Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al.

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

Good — I'm finding substantial post-filing developments. Let me dig into the IPR/Federal Circuit angle and the related New York litigation.

Now let me check the IPR status for the '738 patent, the rehearing petition outcome, and company backgrounds.

Case Overview & Background

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al., No. 1:25-cv-11446-ADB (D. Mass.)

Parties and what they do. Metrom Rail, LLC is an Illinois company based in Lakemoor, Illinois that "operates in the area of decentralized train control" and actually manufactures and sells a collision-avoidance product (the AURA CAS), which it says has been deployed on more than 3,000 maintenance-of-way vehicles in the U.S. and Canada since 2012. It is therefore best described as a small operating company/commercializer rather than a classic patent assertion entity or university — although its litigation posture (asserting a family of patents against a coalition of rail suppliers across multiple districts) has NPE-style features, and its revenue now plainly includes patent assertion against competitors and their transit-agency customers. That characterization is my read of the record, not a finding in any opinion. Defendant Piper Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego with locations in New York, Delaware, Texas, and Georgia that "holds itself out as a rail engineering solutions provider and systems integrator"; it did not enter the rail collision-avoidance sector until roughly 2019 and offers an Automatic Train Protection-Overlay ("ATP-O") product built on its ultra-wideband ("UWB")-based Rail Positioning System ("RPS"). Defendant MBTA is the public transit agency serving parts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The dispute has a personnel-poaching narrative: Metrom frequently bids alongside larger integrators (notably Parsons Transportation Group) and gave those integrators access to its technical details; after Metrom and Parsons lost the MBTA Green Line bid to BBR Verkehrstechnik/United Rail — a project MBTA later cancelled when the winner could not deliver — Piper allegedly hired two Parsons engineers who had worked on Metrom's technology, made one of them "the lead Piper representative" on its MBTA project, and won the replacement contract. Metrom alleges Piper "used the former Parsons engineers to develop and field its own collision avoidance system that mimics the systems previously developed by Metrom," and that Piper has offered the accused systems to other transit agencies beyond MBTA. (S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113 (Op. & Order, May 20, 2026); D. Mass. Dkt. 62 (Op. & Order, Dec. 8, 2025).)

Accused technology and asserted patents. The accused instrumentality is Piper's RPS/ATP-O platform and specifically the Green Line Train Protection System ("GLTPS") that Piper is implementing for MBTA under an RFP (RFP 80F-24) issued June 7, 2024 for a "stand-alone, non-vital overlay system"; the MBTA Board approved a $113 million contract with Piper on February 26, 2025. The accused system combines carborne UWB "tags" and wayside UWB "anchors" (supplemented by cameras, LiDAR, and GPS-RTK) to establish train position, overspeed protection, and brake assurance, and it interfaces with existing trackside signaling to enforce stop aspects. Metrom asserted two UWB train-control patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,043,131 ("the '131 patent"), "Rail Vehicle Collision Avoidance System" — vehicle-mounted modules with UWB transponder sensor modules that use "time of flight" to detect separation distance between rail vehicles, plus a GPS unit, control electronics module, and operator interface; and U.S. Patent No. 9,731,738 ("the '738 patent"), "Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control" — a control signal interface subsystem plus a vehicle-mounted subsystem (both containing UWB components) that receives a control-signal status, determines "a rule for behavior" of the vehicle, observes operation to evaluate compliance, and can trigger braking when the subsystem separation falls below a threshold. Only claim 1 of the '738 patent remains live; the '131 patent is now unassertable (see below).

