Untitled case

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involves petitioner Ford Motor Company, a major global automotive manufacturer, challenging a patent owned by AutoConnect Holdings LLC. While the search results do not explicitly categorize AutoConnect Holdings LLC, its business model appears consistent with a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), focused on licensing and enforcing patent rights rather than manufacturing products. The underlying technology implicated in this dispute relates to vehicle infotainment systems. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,147,297 ("Infotainment system based on user profile"), broadly covers methods and systems for a "complete vehicle ecosystem" that provides various outputs and adjusts vehicle configurations, comfort, and interface settings based on a user's profile and determined context. More specifically, it details managing infotainment systems by detecting a user's stored preferences and adjusting configurations based on user access priorities.

The case, IPR2026-00172, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a specialized administrative court within the USPTO. The procedural posture is critical: the PTAB issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on May 13, 2026, refusing to institute the IPR on procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the invalidity arguments. This denial means that Ford will not have the opportunity to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB. The PTAB venue is typically favored by alleged infringers for its perceived efficiency and lower cost compared to district court litigation for challenging patent validity.

This denial is notable given recent shifts in PTAB practice. Since late 2025, the USPTO, under Director John Squires, has centralized IPR institution authority and formalized a "front-loaded gate" for discretionary denials, significantly lowering institution rates. This policy change, which includes considerations of "settled expectations," has shifted negotiating power from IPR challengers back to patent holders. The procedural denial in this IPR against an operating company like Ford, especially as part of a series of related IPRs (IPR2026-00171, IPR2026-00172, IPR2026-00173) filed by Ford against AutoConnect Holdings LLC, underscores the increasing difficulty for petitioners to get IPRs instituted, making this case a relevant example of the current patent validity challenge landscape.

Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation involving AutoConnect Holdings LLC and Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01327, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, has seen several key developments, including Ford's challenges to the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-12-06 – Patent Infringement Complaint Filed: AutoConnect Holdings LLC initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Ford Motor Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint asserted infringement of thirteen U.S. patents relating to automotive technologies and vehicle computer control systems. The patents at issue include U.S. Patent Nos. 9,020,491; 9,020,697; 9,082,239; 9,098,367; 9,116,786; 9,123,186; 9,140,560; 9,147,296; 9,147,297; 9,173,100; 9,290,153; 10,862,764; and 11,163,931.
• 2025-09-24 – Ford's Motion to Dismiss Denied: Ford filed a motion to dismiss claims related to seven of the thirteen asserted patents. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves denied Ford's motion, finding that AutoConnect had plausibly alleged infringement, including claims related to the '367, '239, '697, '186, '153, '100, and '491 patents.
• 2025-12-07 – IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00173 Petitions Filed: Ford Motor Company filed petitions for Inter Partes Review, IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00173, challenging patents owned by AutoConnect Holdings LLC. IPR2026-00173 specifically targeted U.S. Patent No. 9,147,297, which is the patent at issue in this case summary. (Note: While the prompt mentions IPR2026-00171, its specific patent target is not explicitly detailed in the search results, but it is part of the series of IPRs filed by Ford against AutoConnect).
• 2026-01-16 – Institution of IPRs (IPR2025-01342, -01383, -01524): The PTAB instituted two IPR proceedings filed by Ford (IPR2025-01342 and IPR2025-01383) and denied AutoConnect's request for discretionary denial in a third (IPR2025-01524), allowing it to proceed to institution. These IPRs challenged other patents related to infotainment systems that AutoConnect had asserted in the district court litigation.
• 2026-04-16 – District Court Grants Motion to Stay: The District Court for the District of Delaware granted Ford's motion to stay the district court litigation. The court determined that a stay was appropriate given that ten of the thirteen asserted patents were subject to pending inter partes and ex parte reviews at the USPTO. The stay is to remain in effect until the issuance of final written decisions in all respective IPR and ex parte review proceedings. At the time of the stay, fact discovery was incomplete, and a jury trial was scheduled for October 2027.
• 2026-05-12 – Director Vacates Institution of IPR2025-01342: The Director of the USPTO issued an informative decision in IPR2025-01342, vacating the prior institution decision. The Director's decision highlighted concerns where the petitioner (Ford) advanced indefiniteness arguments in district court after institution without sufficient justification and only stipulated to withdraw its district court arguments after the patent owner brought the inconsistency to the Office's attention.
• 2026-05-13 – Director Discretionary Denial of IPR2026-00172: The PTAB issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" for IPR2026-00172, effectively refusing to institute the IPR on procedural grounds. This decision meant Ford could not challenge the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,147,297 through this specific IPR. The denial aligns with the USPTO's recent policy shifts under Director John Squires, which have centralized IPR institution authority and led to a "front-loaded gate" for discretionary denials, lowering institution rates.

