Litigation

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

Final Written Decision - appealed

IPR2023-00470

Filed
2023-01-13
Terminated
2024-06-18

Patents at issue (1)

Defender signal. Patent 8812227 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.

8812227PTAB: claims invalidated

Defendants (1)

Summary

Inter partes review petition filed by Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, Humatics, and Piper Networks against Metrom Rail's '227 patent. The Board's June 18, 2024 Final Written Decision held claims 1-28 of the '227 patent unpatentable as obvious; the decision was appealed.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Now let me dig into the district court litigation, the parties' businesses, and the parallel IPRs.

Let me verify the district court posture, judges, and the later venue developments.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The alignment in this docket is inverted from the underlying litigation: at the PTAB, Siemens Mobility, Inc., Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (now Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc., following Hitachi Rail's acquisition of Thales's ground-transportation business), Humatics Corp., and Piper Networks, Inc. are the petitioners (the case metadata's "plaintiffs"), while Metrom Rail, LLC is the patent owner and real party in interest (the "defendant"). Thales USA, Inc. is named a real party in interest and consented to the petition even though it does not appear in the IPR caption. On the operating-company side, this is a classic small-inventor-versus-industry-giants fight rather than an NPE assertion: Metrom is a privately held, ~2010-founded Illinois company (Lakemoor/Crystal Lake) whose AURA ultra-wideband ("UWB") collision-avoidance and worker-protection systems have been deployed on thousands of North American maintenance-of-way vehicles. Metrom describes itself as the first to bring UWB to rail and holds a portfolio of roughly eight issued U.S. patents. The petitioners are large global rail/positioning suppliers: Siemens Mobility (Munich), Hitachi Rail GTS (successor to Thales's GTS unit), Humatics (Cambridge, MA — UWB positioning), and Piper Networks (NYC — the "Helix" collision-avoidance system). See Metrom Rail press release, Jan. 18, 2022; IPR2023-00470 Final Written Decision (Paper 71, June 18, 2024) at 1, 4; Fed. Cir. opinion in Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 24-2223 (May 11, 2026).

Accused technology and patents. The infringement theory centers on the UWB-based train-control/collision-avoidance systems supplied to New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its subway signal-modernization pilot — Piper's Helix system, Humatics' rail navigation system, and the Siemens/Thales offerings implicated in the MTA's 2019 UWB pilot procurement. Metrom's narrative is that it won the MTA Genius Transit Challenge signaling category in March 2018 with its "PTCS-2" UWB proposal (a $250,000 prize shared with co-winner Robert James), but that the 2019 pilot contract went to the defendants instead — and that Piper's Helix copies AURA, allegedly via a former Parsons engineer (David Garcia) who was embedded with Metrom and later became a Piper vice president. Metrom's original Delaware complaint asserted five patents — U.S. 10,778,363; 8,812,227; 9,043,131; 10,737,709; and 10,179,595 — plus tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil-conspiracy counts. The '227 patent ("Rail Vehicle Collision Avoidance System," inventors Gunther, Carlson, Cygnus; priority May 19, 2011) claims a collision-avoidance system of rail-vehicle-mounted modules each having a UWB transponder sensor module with antenna, a control electronics module/processor, and an operator user interface, with the modules communicating vehicle-to-vehicle and applying a time-of-flight technique to derive separation distance. The '131 patent is a same-family continuation (shared specification) that adds GPS/radio-unit limitations and claims a "wireless communications antenna" sending "data representing the separation distance." The later patents ('363/'709/'595, and the '738 patent added in the SDNY phase) appear directed to decentralized/UWB train control and work-train protection; I could not verify their claim scope from a primary source, so treat that sketch as approximate.