Procedural posture and why venue drove everything. Metrom filed in D. Mass. (Boston) on May 21, 2025; the case was assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs (No. 25-cv-11446-ADB). On December 8, 2025, Judge Burroughs issued a 17-page opinion: (i) granting Piper's motion to dismiss/transfer for improper venue under TC Heartland, finding Metrom's Massachusetts-presence allegations "based on little more than speculation" and denying venue discovery; (ii) severing and staying the MBTA claims pending resolution against Piper (declining to reach the "customer-suit exception" because the traditional stay factors sufficed); and (iii) denying Metrom's preliminary injunction and expedited-discovery motions, and MBTA's motion to dismiss, all without prejudice. Venue was the whole ballgame: Piper is Delaware-incorporated, so § 1400(b) required Metrom to show acts of infringement plus a "regular and established place of business" in Massachusetts, and Piper's affidavit established it had no office there and a single remote employee whose last day coincided with the filing date. Because a related Metrom case was already pending in S.D.N.Y., the Piper claims were transferred there on December 16, 2025 and docketed as No. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC before Judge Denise L. Cote; the MBTA claims remain severed and stayed in D. Mass. The practical significance is that Metrom's bid for prompt injunctive relief was defeated by a venue/forum fight, then replayed in New York, and the case is now consolidated in the forum where Metrom was already litigating an overlapping family of claims.

Why the case is notable. Four things stand out. First, it is a defensive-coalition case: Siemens Mobility, Hitachi Rail GTS USA (fka Ground Transportation Systems USA), Humatics Corp., and Piper Networks jointly petitioned for IPR on Metrom's patents (with Thales USA identified as an additional real party in interest), and the PTAB invalidated all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,812,227 and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part on May 11, 2026 (Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223, -2236, -2264 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (nonprecedential)), holding claims 17–20 of the '131 patent obvious as well — wiping out the '131 patent entirely. Judge Taranto dissented on the cross-appeal, and Metrom filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in June 2026 arguing violation of the party-presentation principle (Clark v. Sweeney) and raising a notable Ormco/nexus question under Graham; I could not verify from available sources whether that petition has been decided. Second, the '738 patent is a PTAB-survivor but not for lack of trying: in IPR2024-00947, Siemens, Ground Transportation Systems USA, and Piper itself petitioned against the '738 patent, and institution was denied on November 19, 2024 under § 325(d), a denial affirmed by a Delegated Rehearing Panel on April 4, 2025. That asymmetry — one patent invalidated, the other surviving on discretionary denial — is why the '738 patent is now the entire case. Third, the S.D.N.Y. rulings keep the case alive against Piper: Judge Cote's May 20, 2026 opinion denied Piper's renewed motion to dismiss in part, allowing the '738 claim to proceed (rejecting Piper's argument that Metrom pleaded only what it "believed" discovery would show) and dismissing the '131 claim as moot, and on June 4, 2026 she denied the pending preliminary-injunction motion without prejudice and stayed the case until the Federal Circuit's '131 mandate issues, at which point the parties will brief claim construction and validity of the '738 patent. Fourth, the commercial stakes are significant: MBTA's Green Line train-protection procurement is a marquee UWB-based alternative to full positive-train-control retrofits, and a ruling against Piper could affect how transit agencies and their systems integrators (Siemens, Hitachi, Humatics) procure UWB train-control overlays generally.

Sourcing notes and open items. Verified against the D. Mass. and S.D.N.Y. dockets as reproduced on CourtListener/RECAP, the S.D.N.Y. opinions at Dkt. 62 (D. Mass.) and Dkt. 113 (S.D.N.Y.), the Federal Circuit opinion and Fed. Cir. Blog / VitalLaw summaries, PTAB filings in IPR2023-00468 and IPR2024-00947, Finnegan's D. Mass. litigation update, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, and Bloomberg Law/Law360 reports of the May 20, 2026 S.D.N.Y. decision. Counsel per the docket: Metrom — McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Gregory C. Schodde, Christian H. Hallerud, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar) and Philip C. Swain; Piper — Howard Wisnia (Wisnia PC), Andrea L. Martin (Troutman Pepper Locke), Nicole Cunningham and Steven A. Moore (Dority & Manning); IPR petitioners — Crowell & Moring (Joshua James, Kassidy Schmitz) and Faegre Drinker (Thatcher Rahmeier). I could not verify MBTA's counsel, the disposition of Metrom's June 2026 en banc petition, whether the Federal Circuit mandate has issued, whether any second IPR petition has been filed against the '738 patent, or whether the D. Mass. stay as to MBTA has been revisited — those should be confirmed against PACER and the Federal Circuit docket before being relied on. Also note an apparent scrivener's error in the S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2026 docket text attributing the preliminary-injunction motion to Piper; the opinion record shows the PI motion was Metrom's.

