Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. Yechezkal Evan Spero

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA), the North American subsidiary of the global automobile manufacturer Volkswagen Group, engaged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding against patent owner Yechezkal Evan Spero before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Spero, an individual inventor, holds U.S. Patent No. 10,894,503, with Torchlight Technologies LLC acting as the exclusive licensee. Torchlight Technologies LLC operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), and has a history of asserting patents, including those related to headlight systems, against various automotive manufacturers like Audi, Daimler, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and Volkswagen.

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 10,894,503, titled "Automatic Vehicle Headlight System," which describes an adaptive anti-glare headlight system. This technology utilizes controllable light sources, such as LED arrays, in conjunction with sensors and a controller, to automatically adjust the light beam to prevent glare for other vehicles. While the IPR directly challenges the patent's validity rather than alleging direct infringement, it is closely linked to underlying or threatened infringement claims against automotive companies that incorporate adaptive headlight technology in their vehicles. The specific IPR, IPR2023-00328, focused on challenging method claims of the patent, complementing other parallel IPRs (IPR2023-00197 and IPR2023-00335) that targeted system claims and light cluster claims of the same patent.

The case unfolded at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2023-00328, where a Final Written Decision was issued. The PTAB determined that a substantial portion of the patent, specifically claims 1–28, 30–68, and 70 of U.S. Patent No. 10,894,503, were unpatentable. Patent Owner Yechezkal Evan Spero appealed this outcome to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, on May 14, 2026, the Federal Circuit dismissed Spero's appeal as moot, having affirmed the PTAB's decisions finding the appealed claims of the '503 patent unpatentable in a related appeal, Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 2025-1470. The PTAB proceedings involved consolidated oral arguments for IPR2023-00197, IPR2023-00328, and IPR2023-00335 on April 16, 2024.

This case is particularly notable as it highlights the ongoing dynamics of patent assertion by NPEs against the automotive industry and the strategic use of IPRs by large operating companies to challenge patent validity. Torchlight Technologies LLC's pattern of asserting adaptive headlight patents against multiple automotive giants underscores the financial stakes involved in this technology space. Volkswagen's decision to file multiple, distinct IPR petitions against different claim groupings of the same patent demonstrates a comprehensive strategy to invalidate the asserted patents and proactively address potential infringement liabilities, securing a favorable outcome for a significant portion of the challenged claims.

The IPR proceeding IPR2023-00328 involves Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. challenging patent owner Yechezkal Evan Spero regarding U.S. Patent 10,894,503. This IPR is one of three filed by Volkswagen against the same patent (IPR2023-00197, IPR2023-00328, and IPR2023-00335), collectively challenging all 70 claims of the patent, with IPR2023-00328 specifically addressing method claims.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2023-00328:

• IPR Petition Filing: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. filed the petition for inter partes review for IPR2023-00328 on December 16, 2022.
• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision to institute the inter partes review on June 21, 2023.
• Final Written Decision (FWD): The PTAB is statutorily required to issue a final written decision within 12 months of institution, with a possible six-month extension for good cause. The prompt indicates a Final Written Decision has been issued. While the exact date and specifics of the FWD for IPR2023-00328 are not immediately available in the provided search results, the typical timeline suggests it would have occurred around June-December 2024.
• Parallel Federal Circuit Appeals: While the case IPR2023-00328 itself is an IPR at the PTAB, related appeals concerning U.S. Patent 9,955,551B2 (a related patent by the same patent owner, though not the patent at issue in this specific IPR) have reached the Federal Circuit.
  • One appeal, Case No. 25-1065, filed by Yechezkal Evan Spero against Volkswagen AG, was voluntarily dismissed on April 3, 2025.
  • Another appeal, Case No. 25-1145, also by Yechezkal Evan Spero against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Porsche Cars North America, Inc., was voluntarily dismissed on July 2, 2025. In both instances, the Federal Circuit did not issue a merits ruling, and each side bore its own costs. The dismissals leave the underlying patentability dispute unresolved on the public record regarding those specific appeals. These appeals highlight ongoing patentability disputes involving Spero and Volkswagen.

I'll research the petitioner's counsel of record in this IPR. Note the framing: this is a PTAB IPR, so the "plaintiff" analog is the Petitioner, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

I have strong results. Let me verify the counsel designations and a few attorney details.

Let me check for any updated mandatory notices from the petitioner and confirm the team composition.

Counsel of Record for the Petitioner (the "plaintiff" side) — IPR2023-00328

Threshold framing note (important): IPR2023-00328 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. There is no "plaintiff" on the Board's caption; the party that filed and prosecuted the challenge is the Petitioner, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. ("VWGoA"). The prior section of this case summary covered Patent Owner Spero's counsel (Brooks Kushman). Below is the mirror-image analysis for the Petitioner side.

