Litigation

Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al. v. Ford Motor Company

Stayed and Administratively Closed

1:20-cv-00706-CFC

Patents at issue (1)

10619580PTAB: final decision

Defendants (1)

Summary

Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC and Massachusetts Institute of Technology sued Ford Motor Company for patent infringement in district court. The case was stayed and administratively closed as of December 2022, pending resolution of IPR proceedings.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC (EBS) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) initiated patent infringement litigation against Ford Motor Company in the District of Delaware. MIT, a prominent research university, is the owner of the asserted patents and has exclusively licensed them to Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC, which acts as the patent assertion entity (PAE) in this context, seeking to monetize the intellectual property through litigation. The defendant, Ford Motor Company, is a major automotive manufacturer.

The litigation centered on Ford's alleged infringement through its vehicles that incorporate an "optimized ethanol direct injection fuel management system" for gasoline engines. This technology, aimed at mitigating "engine knock" and improving efficiency, utilizes both direct injection and port fuel injection. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,619,580, generally describes a fuel management system for spark-ignition engines that employs both direct and port fuel injection to suppress engine knock by introducing an anti-knock agent, with the fraction of direct injection increasing at higher torque levels.

The case, assigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly, was filed in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:20-cv-00706-CFC), a jurisdiction frequently chosen for patent disputes due to its judicial expertise, predictable docket, and a robust body of patent-specific precedent, as well as the high number of corporations incorporated in the state. The district court proceedings were stayed and administratively closed in December 2022, pending the final resolution of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This IPR linkage is a notable aspect of the case, as Ford successfully challenged the validity of the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,619,580, at the PTAB. This finding of unpatentability was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on December 23, 2025, effectively rendering the patent unenforceable. The appellate review involved complex claim construction disputes, particularly regarding whether the claims required different fuels for the direct and port injection systems.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "EBS/MIT") initiated patent infringement litigation against Ford Motor Company in the District of Delaware, case number 1:20-cv-00706-CFC. The case has been stayed and administratively closed, primarily due to the outcome of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

  • 2020-05-27: Complaint Filed. Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC and Massachusetts Institute of Technology filed a complaint for patent infringement against Ford Motor Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,619,580, among others.
  • 2020-07-20: Answer and Counterclaims Filed. Ford Motor Company filed its Answer, Defenses, Counterclaims, and Jury Demand (D.I. 9).
  • 2020-12-23: IPR Petitions Filed. Ford Motor Company petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,619,580, 10,791,760, and 9,708,965.
  • Prior to IPR Institution: District Court Claim Construction. Before the PTAB instituted IPRs, the District Court issued a claim construction ruling. It construed the term "DI Fuel" to require "(1) different fuel for direct injection and port injection and (2) an anti-knock agent other than gasoline." Based on this construction, the District Court entered a judgment of non-infringement.
  • 2021-07-02: PTAB Initially Denies IPR Institution. The PTAB initially denied Ford's petitions for IPR, concluding that, under its then-adopted claim construction (requiring a fuel different from that used in the port injector), Ford's prior art arguments for invalidity were insufficient.
  • EBS Appeals District Court Claim Construction. EBS appealed a portion of the District Court's claim construction to the Federal Circuit.
  • 2022-07: Federal Circuit Vacates District Court Claim Construction ("EBS I"). The Federal Circuit, in a decision referred to as "EBS I," vacated the District Court's claim construction. The Federal Circuit held that the patent claims encompass single-fuel embodiments, thereby rejecting the requirement for different fuels in the direct injection and port injection systems.
  • 2022-11: PTAB Grants Rehearing and Institutes IPRs. Following the Federal Circuit's decision in EBS I, Ford petitioned the PTAB for rehearing on its IPR institution denials. The PTAB granted Ford's rehearing request in November 2022 (fifteen months after Ford's request) and proceeded to institute IPR based on the Federal Circuit's clarified claim construction.
  • 2022-12: District Court Case Stayed and Administratively Closed. The District of Delaware litigation (1:20-cv-00706-CFC) was stayed and administratively closed, pending the resolution of the IPR proceedings.
  • PTAB Final Written Decisions. In its final written decisions for the IPRs (including IPR2021-00339 for U.S. Patent No. 10,619,580), the PTAB found the challenged claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,619,580, 10,791,760, and 9,708,965 to be unpatentable as obvious. The PTAB adopted a plain meaning of "fuel" and did not exclude gasoline as an anti-knock agent, consistent with the Federal Circuit's guidance.
  • EBS Appeals PTAB Decisions to Federal Circuit. EBS and MIT appealed the PTAB's unpatentability decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1381). EBS argued, among other things, that the PTAB lacked authority to delay its institution decision and that the Board should have been bound by the district court's initial claim construction.
  • 2025-12-23: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Unpatentability Rulings. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decisions, finding the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,619,580, 10,791,760, and 9,708,965 unpatentable as obvious. The Federal Circuit rejected EBS's procedural and substantive arguments, including the challenge to the PTAB's delay in instituting IPRs and its claim construction interpretation.
  • Current Status: Patent Extinguished. As a result of the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the PTAB's unpatentability finding, U.S. Patent No. 10,619,580 is "effectively extinguished as an enforceable asset." The district court case remains stayed and administratively closed, and the outcome of the IPRs and subsequent appeal means the asserted patent is no longer valid, precluding further infringement claims.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll verify the listed articles and search for additional coverage.

