centripetal's own witness and Keysight's expert supported the Commission's conclusion that the rules were stored and applied by the appliance itself, not the ports. Additionally, the court addressed Centripetal's failure to argue specific aspects of the infringement claim. The court held that Centripetal waived any challenge to the Commission's findings regarding non-infringement of limitations (e), (f), and (h) because its appellate brief failed to squarely address the Commission's findings on those specific elements. Since the failure to establish the technical prong and the waiver of infringement arguments independently supported the finding of no violation, the court did not need to address the patent ineligibility ground.
The decision finalizes the termination of the Section 337 investigation, meaning Keysight's products can continue to be imported into the United States without restriction from an exclusion order. The ruling reinforces the strict evidentiary burden on complainants to prove that their own domestic industry products practice the patent claims and highlights the procedural risk of waiving arguments by failing to address specific findings in appellate briefs.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download