Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Case Overview and Background — Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del.)

The parties. Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC is a small, privately held U.S. operating company — not a classic NPE/PAE or university — headquartered in Lakemoor, Illinois and founded in late 2010 by CEO James (Jim) Marchi. It designs and sells ultra-wideband ("UWB")-based train control, signaling, collision-avoidance, and worker-protection systems for the freight and transit rail industry, and its own press release describes a portfolio of roughly eight issued U.S. patents. It is asserting its own commercial technology, and its product (the "AURA" collision-avoidance system, "AURA CAS") is central to the IPR record. On the defense side are large global rail-signaling incumbents and smaller UWB-positioning specialists: Siemens Mobility, Inc. (the U.S. arm of Siemens's rail business, a maker of Communications-Based Train Control ("CBTC")); Thales Transport & Security, Inc. and Thales USA, Inc., whose ground-transportation business was renamed Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. and later acquired by Hitachi (Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) — the court and the PTAB treated these as the "Thales"/GTS group; Humatics Corp., a UWB microlocation company; and Piper Networks, Inc., a New York–based transit UWB positioning vendor. (RPX classifies the dispute's market sector as "Logistics.")

The accused technology. The complaint targets the UWB-based train-control/signaling deployment for MTA New York City Transit (NYCT) — specifically defendants' contracts, proposals, and pilot/deployment work for the MTA's signal-modernization and CBTC program. Metrom alleges it introduced UWB as an alternative to legacy CBTC, won the MTA's 2017–2018 "Genius Challenge" for signaling, and then lost the 2019 bid phase to defendants, who Metrom says then built the accused MTA UWB system (e.g., Piper's "Helix" system) using Metrom's patented approach. The complaint also pleads that Siemens filed its own patent applications (e.g., WO 2019/030018) claiming Metrom's UWB collision-avoidance technology and, in one instance, named as inventors Siemens employees who had worked with Metrom; and that a Piper executive (David Garcia) had prior access to Metrom's technology via Parsons. Alongside the five patent counts, Metrom asserted tortious interference with prospective economic advantage (alleging Siemens obtained Metrom's bid amount and used undisclosed consultants to lobby the MTA) and a "civil conspiracy" count.

The asserted patents and technical sketches. Five patents are asserted (per D.I. 32): U.S. 8,812,227 and U.S. 9,043,131 — same-family "Rail Vehicle Collision Avoidance System" patents (priority May 19, 2011) claiming vehicle-mounted modules with UWB transponders and time-of-flight separation-distance determination; U.S. 10,778,363 — "Methods and Systems for Decentralized Rail Signaling and Positive Train Control" (train-centric/decentralized PTC using UWB signals; priority Aug. 3, 2017); and U.S. 10,737,709 and U.S. 10,179,595 — both "Worker Protection System" patents (UWB-based alerts for railway work zones via personal/vehicle/wayside units). The court noted that "[a]ll five patents assert systems claims," and the amended complaint's core allegation is that each defendant "offers for sale, or has sold the Pilot project, to the New York MTA."

Procedural posture and venue. Filed January 13, 2022 in the District of Delaware before Judge Richard G. Andrews (case assigned Jan. 19, 2022; D.I. 3 reports the five patents). Delaware was a conventional patent venue with all defendants doing business there. In a Memorandum Order dated March 22, 2023 (D.I. 51; reported 2023 WL 2612509 / at 9635981) the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss: direct infringement was plausible as to Siemens and Thales but not Humatics or Piper; indirect and willful infringement survived (knowledge tied to a June 24, 2019 notice letter for three patents and the Jan. 13, 2022 complaint for the other two); the tortious-interference claim was preempted as to Humatics, Piper, and Thales but not as to Siemens; the civil-conspiracy count was dismissed as to all defendants; and the motion to sever was granted, splitting the case into a Siemens/Humatics action and a Thales/Piper action. The Delaware action was then closed (terminated April 11, 2023), and the severed cases were transferred to the Southern District of New York — Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. & Humatics Corp., No. 23-cv-03057 (cited in PTAB decisions as "-MKV," i.e., Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil) and Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. & Piper Networks, Inc., No. 23-cv-02920 (cited as "-DLC," i.e., Judge Denise Cote). Note that at least one docket aggregator reflects a reassignment of 23-cv-02920; I could not fully reconcile the judge assignment across sources, so treat the -MKV/-DLC designations (taken from the PTAB final written decisions) as the best-sourced.

