Unified Patents PTAB Data v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION D/B/A AMTRAK

Unified Patents PTAB Data, an organization dedicated to deterring abusive patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs), filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782. The patent owner in this IPR is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, commonly known as Amtrak, which is the national passenger railroad company of the United States. This IPR follows related district court litigation where Railware, Inc. asserted the '782 patent against Amtrak's train-traffic-control system in Railware, Inc. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (S.D.N.Y. No. 22 Civ. 5013). The '782 patent, titled "Tools for railway traffic control," generally describes systems and methods designed to control train traffic on railway track sections, particularly to ensure the safety of railway workers. It involves a railway control apparatus and a user terminal for a field worker, facilitating a secure process for blocking and unblocking track sections, often through a coded exchange between a dispatcher and a field employee.

The procedural posture of this case is an IPR filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2023-01179. The petition was filed on July 6, 2023, and reached a "Not Instituted - Merits" status. This outcome signifies that the PTAB reviewed Unified Patents' petition and determined that it did not establish a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims of the '782 patent was unpatentable, thus declining to initiate a formal review trial on the substantive merits of the arguments presented.

This case is notable for several reasons. Unified Patents typically targets patents asserted by NPEs, and while Amtrak is an operating company, the IPR appears to be a defensive maneuver related to the patent's assertion in the concurrent district court litigation by Railware, Inc. against Amtrak. The "Not Instituted - Merits" decision is a significant win for Amtrak, as the PTAB found the patent challenge unpersuasive at the institution stage. This stands in contrast to IPRs generally, where institution rates against operating companies hovered around 40.5% in the first quarter of 2026. The outcome demonstrates the patent's resilience against validity challenges before the PTAB.

This analysis covers the patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782, focusing on the district court case and related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

District Court Patent Infringement Litigation: Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak

This patent infringement litigation was filed by Railware, Inc. against National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak in the Southern District of New York. The case involved U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782, along with U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,835 and U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE49,115, all related to railway traffic control systems designed to enhance worker safety.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2022-06-15): Railware, Inc. initiated the patent infringement action by filing a complaint against National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak on June 15, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:22-cv-05013. An amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2022. Railware alleged that Amtrak's train traffic control systems, including the Collins Aerospace legacy control system and AMTEC, infringed its asserted patents by replicating roadway safety innovations.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance – Motion to Dismiss (2022-10-06): Amtrak filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 6, 2022, arguing that the asserted patents were directed to an abstract idea and therefore ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance – Motion to Dismiss Denied (2023-08-23): Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District of New York denied Amtrak's motion to dismiss on August 23, 2023. The court found that Railware's patent claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather "provide for an innovative method of achieving a specific result" by modifying traditional centralized railroad control systems to divide control of the blocking and unblocking process between a central dispatcher and field workers to prevent premature removal of blocks.
• Settlement and Dismissal (2024-06-27): The parties subsequently reached a settlement. A Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal was filed on June 27, 2024, dismissing with prejudice all pending claims and counterclaims between Railware, Inc. and Amtrak. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782

Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions have been filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782.

• IPR2023-01179:

  • Parties and Filing (2023-07-06): For IPR2023-01179, the provided case metadata lists Unified Patents PTAB Data as the Petitioner and National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak as the Patent Owner. The petition was filed on July 6, 2023.
  • Public Record Discrepancy: However, public records for IPR2023-01179 consistently show that National Railroad Passenger Corporation d/b/a Amtrak was the actual Petitioner, and Railware, Inc. was the Patent Owner for this proceeding. This IPR challenged claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782.
  • Outcome - Not Instituted (2024-01-22): The PTAB issued a decision on January 22, 2024, denying institution of IPR2023-01179 on the merits. The Board concluded that the information presented in the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner (Amtrak in the actual filing) would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the '782 patent.
  • Effect on Litigation: As the IPR was not instituted, it did not lead to a stay of the district court litigation nor did it result in any estoppel against Amtrak regarding the challenged claims in the ongoing infringement case.

