Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (now Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Good initial hits. Let me dig deeper into the parties, the patents, and the procedural history.

Case Overview and Background

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (now Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) and Piper Networks, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-00314-RGA (filed Mar. 22, 2023), transferred to S.D.N.Y. and docketed as No. 1:23-cv-02920-DLC (assigned to Judge Denise L. Cote).

The parties. Metrom Rail is a small, privately held rail-safety manufacturer headquartered in Crystal Lake/Lakemoor, Illinois, founded in 2010 by Jim Marchi and Rick Carlson Sr. It is an operating company, not a classic NPE/PAE, and it practices the asserted patents: Metrom designs, builds, and sells ultra-wideband (UWB) radio-based train safety products — the AURA Collision Avoidance System for maintenance-of-way equipment, the AURA Positive Train Control System (PTCS), and worker-protection devices. Third-party estimates put Metrom at roughly 20–40 employees and ~$5.6M in annual revenue (Kona Equity; Daily Herald, Jan. 2018) — dwarfed by its adversaries. Metrom product literature; 2018 Daily Herald profile. Defendant Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. was the U.S. rail-signaling arm of Thales's Ground Transportation Systems business (a legacy Communications-Based Train Control, or CBTC, incumbent); following Hitachi Rail's acquisition of Thales GTS, the entity is now Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. Defendant Piper Networks, Inc. is a smaller New York-based supplier of UWB train-positioning technology (its "Rail Positioning System" and "Automatic Train Protection-Overlay" product). The related IPR record identifies Siemens Mobility, Inc., Humatics Corp., and Thales USA, Inc. as additional real parties-in-interest across the family of proceedings, reflecting a multi-party supplier conflict rather than a single-vendor dispute.

The accused technology. Metrom's theory is that the defendants' UWB-based train-positioning, collision-avoidance, and positive-train-control offerings sold or deployed to the New York MTA / New York City Transit infringe its patent family. The narrative begins with the MTA's 2017 "Genius Transit Challenge," which Metrom's UWB "PTCS-2" proposal won in March 2018, and continues through MTA/NYCT RFP Solicitation No. W-81199 (Jan. 2019) and the pilot awards to the Siemens/Humatics and Thales/Piper teams, followed by July 2021 interoperability integration contracts described in the pleadings as worth more than $22 million (see Metrom's second amended complaint, reproduced as Ex. 1019 in IPR2024-00947, and the D. Mass. opinion, S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417, ECF 113). The pleadings allege direct, contributory, induced, and willful infringement, and the original 2022 complaint added claims of interference with prospective advantage and conspiracy to infringe; Metrom also alleges the defendants filed competing applications on the same UWB collision-avoidance technology (e.g., Siemens' WO 2019/030018; Piper's App. No. 17/014,974). The five asserted patents are:

• U.S. 8,812,227 — railroad collision-avoidance system; vehicle-mounted UWB transponder sensor modules use time-of-flight ranging (plus GPS) to determine location, speed, and separation distance between rail vehicles; priority May 19, 2011.
• U.S. 9,043,131 — same family and specification; adds, inter alia, a wireless antenna "operable to send and receive data representing the separation distance over the air" (claim 17).
• U.S. 10,179,595 ("Worker protection system") — wearable personal alert devices plus vehicle-mounted and wayside companion alert devices that broadcast hazard alerts to track workers.
• U.S. 10,737,709 — worker-protection/alerting invention asserted alongside the '595 patent; I could not independently verify the '709 title or claim scope in this session and would confirm against the patent itself.
• U.S. 10,778,363 ("Methods and systems for decentralized rail signaling and positive train control") — wayside units and train-mounted units that communicate via UWB signals and generate train-control information for the train.

Procedural posture and why venue matters. This case is the severed, corporate-defendant-facing branch of Metrom's original Delaware action, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del., filed Jan. 13, 2022). The severed action against Ground Transportation Systems USA and Piper was filed March 22, 2023 and transferred to S.D.N.Y., arriving April 6, 2023; it was initially assigned to Judge Analisa Torres and reassigned to Judge Denise L. Cote on April 12, 2023. The parties jointly stipulated to a complete stay on April 21, 2023 pending PTAB final written decisions on all patents-in-suit (D.I. 34), with a joint status report to follow. A companion case, Metrom Rail v. Siemens Mobility & Humatics, No. 1:23-cv-03057-MKV, sits before Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil. Venue matters for three reasons: the accused systems are deployed at MTA/NYCT facilities in New York, most defendants are New York-facing, and S.D.N.Y. has become the consolidation point for the entire dispute — the later MBTA/Piper case (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417, concerning the separate '738 patent and Piper's $113M MBTA Green Line contract) was transferred from the District of Massachusetts to Judge Cote on December 8, 2025 after Piper moved to transfer.