I'll research this case's procedural history and verify the developments referenced in the earlier sections before building the timeline.

I have strong material on the core rulings. Let me now verify the IPR denial, the rehearing petition, and any recent developments since June 2026.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority et al., No. 1:25-cv-11446-ADB (D. Mass.) → S.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC

This section chronologically tracks the procedural and substantive events. Where the earlier overview already covered a ruling's reasoning, I note the ruling and its docket cite rather than restating analysis. Items I could not verify are flagged in the closing box.

---

Timeline At A Glance

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2025-05-21 — Complaint (D. Mass. Dkt. 2). Metrom filed a two-patent infringement action against MBTA and Piper, attaching the '131 and '738 patents and a set of exhibits including MBTA procurement documents (Exhibits C–I: Piper signal modernization materials, the 57-14 Collision Avoidance System spec, RFP 24-16 Addendum 8, VE-16-045 Addendum 8, RFP 80F-24, Technical Specification VE-24-056, and the GLTPS-2 Staff Summary Presentation). Corporate disclosure statement and AO-120 USPTO notice followed (Dkts. 3–4, 2025-05-21). Case assigned to Judge Allison D. Burroughs (Dkt. 7, 2025-05-22); summons issued to both defendants (Dkt. 9).

No answer or counterclaims on the D. Mass. docket. Both defendants responded with motions to dismiss rather than answers, so no Rule 12 answer or counterclaim appears in the D. Mass. phase. I could not verify that Piper has filed an answer or counterclaims in S.D.N.Y. following the partial denial of its motion to dismiss — that is a live open item (see § 8).

2026-02-13 — First Amended Complaint (S.D.N.Y.). After transfer, Metrom filed a FAC purporting to assert claims against both Piper and MBTA. On 2026-02-27 Metrom acknowledged MBTA is not a party to the S.D.N.Y. action, and on 2026-03-04 filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserting claims only against Piper. The SAC carries forward only Claim 1 of the '738 patent (plus the '131 claim that was later mooted). (S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113 at 6–7.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

2025-06-27 — Metrom's PI and expedited-discovery motions (D. Mass. Dkts. 22, 23). Metrom sought to enjoin Piper from "continued bids and offers to sell and develop devices based on its infringing GLTPS," and sought discovery in aid of the PI. A joint briefing schedule was proposed 2025-07-09 and approved (Dkt. 26). After the discovery motion was fully briefed (Dkts. 31, 34), the PI motion was held in abeyance pending resolution of the venue motion (supplemental PI papers deferred by unopposed motion, Dkt. 56, granted 2025-10-09 at Dkt. 58).

2025-07-23 — Piper's motion to dismiss / transfer (D. Mass. Dkt. 35) and MBTA's motion to dismiss (D. Mass. Dkt. 40). Piper moved under Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(3), alternatively seeking transfer to S.D.N.Y. Piper's 2025-07-22 HR affidavit established no Massachusetts office and a single remote Massachusetts employee whose employment ended the day the complaint was filed.

2025-09-24 — MBTA's motion to sever and stay (D. Mass. Dkt. 54). MBTA sought severance of the claims against it and a stay until final judgment against Piper, invoking the traditional stay factors and the customer-suit exception.

2025-12-08 — Judge Burroughs's 17-page Memorandum and Order (D. Mass. Dkt. 62; op. reported at 2025 WL ______ / Lawyers Weekly No. 02-654-25). Disposition:

• Piper's motion GRANTED on venue: Metrom failed to make a prima facie showing under TC Heartland / § 1400(b) because Piper is Delaware-incorporated and Metrom's Massachusetts-presence theory was "based on little more than speculation." Venue discovery denied as unlikely to yield supporting evidence.
• Piper's Rule 12(b)(6) motion denied without prejudice, with leave to renew in the transferee court.
• MBTA's motion to sever and stay GRANTED on the traditional stay factors; the court expressly declined to reach the customer-suit exception.
• Metrom's PI and expedited-discovery motions DENIED without prejudice (renewable in the transferee forum).
• MBTA's motion to dismiss DENIED without prejudice, with leave to renew; six-month status reports ordered, first due 2026-06-08.