• Other Related IPRs:

  • IPR2026-00133: A petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782 was filed by Westinghouse against Railware, Inc.
  • IPR2026-00135: Another petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,517,782 was filed by Wabtec against Railware, Inc.

The resolution of the district court case through settlement and dismissal effectively concluded the patent infringement litigation without proceeding to trial, while the IPR proceedings represent separate challenges to the validity of the underlying patent.

While specific docket entries detailing the counsel of record for Unified Patents PTAB Data in IPR2023-01179 are not publicly accessible through direct web search, information regarding Unified Patents' general practice in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings and their in-house legal team suggests the likely representation.

Unified Patents often utilizes its in-house counsel for IPR proceedings. Jonathan Stroud, the Chief IP Counsel and Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Legal Officer (CLO) of Unified Patents, is consistently involved in the organization's legal work, including Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and appellate litigation. For instance, in a Power of Attorney filing for a different IPR (IPR2023-00584), Jonathan Stroud is explicitly named as the General Counsel for Unified Patents, LLC, and identified with Customer Number 165774. He is registered to practice before the USPTO. Stroud's experience includes previously being a patent attorney at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett and Dunner LLP, and examining patents at the USPTO.

Other in-house Senior Patent Counsel at Unified Patents who are generally involved in the organization's PTAB efforts include Jenn Bisk, Kyla Bulter, Kelly Hughes, T.J. Murphy, Jessica L.A. Marks (also SEP & Foreign Managing Counsel), Vinu Raj, Jordan Rossen, Andrea Shoffstall, David Seastrunk, and Jason Wejnert. Roshan Mansinghani is also listed as Legal Head-NPE for Unified Patents and has been noted as in-house counsel in past IPR proceedings alongside Jonathan Stroud.

Due to the absence of direct public docket access for IPR2023-01179 through web searches, the specific lead and backup counsel for this particular case cannot be definitively identified. However, based on Unified Patents' operational model, it is highly probable that Jonathan Stroud (Chief IP Counsel/General Counsel) and other in-house Senior Patent Counsel from Unified Patents, LLC, are the counsel of record.

Likely Counsel of Record (based on Unified Patents' general IPR practice and available information):

• Jonathan Stroud
  • Role: Chief IP Counsel/General Counsel (and COO & CLO)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: Manages Unified Patents' legal and corporate work, focusing on PTAB, district court, and appellate litigation; previously a patent attorney at Finnegan and a patent examiner at the USPTO. He has been counsel of record in numerous Unified Patents IPRs.

It is common for Unified Patents to have a team of in-house Senior Patent Counsel assisting on IPRs. Without direct docket access for IPR2023-01179, specific additional names cannot be confirmed for this case.

In IPR2023-01179, the Patent Owner is Railware, Inc., not NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION D/B/A AMTRAK (who is the Petitioner in this IPR). The counsel of record representing the Patent Owner, Railware, Inc., in this inter partes review proceeding includes attorneys from Robins Kaplan LLP. These attorneys also represented Railware, Inc. in a related district court patent infringement case, Railware, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation (1:22-cv-05013) in the Southern District of New York, which involved the same patent at issue or related patents.

The following attorneys from Robins Kaplan LLP represented Railware, Inc.:

• Bryan J. Vogel

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Experience: Bryan J. Vogel is a founding partner of Robins Kaplan's New York office and head of the firm's International Trade Commission practice. He is a nationally recognized trial attorney and IP strategist who regularly handles patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark matters before the International Trade Commission, federal district courts, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the Federal Circuit. He has a background in chemical engineering and has been recognized as a "Patent Star" and "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property and a New York Super Lawyer.

• Derrick Carman

  • Role: Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Experience: Derrick Carman is a partner focusing on intellectual property litigation. He has been recognized as a "New York Rising Star" by Super Lawyers. His experience includes intellectual property disputes before the International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Travis K. Waller

  • Role: Counsel (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Experience: Travis K. Waller focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation, covering a range of technologies including biotechnology, life sciences, electronics, software, and telecommunications. He has been named a "New York Rising Star" by Super Lawyers for multiple years.