Why the case is notable. First, it is a rare "small innovator vs. global incumbents" contest over the technical standard for urban rail signaling — Metrom's pitch is that UWB overlays cost roughly half as much as CBTC retrofits (the pleadings cite the Flushing line's $588M, nine-year CBTC conversion) and threaten billions in legacy trackside and in-cab equipment sales. Second, it is tightly coupled to the PTAB: the defendants filed a coordinated IPR campaign (IPR2023-00439 on the '595; -00452/-00460/-00468/-00470 on the '227 and '131; IPR2024-00947 on the '738), and the June 18, 2024 final written decision in IPR2023-00470 held all claims of the '227 patent unpatentable while the Board sustained claims 17–20 of the '131 patent. On May 11, 2026, a nonprecedential Federal Circuit panel in Nos. 2024-2223/2024-2264 affirmed the invalidity holdings and reversed as to '131 claims 17–20 on a claim construction neither party advanced — a ruling Metrom has challenged in a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. Because the district cases have been stayed against these outcomes, the commercial dispute is currently being decided at the PTAB and Federal Circuit, not in Judge Cote's courtroom. Third, the case illustrates the objective-indicia/nexus battleground now common in IPR appeals: Metrom's attempt to rely on the commercial success of its AURA CAS product failed for lack of nexus because the Board found the product carried unclaimed "important features or components" such as machine-function monitoring and remote data reporting. Fourth — and practically significant — the defendant's change of corporate parent (Thales GTS to Hitachi Rail) reshapes who bears any eventual damages exposure and how the case is defended going forward.

Sourcing note: party identities, patent numbers, docket numbers, and the transfer/stay history are corroborated by the district dockets, the IPR papers, and the Federal Circuit opinion. The '709 patent title, Metrom's headcount/revenue figures, and the precise corporate chain of title for Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. rest on secondary or third-party sources and should be verified before publication.

I'll research this case systematically across the litigation and PTAB tracks.

Let me dig into the S.D.N.Y. docket, the Piper motion, and the PTAB proceedings.

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. (f/k/a Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc.) et al.

Litigation chronology and outcomes — combined D. Del. 1:23-cv-00314-RGA / S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02920

Important framing note before the chronology. This docket is one slice of a three-case Metrom Rail campaign, and the substantive merits of the patents at issue were actually decided in parallel PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings, not in the district court. To give you a usable picture I have separated:

• Track A — the case you asked about: the severed Thales/GTS-USA + Piper action (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00314-RGA → S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02920, Judge Denise L. Cote).
• Track B — the parent case: D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA, from which Track A was severed, and its sibling severed case against Siemens Mobility + Humatics (S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-03057-MKV).
• Track C — the invalidity track: the joint IPRs (IPR2023-00468, IPR2023-00470) and the Federal Circuit appeal (Nos. 2024-2223/-2236/-2264), which control the fate of the '131 and '227 patents asserted in Track A.
• Track D — collateral litigation: the newer MBTA/Green Line case (D. Mass. 25-cv-11446-ADB → S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC), which is judicially related to Track A and is now the most actively litigated Metrom matter.

Where I could not source a docket entry, I say so explicitly rather than filling the gap.

---

I. Filing and initial pleadings

The complaint's theory (from the later Second Amended Complaint, ECF 69-1 in 23-cv-03057): after Metrom won the MTA's 2018 "Genius Transit Challenge" for UWB-based signaling, Siemens/Thales won MTA pilot contracts (RFP W-81199, July 2021 integration awards), allegedly using Humatics UWB radios and Piper's Qorvo-based chipset; Metrom pleaded direct (§271(a)), contributory (§271(c)), and induced (§271(b)) infringement, willfulness, and state-law claims (Counts VI–VII) for interference and conspiracy.