Posture, venue, and significance. Metrom filed in D. Del. on January 13, 2022 (Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., C.A. No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews). Judge Andrews largely denied the motions to dismiss, but sua sponte questioned venue and why the case was filed in Delaware at all, calling it "a case that is all about the New York MTA, its bid processes, and Plaintiff's allegations of nefariousness" — and invited transfer briefing (D.I. 51, Mar. 22, 2023). The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York and severed into Metrom v. Ground Transportation Systems USA & Piper Networks, No. 23-cv-02920-DLC (Judge Denise Cote), and Metrom v. Siemens Mobility & Humatics, No. 23-cv-03057-MKV (Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil). Venue matters here because the accused conduct, the MTA procurement, and the bulk of the evidence sit in New York, not Delaware. In parallel, the petitioners filed a coordinated IPR campaign: IPR2023-00468 ('131), IPR2023-00470 ('227, the subject of this entry), plus IPR2023-00439/-00452/-00460 against the other asserted patents. The '470 petition was filed January 13, 2023, instituted June 23, 2023, heard March 28, 2024, and decided June 18, 2024 by APJs Powell, White, and Ahmed, holding all of claims 1–28 unpatentable as obvious over Grisham (U.S. 6,759,948) alone and in combinations with Nixon, Suzuki, Douglas, Richardson, Breed, Connell, and McDaniel. The companion '468 decision reached the same result for claims 1–16 of the '131 patent but upheld claims 17–20. Metrom's secondary-considerations case (commercial success, copying, industry skepticism toward UWB) failed on nexus grounds — the Board found AURA included significant unclaimed features (machine-function monitoring, remote data reporting) and refused the Fox Factory coextensiveness presumption. This matters beyond the parties: it knocks out coverage Metrom needs for its MTA dispute, hands the defendants a strong estoppel/stay lever in the SDNY cases, and — because the appeals were consolidated — produced a May 11, 2026 Federal Circuit decision affirming invalidity of all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16, reversing the Board on '131 claims 17–20, over a pointed Taranto dissent arguing the majority decided on a claim construction no party advanced (party-presentation/forfeiture). Metrom has since filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc pressing that issue along with the nexus holding; I have not verified a disposition of that petition as of today.

Sourcing caveats: The PTAB facts above are grounded in the Final Written Decision (Paper 71) and the Federal Circuit opinion; the Delaware transfer and severance are grounded in Judge Andrews's memorandum order and the PTAB's related-matters discussion. I was unable to confirm from a primary source (a) the current status of the two SDNY cases or the outcome of the stay motion, (b) exact claim scope for the '363/'709/'595/'738 patents, or (c) the resolution of Metrom's June 2026 rehearing petition — those should be re-verified against PACER and the Federal Circuit docket before being relied on.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Threshold note on framing

Two intertwined proceedings are involved, and the requested checklist items (complaint, answer, Markman, trial, JMOL) belong to the parallel district court litigation, not to the PTAB case in the metadata (IPR2023-00470). I cover both tracks, flagging where I could not verify a fact. One caveat up front: I was able to pull substantial docket/opinion text for the Delaware action, the Federal Circuit appeal, and the PTAB proceedings, but I could not obtain full PACER dockets for the Southern District of New York cases; details from those are drawn from opinion text and PACER/RECAP summaries and are hedged accordingly.

Track A — District court litigation (Metrom Rail as plaintiff)

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2022-01-13 — Complaint. Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del.) (Judge Richard G. Andrews). Jury demand. Five asserted patents: U.S. 10,778,363; 8,812,227; 9,043,131; 10,737,709; 10,179,595 — i.e., the '227 and '131 patents at issue in IPR2023-00470 and IPR2023-00468, plus three later-issued Metrom rail-UWB patents. Defendants: Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Thales Transport & Security, Inc.; Thales USA, Inc. (later renamed Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc.); Humatics Corp.; Piper Networks, Inc. Causes of action: patent infringement (direct, induced, contributory, willful) plus tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy.

Answers/counterclaims. I could not verify specific answer or counterclaim filings. The March 2023 order shows the defendant groups proceeded by motions to dismiss (D.I. 37, 39) rather than answering, and an operative Second Amended Complaint exists in the severed SDNY case (ECF 69-1 in No. 23-3057). I did not confirm any Siemens/Humatics/Piper counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) — treat as unverified.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

2023-03-22 — Memorandum Order on motions to dismiss and severance (D. Del., Judge Andrews). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[9635981](/patent/9635981)/metrom-rail-llc-v-siemens-mobility-inc/