Now let me verify the older articles and the earlier 2019 case referenced in the Alston & Bird release.

Press and analyst coverage of Ethanol Boosting Systems v. Ford

The Federal Circuit's December 2025 affirmance drew the most coverage. IPWatchdog (Rose Esfandiari, Dec. 29, 2025) reported that the court issued a precedential decision on Dec. 23, 2025 in Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Company, affirming PTAB invalidation of three MIT-owned patents (U.S. Nos. 10,619,580, 10,781,760 and 9,708,965) exclusively licensed to EBS, with Judge Chen writing and Judges Clevenger and Hughes joining. IPWatchdog emphasized the procedural holding that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) barred EBS's challenge to the Board's 15-month delay in ruling on Ford's rehearing request (the court finding "sound reasons" for awaiting the earlier EBS I appeal and no Cuozzo "shenanigan"), and the substantive holding that the PTAB was not bound by the unappealed portion of the district court's construction excluding gasoline as an anti-knock agent, because law-of-the-case and the mandate rule "do not apply across different proceedings." Patently-O (Dennis Crouch) framed the case under the headline "Knock, Knock: MIT's Ethanol Engine Patents Run Out of Gas at the Federal Circuit," adding technical color on why ethanol's latent heat of vaporization (~855 kJ/kg versus ~306 kJ/kg for gasoline) makes direct injection effective against knock. Expert Institute called it a "high-stakes automotive patent dispute" and drew practice lessons for patent owners: the breadth of § 314(d), the independence of PTAB claim construction from parallel district court rulings, and "the risks associated with narrowing claim interpretations in one forum that may later undermine validity in another." Firm-side and secondary accounts largely tracked the opinion: Alston & Bird (Jan. 2026) reported it secured a "precedential win" for Ford covering 60 claims across three patents, and noted the 2020 suit "stems from a suit filed in 2019 against Ford Motor Company on related patents, which Alston & Bird won after an affirmance at the Federal Circuit in 2020." Keyhani LLC and AEON Law (also syndicated via Lexology, Jan. 16, 2026, and Patterson Sheridan's Federal Circuit summary) summarized the same holdings, with Patterson Sheridan stressing that "the PTAB is not automatically bound by a prior district court's claim construction." VitalLaw/IP Law Daily (Jan. 2, 2026) added two details beyond most accounts: that the USPTO Director intervened in the appeals but "did not independently brief the substantive issues," and that the PTAB's final written decisions issued in November 2023.

The earlier claim-construction appeal produced notably contentious coverage. IPWatchdog (Eileen McDermott, July 18, 2022) reported the Federal Circuit's vacatur and remand of the District of Delaware's judgment of non-infringement for Ford, with Chief Judge Moore writing that the district court's dual-fuel construction was erroneous and that the patents disclose an embodiment in which "100% of the fuel ... come[s] from ethanol," which the district court's construction would exclude. The piece foregrounded Judge Newman's dissent, quoting her accusation that the majority made an "incorrect departure from the law of claim construction" and departed "from the rule that patent claims are construed in accordance with the invention described in the specification." Note the directional framing: both IPWatchdog headlines characterize the 2022 ruling as a "blow to Ford," yet Ford ultimately prevailed on the same claim-construction fight at the PTAB and on appeal in 2025 — a reversal of fortune that the 2022 coverage could not have anticipated.