---

II. Pre-trial motions of substance in the parent case

2023-03-22 — D. Del. Memorandum Order, D.I. 23 (Judge Richard G. Andrews). This is the pivotal early ruling:

• Motions to dismiss granted in part, denied in part.
• Direct-infringement claims against Humatics and Piper DISMISSED.
• Count VI DISMISSED as to Piper, Humatics, and Thales (state-law interference).
• Count VII DISMISSED as to all defendants (conspiracy).
• Motion to sever GRANTED: one case against Siemens + Humatics; the other against Thales (GTS USA) + Piper.

That severance is what created your case.

---

III. Formation, transfer, and assignment of 1:23-cv-00314 → 1:23-cv-02920

Note on the transfer's strategic significance: the D. Del. case was transferred by stipulation because the related Siemens/Humatics action (and MTA-related discovery) was already in S.D.N.Y. I found no contested motion to transfer and no motion to stay pending IPR in 23-cv-02920 in the sources searched — see the gaps section at the end.

---

IV. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman proceeding has been identified in 23-cv-02920. As of the most recent orders I could source (June 2026), claim construction had not yet occurred even in the closely related MBTA case — Judge Cote's 2026-06-04 order directed the parties to be "prepared to discuss a schedule for resolution of issues related to claim construction and the validity of the '738 Patent" once the Federal Circuit mandate issues.

The only claim-construction dispute of consequence in this campaign was decided on appeal, not by a district court: the Federal Circuit construed "data representing the separation distance" in claim 17 of the '131 patent (limitation 17C) — see § VI below.

---

V. Discovery milestones

Publicly sourceable discovery milestones specific to 23-cv-02920 are thin. What is documented:

• 2023-08-28 — deposition of Metrom's expert Scott Andrews (PTAB Ex. 2007, IPR2023-00468), reflecting that fact discovery was running in parallel with the IPRs.
• 2023-11-15 — deposition of Kurt A. Gunther, P.E. (PTAB Ex. 2010/2030), Metrom's named inventor-witness.
• 2023-10-26 — a Metrom exhibit (Piper "NextGen Signalling" convention material) collected and then marked at the Gunther deposition — i.e., Metrom was using litigation discovery to build the IPR secondary-considerations record.
• Significant discovery friction: Metrom's operative pleading alleges defendants frustrated Metrom's FOIL (N.Y. Freedom of Information Law) requests for MTA bid responses, which Metrom characterized as concealment of infringement. This is pleaded, not adjudicated.
• The PTAB record shows the parties' reliance on Metrom's AURA CAS commercial materials (Exhibits 2015–2016, including archived metrom-rail.com product pages) — the nexus/product-copy evidence that drove the IPR objective-indicia fight.

I could not source a Rule 30(b)(6) schedule, ESI protocol order, or discovery cut-off in 23-cv-02920.

---

VI. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their dispositive effect

This is where the case was actually decided.

The joint IPRs

Primary prior art in the joint IPRs: U.S. Patent No. 6,759,948 ("Grisham") (railroad collision avoidance using UWB) as to every ground, plus WO 03/009254 ("Nixon") for GPS functionality, and Richardson (2010, outdoor UWB tracking) / Douglas (U.S. 8,874,359) for dependent claims. Both patents share a common specification and claim priority to 2011-05-19.

Metrom's defense was built on objective indicia of non-obviousness: long-felt need, skepticism, commercial success of the AURA system, and an allegation that Piper's "Helix" system copies AURA (PO Sur-Reply in IPR2023-00468, Ex. 2031).

