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

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

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

Below is a sourced case overview. Where a fact could not be verified from primary or reputable secondary sources, I flag it. Note a threshold wrinkle: the docket number you supplied (1:23‑cv‑00314, D. Del.) sits inside a cluster of related Metrom Rail cases, and press/aggregator coverage frequently blends them — I've separated them where the record allows.

---

1. Parties, accused technology, and the commercial dispute

Metrom Rail, LLC is a U.S. rail-safety technology company — not a classic PAE. It is the assignee of the five asserted patents and appears (per the Federal Circuit's May 2026 opinion) to make and sell the AURA CAS collision‑avoidance product, a UWB/GPS system that detects train separation and warns operators. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies Metrom in case 1:23‑cv‑00314 under the "Product company" asserter category rather than as a pure patent monetizer, and third‑party docket aggregators label it "Operating Company." I could not verify Metrom's headquarters from a primary source (its named inventors are clustered in northern Illinois, and the NPE database lists the asserter as a U.S. corporation), so I'd describe it as a small U.S. rail‑safety operating company asserting against much larger OEMs — a "practicing entity vs. global supplier" posture rather than the archetypal troll profile. Defendants are Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. — the renamed U.S. ground‑transportation business of Thales, later acquired/rebranded as Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. (the Federal Circuit caption reads "HITACHI RAIL GTS USA INC., FKA GROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS USA INC.") — and Piper Networks, Inc., a UWB positioning company. The D. Del. memorandum order in the related case (Civil Action No. 22‑49‑RGA) notes the Thales entity's renaming and treats the defendants as two bidding teams: Siemens Mobility/Humatics Corp. and Thales(GTS)/Piper.

The accused product is the UWB‑based train control and positioning system supplied to the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NYC Transit), referred to in the complaints as the "MTA UWB System." The complaint analysis describes wayside UWB "beacons"/"anchors" plus train‑mounted UWB "nodes"/radios and onboard computers, used as the primary source of train speed/position for Automatic Train Operation (ATO) and Automatic Train Protection (ATP), with an interoperability requirement so a train equipped by one team can run on track equipped by the other. Metrom allegedly pegged the opportunity at over $7 billion in "the largest single market for transit infrastructure in the United States." The background dispute, per the 22‑49‑RGA memorandum order, is that Metrom lost the MTA work to the Siemens/Humatics and Thales/Piper coalitions and then sued for infringement plus tortious interference and civil conspiracy (alleging, e.g., that defendants obtained Metrom's bid amount and lobbied MTA through undisclosed consultants). The district court sustained the tortious‑interference claim only against Siemens and held it preempted as to Thales/GTS, Piper, and Humatics.

2. The asserted patents (five), and the PTAB/IPR overlay that has largely gutted the case

The same petitioner group (Siemens Mobility, GTS USA, Humatics, Piper) ran a joint IPR campaign: IPR2023‑00468 and IPR2023‑00470 targeted the '131 and '227 patents; IPR2023‑00439 targeted the '595 and was denied institution ("Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review," 35 U.S.C. § 314, panel of Calve, Jung, Powell). The '595 decision also states that IPR2023‑00452 and IPR2023‑00460 involved the same parties — I believe these correspond to the '709 and '363, but I could not confirm the patent‑to‑IPR‑number mapping from a primary source, so treat that as unverified. On the merits, the Board held all claims of the '227 and claims 1–16 of the '131 unpatentable as obvious over Grisham (U.S. Pat. 6,759,948), Nixon (WO 03/009254), and Douglas (U.S. Pat. 8,874,359), while upholding claims 17–20 of the '131. On May 11, 2026, a nonprecedential Federal Circuit panel (Nos. 2024‑2223, ‑2236, ‑2264) affirmed the invalidation of the '227 and '131 claims 1–16 and reversed as to claims 17–20, holding the Board misconstrued "data representing the separation distance" — with Judge Taranto concurring‑in‑part and dissenting‑in‑part on party‑presentation/forfeiture grounds (citing Clark v. Sweeney and In re Google Tech. Holdings). Metrom has since filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc raising those same waiver and Graham/Fox Factory nexus issues (signed by Gregory C. Schodde, counsel for Metrom). Practical upshot: the two collision‑avoidance patents asserted here have now been effectively eliminated, leaving the worker‑protection and decentralized‑signaling patents as the live battleground.