Why the case is notable. First, it pits a small U.S. rail-safety innovator against the global CBTC incumbents bidding for a multi-billion-dollar NYC subway signal-modernization program, squarely in the competition between legacy CBTC and UWB-based decentralized train control. Second, it carries an unusual inventorship/copying narrative — Metrom's allegations that competitors filed on its UWB technology — which surfaced in the IPRs through Metrom's copying/access evidence. Third, it is a textbook example of district-court/IPR linkage: in January 2023 the defendants jointly petitioned for IPR of the patent family (including IPR2023-00468 on the '131 patent and IPR2023-00470 on the '227 patent, with related proceedings IPR2023-00439, -00452, and -00460); the district court cases were stayed pending the IPRs. The PTAB invalidated all claims of the '227 patent and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent as obvious (leaving only '131 claims 17–20), and on May 11, 2026 the Federal Circuit (No. 24-2223, nonprecedential) affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing the challenged claims were obvious over Grisham/Nixon/Douglas, rejecting Metrom's secondary-considerations (AURA CAS nexus) arguments, and — on the cross-appeal — reversing the Board's claim construction of "data representing the separation distance" and holding '131 claims 17–20 obvious as well. The practical effect is that the core collisional-avoidance patents are invalidated, which strongly undercuts the surviving SDNY infringement claims.

Sourcing caveat: The party descriptions, accused products, patent sketches, and procedural history above are grounded in the D.I. 51 Memorandum Order, the complaint/amended complaint excerpts, Metrom's Jan. 18, 2022 press release, the IPR2023-00468/00470 final written decisions, and the Federal Circuit's May 11, 2026 opinion plus the Bloomberg Law IP Law Daily summary. I was unable to independently verify (a) the final outcomes of the three other IPRs (IPR2023-00439, -00452, -00460) or confirm which patents they target, (b) the current status/disposition of the two stayed SDNY cases, and (c) the exact current judge assignments — so those points are flagged rather than asserted.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several searches in parallel.

Let me dig deeper into the transfer, the SDNY cases, PTAB proceedings, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

I've gathered substantial material. Note: I hit my search-tool step limit before I could fully verify a few items (the SDNY stay order's exact date/judge, and the disposition of the three later patents' IPRs). I've flagged those explicitly rather than guessing.

---

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This Delaware case was a classic "venue pit stop." It was filed in January 2022, survived a partial motion to dismiss, and then — on Judge Andrews's own initiative — was severed into two defendant groups and pushed out to the Southern District of New York, where it was stayed behind a coordinated, multi-defendant PTAB attack. That IPR campaign ultimately killed the two oldest and most commercially important Metrom patents, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on 2026-05-11, ending the patent merits.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2022-01-13 — Metrom Rail, LLC (Lakemoor, IL) files suit against Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Thales Transport & Security, Inc.; Thales USA, Inc.; Humatics Corp.; and Piper Networks, Inc. Cause: 35 U.S.C. § 271. Judge Richard G. Andrews. (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA; RPX Insight.)
• Asserted patents (5): U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,812,227; 9,043,131 ('227/'131 share a common spec, priority to 2011-05-19, directed to UWB + time-of-flight rail collision avoidance); 10,179,595; 10,737,709; 10,778,363 (the latter three directed to decentralized/UWB rail signaling, worker protection, and train-motion characteristics). All asserted as system claims.
• Non-patent counts: Count VI – tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; Count VII – "civil conspiracy." (D.I. 32.)
• 2022-01-18/19 — Metrom press release: the case "centers upon contracts and deployments of UWB technology within the MTA New York City Transit system," following Metrom's 2018 MTA "Genius Challenge" win and the MTA's subsequent 2019 award to the defendants. This MTA-bid narrative is the seed of both the tortious-interference claim and, later, the transfer.
• 2022-01-25 — Motion for pro hac vice (Philipp Ruben) (D.I. 8).
• 2022-04-06 — Thales USA, Inc. terminated from the docket; Thales Transport & Security renamed Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. ("GTSS") — later renamed Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. on the defense side.
• 2022-04-26 — First Amended Complaint filed (D.I. 32).

