Unified Patents, LLC v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

Unified Patents, LLC, the petitioner, is a member-based organization that seeks to deter abusive patent litigation by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) through various strategies, including filing inter partes review (IPR) petitions against patents they believe are of poor quality or invalid. They operate across defined technology zones and aim to reduce the number of NPE patent assertions without paying for patent licenses, thus avoiding incentivizing further NPE activity. The respondent, AutoConnect Holdings LLC, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that acquires and asserts patents, particularly in the connected vehicle technology sector. AutoConnect Holdings has a history of litigating against major automotive manufacturers such as Toyota, General Motors, and Ford, asserting a portfolio of patents related to various aspects of network-connected vehicles.

This case involves US Patent 9082239. While a precise one-line technical sketch of this specific patent within the context of this IPR was not explicitly detailed in the search results, AutoConnect Holdings LLC's broader patent assertions generally cover in-vehicle multimedia systems, digital key features, face identification, user profiles, and support for platforms like Android Auto and Apple CarPlay. The accused products, services, or technology in AutoConnect's related district court litigations have included a wide array of automobiles, vehicle systems (e.g., in-vehicle multimedia systems), mobile apps, and related hardware and software components from these automotive companies.

The procedural posture of this matter is an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00171) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The case status is "Not Instituted - Procedural," meaning the PTAB declined to initiate the full IPR process for procedural reasons, thereby closing the case without a decision on the merits of patentability. The PTAB, under Director John Squires, has seen recent policy shifts, including a higher rate of institution denials, sometimes based on discretionary factors such as inconsistent claim construction positions taken by petitioners in parallel district court litigation or considerations related to U.S. manufacturing footprint. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome is notable as it reflects the PTAB's increased scrutiny and willingness to deny institution on grounds beyond the patentability merits, potentially influenced by the broader context of patent owner "settled expectations" or petitioner litigation conduct.

This case, Unified Patents, LLC v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, IPR2026-00171, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), rather than a patent infringement litigation in a district court. The proceeding challenged U.S. Patent 9,082,239, owned by AutoConnect Holdings LLC.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Petition Filing (2026-01-04): Unified Patents, LLC filed a petition for Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent 9,082,239.
• Institution Denied - Director Discretionary Decision (2026-05-13): The PTAB, on behalf of the Director of the USPTO, issued a Director Discretionary Decision to deny institution of the IPR. This decision, documented as "Paper 11," effectively closed the IPR proceeding without reaching the merits of the patentability challenge.
  • The denial was categorized as a "procedural" non-institution. This aligns with a broader trend observed in Q1 2026, where PTAB petitions, particularly IPRs, saw a significant decrease due to a surge in discretionary denials and stricter procedural changes initiated by the USPTO Director.
  • The PTAB listed Ford Motor Company as the Petitioner in IPR2026-00171, challenging Patent 9,082,239 B2, with AutoConnect Holdings LLC as the Patent Owner. It appears Unified Patents may have filed on behalf of Ford, or the records have multiple petitioners associated with the same IPR number.
• Final Disposition: The IPR proceeding is closed and was not instituted. No appeal to the Federal Circuit from a non-institution decision has been noted in the provided information.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

While IPR2026-00171 specifically concerned U.S. Patent 9,082,239, AutoConnect Holdings LLC has been the target of other challenges by Unified Patents. For instance, Unified Patents has initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings against other patents owned by AutoConnect Holdings LLC, including:

• U.S. Patent 9,290,153, related to vehicle network device discovery, challenged on April 14, 2026.
• U.S. Patent 10,862,764, related to vehicle control systems, challenged on February 26, 2025.
• U.S. Patent 9,098,367, related to vehicle application management, challenged on June 2, 2025.

Additionally, the PTAB Open Data Portal indicates that IPR2026-00171 was one of a series of IPRs filed by Ford Motor Company against AutoConnect Holdings LLC patents, including IPR2026-00172 (Patent 9,147,297 B2) and IPR2026-00173 (Patent 9,173,100 B2). These parallel IPRs likely also faced similar discretionary denial decisions given the prevailing trend.

