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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Company 1:24-cv-01327 Delaware plaintiff counsel", "AutoConnect Holdings LLC legal counsel", "Bayard, P.A. attorneys patent litigation", "KramerAmado, P.C. attorneys patent litigation", "Stamoulis & Butsishyn P.C. attorneys patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) (AutoConnect Holdings LLC) in the patent infringement case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01327 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their relevant patent litigation experience.

I will use web search with specific queries to identify these details, focusing on docket information, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Here's a plan:

1. Search for "AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Company 1:24-cv-01327 Delaware plaintiff counsel" to find docket entries or news articles listing the plaintiff's attorneys.
2. Once I have names, I will search for each attorney and their firm to determine their role (lead, local, of counsel, in-house) and specific patent litigation experience.
3. Pay close attention to Delaware local counsel, as they are often required in District of Delaware cases.The plaintiff, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, is represented by a team of attorneys from several law firms, including local Delaware counsel and national patent litigation firms. The counsel of record appearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-01327, are as follows:

Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE) - Local Counsel

• Michael J. Farnan (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note on experience: Michael J. Farnan is a founding partner of Farnan LLP, a Delaware-based firm often serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware. He is experienced in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.
• Brian E. Farnan (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note on experience: Brian E. Farnan is also a founding partner at Farnan LLP, with experience in a range of litigation matters, including patent disputes in Delaware.

Avantech Law, LLP - Lead Counsel

• William R. Woodford (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Note on experience: William R. Woodford is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff, indicating a lead counsel role. His firm, Avantech Law, LLP, specializes in patent litigation.
• Todd S. Werner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Note on experience: Todd S. Werner is an attorney at Avantech Law, LLP, serving as lead counsel for AutoConnect Holdings LLC in this patent dispute.
• Jason M. Zucchi (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Note on experience: Jason M. Zucchi is also listed as lead counsel from Avantech Law, LLP, with experience in patent litigation.
• Shelleaha L. Jonas (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP, Minneapolis, MN
  • Note on experience: Shelleaha L. Jonas is an attorney with Avantech Law, LLP, involved as lead counsel in this patent infringement case.
• Julianne Thomsen (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP, New York, NY
  • Note on experience: Julianne Thomsen is an attorney with Avantech Law, LLP, practicing from their New York office, serving as lead counsel.
• Kathryn A. Quisenberry (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note on experience: Kathryn A. Quisenberry is an attorney with Avantech Law, LLP, representing the plaintiff as lead counsel from their Houston office.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC - Lead Counsel

• Andrea Fair (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Note on experience: Andrea Fair is an attorney with Miller Fair Henry PLLC, serving as lead counsel for AutoConnect Holdings LLC.
• Garrett Parish (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Note on experience: Garrett Parish is an attorney with Miller Fair Henry PLLC, also representing the plaintiff as lead counsel.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Ford Motor Company patent litigation counsel", "Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC 1:24-cv-01327 Delaware defendant counsel", "Fish & Richardson P.C. patent litigation", "Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP patent litigation"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant (Ford Motor Company) in the patent infringement case AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-01327 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their relevant patent litigation experience. I will use the provided search results to identify this information. I will look for mentions of Ford's counsel in the context of the district court case or related IPRs where Ford is the petitioner.

Based on common practice in the District of Delaware, there will likely be national lead counsel and local Delaware counsel. I should aim to identify both.The defendant, Ford Motor Company, is represented by a team of attorneys primarily from Fish & Richardson P.C., acting as lead counsel, and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, serving as local Delaware counsel. The counsel of record appearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-01327, are as follows:

Fish & Richardson P.C. - Lead Counsel

• Frank Scherkenbach (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA
  • Note on experience: Frank Scherkenbach is a principal at Fish & Richardson and a highly experienced patent litigator, frequently representing major technology and automotive companies in complex patent disputes.
• Michael J. McKeon (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Michael McKeon is a principal at Fish & Richardson with extensive experience in patent litigation across various technologies, including automotive and software.
• Christine Bestor Lacey (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Minneapolis, MN
  • Note on experience: Christine Bestor Lacey is a principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing her practice on patent litigation, particularly in the automotive and technology sectors.
• Rachael Fund (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Rachael Fund is an associate at Fish & Richardson, involved in patent infringement and PTAB proceedings, often representing technology companies.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP - Local Counsel

• Karen Jacobs (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note on experience: Karen Jacobs is a partner at Morris Nichols and a prominent Delaware attorney frequently acting as local counsel in high-stakes intellectual property cases in the District of Delaware.
• Derek J. Fahnestock (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note on experience: Derek Fahnestock is an associate at Morris Nichols, with experience in patent litigation and other complex commercial disputes in Delaware federal court.