Federal Circuit appeal — the decisive ruling

• 2024-08-26 — Petitioners file Notice of Cross-Appeal (lead: Howard N. Wisnia, Wisnia PC).
• 2024-08-30 — Metrom's notice of appeal. Appeals consolidated as Nos. 2024-2223 (Metrom), 2024-2236, 2024-2264.
• *2026-05-11 — Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223 et al. (Fed. Cir., nonprecedential).*
  • Affirmed the Board: all claims of the '227 and claims 1–16 of the '131 unpatentable as obvious.
  • Rejected Metrom's secondary-considerations argument: no presumption of nexus because the AURA CAS product contains "important unclaimed features or components" (machine-function monitoring, remote data reporting) that are "not insignificant" (Fox Factory v. SRAM, 944 F.3d 1366); and no nexus by "direct result of the unique characteristics of the invention."
  • Reversed the Board on claims 17–20 of the '131: the Board's construction of "data representing the separation distance" (as computed distance) was wrong; the term means the data used in the time-of-flight calculation. Grisham discloses transmitting that data over the air, so claims 17–20 are obvious too. Net effect: the '131 patent was wiped out entirely.
  • Judge Taranto concurred-in-part and dissented-in-part, arguing the majority sua sponte decided the cross-appeal on a claim-construction theory Siemens never presented to the Board or the court, violating party presentation/preservation principles (Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7 (2025); In re Google Tech. Holdings, 980 F.3d 858).
  • Opinion PDF: https://cafc.uscourts.gov//opinions-orders/24-2223.OPINION.5-11-2026_2691571.pdf ; Justia: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2223/24-2223-2026-05-11.html ; Fed. Cir. Blog summary (2026-05-12): https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/05/12/opinions-orders-may-12-2026/ ; VitaLaw IP Law Daily (2026-05-12).
• 2026-06 (undated in source) — Metrom files a Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, arguing the panel decision "violates the rule of party presentation of Clark v. Sweeney" and misapplies Graham v. John Deere and Stratoflex v. Aeroquip, and raising an en banc-worthy question about Ormco v. Align Technology's nexus requirement. Counsel: Gregory C. Schodde.

Effect on the litigation: as of the May 11, 2026 decision (subject to rehearing), two of the five patents asserted in 1:23-cv-02920 — the '131 and '227 — are unpatentable and no longer assertable. That is consistent with Metrom's own concession in the related MBTA matter that the ruling "will moot the arguments concerning the '131 Patent because that patent will no longer be assertable." The '595, '363, and '709 patents remain asserted in 23-cv-02920; I found no IPR petitions against those three.

---

VII. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or §285 fee motion has been identified in 23-cv-02920, and none has occurred in the sibling Siemens case or the MBTA case. There has been no Bellwether-type damages event in this campaign; the only "judgment" has come from the PTAB and Federal Circuit.

---

VIII. Collateral/related litigation affecting this case

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority & Piper Networks, Inc.

• Filed 2025-05-21 in D. Mass., No. 25-cv-11446-ADB, asserting the '738 patent (and initially the '131) against Piper and the MBTA over Piper's $113M Green Line Train Protection System (GLTPS) awarded 2025-02-26.
• 2025-12-08 — Judge Burroughs (D. Mass.): venue improper as to Piper in Massachusetts; transferred the Piper claims to S.D.N.Y.; severed and stayed the MBTA claims (customer-suit principles, traditional stay factors).
• Piper claims land as S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417; 2026-01-02 order (Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr.) requires a Statement of Relatedness between 25-cv-10417 and 23-cv-2920 under S.D.N.Y. Assignment Rule 13(b)(3) — the explicit judicial link to your case.
• 2026-03-04 — Metrom files a Second Amended Complaint against Piper only.
• 2026-05-20 — Judge Cote's Opinion and Order (ECF 113): Piper's March 6, 2026 renewed motion to dismiss is denied in part — the '738 claim survives; the '131 claim is dismissed as moot in light of the Federal Circuit ruling. Law360 covered this on 2026-05-21 ("Train service solutions provider Piper Networks has been denied a chance to exit an infringement lawsuit in New York federal court ... a judge finding the suit gave Piper proper notice of the infringement claims").
• 2026-06-04 — Judge Cote denied without prejudice Metrom's preliminary-injunction motion (ECF 105) and stayed that action until the Federal Circuit's decision on the '131 patent is final and the mandate issues, with claim construction and '738 validity to be scheduled thereafter.

---

IX. Final disposition / present posture (as of 2026-09-19)

1:23-cv-02920 (your case): active, but materially hollowed out. The '131 and '227 patents have been held unpatentable through final written decisions affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-05-11, with Metrom's rehearing petition pending as of June 2026. The '595, '363, and '709 patents remain live and unadjudicated — no Markman, no trial, no dispositive ruling. I found no settlement, voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, or appeal from 23-cv-02920 itself.

Practical read: the campaign's center of gravity has shifted (a) to the Federal Circuit rehearing petition on the '131/'227, and (b) to the S.D.N.Y. MBTA/GLTPS case on the '738, which Judge Cote has expressly stayed on the '131 appeal while preserving '738 claim construction. The invalidation of '131/'227 removes Metrom's strongest nexus/objective-indicia narrative and, per the D. Mass. stay analysis, a defense judgment on validity or non-infringement in the New York litigation would collaterally estop Metrom against downstream customers such as the MBTA.