I'll research counsel for the petitioner (Unified Patents, LLC) in IPR2026-00171, plus its parallel proceedings.

Key discrepancy found — let me dig into the petitioner's counsel of record.

Let me verify the petitioner identity discrepancy and pin down counsel designations.

Counsel of Record for the Petitioner ("Plaintiff") — IPR2026-00171

⚠️ Threshold issue: the caption in the case metadata does not match the public PTAB record

Before listing counsel, I have to flag a direct contradiction between the metadata supplied for this matter and every public docket source I could locate:

Sources: https://sandbox.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00171/Ford_Motor_Company_v._AutoConnect_Holdings_LLC/ • https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00171 • https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2026-00171/ford-motor-co-v-autoconnect-holdings-llc • https://ai-lab-cl-prod.azurewebsites.net/case/ptab/IPR2026-00171/doc/1045

The patent, the "procedural/discretionary" non-institution, and the May 13, 2026 termination date all line up with the previously generated sections of this case; the petitioner's identity and the January 4, 2026 filing date do not. The earlier "Key legal developments" section already noted that "the PTAB listed Ford Motor Company as the Petitioner in IPR2026-00171" and speculated that "Unified Patents may have filed on behalf of Ford." That speculation is not supported by anything I found — no public filing in IPR2026-00171 names Unified Patents as petitioner, and Unified's own public statements about its AutoConnect work describe ex parte reexaminations, not this IPR (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/4/16/autoconnect-holdings-vehicle-network-patent-challenged). I therefore report both possibilities below rather than picking one silently.

---

A. Petitioner-side counsel of record on the actual IPR2026-00171 docket — Brooks Kushman P.C.

This is the only counsel designation tied to proceeding number IPR2026-00171 that I could source.

Sources: https://www.brookskushman.com/insights/ford-iprs-instituted-at-patent-trial-and-appeal-board/ • https://www.brookskushman.com/people/andrew-turner/ • https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558564](/patent/1558564)/download-documents (Ford § 42.10(b) designations: "Andrew B. Turner (Lead Counsel) John S. LeRoy (Backup Counsel) Christopher C. …") • https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2026-00171 (Petitioner Counsel: "Turner, Andrew et al")

Counsel-service detail: Ford's papers in the sibling Ford–AutoConnect IPRs direct PTAB e-mail service to case-specific Brooks Kushman addresses (e.g., FPGP0156IPR@brookskushman.com, FPGP0151IPR@brookskushman.com), with lead counsel's direct line (248) 358-4400 and Turner's direct (248) 226-2707. Firm address historically listed as 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, MI 48075; current designation is the Royal Oak, MI address.

Caveat on precision: The § 42.10(b) power-of-attorney excerpt I retrieved verbatim is from the sibling Ford–AutoConnect IPR captioned for U.S. Pat. No. 9,147,296 (IPR2026-00002), not from IPR2026-00171 itself. The IPR2026-00171-specific petition caption pages (Ex. 1045) confirm Ford as petitioner and contain a "Lead and Back-Up Counsel – 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3)" section, but the retrieved text of that section was truncated before the names. The composition of the team is corroborated by the firm alert and the GreyB counsel field, but if you need the four corners of the IPR2026-00171 designation, pull Paper 2 / the § 42.10(b) notice directly from the PTAB docket.

---

B. If the metadata caption (Unified Patents, LLC as petitioner) is treated as controlling

I found no public record of any Unified Patents appearance in IPR2026-00171. For completeness, here is the only Unified-side counsel evidence that exists in the AutoConnect campaign — all of it from ex parte reexaminations, not IPRs, and none of it tied to the '239 patent:

Source: https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2026/4/16/autoconnect-holdings-vehicle-network-patent-challenged and https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2025/2/26/autoconnect-holdings-vehicle-control-patent-challenged

These names should not be represented as counsel of record in IPR2026-00171. Unified's practice is also to designate in-house attorneys plus rotating outside firms, so the outside-firm roster varies case by case.