Counsel of record (initial): Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan) + McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Gregory C. Schodde, Ronald H. Spuhler) for Metrom; Morris, Nichols (Karen Jacobs, Cameron Clark, Michael Flynn) + Crowell & Moring (Mark M. Supko, Vincent J. Galluzzo, Ali H. K. Tehrani) for Siemens; Faegre Drinker (Francis DiGiovanni, Lora A. Brzezysnki, Thatcher A. Rahmeier) for GTSS/Thales; Wisnia P.C./Dority & Manning for Piper; Wolf Greenfield for Humatics. (Docket, ptacts.uspto.gov.)

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance — Motions to Dismiss and Severance

• D.I. 37 & 39 — each defendant group moves to dismiss all counts. Fully briefed at D.I. 38, 45, 47 and D.I. 40, 45, 48.
• D.I. 41 — all defendants move to sever the cases against each group (briefed at D.I. 42, 46, 49).
• March 2023 — Memorandum Order (D.I. 51) (≈ 2023-03-22, per IP/DE blog). Holdings:
  • Direct infringement plausibly pled as to Siemens and Thales; dismissed as to Humatics and Piper ("Allegations of direct infringement do not require much," citing Disc Disease Sols. v. VGH Sols., 888 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
  • Indirect (induced/contributory) and willful infringement adequately pled — knowledge tied to a 2019-06-24 letter identifying three of the five patents, and to the 2022-01-13 complaint for the other two; willfulness sustained only for the three patents in the 2019 letter (citing Wrinkl v. Facebook, 2021 WL 4477022 (D. Del.)).
  • Tortious interference preempted by federal patent law as to Humatics, Piper, and Thales (citing Rodime PLC v. Seagate, 174 F.3d 1294 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); not preempted as to Siemens, whose alleged conduct (obtaining Metrom's bid amount; paying undisclosed lobbyists) went beyond infringement — and that claim was sufficiently pled.
  • Civil conspiracy (Count VII) dismissed against all defendants for failure to plead an unlawful act in furtherance.
  • Severance GRANTED: one case vs. Siemens + Humatics; the other vs. Thales/GTSS + Piper.

Sources: Memorandum Order, D.I. 51 (storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.77707/gov.uscourts.ded.77707.51.0.pdf); CourtListener opin. 9635981 & 9635961; IP/DE blog, "Court Sua Sponte Suggests Transfer of Patent Action…" (2023-03-22).

---

3. The Sua Sponte Transfer Suggestion and the End of the Delaware Case

In the same March 2023 Memorandum Order, Judge Andrews raised transfer on his own motion:

"The Court cannot help but note that it appears that the case should be transferred to the Southern District of New York, which would clearly have a much greater interest in a case that is all about the New York MTA, its bid processes, and Plaintiff's allegations of nefariousness in connection with the same. Perhaps there is some reason why the case could not have been brought there."

He gave any party opposing transfer two weeks to brief why transfer would be impermissible or inappropriate. (IP/DE blog, 2023-03-22.)