---

X. What I could not verify (flagged, not fabricated)

1. Docket entries in 23-cv-02920 between mid-2023 and 2026. I did not retrieve a full PACER docket for 23-cv-02920. Specifically unconfirmed: whether GTS/Hitachi and Piper filed answers and counterclaims in 23-cv-02920; whether a stay pending IPR was sought or granted there; whether a Markman schedule was ever entered; and any scheduling or discovery orders.
2. Exact filing and FWD dates for IPR2023-00468 and IPR2023-00470. I confirmed the proceeding numbers, petitioners, patents, and outcomes via the PTAB papers and the Federal Circuit opinion, but not the precise petition filing date, institution date, or final-written-decision date (the cross-appeal notice of 2024-08-26 implies FWDs in roughly July–August 2024).
3. Any IPR/PGR on the '595, '363, or '709 patents. None surfaced; absence of evidence here is not proof of absence.
4. Defendant-side counsel roster in 23-cv-02920. Lead petitioner counsel in the IPRs was Howard N. Wisnia (Wisnia PC). Mark M. Supko (Crowell & Moring) was lead district-court counsel for Siemens in 23-cv-03057. I did not verify counsel for GTS/Hitachi Rail or Piper in 23-cv-02920.
5. Whether the Federal Circuit rehearing petition has been ruled on. Filed ~June 2026; no disposition found as of 2026-09-19. Until the mandate issues, the district-court stays premised on the '131 appeal remain in place.
6. The exact scope of patents asserted in 23-cv-02920 after the IPRs. The five-patent list comes from the D. Del. transfer record (Report to the Commissioner of Patents, D.I. 3) and third-party litigation databases; I could not confirm a subsequent narrowing or covenant not to sue.

Key sources: D. Del. Memorandum Order, D.I. 23, No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (2023-03-22); S.D.N.Y. transfer docket, https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv02920/[596855](/patent/596855) ; Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223/-2236/-2264 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026); PTAB IPR2023-00468 record (ptacts.uspto.gov); Metrom Rail, LLC v. MBTA, No. 25-cv-11446-ADB (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025) (Burroughs, J.); S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417, ECF 67 (2026-01-02) and ECF 113 (2026-05-20) (Cote, J.); Law360 (2026-05-21); VitaLaw IP Law Daily (2026-05-12).

I'll research the counsel of record for Metrom Rail across the relevant dockets.

Let me pull the specific dockets for the severed Delaware case and the S.D.N.Y. case.

Now let me pull the S.D.N.Y. docket's counsel entries and any appearance filings.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC

Bottom line: Metrom Rail's patent-side representation is a two-tier team — McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago) as lead merits/appellate/PTAB counsel, and Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE) as Delaware local counsel in the original/severed D. Del. actions. Because both the '314 severed case and the '2920 S.D.N.Y. case have been stayed since 2023, the paper trail for plaintiff's counsel is much thicker at the PTAB and Federal Circuit than on the district dockets. I found no evidence of any New York local counsel of record in 1:23-cv-02920 and could not verify whether Farnan's Delaware appearance survived the transfer — flagging both as open items below.

---

1. Lead counsel — Gregory C. Schodde (McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago)

• Role: Lead counsel for Metrom Rail across essentially every front — Patent Owner's designated Lead Counsel in all the IPRs, principal signatory on the Federal Circuit briefing, and the attorney admitted pro hac vice in the district case.
• Firm/office: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., 500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor, Chicago, IL 60661; Reg. No. 36,668.
• Grounding: Metrom's Patent Owner Power of Attorney in IPR2023-00468 (served Feb. 3, 2023) and the Sept. 26, 2023 Updated Mandatory Notice in IPR2023-00439 name Schodde as Lead Counsel, with service via MetromIPR@mcandrews-ip.com. PTAB PO Power of Attorney, '131; Updated Mandatory Notice. In S.D.N.Y., he moved for pro hac vice admission on the record of the '2920 case (D.I. 36, granted at D.I. 39 by Judge Cote). UniCourt docket extract. His signature appears as counsel for Appellant/Cross-Appellee on Metrom's combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc after the May 11, 2026 Federal Circuit decision. Combined Petition (Fed. Cir. 24-2223).
• Experience note: Schodde is McAndrews's point person on the entire Metrom portfolio campaign — he argued or supervised both appeals (Nos. 24-2223/24-2264) and the coordinated IPRs. His name appears as attorney of record in the Federal Circuit party listing for Metrom. CourtListener, 24-2223 parties.