---

C. Related-party counsel for context (not petitioner-side in this IPR)

• Ford in the parallel district court case (AutoConnect Holdings LLC v. Ford Motor Co., D. Del. No. 1:24-cv-01327): Neal C. Belgam and Daniel A. Taylor, Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE; John S. LeRoy, Christopher Smith, and Reza Roghani Esfahani, Brooks Kushman P.C., Royal Oak, MI (D. Del. opinion, Apr. 16, 2026, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/24-1327_0.pdf). Note the overlap between Ford's district-court team and the IPR team — relevant because the discretionary denial turned on Ford's inconsistent claim-construction positions across the two forums.
• Patent Owner AutoConnect (already covered in the prior "Defendant representatives" section): Eric A. Zelepugas (lead, Reg. 73,302) and Robert A. Conley (back-up, Reg. 55,846), Avantech Law, LLP, 80 S 8th St., Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55402 — named as lead/back-up counsel in the IPR certificates of service.

---

D. What is not publicly available

• No counterparty-side seals issue here, but the IPR was never instituted, so there was no merits-phase counsel roster, no protective-order acknowledgments, and no pro hac vice orders to confirm — the case closed at the discretionary-denial stage (Paper 11, May 13, 2026; Director Review denied May 27, 2026 per Docket Alarm).
• I could not retrieve the full text of the IPR2026-00171-specific § 42.8(b)(3) designation; the team roster above is reconstructed from the firm's own announcements, the sibling Ford–AutoConnect IPR designations, and the GreyB counsel field. That is strong but not documentary proof of the exact IPR2026-00171 filing.
• If the metadata caption is correct and Unified Patents was in fact the petitioner, then the petitioner's counsel of record in this proceeding is not publicly documented at all, and the Ford/Brooks Kushman identification above would instead describe the petitioner in a differently captioned proceeding bearing the same number.

Bottom line: The record evidence points to Andrew B. Turner (lead), with John S. LeRoy, Christopher C. Smith, Kyle Konz, and Yasmeen Moradshahi of Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak, MI), as petitioner-side counsel in IPR2026-00171 — but that designation runs to Ford Motor Company as petitioner, which conflicts with this case's metadata naming Unified Patents, LLC.

The publicly available information indicates that AutoConnect Holdings LLC is represented by several law firms in its patent litigation activities, including in related inter partes review proceedings and district court cases.

Here's an overview of the counsel representing AutoConnect Holdings LLC:

• Avantech Law, LLP

  • William R. Woodford (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Minneapolis, MN.
  • Todd S. Werner (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Minneapolis, MN.
  • Jason M. Zucchi (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Minneapolis, MN.
  • Julianne Thomsen (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Minneapolis, MN.
  • Shelleaha L. Jonas (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Minneapolis, MN.
  • Eric Zelepugas (Counsel) - Listed in connection with IPR2026-00171 as counsel for Patent Owner AutoConnect Holdings LLC.

• Miller Fair Henry PLLC

  • Andrea Leigh Fair (Attorney for Plaintiff) - This firm provides representation in some of AutoConnect's district court cases, such as the one against Toyota in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Farnan LLP

  • Michael J. Farnan (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Wilmington, DE.
  • Brian E. Farnan (Attorney for Plaintiff) - Wilmington, DE.
  • This firm represents AutoConnect Holdings LLC in district court cases, for example, against Ford Motor Company in the District of Delaware.

It's important to note that while some of these attorneys and firms are listed in connection with district court cases involving AutoConnect's patent portfolio (which includes US Patent 9082239), and some for IPR2026-00171 specifically (like Eric Zelepugas), the PTAB IPR case IPR2026-00171 itself was not instituted. Therefore, detailed appearances for the merits phase may not have been fully established or extensively documented in publicly available records for the respondent in this particular IPR. The information above reflects their involvement in related or similar proceedings where AutoConnect Holdings LLC is the patent owner.