2025-12-16 — Transfer. The Piper claims were transferred to S.D.N.Y. and docketed as No. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC before Judge Denise L. Cote (Dkt. 63, "Case Transferred In"). The MBTA claims remain severed and stayed in D. Mass.

2026-03-06 — Piper's renewed Rule 12(b)(6) motion (S.D.N.Y.). Briefing: Metrom opposition 2026-03-27; Piper reply 2026-04-10; motion fully submitted.

2026-05-20 — Judge Cote's Opinion and Order (S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113). Piper's renewed motion denied in part. The court held the SAC plausibly pleads infringement of '738 Claim 1 because the MBTA RFP and Technical Specification VE-24-056 make compliance mandatory, so it is reasonable to infer Piper implemented GLTPS as specified; it rejected Piper's argument that Metrom impermissibly pleaded only what it "believes" discovery will show (citing Arista Records v. Doe 3 on information asymmetry). The '131 claim was dismissed as moot in light of the Federal Circuit's decision. (Bloomberg Law, 2026-05-21.)

No summary-judgment motion, no Markman proceeding, and no trial have occurred.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

None. No Markman hearing or claim-construction order has issued in either forum. Claim construction of the '738 patent is the next substantive milestone: Judge Cote's 2026-06-04 order directs that once the Federal Circuit's '131 mandate issues, "both parties shall be prepared to discuss a schedule for resolution of issues related to claim construction and the validity of the '738 Patent" (S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113-adjacent order). The central construction dispute teed up is the scope of "control signal interface subsystem" (whether Piper's standalone UWB wayside "anchors" meet it) — an issue the earlier overview flagged and that the S.D.N.Y. pleadings confirm.

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• PI-aid discovery, D. Mass.: denied 2025-12-08 (Dkt. 62).
• S.D.N.Y. PI-aid activity: a 2026-01-23 conference before Judge Cote (transcript filed 2026-02-06, Dkt. 95); Metrom filed a 2026-02-10 letter motion to submit a video file to chambers for review (Dkts. 97–98, with a 2026-02-11 Clerk's-office order on physical media). This indicates the court engaged with demonstrative/technical evidence on the PI record.
• No merits fact discovery is underway; the case is stayed (see § 7). The practical significance is that Metrom's effort to obtain early access to Piper's confidential design documentation — the information asymmetry Judge Cote credited at the pleading stage — remains unresolved and will be the first real discovery battleground if the stay lifts.

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion, and no judgment on the merits in either forum.

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or present posture

• No settlement; no dismissal of the action; no merits judgment.
• D. Mass. (as to MBTA): claims severed and stayed pending final judgment on the Piper claims, "without prejudice to subsequent motions to modify or vacate the stay for good cause shown" (Dkt. 62). Status reports due no less than every six months, first due 2026-06-08. I could not verify whether the June 2026 status report was filed or whether the stay has been revisited.
• S.D.N.Y. (as to Piper): by order dated 2026-06-04, the case is stayed until the Federal Circuit's decision on the '131 patent is final and its mandate has issued. The pending preliminary-injunction motion was denied without prejudice to renewal. Metrom must notify the court when the mandate issues, after which the parties will brief '738 claim construction and validity. (S.D.N.Y. docket entry, 2026-06-04; Judicial order on Dkt. 105.)
• Present posture (as of 2026-09-17): active but dormant; only the '738 patent remains assertable.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

IPR2023-00468 ('131) and IPR2023-00470 ('227) — filed 2023-01-13 by Siemens Mobility, Hitachi Rail GTS USA (fka Ground Transportation Systems USA), Humatics Corp., and Piper Networks (i.e., Piper was a petitioner against the patents it is now accused of infringing). Primary reference: Grisham (U.S. Pat. No. 6,759,948); with Nixon, Douglas, Suzuki, Richardson, McDaniel, and others. Oral hearing 2024-03-28; final written decisions 2024-06-18 (2024 WL 3048533): all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16 unpatentable as obvious; '131 claims 17–20 survived because the Board found Grisham did not disclose limitation 17C.