The only mainstream and trade reporting I found on the underlying dispute dates to the earlier 2019 case, not the 2020 action at issue here. The Boston Globe (Feb. 14, 2019) reported that three MIT professors — Leslie Bromberg, Daniel R. Cohn and John B. Heywood — and their company Ethanol Boosting Systems sued Ford on Jan. 30, 2019, alleging Ford's EcoBoost dual port/direct-injection engines (F-150, Lincoln Navigator, Mustang) infringed MIT patents without a license, and demanding an unspecified share of proceeds. It supplied the only concrete financial figures in any coverage: roughly $42 billion in 2018 F-Series revenue, about 8 million light trucks sold since 2015, and Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Kevin Tynan's illustration that "at $1 per vehicle, no big deal. At $1,000, $8 billion hurts a little." The Globe also aired the complaint's aspersions — that Ford's then-chief IP officer called the professors "greedy inventors" and proposed that EBS refrain from asserting the patents — and reported that both Ford spokesman Mike Levine and MIT declined to comment. Bloomberg's wire account was widely reprinted (Automotive News, Carscoops, Gardner Web); Rushlane added detail on the 3.5-liter EcoBoost's twin-injector architecture. This 2019 suit is docketed separately (No. 1:19-cv-00196-CFC), and Alston & Bird confirms the 2020 case "stems from" it. No coverage I found reports any damages award, royalty rate, settlement, or license in either case — which is consistent with the patents being invalidated before any damages phase and the Delaware case being stayed and administratively closed.

Discrepancies and limitations. Several accounts conflict with each other and with the case metadata: (1) Patent number — the Federal Circuit opinion, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Lexology/AEON, Keyhani and Patterson Sheridan all identify U.S. Patent No. 10,781,760, while some references (including the earlier-generated sections of this case file) say 10,791,760; the preponderance of sources supports 10,781,760. (2) Filing date — the Federal Circuit opinion, IPWatchdog and Expert Institute state EBS sued in October 2020, whereas the case metadata and the PTAB's own institution decisions reference C.A. No. 1:20-cv-00706-CFC with an earlier 2020 complaint date; the docket-based summary (May 27, 2020) and the reporter-based summary (October 2020) should be treated as an unresolved conflict. (3) Counsel — every source I retrieved (Expert Institute "Case Details," the Alston & Bird release, and the PTAB institution decisions) identifies Alston & Bird LLP (Christopher TL Douglas, Michael S. Connor, Lauren E. Burrow) as Ford's counsel and Susman Godfrey LLP for EBS, with Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C. representing MIT in the IPRs. That directly contradicts the previously generated "Defendant representatives" section, which named Latham & Watkins, Fish & Richardson, Quinn Emanuel, Gibson Dunn and Brooks Kushman attorneys as Ford's counsel; I found no source supporting those attributions. Finally, I was unable to verify that the four listed IPWatchdog "Patent Filings Roundup" pieces (2020-04-01, 2021-01-09, 2021-02-18, 2021-07-09) actually discuss this litigation — they are general PTAB-filing roundups and my searches did not surface their text — and the listed Jalopnik article (Feb. 4, 2019) concerns a GM/UAW Super Bowl commercial dispute and, on its face, appears unrelated to this case; I could not confirm any of these five items mention EBS, MIT or Ford's fuel-injection patents, so I do not rely on them.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The plaintiff(s) in Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al. v. Ford Motor Company are represented by counsel from Susman Godfrey LLP, with in-house counsel from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also involved.

Here is the identified counsel of record:

  • Steven M. Seigel

    • Role: Lead Counsel (for plaintiffs-appellants in Federal Circuit appeals)
    • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA
    • Note on experience: Seigel is a partner at Susman Godfrey and has experience arguing for plaintiffs-appellants in patent cases before the Federal Circuit.

  • Matthew Robert Berry

    • Role: Lead Counsel (for plaintiffs-appellants in Federal Circuit appeals)
    • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (office location not specified in the snippets, but often associated with the lead counsel's firm office)
    • Note on experience: Berry is also listed as representing plaintiffs-appellants in the Federal Circuit.

  • Andres Healy

    • Role: Lead Counsel (argued for plaintiffs-appellants in Federal Circuit appeals)
    • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA
    • Note on experience: Healy argued for the plaintiffs-appellants in at least one Federal Circuit appeal related to this matter.

  • William Daniel O'Connell

    • Role: Counsel (also represented plaintiffs-appellants in a Federal Circuit appeal)
    • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY
    • Note on experience: O'Connell is listed as representing the plaintiffs-appellants in a Federal Circuit appeal decided in 2020.

  • Tena Z. Herlihy

    • Role: In-house Counsel for Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    • Firm: MIT Office of the General Counsel, Cambridge, MA
    • Note on experience: Herlihy joined MIT as Counsel in 2006, and her primary practice areas include patent litigation management, technology licensing, and trademark prosecution and enforcement. She advises on intellectual property-related concerns and previously advised outside counsel on intellectual property litigation at PAREXEL International Corporation.