3. Procedural posture, venue, and why the case matters

The '314 action was filed March 22, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and is reported by third‑party docket aggregators (Patentpia, Ex Parte) as assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews and flagged as closed; I could not confirm the disposition (settlement, voluntary dismissal, transfer, or consolidation) from PACER or a court opinion, so please treat the "closed" status and the judge assignment as aggregator‑sourced rather than verified — consistent with your existing summary's inability to confirm a disposition. The related D. Del. No. 22‑49‑RGA (Metrom Rail v. Siemens Mobility, Humatics, Thales/GTS, Piper) is the case that generated the substantive rulings: Judge Andrews granted in substantial part the motions to dismiss (dismissing direct‑infringement claims against Humatics and Piper, preempting tortious interference as to Humatics/Piper/Thales, and dismissing the civil‑conspiracy count), sustained indirect and willful infringement allegations from a June 24, 2019 notice letter / the January 13, 2022 complaint, and severed the case into a Siemens/Humatics track and a Thales/Piper track. A stay order issued in S.D.N.Y. (the opinion referencing IPRs, Humatics, a Second Amended Complaint, and a complete stay pending PTAB) reflects the migration of the earlier litigation to the Southern District of New York, where Metrom and Piper are already litigating; and Judge Burroughs (D. Mass., No. 25‑cv‑11446‑ADB) recently transferred a newer Metrom suit against Piper and the MBTA to S.D.N.Y., noting the existing S.D.N.Y. litigation and Piper's Delaware incorporation. Venue in Delaware matters because Piper is a Delaware corporation (satisfying TC Heartland), Delaware is the default forum for patent cases, and Judge Andrews is an experienced patent jurist; but the underlying project is New York‑centric, which is why defendants pressed and largely achieved a New York forum — and why the practical center of gravity of the Metrom campaign has shifted to S.D.N.Y.

Why the case is notable: (i) Market context — this is a fight over NYC Transit's UWB‑based replacement of legacy signaling, arguably the largest U.S. transit‑infrastructure procurement, with a small U.S. safety‑technology innovator suing the global rail OEMs (Hitachi/Thales, Siemens) and their UWB partners (Humatics, Piper) that won the work. (ii) IPR linkage — the defendants' coordinated, joint IPR strategy (five‑patent campaign under a common petitioner group) has already knocked out the '131 and '227 patents at the Board and largely at the Federal Circuit, a good illustration of parallel PTAB/venue strategy by deep‑pocket OEM defendants; the surviving claims, however, are now the subject of an en banc petition implicating appellate waiver doctrine. (iii) Assertion patterns — despite the operating‑company profile (Stanford "Product company" tag; AURA CAS sales), the aggressive multi‑front campaign (D. Del., S.D.N.Y., D. Mass. against a transit agency, plus tortious‑interference and civil‑conspiracy theories) invites the "efficient infringer vs. small innovator" framing rather than the classic PAE narrative. (iv) Technology significance — ultra‑wideband ranging and decentralized/positive train control sit at the center of both the collision‑avoidance and worker‑protection patents, which is precisely the technology MTA is deploying.

