Latest

Judgment from US District Judge against Cisco may losses $1.9 Billion in Security Patent

Judgment from US District Judge against Cisco losses $1.9 Billion in Security Patent 

In the battle of the Security Patent between Cisco Systems and Centripetal Network Inc. it was found that Cisco Cisco infringed on four security patents related to encrypted traffic and packet filtering technology belonging to Centripetal Network Inc. 

The statement which came forward is " The Court FINDS the actual damages suffered by Centripetal as a result of inf ringement total $755,808,545; that the infringement was willful and egregious and shall be enhanced by a factor of 2.5x to equal $1,889,521,362.50." 


The Court awards pre-judgment interest of $13,717,925 applied to the actual damages bef ore enhancement plus its costs. This, accordingly, equals a total award of $1,903,239,287.50 payable in a lump sum due on the judgment date.

The award also includes past damages and a running royalty of 10% on the apportioned sales of the patented products for a period of three years, followed by a second three-year term with a running royalty of 5% on such sales, which could take damages from the case north of $3 billion

As it was seen that Centripetal Networks developed a network protection system, funded in part by a grant from the Department of Homeland Security, only to see Cisco integrate the inventions into its own networks after meetings and presentations by Centripetal officials in 2017.

As per the statement from Cisco, they denied any infringement, and argued that if the court found otherwise, it didn’t matter anyway because it claimed Centripetal’s patents were invalid. Cisco also argued that in the event that the court found there was infringement and the patents were valid, it still didn’t matter because the patents were of minimal value.

Cisco Systems plans to appeal a $1.9 billion ruling that alleges the networking giant infringed four patents owned by Centripetal Networks Inc.

Full report on Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.