  • Direct infringement plausibly pled as to Siemens and Thales/GTS, but not as to Humatics and Piper.
  • Indirect and willful infringement adequately pled as of June 24, 2019 (Metrom's pre-suit letter identifying three of the five patents); complaint filing (2022-01-13) supplied notice for the other two.
  • Tortious interference claim held preempted by federal patent law as to Humatics, Piper and Thales, but survived as to Siemens (additional, non-patent elements). Civil conspiracy claim dismissed.
  • Motion to sever the two defendant groups granted.
  • Sua sponte, the court questioned venue and directed briefing on transfer to the Southern District of New York, noting the case "is all about the New York MTA." See IP/DE commentary, 2023-03-22: https://ipde.com/blog/2023/03/22/court-sua-sponte-suggests-transfer-of-patent-action-directs-parties-opposing-transfer-to-file-briefs/

2023-04-11 — Case closed; transfer + severance. The D. Del. case was closed and the severed actions moved to the S.D.N.Y. (RPX: closed 04/11/2023 — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-77707-metrom-rail-v-siemens-mobility). Per the PTAB's own recitation in the IPR2023-00470 Final Written Decision, the pending cases became:

Stay pending IPR — granted (complete stay). In the S.D.N.Y. action, the court granted a complete stay of the case, including the non-patent tortious interference count, holding that (i) the IPRs would simplify the issues, (ii) patent infringement was "the main thrust of this litigation," and (iii) Metrom's tortious interference theory was factually intertwined with the patent claims. Opinion text excerpt: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556106](/patent/1556106)/download-documents?artifactId=Ssj3y9hQ1-1mC94kqMr9gEweZ1Pv33CQclzX11MncbI-5qjyj6PVF-k. (I could not verify the exact entry date/docket number of this stay order.)

No summary judgment, Daubert, or JMOL activity identified in the district court; the stay pending the IPRs effectively froze the merits track from 2023 onward.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

  • No Markman ruling was issued in the '227/'131 district court cases — the stay pending IPR intervened before claim construction.
  • In the later MBTA case (see §6), claim construction has not yet occurred: the June 4, 2026 stay order directs the parties, once the Federal Circuit mandate issues, to be "prepared to discuss a schedule for resolution of issues related to claim construction and validity of the '738 Patent."
  • The only substantive claim-construction ruling in this family is the Federal Circuit's 2026 construction of "data representing the separation distance" in '131 claim 17 (element 17C) — see §5.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

District court: discovery was stayed; I found no significant district-court discovery events. Note, however, that the earlier D. Del. litigation record had litigation-driven significance for the IPR: the Federal Circuit relied on Metrom's own district court complaint, which alleged that "data representing the separation distance" is "data used to determine the time of flight" (J.A. 1561), against Metrom's contrary IPR position.

PTAB discovery (the real discovery fight):

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

  • No jury trial and no verdict in the district court litigation — the case was stayed and largely overtaken by the PTAB/Federal Circuit outcome.
  • No JMOL / new trial / fee motions identified.
  • The functional "trial" was the PTAB hearing on 2024-03-28, followed by the 2024-06-18 Final Written Decisions.

6. Post-2024 district court activity and present posture

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (docket reported as No. 1:25-cv-10417; CourtListener lists it as an S.D.N.Y. docket with Judge Denise L. Cote presiding, and the docket is captioned against MBTA with Piper Networks also a movant — I could not independently confirm the district/venue from a primary source). Docket summary: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72043751/metrom-rail-llc-v-massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority/

  • 2026-03-06: Piper's motion to dismiss.
  • 2026-03-24: Order — if the complaint survives the motion to dismiss, the court will schedule a conference on Metrom's preliminary-injunction motion.
  • 2026-05-20 — Opinion and Order (D.E. 113): Piper's motion to dismiss denied in part. Metrom's claim under the '738 patent survives; Metrom's claim under the '131 patent is dismissed as moot (the Federal Circuit had invalidated the remaining '131 claims nine days earlier).
  • 2026-06-04 — Order (D.E. 116): preliminary-injunction motion denied without prejudice; case stayed until the Federal Circuit's decision on the '131 patent is final and the mandate has issued; parties directed to confer on a claim-construction/validity schedule for the '738 patent.
  • 2026-08-10: docket reflects a Preliminary Injunction and an Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (D.E. 120, 122) — i.e., a PI appears to have been entered, but I could not verify its text, scope, or target.
  • 2026-08-26 to 2026-09-04: pro hac vice admission, protective order (D.E. 125–127), scheduling order (D.E. 128), and notices of change of address (D.E. 129–130). The action is active as of 2026-09-16.