The available search results do not explicitly name local counsel for the plaintiff(s) in the District of Delaware case 1:20-cv-00706-CFC. The case status is "Stayed and Administratively Closed," pending IPR resolution, which may limit recent docket activity. While other MIT in-house attorneys such as Richelle A. Nessralla and Jay Wilcoxson are listed as involved in intellectual property matters for MIT, Tena Herlihy's specific mention of "patent litigation management" makes her the most directly relevant in-house counsel for this context.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research Ford's counsel of record through docket-based sources, firm announcements, and court opinions.

Let me nail down Ford's Delaware local counsel and the exact pro hac vice roster in this specific case.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Ford Motor Company

Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC et al. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 1:20-cv-00706-CFC-JLH (D. Del.)

Sourcing caveat up front: PACER itself was not directly queried in this run. The roster below is reconstructed from (i) the docket activity surfaced through the Unified Patents litigation portal for this case, (ii) Justia's docket listing for 1:20-cv-00706, (iii) Ford-signed filings reproduced verbatim as PTAB exhibits, and (iv) the Federal Circuit briefs/opinion in the appeal from this case (No. 2021-1949). Where a name appears only in the appellate or PTAB record rather than in a Delaware district-court filing, I say so. No sealed ex parte CJA-type filings or unopposed pro hac vice papers that were never docketed are reflected.

1. Delaware local counsel — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Ford's in-state counsel of record throughout this case came from Morris Nichols, the same firm that represented Ford in the predecessor action, EBS/MIT v. Ford, No. 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF (D. Del.).

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Rodger D. Smith II (Del. Bar #3778) Lead local counsel Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE Ford's principal Delaware signatory in this case. His ECF signature appears on Ford's Motion to Stay and opening brief (D.I. 12, filed 8/31/2020), the Declaration of Rodger D. Smith II in support of Ford's reply brief (D.I. 25, filed 9/21/2020), Ford's Rule 26 initial disclosures (D.I. 23, filed 9/16/2020), and the sealed/redacted discovery-dispute letters to Judge Hall (D.I. 54, filed 2/5/2021). He also signed Ford's papers in the 2019 companion case.
Michael J. Flynn (Del. Bar #5333) Local counsel Morris Nichols, Wilmington, DE Co-signatory on Morris Nichols signature blocks for Ford in this case and the 2019 case; listed on Ford's Federal Circuit certificate of interest in No. 2021-1949.
Taylor M. Haga (Del. Bar #6549) Local counsel (associate) Morris Nichols, Wilmington, DE Appears on the Morris Nichols signature block used on Ford's Delaware filings, including the stipulated-judgment paperwork in 1:20-cv-00706 (D.I. 73, filed 4/16/2021).
Michelle Streifthau-Livizos Local counsel (per appellate certificate of interest) Morris Nichols, Wilmington, DE Named in the counsel table accompanying Ford's Brief for Defendant-Appellee in No. 2021-1949. I found no separate Delaware ECF signature for her in this case, so treat her district-court role as of counsel rather than as an appearing attorney of record.

Morris Nichols' address on the Ford filings: 1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347, Wilmington, DE 19899, (302) 658-9200.

2. Lead trial and merits counsel — Alston & Bird LLP

The substantive defense (claim construction, invalidity contentions, the damages/privilege discovery fights, and the IPR campaign) was run out of Alston & Bird. Ford moved for pro hac vice admission of five Alston & Bird attorneys in this case — D.I. 26, MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Michael S. Connor, Natalie C. Clayton, Andrew J. Ligotti, Brian D. Hill, and Katie Burkhart, which Judge Connolly granted; the Unified Patents docket reflects "Pro Hac Vice Attorney Andrew J. Ligotti for Ford Motor Company added for electronic noticing" thereafter.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
Michael S. Connor Lead counsel (first chair) Alston & Bird LLP, One South at the Plaza, 101 S. Tryon St., Suite 4000, Charlotte, NC Argued for Ford in the Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2021-1949 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2022) that vacated the district court's claim construction. Alston & Bird's firm bio credits him with the Ford fuel-management wins "in district court infringement litigation, IPRs, and appeals," citing EBS/MIT v. Ford Motor Co., 162 F.4th 1151 (Fed. Cir.). Registered with the USPTO; longtime head of the firm's IP litigation group.
Natalie C. Clayton Lead counsel Alston & Bird LLP, 90 Park Ave., 15th Floor, New York, NY Named partner on Ford's briefs at every stage (district court, Fed. Cir., PTAB). Firm press release on the Ford I win identifies her as a partner leading the matter alongside Connor.
Kirk T. Bradley Counsel (appellate) Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC Appears on Ford's Federal Circuit briefs and certificate of interest in No. 2021-1949, and filed Ford's response to EBS/MIT's mandamus petition, In re Ethanol Boosting Systems, Nos. 23-119 (Fed. Cir., response filed 2/21/2023).
Andrew J. Ligotti ("Andy") Counsel Alston & Bird LLP, 90 Park Ave., 15th Floor, New York, NY Central PTAB advocate — argued the Sept. 6, 2023 oral hearing in IPR2021-00339/-00340/-00341 for Ford; took and defended depositions; also pro hac vice in the Delaware case.
Brian D. Hill Senior associate Alston & Bird LLP Included in the D.I. 26 pro hac vice motion; also listed as Ford's counsel in the 2019 Delaware case.
Katie Burkhart Associate Alston & Bird LLP Included in the D.I. 26 pro hac vice motion; identified in Alston & Bird's announcement of the Ford I non-infringement judgment.
Christopher T.L. Douglas Counsel (PTAB-side) Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC Ford's petitioner counsel of record in the IPRs (e.g., IPR2019-01402, IPR2021-00339 family) and on the IPR briefs. Not among the five attorneys moved pro hac vice in the Delaware action, so I would not list him as district-court counsel of record absent a confirming ECF appearance.