Outcome and Current Posture:

The district court litigation is currently stayed pending the outcome of the various PTAB proceedings. While several IPRs related to other patents in the litigation were instituted, the IPR directly challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,147,297 (IPR2026-00172) was denied institution on procedural grounds by Director discretion. The scheduled claim construction hearing (Markman) for September 3, 2026, and the jury trial set for October 25, 2027, in the district court are currently on hold due to the stay. Ford's ability to challenge the validity of certain asserted patents, particularly 9,147,297, through IPRs has been complicated by the PTAB's discretionary denial policies.

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel for AutoConnect Holdings LLC in the Delaware action and related proceedings.

Now let me research the plaintiff's counsel firms and individual attorneys.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record — AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Important framing note before the roster: In the PTAB case (IPR2026‑00172) the "plaintiff" is AutoConnect Holdings LLC in its capacity as Patent Owner; in the co‑pending district court action, AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:24‑cv‑01327‑JCG (D. Del., filed Dec. 6, 2024), AutoConnect is the plaintiff. The teams overlap almost entirely, and the most authoritative listing of AutoConnect's counsel of record comes from the caption of the court's April 16, 2026 stay opinion (D. Del.), which names every attorney then appearing. Everything below is drawn from that opinion, the docket, PTAB filings, and firm/attorney profiles.

---

1. Lead counsel / trial team — Avantech Law, LLP (Minneapolis, MN)

Avantech is a 2021-founded IP/technology boutique; founder William Woodford previously spent ~20 years at Fish & Richardson and the firm functions as AutoConnect's national enforcement and PTAB counsel (it also represents AutoConnect against Toyota in E.D. Tex., No. 2:24‑cv‑00802).

2. Delaware local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Because Local Rule 83.5(d) requires Delaware counsel to be the CM/ECF filers, Farnan LLP is the firm through which AutoConnect's papers are filed.

3. Additional Texas co-counsel — Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)

Their appearance is consistent with AutoConnect's parallel Texas campaign (the Toyota action is in E.D. Tex.), but I have no sourced explanation of the division of labor.

4. PTAB-side patent-owner counsel (this IPR series)

For the PTAB proceedings, AutoConnect's designated counsel are:

• Eric A. Zelepugas — lead counsel, Avantech Law LLP (Chicago office: 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60604; Reg. No. 73,302). Post-grant specialist; former Banner Witcoff attorney; experience includes the Comcast v. Rovi IPR campaign (>100 petitions) and ITC Section 337 work (R.J. Reynolds vaporizer TEO defense). He is the attorney corresponding with the Director's office in the Ford v. AutoConnect discretionary-denial/Director-review filings, including the "settled expectations" disputes that produced the Director's Dec. 4, 2025 and Jan. 27, 2026 decisions. (firm bio)
• Robert A. Conley — back-up counsel, Avantech Law LLP (Minneapolis; Reg. No. 55,846).

Sourcing caveat: I confirmed the Zelepugas/Conley designation from Avantech certificates of service in the Ford v. AutoConnect IPR family (e.g., IPR2025‑01383) and from third-party PTAB case trackers listing "Respondent Counsel: Zelepugas, Eric et al." for IPR2026‑00171. I was not able to pull the IPR2026‑00172‑specific power of attorney in this session, so the designation for this docket number specifically is inferred by identity of parties/counsel across the family rather than directly verified. Note also that the weple_post-grant@avantechlaw.com service address seen in some PTAB records belongs to a different Avantech client (Weple IP Holdings) and should not be attributed to AutoConnect.

---

Contradiction to flag with the previously generated sections

The prior "Defendant representatives" section in this case file states that Ford is represented by Fish & Richardson P.C. (Scherkenbach, McKeon, Lacey, Fund) with Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as local counsel. That does not match the record. The April 16, 2026 opinion caption of AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:24‑cv‑01327‑JCG, lists Ford's counsel as:

• Neal C. Belgam and Daniel A. Taylor, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; and
• John S. LeRoy, Christopher Smith, and Reza Roghani Esfahani, Brooks Kushman P.C., Royal Oak, MI.

(Court opinion PDF: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-1327_0.pdf ; see also the March 7, 2025 Brooks Kushman filing with Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce as additional Delaware counsel.) The Fish & Richardson/Morris Nichols attribution in the earlier section appears to be unsourced or erroneous, and the acting-judge detail also differs (the docket initially assigned Judge Colm F. Connolly; Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves sat by designation for the Sept. 24, 2025 and April 16, 2026 rulings).