No settlement, consent judgment, or dismissal of the Siemens/Humatics/Piper litigation identified.

Track B — PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents

7. The IPR family

Proceeding Patent Petitioners Key dates Outcome
IPR2023-00470 (the metadata case) 8,812,227 ('227) Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc.; Humatics Corp.; Piper Networks, Inc. Filed 2023-01-13; instituted 2023-06-23; hearing 2024-03-28; FWD 2024-06-18 Claims 1–28 all unpatentable (obvious)
IPR2023-00468 9,043,131 ('131) Same Filed 2023-01-13; FWD 2024-06-18 Claims 1–16 unpatentable; claims 17–20 not unpatentable
IPR2023-00439, -00452, -00460 (Metrom patents — identities not verified) Same parties per Patent Owner's mandatory notice 2023 Not verified
IPR2024-00947 9,731,738 ('738) Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc.; Piper Networks, Inc. Institution denied 2024-11-20 (APJs Powell, White, Dougal) under § 325(d) — substantially the same art/arguments already considered during prosecution Denied

Sources: IPR2023-00470 FWD (Paper 71, 2024-06-18), Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Metrom Rail, LLC, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00470/Siemens_Mobility_Inc._v._Metrom_Rail_LLC/docs/06-18-2024-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-71-Final_Written_Decision__original.pdf; Patexia case summary https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[185279](/patent/185279); IPR2024-00947 petition/institution papers https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2024_00947_paper_16_.pdf and https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1556106/download-documents?artifactId=2SL7l52bAdwT1QasUZJfs6EWQGIz7YEetu47OCXb_cKZF8HPl2f7LCs; McAndrews client alert, 2024-11-21 https://www.mcandrews-ip.com/mcandrews-secures-victory-for-client-metrom-rail-llc/.

Prior art core: U.S. Pat. 6,759,948 ("Grisham") as the primary reference in every ground in both petitions; plus WO 03/009254 A1 ("Nixon") for GPS and U.S. Pat. 8,874,359 ("Douglas") for location tracking; also Suzuki (EP 1 785 744), Breed, McDaniel, Richards, etc.

Key merits holdings in IPR2023-00470 (all 28 claims of '227 held obvious):

  • Grisham alone renders claim 1 obvious (single-reference theory).
  • Grisham + Douglas for claims 2–4 (location tracking; no precision requirement in the claims).
  • Grisham + Nixon for claim 7 (motivation to combine; UWB range limitation vs. GPS absolute positioning).
  • Secondary considerations rejected: Metrom's AURA CAS product was not coextensive with the claims (unclaimed "machine function monitoring" and "remote data reporting" were not insignificant), so no presumption of nexus; no nexus shown without the presumption.

8. Federal Circuit appeal — the operative final outcome

2024-08-15: Appeal docketed. Nos. 2024-2223 (Metrom, lead), 2024-2236, 2024-2264 (cross-appeals), from PTAB IPR2023-00468 and IPR2023-00470.

  • Counsel: McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Gregory C. Schodde, Rajendra A. Chiplunkar, Christian H. Hallerud, Philipp Ruben) for Metrom; Crowell & Moring (Mark M. Supko, Ali H.K. Tehrani, Joshua H. James) for Siemens; Wisnia PC (Howard N. Wisnia) for Siemens; Faegre Drinker (Thatcher A. Rahmeier, Lora A. Brzezynski) for Hitachi Rail GTS USA; Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks (Nathan R. Speed) for Humatics; Vanguard Crest (Nicole Cunningham, Steven A. Moore) for Piper. D. Del. local counsel earlier: Farnan LLP for Metrom; Morris Nichols (Karen Jacobs) for Siemens.
  • 2026-04-13: oral argument held/audio posted (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/04-13-2026-2024-2223-metrom-rail-llc-v-siemens-mobility-inc-audio-uploaded/).

2026-05-11 — Nonprecedential decision (Dyk, J., joined by Mayer, J.; Taranto, J., concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part): Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223, -2236, -2264.