2. Delaware local counsel — Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington)

• Role: Local/lead district counsel for Metrom in the D. Del. litigation. In the parent case 1:22-cv-00049-RGA, Brian E. Farnan is listed as LEAD ATTORNEY, "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED," with Michael J. Farnan appearing as an additional Delaware attorney.
• Firm/office: Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801.
• Grounding: The D. Del. civil docket sheet for 1:22-cv-00049-RGA reproduced in the PTAB record lists both Farnans for Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC, alongside Schodde and Spuhler as PHV counsel. D. Del. docket sheet, 1:22-cv-00049-RGA. The severed '314 docket carried the same plaintiff-side structure (see the Ruben PHV motion, D.I. 7). Patexia docket summary, 1:23-cv-00314.
• Experience note: Farnan LLP is one of the most frequently retained Delaware IP-local firms; Brian Farnan is a former Fish & Richardson litigator and longtime Delaware patent-trial counsel. (General practice reputation; I did not find a case-specific secondary source tying them to Metrom beyond the docket entries above.)
• ⚠️ Caveat: I could not confirm whether Farnan LLP's Delaware appearance was carried over, withdrawn, or replaced after the case was transferred to S.D.N.Y. and docketed as 1:23-cv-02920. No S.D.N.Y. docket entry showing a Farnan appearance or withdrawal surfaced in my searches.

3. McAndrews backup / additional counsel appearing across the matters

All at McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago (unless noted). These names come from Metrom's Patent Owner filings and the Federal Circuit party listing:

Sources: PO Power of Attorney, IPR2023-00468; Updated Mandatory Notice, Sept. 26, 2023; CourtListener 24-2223 parties; deposition transcript in IPR2023-00468/-00470 (Nov. 15, 2023) noting "Mr. Schodde for Patent Owner, Metrom … with me on the Zoom is Raj Chiplunkar."

4. In-house counsel

Not identified. No Metrom in-house attorney appears on any docket sheet, PHV motion, or PTAB mandatory notice I reviewed — Metrom's filings run through outside counsel at McAndrews (with a single corporate service address, MetromIPR@mcandrews-ip.com). Testimony was given by a Metrom CEO/witness (the Board's nexus finding rested on "testimony from Metrom's CEO"), but that is a business witness, not counsel. I would not list any in-house lawyer without confirmation.

---

Sourcing gaps and things to verify before publication

1. S.D.N.Y. (1:23-cv-02920-DLC) plaintiff-side roster is incomplete. The only plaintiff-side appearance I could confirm from the S.D.N.Y. docket text is Schodde's PHV motion (D.I. 36) and the granting order (D.I. 39). Because S.D.N.Y. Local Rule 1.3 requires a local sponsor, there is very likely a New York firm on the appearance list that I could not surface — the case was stayed within weeks of transfer (D.I. 34, joint stipulation to stay, Apr. 21, 2023), so appearances may never have been fully filed. Recommend pulling the PACER docket sheet for 1:23-cv-02920 directly.
2. Farnan LLP's post-transfer status is unverified (see §2).
3. The parallel branches may have separate counsel. The companion S.D.N.Y. case against Siemens/Humatics (1:23-cv-03057-MKV) and the later MBTA/Piper case (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC, transferred from D. Mass.) are also Metrom-side matters; I did not verify whether the same McAndrews team (or additional local counsel) appears in each. The '10417 docket shows active 2026 motion practice (motion-to-dismiss, preliminary-injunction and stay orders signed by Judge Cote Jan.–May 2026), so counsel there is fully appearing and would be worth a separate pass.
4. No contradiction with the case metadata — the parties, case numbers, transfer, and patents-in-suit I relied on match the prompt; the only nuance worth noting is that the D. Del. docket caption for the severed action has at various points read both "Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc." and "Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.," consistent with your note about the Thales→Hitachi rename.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for both defendants.

Let me pull the S.D.N.Y. docket and the D. Del. docket counsel entries.

Let me get the full S.D.N.Y. docket and confirm which attorneys entered appearances for each defendant.

Counsel of Record — Defendants in Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) & Piper Networks, Inc.