• 2023-03-22 — severed Delaware actions opened, including 1:23-cv-00314-RGA (Metrom v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. et al., D. Del.).
• 2023-04-11 — the original 1:22-cv-00049-RGA action is terminated/closed; last docket entry 2023-04-12. (RPX Insight; case metadata.)
• The severed cases were transferred out to SDNY:
  • Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. & Humatics Corp., No. 1:23-cv-03057-MKV (S.D.N.Y., Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil) — Second Amended Complaint filed 2023-05-26 (ECF 69; ECF 69-1).
  • Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc. & Piper Networks, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02920-DLC (S.D.N.Y., Judge Denise Cote). GTSS later renamed Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. in the caption.

This is the "closed" status in your case metadata — the Delaware case did not resolve on the merits; it was administratively severed and re-filed/transferred to SDNY.

---

4. Stay Pending IPR in SDNY (strategic turning point)

Siemens moved in SDNY to stay the litigation pending the PTAB IPRs, including a stay of the tortious interference count (Count IV in the SAC). The court's analysis (text preserved as a PTAB exhibit, ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1556106) reasoned that:

• Patent infringement was "the main thrust of this litigation" (three of four claims, and all claims against Humatics), and the tortious interference claim was "inextricably intertwined" with the patents because Metrom alleged Siemens "deliberately infring[ed] Metrom's patents, or submitt[ed] proposals to the MTA knowing that they would inevitably infringe." SAC ¶¶105–107.
• A complete stay was warranted under Kannuu, Straight Path, and Quest USA, and Bytemark v. Xerox was distinguished.

⚠️ Flag: I could not verify the exact date and authoring judge of the SDNY stay order before exhausting my search budget. The order's reasoning is well documented in the PTAB exhibit, but treat the date as unconfirmed. What is clear is that the SDNY cases were stayed behind the IPRs, which is why no SDNY Markman, summary-judgment practice, or trial appears in the record.

---

5. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (the decisive front)

• 2023-01-13 — Siemens, GTSS, Humatics, and Piper jointly petition for IPR of the '227 and '131 patents, filing a coordinated set: IPR2023-00439, -00452, -00460, -00468, and -00470, naming Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, Humatics, Piper, and Thales USA as real parties in interest.
  • IPR2023-00468 → '131 patent (claims 1–20).
  • IPR2023-00470 → '227 patent (claims 1–28).
• 2023-06-23 — Institution granted on all challenged claims of both patents.
• Key prior art: Grisham (U.S. 6,759,948 — UWB impulse-radio rail collision avoidance) as primary; Nixon (WO 03/009254) for GPS; Douglas (U.S. 8,874,359); Suzuki (EP 1 785 744).
• 2023-07-18 / 2023-08-02 — Metrom's motion for additional discovery denied; Board adopted Petitioners' POSITA definition (two years' experience in "collision-avoidance systems or positioning systems," not railway-specific — a significant adverse ruling).
• 2024-03-28 — Oral hearing (transcripts entered 2024-04-30). Panel: APJs Powell, White, Ahmed (panel change order 2024-03-07).
• 2024-06-18 — Final Written Decisions:
  • IPR2023-00470 ('227): all claims 1–28 unpatentable as obvious.
  • IPR2023-00468 ('131): claims 1–16 unpatentable; claims 17–20 survived because Grisham allegedly did not disclose the claim 17C limitation — "a first wireless communications antenna operable to send and receive data representing the separation distance over the air."
  • Board rejected Metrom's secondary-considerations evidence (AURA CAS) for lack of nexus, because the product had "important unclaimed features" (machine-function monitoring, remote data reporting) — citing Fox Factory v. SRAM, 944 F.3d 1366.
• 2024-05-22 — a further Siemens petition, IPR2024-00947, was filed (exhibits include the SDNY Second Amended Complaint). ⚠️ I could not confirm which patent this targets or its outcome. Other later-filed IPRs on the '363, '709, and '595 patents (the three newer patents) also exist on the PTAB rolls; outcomes unverified here.