2026-06 (approx.) — Rehearing sought. Metrom filed a Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, arguing the panel (i) violated the party-presentation rule, (ii) misapplied Graham v. John Deere regarding objective indicia, and (iii) conflicted with Ormco v. Align Technology on nexus. PDF: https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/COMBINED-PETITION-FOR-PANEL-REHEARING-AND-REHEARING-EN-BANC-FOR-APPELLANT-METROM-RAIL-LLC.pdf. I could not verify whether the petition was granted or denied, or whether any mandate has issued. This is the single most important open item.

9. Effect of the PTAB proceedings on the litigation

  1. The IPRs drove a de facto stay of the district court cases (complete stay, including the tortious interference count), so no Markman, no summary judgment, no trial occurred in the '227/'131 suits.
  2. The '227 patent is now entirely invalid (claims 1–28, affirmed 2026-05-11), extinguishing Metrom's '227 infringement counts. The '131 patent is likewise entirely invalid once the Federal Circuit's reversal on claims 17–20 takes effect — the S.D.N.Y. court already dismissed Metrom's '131 claim as moot (2026-05-20).
  3. The '738 patent survives but has never been adjudicated: institution of IPR2024-00947 was denied on § 325(d) grounds, so the '738 patent remains presumptively valid and is the sole asserted patent still in play in the MBTA case. Claim construction and validity for '738 are the next scheduled steps once the '131 appeal is final.
  4. A rare cross-proceeding estoppel-flavored twist: Metrom's own district court complaint statement about claim 17C was used by the Federal Circuit to defeat Metrom's IPR position — the parallel litigation directly reversed the outcome on claims 17–20 of the '131 patent.
  5. The district court stay order in the S.D.N.Y. case was expressly premised on IPR simplification, and the June 4, 2026 stay in the MBTA case is premised on the pendency of the Federal Circuit appeal — i.e., the litigation is being sequenced behind the PTAB/appellate track at every turn.

10. Unverified / open items (flagging rather than guessing)

  • Identities and outcomes of IPR2023-00439, -00452, -00460 (referenced in Patent Owner's mandatory notice as involving the same parties).
  • Answers, counterclaims (if any), and any invalidity contentions in the D. Del./S.D.N.Y. cases.
  • The precise date/docket entry of the S.D.N.Y. stay-pending-IPR order and which of the two severed cases it issued in.
  • The text and scope of the 2026-08-10 preliminary injunction in the MBTA action.
  • The disposition of Metrom's June 2026 rehearing petition and whether the Federal Circuit mandate has issued (as of 2026-09-16 the MBTA case remains stayed pending exactly that event).
  • Any fee motions under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in either forum, and any settlement.

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research this case. Note at the outset: IPR2023-00470 is an IPR before the PTAB, so the "plaintiffs" in the case metadata are the petitioners (Siemens Mobility et al.). But the prompt mentions a "patent infringement case," so I'll also check the underlying district court litigation. Let me search both tracks.

I have good initial data. Now let me pin down the district court docket details and confirm each firm's role.

Important framing note before the roster

Two things need flagging, because they change who "plaintiff's counsel" is:

  1. IPR2023-00470 is not itself a patent infringement case. It is an inter partes review at the PTAB. In the PTAB caption the party listed as "Petitioner" (which the case metadata renders as "Plaintiff(s)") is the Siemens/Humatics/Piper/GTS coalition; Metrom Rail is the Patent Owner.
  2. The actual infringement case runs the other way. The underlying litigation is Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al., where Metrom Rail is the plaintiff. So depending on what you mean by "plaintiff in this patent infringement case," the answer is a different set of lawyers.

I've given you both rosters below, sourced to the PTAB papers and the district court docket.