Sourcing caveats. Verified: party names and the Thales→GTS USA→Hitachi Rail GTS USA evolution, the accused MTA UWB system and $7B figure, the five patents' titles/IPC classes and filing dates, IPR2023‑00439 denial and the existence of IPR2023‑00452/‑00460/‑00468/‑00470, the Board's obviousness holdings, and the May 11, 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance‑in‑part/reversal‑in‑part with Taranto's partial dissent (Fed. Cir. No. 24‑2223). Not verified from primary sources: the '314 case's judge, its "closed" status and disposition; Metrom's corporate headquarters and current litigation/assertion strategy beyond the complaints; and the exact IPR numbers for the '709 and '363. The Finnegan D. Mass. update and the Fed. Cir. opinion are strong secondary/primary anchors, but PACER dockets for 1:23‑cv‑00314 and the S.D.N.Y. action should be pulled directly before relying on any current posture statement.

I'll research this case through multiple searches on the docket, rulings, and related PTAB proceedings.

Let me dig into the docket and related proceedings.

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (Hitachi Rail GTS USA) et al., No. 1:23-cv-00314 (D. Del.)

Analyst's note on case architecture (essential for reading this timeline): No. 1:23-cv-00314 is not a standalone case; it is the severed "Thales/GTS + Piper" branch of an earlier, larger suit, and it did not stay in Delaware. The five asserted patents — U.S. 9,043,131; 8,812,227; 10,179,595; 10,737,709; 10,778,363 — were originally asserted in Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del., filed 2022-01-13) against two defendant groups (Siemens + Humatics; Thales/GTS + Piper). In March 2023 Judge Andrews severed that case, generating the 23-313 (Siemens/Humatics) and 23-314 (GTS/Piper) files. Both severed actions then migrated to S.D.N.Y., and the substantive patent merits were resolved almost entirely at the PTAB and Federal Circuit rather than in the district court. I flag uncertainty where the record is thin.

---

Chronological developments

1. Pre-suit notice (2019)

• 2019-06-24 — Metrom sent defendants a letter identifying three of the five ultimately-asserted patents. This letter is the notice anchor for induced/contributory/willful infringement; the filing of the original complaint (2022-01-13) supplied notice as to the other two. Metrom Rail v. Siemens Mobility, No. 22-49-RGA, D.I. 51 (D. Del. Mar. 2023).

2. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-01-13 — Original complaint, No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del.): five patent counts, plus Count VI (tortious interference with prospective economic advantage) and Count VII ("civil conspiracy") against all defendants. The amended complaint (D.I. 32) accused the UWB-based train-control/signaling systems supplied by the Siemens/Humatics and Thales/Piper teams to NYC Transit (MTA) for its "Pilot" project and follow-on signal-replacement programs — a market Metrom valued at $7B+.
• 2022-01-13 — Contemporaneous with the original complaint, the IPR clock started (see §6).
• 2023-03 (exact day not legible in the reported order) — Memorandum Order, No. 22-49-RGA, D.I. 51 (CourtListener op. 9635961; recap PDF at storage.courtlistener.com):
  • Motions to dismiss (D.I. 37, 39) GRANTED in part / DENIED in part: direct-infringement claims dismissed as to Humatics and Piper; indirect and willful infringement sustained (knowledge tied to the 2019-06-24 letter / 2022-01-13 complaint); Count VI (tortious interference) dismissed against Piper, Humatics and Thales as preempted by federal patent law (surviving only against Siemens, where the court found additional non-infringement elements); Count VII (civil conspiracy) dismissed against all defendants.
  • Motion to sever (D.I. 41) GRANTED: one case against Siemens + Humatics, another against Thales/GTS + Piper.