What I could not confirm

• Whether any additional Farnan LLP, Avantech, or Miller Fair Henry attorneys entered appearances after the April 16, 2026 opinion (i.e., the most recent docket sheet after the stay was not retrievable here). Given the case is stayed pending the IPRs, later additions are unlikely but not ruled out.
• Individual bios/experience for Thomsen, Quisenberry, Werner, Zucchi, Fair, and Parish — I found appearances, not verifiable career detail. I have not invented any.
• No filings appear to be sealed as to counsel identity; the roster above comes from public opinions and public docket entries.

I'll research Ford Motor Company's counsel in both the Delaware district court litigation and the PTAB proceedings.

I have strong leads. Let me verify the specific counsel, their roles, and the earlier-appearing Delaware counsel.

Defendant's Representatives — Ford Motor Company

Scope note: "Defendant" here is Ford Motor Company. Ford is a petitioner at the PTAB (not a defendant), but because the current case is IPR2026-00172, I've covered both Ford's district-court defense team and its PTAB petitioner counsel. AutoConnect's counsel (Avantech Law / Farnan LLP / Miller Fair Henry / Pinckney-type Delaware locals) are the opposing side for the PTAB and are already covered in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section.

Two important flags before the names:

1. Local Delaware counsel changed over the life of the case. Ford first appeared through Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC (Dec. 30, 2024), but by the April 16, 2026 stay opinion the caption lists Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP. I found no docket entry confirming a substitution/withdrawal — see "Open questions" below.
2. The IPR numbering in the existing case summary conflicts with search results. The prior section says IPR2026-00173 targeted the '297 patent; the case metadata says IPR2026-00172 is the '297 proceeding. A PTAB tracker confirms IPR2026-00172 is Ford v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, filed Dec. 5, 2025 (ipverse/GreyB tracker). I treat the metadata as authoritative but flag that the firm has publicly described Ford as petitioner in seven IPRs against AutoConnect, so counsel rosters overlap across all of them.

---

A. District Court — AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:24-cv-01327-JCG (D. Del.)

Lead / national counsel — Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak, MI)

Sources: D. Del. opinion, No. 24-1327-JCG (Apr. 16, 2026) (caption lists "John S. LeRoy, Christopher Smith, and Reza Roghani Esfahani, Brooks Kushman P.C., of Royal Oak, MI. Attorneys for Defendant Ford Motor Company"); Justia copy of the same opinion; Brooks Kushman client alert (Jan. 23, 2026).

Local Delaware counsel

Current (per the April 16, 2026 opinion caption):

Sources: Apr. 16, 2026 opinion caption; Martindale profile for Belgam.

Originally appearing (Dec. 2024 – Mar. 2025):

Sources: Justia docket summary for 1:24-cv-01327 (D.I. 8, D.I. 9); Ford's reply brief exhibit (Mar. 7, 2025) hosted on PTACTS (artifact). Notably, Rychlicki also served as a special master in Qualcomm v. Arm, which may explain the later change of Delaware counsel.

---

B. PTAB — Ford as Petitioner (IPR2026-00172 and related IPRs)

Sources: Ford's § 42.10(b) Power of Attorney in the companion Ford–AutoConnect IPR on U.S. Pat. No. 9,147,296 (filed 10/01/2025), listing Andrew B. Turner as lead and John S. LeRoy as back-up (PTACTS artifact); Brooks Kushman alert and Andrew Turner bio; PTAB e-mail correspondence reproduced in IPR2025-01342/-01383 papers (PTACTS artifact) showing the Brooks Kushman service addresses (FPGP0156IPR@brookskushman.com, etc.).

---

C. What I could not verify (do not treat as established)

• No docket entry found (notice of appearance, substitution, or withdrawal) documenting the transition from Pinckney, Weidinger → Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins as Ford's Delaware counsel, or the exact date SKJ entered. The change is inferred from the differing captions in the Sept. 2025/early-2025 filings versus the Apr. 16, 2026 opinion.
• No in-house Ford Motor Company attorney (e.g., from Ford Global Technologies' IP legal group) appears in any retrieved public filing for either the district court case or the PTAB proceedings. Ford appears to be represented entirely by outside counsel (Brooks Kushman for both forums, plus Delaware locals). Ford Global Technologies, LLC is referenced in the complaint only as Ford's IP-holding subsidiary, not as a party.
• Bar/registration numbers for John S. LeRoy, Christopher C. Smith, Reza Roghani Esfahani, Kyle Konz and Yasmeen Moradshahi were not all confirmed from PTACTS filings; only Turner (63,121) and Moradshahi (59,669) were captured.