A. Petitioners (the "Plaintiff(s)" named in the case metadata) — IPR2023-00470 counsel of record

The petition (filed Jan. 13, 2023) designated a single collective lead counsel for all petitioners, with firm-specific backup counsel:

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Vincent J. Galluzzo (Reg. No. 67,830) Original lead counsel (withdrew March 2024) Crowell & Moring LLP — Washington, DC Crowell's rail/PTC patent litigator; on the Siemens Mobility v. Wabtec Delaware jury team. Filed Petitioners' Motion to Withdraw and Substitute Counsel (Paper 59, Mar. 11, 2024) after leaving Crowell.
Howard Wisnia (Reg. No. 37,502) Substituted lead counsel (was backup) Wisnia P.C. — San Diego, CA Sole attorney at Wisnia P.C.; designated lead for the collective petitioners in the Updated Mandatory Notice (Paper, Mar. 8, 2024). Filing notes he does not represent every petitioner individually — only Piper has an attorney-client relationship with him.
Mark M. Supko (pro hac vice) Backup / trial counsel for Siemens Mobility Crowell & Moring LLP — Washington, DC Long-time Siemens rail counsel; co-lead in Siemens Mobility v. Wabtec (D. Del.). Counsel for Siemens on the Fed. Cir. appeal (No. 24-2223).
Joshua H. James (Reg. No. 72,568) Backup for Siemens Mobility Crowell & Moring LLP — Chicago, IL Signed the substitution motion; argued for petitioners at the March 28, 2024 hearing.
Kassidy L. Schmitz (Reg. No. 77,449) Backup for Siemens Mobility Crowell & Moring LLP — Washington, DC PTAB-side support on the Siemens team.
Gregory S. Nieberg (Reg. No. 57,063) Backup for Humatics Corp. Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. — Boston, MA Wolf Greenfield PTAB/post-grant practice.
Nathan R. Speed (pro hac vice) Backup for Humatics Corp. Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. — Boston, MA Electrical-engineering/PTAB specialist; also on the Fed. Cir. brief.
Thatcher A. Rahmeier (Reg. No. 65,734) Backup for Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. (now Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc.) Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP — Wilmington, DE Served as the Delaware-local PTAB counsel for GTS.
Zachary D. Kachmer (Reg. No. 75,414) Backup for Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP — Denver, CO GTS/Hitachi team.
Steven A. Moore (Reg. No. 55,462) Backup for Piper Networks, Inc. Dority & Manning, P.A. — San Diego, CA Dority & Manning's PTAB group; his declaration (Ex. 1041) is in the petition record.
Nicole S. Cunningham (pro hac vice) Backup for Piper Networks, Inc. Dority & Manning, P.A. — San Diego, CA Admitted pro hac vice by Board order (Paper 37 group).

Service contacts confirm the roster: msupko@crowell.com, james@crowell.com, kschmitz@crowell.com; gnieberg-ptab@wolfgreenfield.com, nspeed@wolfgreenfield.com; thatcher.rahmeier@faegredrinker.com, zach.kachmer@faegredrinker.com; smoore@dority-manning.com, ncunningham@dority-manning.com; Howard@wisnialaw.com.

Notes / caveats:

  • Thales USA, Inc. is named as a real party in interest but is not itself a petitioner in IPR2023-00470, so no separate Thales counsel appears on this docket. (Real parties were identified as Siemens Mobility, GTS USA, Humatics, Piper, and Thales USA; Metrom identified itself as sole RPI.)
  • The PTAB counsel list evolved: Galluzzo → Wisnia as lead (March 2024), so any "lead counsel" answer dated before mid-March 2024 would name Galluzzo.
  • Note the parties' briefs refer to GTS USA by its old Thales branding, and the Fed. Cir. caption now reads Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc. fka Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc.

B. The underlying infringement suit — Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA (D. Del.), later severed/transferred to S.D.N.Y.

Here Metrom Rail is the plaintiff, so its counsel are the "plaintiff's counsel" in the infringement case proper:

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Brian E. Farnan Lead attorney / local counsel of record (D. Del.) Farnan LLP — Wilmington, DE Delaware's go-to patent local counsel; docket lists him as "LEAD ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED."
Michael J. Farnan Local counsel Farnan LLP — Wilmington, DE Filed/appeared alongside Brian Farnan.
Gregory C. Schodde Pro hac vice; trial & appellate lead for Metrom McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. — Chicago, IL McAndrews is IP-only; argued for Metrom at the Fed. Cir. (No. 24-2223) and authored the combined rehearing petition.
Ronald H. Spuhler Pro hac vice McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. — Chicago, IL Metrom's technical/patent-prosecution-side counsel.
Christian Havel Hallerud; Philipp Ruben; Rajendra A. Chiplunkar Additional McAndrews Fed. Cir. counsel McAndrews, Held & Malloy — Chicago, IL Listed for Metrom on the Federal Circuit docket (24-2223).