IPR2024-00947 ('738) — petitioned 2024-05-22 by Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, and Piper on claim 1 over Kane/Heddebaut. Patent Owner Preliminary Response 2024-08-28; institution denied 2024-11-19 under § 325(d) (Kane/Heddebaut substantially the same as Knott/Soderi). Petitioners sought Director Review (2024-12-19); the Director delegated to a Delegated Rehearing Panel (orders 2025-03-06 and 2025-03-10). The DRP affirmed the denial on 2025-04-04, holding, as a matter of first impression, that a reference appearing only in an examiner's search history is not "previously presented art." Petitioners requested refund of post-institution fees (2025-11-17; approved 2025-11-25). Effect: the '738 patent is the only asserted patent that survived PTAB intact — the entire remaining case.

*Federal Circuit appeal — Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223, -2236, -2264 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (nonprecedential; 2026 WL 1295229).* Opinion by Judge Dyk; Judge Taranto concurring-in-part/dissenting-in-part. The court affirmed the Board's invalidation of all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16 (rejecting Metrom's secondary-considerations/nexus argument under Fox Factory and its motivation-to-combine attacks on Grisham-based grounds), and reversed as to '131 claims 17–20 — holding the Board erred in construing "data representing the separation distance" to mean the computed distance rather than the data used in the time-of-flight calculation, which Grisham discloses. Taranto dissented, arguing the majority decided the cross-appeal on a claim construction never presented by Siemens, in tension with the party-presentation principle (Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7 (2025)). Effect: the '131 patent is invalid in its entirety, mooting the '131 claim in S.D.N.Y. (See Dkt. 113 n.2; joint letter of 2026-05-18 noting the ruling "will moot the arguments concerning the '131 Patent.")

Related/parallel litigations (context for the PTAB–district interplay):

• Metrom Rail, LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc., No. 23-cv-02920 (S.D.N.Y.) — the earlier UWB case (NY MTA contract); stayed pending the Federal Circuit IPR appeal (Memo Endorsement, ECF 51, 2025-03-03), as noted in D. Mass. Dkt. 62 n.1.
• Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-03057-MKV (S.D.N.Y.) — identified by the parties as the pending '738 case in the IPR2024-00947 papers; No. 23-cv-5097 (S.D.N.Y.) also appears in those papers (a decision at ECF 90 is cited as an IPR exhibit).
• Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del.) — identified in IPR2023-00468 as related.

---

Bottom line / outcome

There is no merits outcome yet. The case has been shaped almost entirely by venue, stay, and validity rulings:

1. Metrom lost its chosen forum (D. Mass.) as to Piper on TC Heartland venue grounds (2025-12-08) and its early injunctive relief was deferred, then denied without prejudice in both forums.
2. The MBTA remained in D. Mass. but is severed and stayed.
3. The '131 patent was invalidated by the Federal Circuit (2026-05-11), leaving only Claim 1 of the '738 patent — which is the sole reason the case survives, because the PTAB refused to institute on the '738 patent (§ 325(d), affirmed 2025-04-04).
4. As of today, S.D.N.Y. is stayed pending issuance of the Federal Circuit's '131 mandate; on mandate, the court will schedule claim construction and validity of the '738 patent. A renewal of Metrom's preliminary-injunction motion remains possible.