3. Creation of No. 23-cv-00314 (2023-03-22) and transfer out of Delaware

• 2023-03-22 — The severed GTS/Piper action was docketed in D. Del. as No. 1:23-cv-00314 (Judge Richard G. Andrews), naming Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (Thales, later Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) and Piper Networks, Inc. Filing date confirmed by the Stanford NPE Litigation Database and Patentpia's litigation record (ID 127311). Jury demand: yes.
• Spring 2023 — The severed actions were transferred to the S.D.N.Y., docketed as:
  • Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. & Piper Networks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02920 (S.D.N.Y.) (Judge Denise L. Cote) — the direct successor to 23-314; and
  • Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. & Humatics Corp., No. 1:23-cv-03057 (S.D.N.Y.) (Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil).
  • The transfer/severance status is recited by the Board in the '227 Final Written Decision (IPR2023-00470, Paper citing PO Paper 26 at 2). The S.D.N.Y. successors subsequently amended their pleadings (e.g., amended complaint at D.I. 9 in 23-cv-02920).
  • Commercial dockets list 1:23-cv-00314 as "Closed" in D. Del. — consistent with the case having been transferred, not with a merits disposition. I could not retrieve a PACER docket sheet for 23-314 and therefore cannot verify the precise transfer order date, the answers/counterclaims filed, or whether a Rule 12 motion was filed in the S.D.N.Y. successor before transfer.
• No Markman/claim-construction order issued in 23-314 (or in 22-49) as far as I can determine. The only claim-construction position of record from the district court litigation is Metrom's infringement contention that "data representing the separation distance" means "data used to determine the time of flight" (J.A. 1561, quoted in the Federal Circuit opinion) — a position that later proved fatal in the appeal.

4. Litigation stayed pending IPR (S.D.N.Y.)

• In the Siemens/Humatics S.D.N.Y. action, the court granted a complete stay pending the IPRs, including the non-patent Count IV (tortious interference), holding that "under the three factors courts generally analyze, considered alongside the totality of the circumstances, a complete stay is warranted," and that the patent claims were "the main thrust of this litigation" (citing Kannuu and PopSockets). Text available via the PTAB exhibit copy at ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1556106. The order date is not stated in the copy I reviewed (likely 2023–2024); treat as unverified.
• No stay motion in the GTS/Piper branch is documented in what I could retrieve; the practical effect of the IPR invalidity (below) was dispositive regardless.

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• The decisive "discovery" was not in the district court but at the PTAB, and it centered on Metrom's objective-indicia (copying / non-obviousness) case:
  • Metrom's theory: David Garcia, embedded with Metrom while at Parsons and given access to Metrom's AURA collision-avoidance technology, later joined petitioner Piper and became a VP; Piper's "Helix" system allegedly copied Metrom's patented AURA CAS.
  • 2023-12-12 — Metrom moved to submit supplemental information (Exs. 2030–36) in the IPRs to corroborate Garcia's access, two days before petitioners' reply (2023-12-15). Petitioners opposed and objected; the Board heard argument on the motion at the oral hearing. See the March 28, 2024 hearing transcript excerpts (ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1550914).
  • Depositions taken: James Marchi (Metrom CEO), Gunther, Conti, and others; voir dire-style challenges to petitioners' expert (Mr. Andrews, characterized as automotive-focused with little rail-safety experience) versus Metrom's railway expert (Mr. Conti).

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings (the de facto merits stage)

Petitioners Siemens Mobility, Inc., Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc., Humatics Corp. and Piper Networks, Inc. jointly filed a family of IPRs (real parties in interest also include Thales USA, Inc.):

• 2023-01-13 — IPR2023-00468 petition filed (Patent 9,043,131); the Board instituted on all claims of both patents.
• Prior art: Grisham (U.S. 6,759,948) as the primary reference (UWB rail collision avoidance), with Nixon (WO 03/009254 A1) for GPS functionality and Douglas (U.S. 8,874,359) for location tracking; also Suzuki (EP 1 785 744) in some grounds.
• 2024-03-28 — PTAB oral argument in IPR2023-00468 and -470.
• 2024-06-18 — Final Written Decisions (see table). The Board rejected Metrom's secondary-considerations case, finding no presumption of nexus because the AURA CAS product contained important unclaimed features ("key machine function monitoring and remote data reporting") and no nexus to unique characteristics.