Defendants' district court counsel (i.e., the petitioners' own litigators, for completeness):

  • Karen Jacobs Louden — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington (Delaware local counsel for the Siemens/Thales side; also local counsel in Siemens v. Wabtec).
  • Ali Hossein Khan Tehrani, Mark M. Supko, Vincent J. Galluzzo — Crowell & Moring (Siemens Mobility); Galluzzo withdrew via consent motion filed Apr. 3, 2024 (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Michael N. Rader, Nathan R. Speed — Wolf Greenfield (Humatics).
  • Cameron Paul Clark (and Faegre Drinker's Rahmeier/Kachmer) — for the GTS/Thales side.

Procedural posture that matters for citing "the case": D. Del. action 22-49-RGA was severed and transferred; the S.D.N.Y. dockets are 23-cv-02920-DLC (Metrom v. Ground Transportation Systems USA & Piper Networks) and 23-cv-03057-MKV (Metrom v. Siemens Mobility & Humatics, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil).

C. Sourcing caveats

  • The PTAB roster above is well documented in the petition's mandatory notices, the Updated Mandatory Notice (Mar. 8, 2024), and Paper 59 (Mar. 11, 2024); the FWD issued June 18, 2024 and the appeal is Fed. Cir. No. 24-2223 (opinion May 11, 2026, aff'd-in-part/rev'd-in-part).
  • The district court roster is drawn from the D. Del. docket sheet (22-49-RGA) and third-party docket aggregators (UniCourt, Docket Alarm, CourtListener), which list additional defense-side attorneys not itemized here ("14 more attorneys"). I could not independently verify every one of those 14, so I've limited the table to attorneys whose firm and role are corroborated.
  • I did not find any indication that the S.D.N.Y. filings relevant to counsel appointment are sealed; the PTAB proceeding is public (unlike, e.g., an ITC §337 investigation). Where a name appears only in an aggregator and not in a primary filing, treat it as provisional.
  • Do not rely on any attorney not listed above — I did not invent names, and I found no separate pro hac vice entries beyond those shown.

Bottom line: If by "plaintiff(s)" you mean the parties the metadata labels Plaintiff (Siemens Mobility, GTS/Hitachi, Humatics, Piper), their IPR counsel of record are Howard Wisnia (Wisnia P.C., lead, substituted for Vincent Galluzzo in March 2024) with firm-based backup from Crowell & Moring (Siemens), Wolf Greenfield (Humatics), Faegre Drinker (GTS/Hitachi), and Dority & Manning (Piper). If you mean the plaintiff in the actual infringement lawsuit, that is Metrom Rail, represented by Farnan LLP (Wilmington) and McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Chicago).

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the counsel of record for the patent owner (Metrom Rail) in this PTAB proceeding.

Let me dig into the Patent Owner's mandatory notices and appearance filings, plus the appeal counsel.

Let me confirm the full Patent Owner mandatory notice details and any updates.

Counsel of Record — "Defendant" side (Patent Owner Metrom Rail, LLC)

Threshold framing note: IPR2023-00470 is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a district court infringement action. The party aligned as "Defendant" in the case metadata — Metrom Rail, LLC — is the Patent Owner/Respondent, not a civil defendant. Its counsel of record therefore appear in the PTAB filings (mandatory notices, powers of attorney, motions) rather than in an appearance docket. Metrom's counsel is a single outside firm; no in-house counsel is identified anywhere in the public record of this proceeding.

Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. — 500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor, Chicago, IL 60661 (IP-only Chicago boutique)

Attorney Role Source
Gregory C. Schodde (Reg. No. 36,668) Lead counsel Patent Owner Mandatory Notice Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), Paper filed Feb. 3, 2023
Alejandro Menchaca (Reg. No. 34,389) Backup counsel Same mandatory notice
Ronald ("Hank") Spuhler Backup counsel Same mandatory notice (his Reg. No. was not visible in the excerpt I could retrieve)
Rajendra A. Chiplunkar Pro hac vice (partner, McAndrews) "Patent Owner's Motion for Pro Hac Vice for Rajendra Chiplunkar" + Declaration filed Aug. 28, 2023; Board order granting PHV appears on the docket
Philipp Ruben Advocate (LEAP practitioner at the Mar. 28, 2024 oral hearing); also listed as Metrom backup counsel in related IPR2024-00947 Hearing transcript (Paper 70); Patent Owner Power of Attorney in IPR2024-00947
Christian Havel Hallerud Counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal Am. Entry of Appearance for Appellant Metrom Rail, 24-2223 (Dec. 4, 2024)

Service/contact of record: All PTAB service to the Patent Owner was directed to MetromIPR@mcandrews-ip.com; Schodde is also reachable at gschodde@mcandrews-ip.com / 312-775-8000.

Roles as of the appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2223): Schodde signed the Notice of Appeal and the Combined Petition for Panel and En Banc Rehearing as "Counsel for Appellant & Cross-Appellee Metrom Rail, LLC." The Fed. Cir. entry of appearance (Dec. 4, 2024) lists Schodde, Chiplunkar, Philipp Ruben, and Christian Havel Hallerud.

Experience notes

  • Gregory C. Schodde — McAndrews shareholder; has been Metrom Rail's lead IPR counsel across the family of Siemens Mobility v. Metrom Rail proceedings (IPR2023-00468, -00470, -00439, -00452, -00460) and argued/carried the § 103 nexus appeal. McAndrews' own press release credits the firm with defeating Siemens' IPR2024-00947 petition against Metrom's '738 patent (USPTO denial Nov. 20, 2024). (Firm website / McAndrews press release.)
  • Rajendra A. Chiplunkar — McAndrews partner, electrical-engineering background (ex-Motorola engineer, 11+ years); prior IP practice at Brinks Gilson & Lione; IP litigation and post-grant focus. (His sworn PHV declaration in this IPR; firm bio.)
  • Alejandro Menchaca, Ronald (Hank) Spuhler, Philipp Ruben, Christian Havel Hallerud — McAndrews litigation team; Ruben appeared under the Board's LEAP program for junior attorneys at the March 2024 hearing.

Caveats / what I could not verify

  • Confirmatory: The Feb. 3, 2023 Mandatory Notice is the authoritative counsel list; a "Patent Owner Updated Mandatory Notice Information" was docketed Sept. 26, 2023, but I could not retrieve its text, so I cannot rule out a change in backup-counsel designation after that date. The PHV grant for Chiplunkar is reflected on the docket; the individual Reg. No. for Spuhler and the exact PHV order date were not in the excerpts retrieved.
  • No sealed-counsel issue: PTAB counsel listings are public. Nothing indicates any attorney appeared under seal.
  • Do not confuse with the plaintiff/petitioner side: Counsel for Siemens Mobility, GTS USA, Humatics, and Piper Networks (adverse to Metrom) includes Howard Wisnia (Wisnia P.C., San Diego — Petitioners' designated lead), Mark Supko/Joshua James/Kassidy Schmitz (Crowell & Moring), Gregory Nieberg/Nathan Speed (Wolf Greenfield), Thatcher Rahmeier/Zachary Kachmer (Faegre Drinker), and Steven Moore/Nicole Cunningham (Dority & Manning, for Piper). These represent the petitioners, not the defendant.
  • Parallel district court track (different alignment): In the co-pending infringement suits (originally D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA, later transferred/severed to S.D.N.Y. — 23-cv-02920-DLC and 23-cv-03057-MKV), Metrom Rail is the plaintiff, so the "defendant" labels invert; Metrom's district-court team there includes Schodde/Spuhler plus Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE) as Delaware local counsel. If your question was aimed at that docket rather than the IPR, say so and I'll pull the S.D.N.Y. appearance entries directly.

Bottom line: The attorney who represents Metrom Rail, LLC in this proceeding is Gregory C. Schodde of McAndrews, Held & Malloy (Chicago) — lead counsel — supported by backup counsel Alejandro Menchaca and Ronald (Hank) Spuhler, with Rajendra A. Chiplunkar (PHV), Philipp Ruben, and Christian Havel Hallerud on the team/appeal.