---

6. Federal Circuit Appeal — No. 24-2223 (the final disposition of the patent merits)

• 2024-08-15 — Metrom files Notice of Appeal (as to '227 and '131).
• 2024-08-26 — Petitioners file Notice of Cross-Appeal (as to '131 claims 17–20).
• 2026-05-11 — Nonprecedential opinion (Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 24-2223; cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2223.OPINION.5-11-2026_2691571.pdf):
  • Affirmed the Board's obviousness holdings on all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16.
  • Affirmed the refusal to accord a presumption of nexus to the AURA CAS product (Fox Factory), and rejected Metrom's single-reference obviousness challenge over Grisham alone.
  • Reversed as to '131 claims 17–20: the Board adopted an incorrect construction of "data representing the separation distance." The majority construed element 17C to cover any over-the-air signals whose timing is used in a time-of-flight calculation — even if the signals encode nothing. On that construction, claims 17–20 were also obvious.
  • A dissent would have affirmed the Board as to claims 17–20, reasoning that Siemens never advanced the claim-construction argument the majority adopted, raising it only as a factual dispute about Grisham's disclosure — a preservation/waiver point.
• Reported in VitalLaw/IP Law Daily, 2026-05-12: "PTAB's invalidation of railroad collision-avoidance patent claims affirmed; surviving claims also obvious."

---

7. Chronological Snapshot

---

8. What Did Not Happen (and caveats)

• No Markman in Delaware. The D. Del. case closed at the pleading/severance stage. Claim construction ultimately occurred at the PTAB and Federal Circuit level (the 17C "data representing the separation distance" dispute), not in a district-court Markman hearing.
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motion surfaced in the record I reviewed.
• No public settlement or consent judgment found. The D. Del. disposition was severance + transfer, not settlement.
• Discovery of strategic significance was largely PTAB-side: Metrom's motion for additional discovery (denied 2023-08-02); depositions of Marchi (CEO), Kurt Gunther, Carl Conti, and Prof. Todor Cooklev (Oct.–Nov. 2023); Petitioners' unsuccessful motion to exclude and Metrom's motion to strike; and supplemental-information motions around Piper/Helix sales collateral and 2018 conference materials — Metrom's attempt to build a secondary-considerations record (AURA vs. Helix claim charts). That effort failed for lack of nexus.

Items needing verification

1. SDNY stay order — exact date and issuing judge (23-cv-03057-MKV vs. 23-cv-02920-DLC).
2. IPR2023-00439, -00452, -00460 — which of the '363/'709/'595 patents each challenges, and their FWD outcomes.
3. IPR2024-00947 — target patent and status.
4. Current status of the SDNY severed cases (whether dismissed, stayed through appeal, or resolved). Given the Fed. Cir. affirmance invalidating the '227 and '131 claims, the SDNY patent claims on those two patents are effectively extinguished, but I have not confirmed the docket disposition of the remaining three patents.

I'd recommend pulling the PACER dockets for S.D.N.Y. 1:23-cv-03057-MKV and 1:23-cv-02920-DLC, and the PTAB document pages for IPR2023-00439/-00452/-00460 and IPR2024-00947, to nail down items 1–4.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me search more targeted angles for actual press coverage.

Found several leads. Let me dig into the Bloomberg Law piece and other trade press.

Press coverage summary

Contemporaneous coverage of the suit's filing appears to have come almost entirely from Metrom Rail's own announcement rather than independent reporting. Metrom issued a press release dated January 18, 2022, hosted on its own site (Metrom Rail), which was then distributed through EIN Presswire on January 19, 2022 and republished by aggregators (EIN Presswire via darik.news). That release framed the Delaware complaint (1:22-cv-00049) as targeting five patents — 10,778,363, 8,812,227, 9,043,131, 10,737,709 and 10,179,595 — plus tortious interference and civil-conspiracy claims, and tied the dispute to the MTA New York City Transit UWB deployment and the defendants' alleged offers to sell Metrom's ultra-wideband technology in the U.S. market. It reports no damages figure. The only attributed statement is from Metrom CEO Jim Marchi, who said patents "incent Metrom and other companies to develop the new, valuable products that in our case save lives and corporate and taxpayer money" and that "a win for Metrom will be a win for the taxpayers of New York and the United States." Independent reporting on the filing itself — Reuters, Law360, or rail trade press — did not surface in my searches.