Open items / verification flags

• Rehearing petition: the earlier overview states Metrom filed a combined panel-rehearing/rehearing-en-banc petition in June 2026 (citing Clark v. Sweeney and an Ormco/nexus issue). I could not verify filing or disposition. Given Taranto's dissent and the nonprecedential posture, this is plausible but must be confirmed against the Federal Circuit docket (Nos. 2024-2223 et al.).
• Mandate status: whether the Federal Circuit mandate had issued as of 2026-09-17 is unverified; this directly determines when the S.D.N.Y. stay lifts. If a rehearing petition is pending, the mandate would be tolled.
• S.D.N.Y. answer/counterclaims: whether Piper has answered or counterclaimed (e.g., invalidity/non-infringement) since the partial denial of its MTD is unverified.
• D. Mass. status report (due 2026-06-08) and any modification of the MBTA stay: unverified.
• S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2026 docket text refers both to a "105 Motion for Preliminary Injunction" and to "Piper's March 23, 2026 renewed motion for a preliminary injunction." A PI by Piper (the accused infringer) makes no sense; this appears to be a scrivener's error in the docket text, consistent with the earlier overview's flag. Treat the PI as Metrom's.
• Minor date discrepancy: McAndrews's press release describes the IPR2024-00947 institution denial as "Nov. 20"; the PTAB decision and the docket reflect 2024-11-19.
• Thales USA as an additional real party in interest in the IPRs appeared in the earlier overview but I did not independently re-verify it here.

Primary sources: D. Mass. Dkt. 62 (2025-12-08 Mem. & Order); S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113 (2026-05-20 Op. & Order); S.D.N.Y. docket entries (2026-06-04 stay order; 2026-02-10/11 video-file filings); Fed. Cir. No. 24-2223 opinion (May 11, 2026) (cafc.uscourts.gov); PTAB IPR2024-00947 papers (institution denial 2024-11-19; DRP decision 2025-04-04); PTAB IPR2023-00468/00470 final written decisions (2024-06-18); Finnegan D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update (Dec. 2025, published 2026-02-04); Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly No. 02-654-25; Bloomberg Law (2026-05-21); Fed. Cir. Blog (2026-05-12); VitalLaw (2026-05-12); McAndrews press release (2024-11-21).

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record across the D. Mass., S.D.N.Y., and Federal Circuit dockets.

Let me dig into the specific appearances, including the local counsel and the possible additional attorney.

Strong data so far. Let me verify the remaining plaintiff-side attorneys (Philipp Ruben, IPR counsel, and the related N.Y. case).

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC

Bottom line: Metrom has been represented throughout by a single outside firm — McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago) — acting as national/lead counsel, paired with Philip C. Swain of the Law Office of Philip Swain, LLC (Concord, MA) as local counsel. The core McAndrews team is Gregory C. Schodde (formally designated lead), Christian H. Hallerud, and Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, with associate Andrew W. Mills added on the New York side and Philipp Ruben appearing in the Federal Circuit appeal. No in-house Metrom attorney has appeared on either docket, and I found no sealed appearances.

---

1. D. Mass. — Metrom Rail, LLC v. MBTA et al., No. 1:25-cv-11446-ADB (original forum)

The D. Mass. docket sheet (reproduced in full at S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 63, the case-transfer record) lists exactly four plaintiff-side attorneys:

Note: McAndrews' motion papers in Boston were filed by Swain (local counsel) even though Schodde is the designated lead — a normal division of labor on the D. Mass. docket. All three McAndrews attorneys' pro hac vice admissions were granted the day after filing (Dkt. 14, May 23, 2025).

2. S.D.N.Y. — No. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC (post-transfer, Judge Cote)

Plaintiff-side counsel as listed in the appearances block of Judge Cote's May 20, 2026 Opinion & Order (Dkt. 113):

"For plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC: Gregory C. Schodde, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Christian H. Hallerud, Andrew W. Mills, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., 500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60661."

PacerMonitor's current party entry for Metrom in 1:25-cv-10417 lists five attorneys: Hallerud, Chiplunkar, Andrew William Mills, Philip C. Swain, and Schodde.

3. Federal Circuit & PTAB appearances (same team)

• Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-2223, -2236, -2264, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. (decided May 11, 2026): the opinion's counsel block reads — "Gregory Schodde, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd., Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Christian Havel Hallerud, Philipp Ruben." Schodde signed the June 2026 combined petition for panel rehearing/rehearing en banc as "Counsel for Appellant & Cross-Appellee Metrom Rail, LLC."
• Philipp Ruben — appears in the McAndrews block on the Federal Circuit appeal. I could not independently confirm his firm bio or office; the name spelling is as it appears in the opinion. Treat his status as "McAndrews, per the Federal Circuit counsel listing" rather than independently verified.
• PTAB (patent-owner side): World IP Review's 2024 USA Patents profile states that McAndrews represented Metrom Rail in defending the patent challenge brought by Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems and Piper Networks, and credits the firm with the November 2024 denial of institution (the '738 IPR, IPR2024-00947). I did not have search capacity left to pull the individual PTAB practitioner of record for IPR2024-00947 or the earlier IPR2023-00468/00470, so the specific attorneys on those filings are unverified — though it is the same McAndrews team as the appeals.