Note on continuity: the same core Alston & Bird team (Connor, Clayton, Ligotti, Hill, Burkhart) plus Morris Nichols (Smith, Flynn) first defended Ford in EBS/MIT v. Ford, No. 1:19-cv-00196-CFC-SRF, which ended in a February 2020 final judgment of non-infringement on four earlier patents in the same family — see Alston & Bird's case announcement, "Ford Motor Wins Patent Infringement Case in Delaware Federal Court".

3. Ford in-house counsel

Attorney Role Organization Note
Todd W. Dishman Senior Managing Counsel, Intellectual Property Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, MI) Signed a Ford PTAB power of attorney as the corporate representative in a different Ford IPR (Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, U.S. Pat. No. 9,290,153), dated July 23, 2025. Flag: I did not find his signature or appearance on any docket entry in 1:20-cv-00706; it would be accurate to describe him as Ford's IP in-house lead, not as an appearing attorney of record in this case. No Ford in-house attorney appears as counsel of record on the Delaware docket based on the materials reviewed.

4. Points to flag and open items

  1. No appearance-post-judgment activity. The case has been stayed and administratively closed since December 2022, and a stipulated final judgment of non-infringement was entered April 16, 2021 (D.I. 73) before being vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit on July 18, 2022. There is accordingly no later slate of counsel to report; the roster above is the operative one from the active litigation period.
  2. Pro hac vice vs. of record. Connor, Clayton, Ligotti, Hill, and Burkhart appear in Delaware only by pro hac vice admission (D.I. 26); Morris Nichols is the firm with attorneys formally admitted to the Delaware bar and signing filings. Kirk Bradley and Christopher Douglas appear in the appellate and PTAB records respectively but I did not confirm Delaware pro hac vice papers or ECF signatures for either in 1:20-cv-00706.
  3. One docket-source discrepancy worth noting. The Federal Circuit certificate of interest in No. 2021-1949 and the aggregate docket aggregators list slightly different subsets of the Ford team (e.g., some lists omit Burkhart and Haga; some include Streifthau-Livizos). Where the sources differ, I have attributed a name to the forum in which I could actually verify it. If you need courtroom-grade certainty, pull the D.I. 1–75 docket sheet and the D.I. 26 pro hac vice order directly from PACER.
  4. Cross-reference to the prior section. The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section listed only Susman Godfrey and MIT in-house counsel, and expressly noted that no Delaware local counsel for Plaintiffs had been identified. The 2019 companion case docket lists Farnan LLP (Michael J. Farnan and Brian E. Farnan) as Delaware counsel for EBS/MIT, and the Federal Circuit appearances in this family of cases are frequently filed by local Delaware counsel jointly with the Susman Godfrey team. That is a gap in the plaintiffs-side section rather than a contradiction, but it is worth resolving if a complete caption-block roster is needed — it does not affect the defendant-side identification above.

Key primary sources used: Federal Circuit opinion, No. 2021-1949 (July 18, 2022); Ford's Brief for Defendant-Appellee and Certificate of Interest (Exhibit 2028 in IPR2021-00339) listing Connor, Bradley, Clayton, Ligotti and the Morris Nichols counsel table; Ford's Delaware filings (D.I. 12, 23, 25, 26, 54, 73) as reported on the Unified Patents litigation page and Justia docket; PTAB oral hearing transcript (Sept. 6, 2023) and Ford's power of attorney in IPR2025 matters; Alston & Bird, Michael S. Connor profile.