Most substantive coverage followed the case into the PTAB and the Federal Circuit, not the Delaware docket (which was closed in April 2023 and, per the court's severance order, continued against defendant groups in the Southern District of New York). Bloomberg Law carried a short PTAB case note on June 24, 2024, reporting that "some challenged claims of Metrom Rail LLC's patent that describes a collision avoidance system used in the railroad industry to control maintenance equipment, vehicles, hyrail vehicles, train cars, train engines, and other rail line vehicles" were held unpatentable as obvious in Siemens Mobility's inter partes review. After the Federal Circuit's May 11, 2026 nonprecedential decision, VitalLaw's IP Law Daily (May 12, 2026, by Saurabh Kashyap) reported that the court affirmed the Board's obviousness findings as to all claims of the '227 patent and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent, relying on U.S. Patent No. 6,759,948 ("Grisham") as the primary reference, and reversed the Board's upholding of claims 17–20 of the '131 patent on the ground that the Board misconstrued "data representing the separation distance." A Bloomberg Law headline from May 2026 — "Siemens Erases Collision-Avoidance Patents at Federal Circuit," summarized as invalidating two rail-safety patents and "delivering a blow to lawsuits accusing Sieme[ns]…" — reflects the same outcome; I found that headline only through aggregator profiles (Owler and CB Insights) and was not able to open the underlying Bloomberg article, so its full analysis is unverified here. The Federal Circuit Blog summarized the opinion and flagged Judge Taranto's partial dissent, which argued the panel improperly decided the cross-appeal on a claim-construction ground Siemens never pressed at the Board or on appeal.

Industry and law-firm commentary is limited but exists. McAndrews, Held & Malloy — Metrom's counsel — announced on November 21, 2024 that the USPTO declined on November 20, 2024 to institute an IPR requested by Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA and Piper Networks against Metrom's Patent 9,731,738, crediting McAndrews with showing the petition raised issues "substantially the same as those already considered during the patent's prosecution." World IP Review repeated that framing in its 2024 U.S. patent rankings profile (published January 21, 2025), describing McAndrews as having "represented Metrom Rail in defence against a challenge to the client's patent by Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems and Piper Networks." Both are favorable-to-client accounts rather than neutral reporting, and neither discusses the core Delaware or SDNY infringement claims.

Gaps and conflicts: I found no coverage of this matter in Reuters, Bloomberg's news wire (as distinct from Bloomberg Law), Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or EFF Deeplinks. There is no reported verdict, settlement, injunction, or damages award in any outlet I located, which is consistent with the Delaware action having been closed and severed in April 2023 rather than tried. On the record itself, Metrom's amended complaint made broader allegations than any press account — including a claim that Siemens began "a campaign to interfere with the technically superior Metrom offering" by filing a 2017 UWB collision-avoidance application (WO 2019/030018), and a citation to Siemens's 2008 $800 million SEC/FCPA resolution (see the complaint excerpts reproduced at Docket Alarm) — and none of that appeared in the press coverage. Note also that the press tracks the patent numbers in the PTAB/Federal Circuit line ('131 and '227) rather than all five patents asserted in Delaware, so the coverage is narrower than the litigation as filed.

Sources

• Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• METROM RAIL, LLC v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC. , No. 24-2223 (Fed. Cir. 2026) - METROM RAIL, LLC v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC. , No. 24-2223 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• METROM RAIL, LLC, Appellant v. SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC., HITACHI RAIL GTS USA INC., FKA GROUND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS USA INC., HUMATICS CORP., PIPER NETWORKS, INC., Cross-Appellants
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: PTAB’s invalidation of railroad collision-avoidance patent claims affirmed; surviving claims also obvious
• Trials@uspto
• Ex. 1001 | IPR2023-00468 | Siemens Mobility Inc v. Metrom Rail LLC | Ex Parte
• McAndrews, Held & Malloy
• Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al
• Amended Complaint | 1:23-cv-02920 | Metrom Rail LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc | Ex Parte
• Metrom Rail files patent infringement lawsuit to protect ultrawide-band technology IP - \n \n \n \n \n Lakemoor, Illinois, United States, January 19, 2022 /EINPresswire
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

I'll research counsel of record for Metrom Rail in the Delaware action and the related proceedings.