7. Appeal to the Federal Circuit

• 2024-08-26 — Petitioners' notice of cross-appeal as to '131 claims 17–20 (IPR2023-00468).
• ~2024-08-29/30 — Metrom's appeal. Docketed as Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-2223 (Metrom), 2024-2236 and 2024-2264 (cross-appeals); captioned against Siemens, Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. (fka Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc.), Humatics and Piper.
• 2026-05-11 — Nonprecedential opinion: AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART; costs to appellees/cross-appellants. CAFC PDF; Justia; analysis at Fed Circuit Blog, 2026-05-12 and Thomson Reuters IP Law Daily, 2026-05-12.
  • Affirmed: all claims of the '227 patent and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent unpatentable as obvious; Metrom's nexus/commercial-success arguments rejected under Fox Factory.
  • Reversed: the Board's upholding of '131 claims 17–20. The panel held the Board erred in construing "data representing the separation distance" (limitation 17C) to mean the computed separation distance, rather than the time-of-flight data used to compute it — noting Metrom's own contrary district-court position (J.A. 1561). Claims 17–20 are therefore unpatentable as obvious.
  • Judge Taranto concurred-in-part and dissented-in-part, objecting that the majority sua sponte adopted a claim construction no party advanced (petitioners argued only that the Board misread Grisham), contrary to party-presentation/preservation principles (Clark v. Sweeney; In re Google Tech. Holdings; Netflix v. DivX).
• 2026-06 (~) — Metrom filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (available at fedcircuitblog.com), arguing the panel's nexus framework conflicts with Graham v. John Deere/Stratoflex and that the claim construction violated Clark v. Sweeney. I could not verify the disposition of that petition — the '131 and '227 patents are invalidated on the current record.

8. Post-remand / successor S.D.N.Y. activity

• 2026-05-21 — Law360 reported that Piper Networks was denied dismissal from the New York action, the court finding the complaint gave Piper proper notice of the infringement claims (reported in Law360 Appellate, 2026-05-21). This indicates the S.D.N.Y. successor case (23-cv-02920) is still active, with the asserted patents now narrowed by the PTAB/CAFC outcome.
• 2026-05-11 — Law360 headline (via CB Insights company profile): "Siemens Erases Collision-Avoidance Patents at Federal Circuit."

---

Present posture / effective outcome

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, fees, or damages award occurred in 1:23-cv-00314 or its S.D.N.Y. successor. No settlement or consent judgment is documented in the sources I could reach.
• D. Del. No. 1:23-cv-00314: transferred out; docketed "Closed" in Delaware, live in S.D.N.Y. as No. 1:23-cv-02920. This is the largest documentation gap — I could not obtain the 23-314 PACER docket to confirm the transfer order date, answers, counterclaims (e.g., DJ counts of non-infringement/invalidity), or any Rule 12 activity. Treat the "no counterclaims" implication as unverified.
• Merits outcome for the key instrument patents: The '131 and '227 patents are entirely invalidated (all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16 by the Board and affirmed; '131 claims 17–20 by the Federal Circuit), which strips Metrom of what the Board treated as the core collision-avoidance family and materially undermines the parallel S.D.N.Y. cases. The '595, '709 and '363 patents (and, in a different forum, '738) were not resolved on the merits in any decision I could verify.
• Non-patent claims: Count VI (tortious interference) survived only against Siemens and was stayed pending IPR in S.D.N.Y.; Count VII (civil conspiracy) was dismissed as to all.

Parallel PTAB effect on the litigation — bottom line

1. The joint Siemens/GTS/Humatics/Piper IPR campaign functionally transferred the case's merits to the PTAB and Federal Circuit, and produced a complete stay in the Siemens/Humatics S.D.N.Y. action.
2. The '227 and '131 IPR decisions + 2026-05-11 Federal Circuit affirmance/reversal eliminated the two flagship patents from the litigation, converting the remaining S.D.N.Y. dispute (23-cv-02920, and 23-cv-03057 to the extent revived) into a contest over the '595, '709 and '363 patents plus the Siemens-only tortious interference claim.
3. Metrom's only confirmed PTAB win was the 2024-11-20 § 325(d) denial of institution on U.S. 9,731,738 — and that patent does not appear among the five asserted in 23-314.
4. The copying narrative (Garcia/Piper "Helix" vs. Metrom "AURA CAS") failed as objective evidence of non-obviousness at both the Board and the Federal Circuit.