4. Relevant experience notes (for the counsel identified)

• McAndrews, Held & Malloy is a Chicago IP-only boutique; its litigation group is its largest practice and it maintains one of the larger benches of USPTO-registered attorneys with technical degrees (per World IP Review's 2024 USA Patents ranking). Beyond Metrom, its client list includes Accord Healthcare and Columbia Sportswear.
• Gregory C. Schodde is the relationship lead and the attorney of record who argued the appeal — i.e., the single point of contact for the Metrom account across the D. Mass. case, the S.D.N.Y. case, the IPRs, and the Federal Circuit.
• Philip C. Swain has deep Federal Circuit credentials: law clerk to Judge Giles S. Rich (Fed. Cir.), former President of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, former chair of the AIPPI-US Division and of the ABA IP Section's Amicus Committee, and an adjunct professor teaching patent litigation at Suffolk University Law School. Flag: his published profiles (Martindale, COBAR CLE faculty page, attorneys.org) list him as a partner at Foley Hoag LLP in Boston; the dockets in this case list him under the Law Office of Philip Swain, LLC (Concord, MA). The Foley Hoag profiles appear to be dated; the docket is the better evidence of his current affiliation for this matter, but I could not confirm a formal firm transition.

5. Sourcing & open items

• Verified: D. Mass. civil docket sheet 1:25-cv-11446-ADB (plaintiff block; Dkts. 1–4, 8, 11–17, 20–25), reproduced at S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 63; S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113 appearances block (May 20, 2026); Fed. Cir. opinion 24-2223 (May 11, 2026) counsel listing; Fed. Cir. Blog copy of the combined rehearing petition (Schodde signature); CourtListener Fed. Cir. parties page (24-2223); PacerMonitor party entry for 1:25-cv-10417; McAndrews firm bio (Andrew W. Mills); World IP Review (McAndrews/Metrom IPR representation).
• Consistency check with the earlier section: no contradiction — the prior summary named "McAndrews (Schodde, Hallerud, Chiplunkar) and Philip C. Swain." This section adds Andrew W. Mills (S.D.N.Y. only) and Philipp Ruben (Fed. Cir. only), and clarifies that Schodde is the formally designated lead attorney, with Swain as local counsel in both districts.
• Defendant-side currency flag (not plaintiff counsel, but worth noting for case-file accuracy): firm affiliations have shifted over time and the dockets reflect it — Andrea L. Martin is shown at Troutman Pepper Locke in the D. Mass. docket but Burns & Levinson LLP in current PacerMonitor data; Nicole Cunningham appears as Dority & Manning in D. Mass., Wisnia PC in the S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 113 appearances, and Vanguard Crest P.C. in the Fed. Cir. opinion. That is movement between firms, not a contradiction in the record.
• Unverified / not found: (i) any in-house Metrom counsel (none appeared); (ii) the named PTAB practitioners of record for IPR2024-00947 or IPR2023-00468/00470; (iii) Philipp Ruben's firm bio and office; (iv) whether any additional McAndrews associate or a new local counsel has entered an appearance in S.D.N.Y. after the PacerMonitor snapshot — recommend a fresh PACER pull of the 1:25-cv-10417 docket and the Federal Circuit docket (24-2223 et al.) to confirm no post-June 2026 substitutions.

I'll research counsel of record for both defendants, building on the existing overview (which already identifies some Piper counsel but flagged MBTA's counsel as unverified).

I have the D. Mass. docket sheet (transferred as S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 63). Now let me verify MBTA's counsel and the post-transfer S.D.N.Y. appearances.