Let me pull the full docket and verify the plaintiff-side appearances.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA)

Bottom line: Metrom Rail was represented by a two-firm team — Farnan LLP (Wilmington) as Delaware/local counsel and McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago) as lead patent counsel appearing pro hac vice. Four attorneys appeared of record on the plaintiff's side in the Delaware action; no in-house counsel appeared of record, and no withdrawal/substitution was entered before the case closed on April 11, 2023.

Plaintiff's counsel of record in the Delaware action

Signature-block primary source (plaintiff's filing): McAndrews, Held & Malloy letterhead listing "Gregory C. Schodde (pro hac vice), Ronald H. Spuhler (pro hac vice), Philipp Ruben (pro hac vice) … Attorneys for Plaintiff" — PTAB-hosted copy of the Delaware filing.

Docket sheet primary source (attorney list, D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA): reproduced as Exhibit 1015 in Siemens's IPR petition — Docket sheet excerpt. It lists, under "Plaintiff Metrom Rail, LLC": Brian E. Farnan (LEAD ATTORNEY), Michael J. Farnan, and (PRO HAC VICE) Gregory C. Schodde and Ronald H. Spuhler. The same sheet separately lists Karen Jacobs/Cameron Clark (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell) and Ali Tehrani/Mark Supko/Vincent Galluzzo (Crowell & Moring) for Siemens — not for Metrom; do not conflate those defendant-side entries.

What I could not confirm

• No in-house counsel for Metrom Rail appears on the Delaware docket; nothing indicates an in-house attorney entered an appearance.
• I did not find any further plaintiff-side appearances (e.g., additional Farnan LLP or McAndrews attorneys) in the Delaware action beyond the five above; the docket sheet excerpt I retrieved is the attorney listing as of the case's pendency.
• No sealing issue prevented identification of counsel — the plaintiff's appearances are public on the face of the docket.

Continuity into the severed/SDNY and appellate phases (context)

The same core team followed the case into the Southern District of New York after severance (successor actions including Metrom Rail, LLC v. Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc., No. 1:23-cv-03057, and Metrom Rail LLC v. Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc., No. 1:23-cv-02920, S.D.N.Y., both transferred from Delaware). In April 2023, PHV motions were filed by Metrom Rail in the SDNY case for Gregory C. Schodde and Alejandro Menchaca (both McAndrews) — transferred docket listing. On appeal in Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 24-2223 (Fed. Cir.), the amended entry of appearance (Dec. 4, 2024) lists Gregory C. Schodde, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Philipp Ruben, and Christian Havel Hallerud as counsel for Appellant Metrom Rail — CourtListener entry #41. The CourtListener parties page for that appeal also shows a Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP entry and Thatcher A. Rahmeier (222 Delaware Ave., Wilmington) among the appellate participants; I could not verify which party that entry serves, so I would not attribute it to Metrom without checking the Fed. Cir. docket directly.

Conflicting notes

• The docket sheet lists Metrom Rail's address, per one PTAB paper, as Crystal Lake, IL, while the January 2022 press release was datelined Lakemoor, Illinois (see the "In the news" section). Both appear in the record; this is a company-address discrepancy, not a counsel discrepancy.
• My retrieval of these names comes from reproduced docket sheets and filing signature blocks (PTAB exhibit copies, CourtListener, and a docket aggregator), not from a live PACER pull; the attorney roster matches across at least three independent reproductions, but exact pro hac vice order dates for Spuhler/Ruben should be verified on PACER if precision matters.

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

I have the Siemens counsel. Let me now find counsel for the other defendant groups.