Key counsel of record (from Federal Circuit docket)

• Metrom Rail: McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Gregory C. Schodde, Christian H. Hallerud, Philipp Ruben, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar).
• Siemens Mobility: Crowell & Moring (Joshua James; Ali H. Khan Tehrani).
• Ground Transportation Systems USA / Hitachi Rail GTS USA: Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath (Lora A. Brzezynski; Thatcher A. Rahmeier).
• Humatics: Wolf Greenfield & Sacks.
• Piper Networks: Wisnia PC (Howard N. Wisnia).

Explicit verification gaps

• No PACER docket sheet, answers, counterclaims, or a transfer order for 1:23-cv-00314; the case's "closed" status is from third-party aggregators (Ex Parte, NPE database), not PACER.
• Dates for the S.D.N.Y. stay order and the transfer orders are not confirmed.
• Dispositions of IPR2023-00439/-00452/-00460 (likely covering '595, '709, '363) are unverified.
• Outcome of Metrom's June 2026 rehearing petition is unverified.
• No Markman order in either D. Del. or S.D.N.Y. was located; the only district-court claim-construction position of record is Metrom's infringement contention quoted in the Federal Circuit opinion.

I'll research the counsel of record for Metrom Rail in this case.

Let me search the docket and parties directly.

Good leads emerging. Let me dig into the specific 1:23-cv-00314 docket.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC

Case: Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (now Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) et al., No. 1:23-cv-00314-RGA (D. Del.)

Sourcing caveat (read first)

I was not able to retrieve a clean, current docket-sheet "attorneys" block for 1:23-cv-00314 itself from PACER or CourtListener within this session — the free aggregators surface the docket text only in fragments. What follows is built from (a) a fragment of the 23-314 docket showing a pro hac vice motion by a Metrom Rail attorney, (b) the closely related Metrom Rail D. Del. docket (22-cv-00049-RGA), and (c) the S.D.N.Y. counterpart (1:23-cv-02920). All three are the same plaintiff-side litigation team, but items I could not confirm directly on the 23-314 docket are flagged.

---

Confirmed on the 22-cv-00049-RGA docket (same plaintiff, same campaign)

Specifically on 1:23-cv-00314

Interpretation: The Farnan LLP pair supplies the Delaware-local counsel required by D. Del. practice, while McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Schodde, Ruben, and previously Spuhler) supplies out-of-state patent-trial counsel, admitted pro hac vice. No in-house counsel for Metrom Rail was identified in any source reviewed — Metrom Rail is a small, closely held patent holder, and the retainer-based outside team appears to run the case.

---

Cross-checks / corroboration

• The S.D.N.Y. counterpart (1:23-cv-02920, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) lists Plaintiff's attorneys as Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Gregory C. Schodde, and Ronald H. Spuhler — consistent with a single team litigating the whole Metrom Rail campaign. (UniCourt case-page listing.)
• The PTAB side (IPRs filed by Siemens/Hitachi-GTS/Piper against Metrom's patents, e.g., IPR2024-00947) shows the defense side designating Faegre Drinker (Rahmeier), Crowell & Moring (James, Supko, Schmitz), Wolf Greenfield (Giunta, Nieberg), Wisnia P.C., and Dority & Manning — useful only to confirm which names are not plaintiff's counsel.

What I could not confirm

• The complete, dated attorney-appearance list on the 23-314 docket (e.g., whether Brian Farnan remains designated lead there, or whether Farnan LLP's later firm changes altered the local-counsel lineup).
• Philipp Ruben's exact firm and office as of 2023.
• Any withdrawal of counsel or substitution of local counsel during the pendency of 23-314.
• Whether the case has been voluntarily dismissed (one aggregator lists status "Closed"), which would affect which appearances remain "of record."