Bottom line: Both defendants are represented by outside patent counsel, not in-house attorneys. The S.D.N.Y. case (No. 1:23-cv-02920-DLC) has been stayed since April 21, 2023 (D.I. 34), so the appearances below are the 2023 transfer-era filings; the docket I retrieved shows no superseding appearances after that. Hitachi/GTS is represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; Piper is represented by a small-firm team led by Howard Wisnia (Wisnia P.C.) with Dority & Manning, P.A. as co-counsel. Note that the same teams form the joint petitioner group at the PTAB, which is the venue where this dispute has actually been litigated.

---

1. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. / Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. (defendant)

Context: Because Faegre Drinker maintains a Wilmington office and Rahmeier is Delaware-barred, no separate Delaware local counsel was required for the GTS/Hitachi side in the D. Del. action. Faegre Drinker's representation of GTS predates the Hitachi acquisition; the caption was amended for the name change to Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. by stipulation (D. Del. D.I. 10–11), and the same Faegre Drinker team continued on the Federal Circuit cross-appeal — i.e., no substitution of counsel has been docketed post-acquisition in what I retrieved.

---

2. Piper Networks, Inc. (defendant)

Context: Piper's separate S.D.N.Y. local presence appears to be a later development: in the transferred MBTA/Green Line branch of the dispute, Piper added Andrea L. Martin (Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Boston) as local counsel alongside Wisnia, Cunningham and Moore (D. Mass. 1:25-cv-11446-ADB docket). I found no S.D.N.Y.-admitted local counsel entered for Piper in 23-cv-02920 itself — consistent with S.D.N.Y. not requiring local counsel.

---

3. Related/follow-on appearances worth flagging

• Federal Circuit (Nos. 2024-2223, 2024-2264): cross-appellants' side (Hitachi Rail GTS USA, Humatics, Piper, Siemens) is represented through the same lineup — Thatcher Rahmeier and Lora Brzezynski (Faegre Drinker) for Hitachi/GTS. Plaintiff Metrom's appellate team is McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Schodde, Chiplunkar, Ruben, Hallerud).
• PTAB petitioner group counsel by client (useful for predicting the district lineup): Faegre Drinker → GTS/Hitachi; Crowell & Moring (Supko, Schmitz, James, Galluzzo) and Wolf Greenfield & Sacks (Nieberg, Speed) → Siemens; Wisnia P.C. + Dority & Manning → Piper; Wolf Greenfield → Humatics.
• Plaintiff's Delaware counsel (for contrast only): Brian E. Farnan / Farnan LLP (Wilmington) as local counsel, with McAndrews Held & Malloy (Gregory C. Schodde et al.) as lead.

---

4. What I could not confirm (explicit caveats)

1. In-house counsel for either defendant — none is named on any docket entry I retrieved. Corporate disclosure statements were filed (Piper's Rule 7.1 statement, D. Del. D.I. 8), but they do not identify in-house attorneys.
2. Firms for Martin R. Bader and Jesse A. Salen — the Delaware docket text I retrieved confirms only their pro hac vice admission for Piper in January 2022; do not attribute a firm without checking the D. Del. docket entries directly.
3. Current (2026) counsel of record. Because 23-cv-02920 has been stayed since April 2023 with only joint status-report activity, there may be un-docketed substitutions or withdrawals — especially on the Hitachi side given the Thales→Hitachi transition and the Faegre Drinker associate turnover evidenced by Kachmer's 2024 withdrawal. A PACER pull of the live docket sheet (or the S.D.N.Y. "attorney list" report) is the only way to confirm who currently holds the appearance.
4. Piper's Delaware local counsel in the severed D. Del. action (1:23-cv-00314) — not identified in the material I retrieved.

Sourcing: S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-02920 docket entries D.I. 34 (stay), D.I. 33 (Piper's joint letter motion), D.I. 35/38 (Brzezynski pro hac vice for GTS), D.I. 36–37/39–40 (plaintiff's pro hac vice motions); D. Del. 1:23-cv-00314/22-49 docket entries D.I. 10–11 (name-change stipulation), D.I. 24 (transfer stipulation signed by Rahmeier), D.I. 30–31 (Piper pro hac vice); PTAB mandatory notices and power-of-attorney papers in IPR2023-00439/-00452/-00460/-00468/-00470 and IPR2024-00947; Fed. Cir. docket for 24-2223/24-2264.