Counsel of Record — Defendants

Sourcing basis: the D. Mass. docket sheet carried over into S.D.N.Y. as Dkt. 63 (Case Transferred In — District Transfer, filed 12/16/2025), the individual notices of appearance at D. Mass. ECF Nos. 27–45, the PACER Monitor and Justia docket listings for both case numbers, the PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2024-00947, and firm/professional biographies. I hit a step limit on my final verification search, so the MBTA in-house point below carries an explicit caveat.

Up front, one correction to the prior section: the overview flagged MBTA's counsel as unverified. That gap is now closed — Payal Salsburg (Laredo, Smith & Kane LLP, Boston) entered an appearance for MBTA on July 15, 2025 and is the only defense-side attorney of record for the MBTA on the docket. The prior section's Piper lineup is confirmed and can now be expanded with docket cites and roles.

---

Defendant Piper Networks, Inc.

Two clarifications on the defense lineup:

1. Firm-name changes are not a counsel change. The PACER Monitor snapshot lists Andrea Martin at Burns & Levinson LLP (125 High St./125 Summer St., Boston), while the transferred docket sheet lists her at Troutman Pepper Locke LLP (111 Huntington Ave.). This is the same attorney: Martin left Burns & Levinson for Locke Lord in June 2024 (Law.com, June 3, 2024), and Locke Lord combined with Troutman Pepper to form Troutman Pepper Locke effective January 1, 2025. Her ECF No. 27 appearance was filed July 10, 2025 — after the combination — so Troutman Pepper Locke is the correct current affiliation.
2. "Andrew William Mills" is NOT defense counsel. He appears in the aggregated PACER Monitor "attorneys" list for this case, which does not segregate by party. He is an associate at McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Chicago) — i.e., plaintiff Metrom's firm, not Piper's or MBTA's. Any roster built from that PACER Monitor page risks misattributing him to the defense.
3. IPR counsel are separate. Piper's PTAB representation in IPR2024-00947 runs through Crowell & Moring (Joshua H. James, lead) and Faegre Drinker (Thatcher A. Rahmeier), as reflected in the petitioners' updated mandatory notices. Those attorneys are not counsel of record in the district court case; don't conflate them with the appearances above.

---

Defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Caveats on the MBTA side:

• No separate in-house appearance. The MBTA is a public authority and would normally have its Law Department involved, but no MBTA in-house attorney (e.g., MBTA General Counsel's office) appears on the docket as a notice of appearance. PACER Monitor's "Ten Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116" entry is the agency's own address, not a law firm; do not read it as indicating additional counsel. I could not independently confirm whether MBTA in-house lawyers are working the matter behind the scenes, and my last verification search was cut off.
• Given the December 8, 2025 sever-and-stay ruling and the ongoing D. Mass. stay, MBTA's defense is currently dormant. If the stay is lifted, expect additional or substitute counsel to appear, and Salsburg's appearance may be supplemented.

---

One point worth flagging for accuracy (not a counsel issue)

The consolidated docket list in the transferred record shows a "Cheryl Doherty" affidavit (D. Mass. ECF No. 38) filed in support of Piper's motion to dismiss. She is a fact declarant (apparently a Piper-side witness on the Massachusetts-presence issue), not an attorney of record. I mention it because automated docket scrapers occasionally misclassify declarants as counsel; she should not appear on any counsel roster.

What I could not verify

• Whether new notices of appearance or pro hac vice applications were filed in S.D.N.Y. after the 12/16/2025 transfer (the record I have is the carried-over D. Mass. roster, S.D.N.Y. Dkt. 63). Counsel rosters in the transferee court should be re-pulled from the live S.D.N.Y. docket before being relied on.
• Howard Wisnia's PHV admission entry number and his specific patent-litigation history.
• Any MBTA in-house counsel participation.

If you want, I can next map the counsel overlaps across the related proceedings — Dority & Manning appears for Piper both here and in IPR2024-00947, and McAndrews/Troutman Pepper Locke appear in overlapping Metrom matters — which would be the useful next section for a sanctions/conflict or coordinated-defense analysis.