Recommendation: Pull the live 23-314 docket sheet (D.I. 1–10 and any later appearances) on PACER or CourtListener to lock down the current appearance list and confirm Ruben's firm, since those are the only items above resting on secondary/aggregated sources.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case using web searches.

I found a key fact — this D. Del. case appears to have been transferred to S.D.N.Y. Let me dig deeper.

Let me get the actual docket entries showing counsel appearances.

Bottom line up front

Before naming lawyers, one correction to the case posture that matters for "counsel of record": D. Del. C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00314 was short-lived. It was opened on 3/22/2023 at the direction of Judge Andrews' severance order in C.A. 22-49-RGA (D.I. 23 there, D.I. 23 here), and on 4/5/2023 Judge Andrews signed the parties' joint stipulation (D.I. 24, filed by Thatcher Rahmeier for Ground Transportation Systems USA) transferring the case to S.D.N.Y. (D.I. 25); it was docketed in S.D.N.Y. on 4/6/2023 as No. 1:23-cv-02920, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc., initially before Judge Analisa Torres and reassigned to Judge Denise L. Cote on 4/12/2023 (D.I. 27, initial pretrial conference notice). On 4/21/2023 Judge Cote stayed the case in its entirety pending the PTAB final written decisions (D.I. 34, granting the joint letter motion at D.I. 33). So counsel of record should be read off the S.D.N.Y. 23-cv-02920 docket, supplemented by the Delaware filings that were carried over.

Defendant 1 — Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (n/k/a Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.)

Note: Faegre Drinker's PTAB papers list additional Faegre Drinker backup attorneys as a single collective petitioner team (one name truncated in the notice text I could retrieve — not verified, so I am not naming it). I found no in-house counsel of record on the public docket.

Defendant 2 — Piper Networks, Inc.

Gap to flag: Piper's Delaware counsel on the original C.A. 22-49-RGA docket (a Rule 7.1 disclosure statement for Piper appears at D.I. 8 in the transferred/constructed docket, mirroring D.I. 24 in C.A. 22-49-RGA) is not identified in the materials I could retrieve. Given the case existed in Delaware for only ~2 weeks before transfer, it is possible Piper never formalized a Delaware appearance. I did not want to guess a Delaware firm.

Related/appellate counsel (useful context, not counsel in the D. Del. case per se)

• Mark M. Supko and Kassidy L. Schmitz, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C. — counsel for Siemens Mobility in the IPRs and the Federal Circuit cross-appeal (they filed the cross-appellants' extension motions and briefs in No. 24-2223). Siemens is not a defendant in this severed case, but shares the joint petitioner team with GTS and Piper.
• Gregory C. Schodde and Alejandro Menchaca, McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Chicago) — plaintiff's counsel (pro hac vice motions at D.I. 36–37, granted D.I. 39–40); Schodde argued the Federal Circuit appeal for Metrom Rail. Listed here only to avoid confusion with defense counsel.

Sourcing / confidence

• Docket entries cited (D.I. 23–28, 33–40 in the transferred docket / S.D.N.Y. 23-cv-02920) come from aggregated docket listings (Patexia lawsuit page for Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. et al, id. 188184; UniCourt case page; CourtListener docket and opinion pages). I did not pull the raw PACER docket in real time, so entry numbers should be re-verified on PACER before being relied on in a filing.
• PTAB mandatory-notice designations (Faegre Drinker/Rahmeier for GTS; Dority & Manning and Wisnia for Piper; Crowell & Moring for Siemens) come from the IPR2024-00947 "Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notice Information" (Oct. 2, 2024) and related PTAB papers.
• Nothing here is drawn from sealed material; no defense filing appears sealed in the portions of the docket I could see. The case is stayed, so there is likely no trial-team expansion beyond the above; if any additional appearances occurred post-May 2026 (after the Federal Circuit's 5/11/2026 decision in No. 24-2223 affirmed invalidity of the '227 claims and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent and reversed as to claims 17–20), I could not confirm them.