For completeness: the actual patent-infringement plaintiff in the parallel litigation over the '503 patent is Torchlight Technologies LLC (the exclusive licensee/PAE), which sued in Torchlight Techs. LLC v. Daimler AG et al., No. 1:22-cv-00751-GBW (D. Del.) and Torchlight Techs. LLC v. General Motors LLC et al., No. 1:22-cv-00752-GBW (D. Del.). VWGoA was a defendant there and was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on September 23, 2022 — which is what precipitated the IPR campaign. So if the question is read literally as "the plaintiff in the infringement case," the answer is Torchlight's counsel (see §3 below); if read as "the plaintiff-side/asserting party here," the answer is VWGoA's Sterne Kessler team (below).

---

1. Petitioner VWGoA — counsel of record at the PTAB (Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C.)

VWGoA's lead and back-up counsel were designated in the Petition's Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8) and appear on the Board's Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (Paper 3, as corrected by Erratum, Paper 4, Jan. 19, 2023).

Source anchors: PTAB Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition + Erratum (Paper 4, Jan. 19, 2023) listing "PETITIONER: Michael Specht / Jason Fitzsimmons / Daniel Yonan / Brian Burke / Ian Soule — Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC"; the consolidated Oral Hearing Transcript (Paper 41) ("Mike Specht, lead counsel for Petitioner"); the Oct. 6, 2023 Order Denying Director Review (Paper 19); and the FWD (Paper 42, July 15, 2024). Law360's May 23, 2024 coverage confirms: "Volkswagen is represented by Michael D. Specht, Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Daniel E. Yonan and Ian Soule of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC."

Caveats: (a) The record reflects a Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices filed Aug. 28, 2023 (per the Docket Alarm/IPVerse docket), and docket lore suggests lead/back-up designations were refreshed during prosecution; I was unable to retrieve the contents of that filing, so the table above reflects the designations documented in the institution/FWD-era papers. (b) No in-house counsel for VWGoA appears on the PTAB record, and none should be assumed. (c) Attorneys listed on a service list (e.g., Higgins) are not necessarily "of record" as back-up counsel — I have flagged the ones whose back-up designation is documented.

2. Joined Petitioner — Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Haug Partners LLP, New York)

The FWD carries the footnote: "Porsche Cars North America, Inc., which filed a petition in IPR2023-01320, has been joined as a party to this proceeding." Porsche is therefore a co-petitioner of record in IPR2023-00328 via joinder, represented by a different firm:

• Edgar H. Haug (Reg. No. 29,309) — Haug Partners LLP, 745 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY — lead.
• Robert E. Colletti (Reg. No. 76,417) — Haug Partners LLP, New York, NY — back-up.

(Source: Certificate of Service / service lists in the consolidated -197/-328/-335 record, and the Sterne Kessler/Law360 reports noting "Porsche is represented by Edgar H. Haug and Robert E. Colletti of Haug Partners LLP.")

3. If the question means the infringement plaintiff — Torchlight Technologies LLC

In the underlying D. Del. actions asserting the '503 patent, the plaintiff is Torchlight (not VWGoA). Delaware counsel of record on the Torchlight v. Daimler docket (1:22-cv-00751-GBW), per the docket sheet reproduced in the PTAB exhibits:

• Kenneth Laurence Dorsney — Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE — lead attorney.
• Corstan S. Hitch — Morris James LLP, Wilmington, DE — lead attorney.

VWGoA's Delaware defense counsel in that same action were Adam Wyatt Poff and Samantha G. Wilson of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Wilmington, DE). Note VWGoA was dismissed from that case on Sept. 23, 2022, so this is context, not the operative representation in the IPR.

4. Appellate counsel (VWGoA as Appellee) — for continuity

In the consolidated Federal Circuit appeal from the '503 FWDs (Nos. 2025-1146 et al., decided May 14, 2026, nonprecedential), VWGoA was represented by Sterne Kessler: Richard Crudo and William Milliken argued; Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Ryan N. Kaiser, Michael D. Specht, and Daniel Yonan also appeared. (GovInfo PDF of the CAFC disposition.) This confirms the same core PTAB team (Specht/Fitzsimmons/Yonan) carried the appeal, with appellate specialists Crudo/Milliken and director Ryan N. Kaiser added.

---

5. Corrections / updates to the previously generated sections

Two items in the prior sections are now resolved or superseded and should be flagged:

1. Institution date: The prior section states institution was June 21, 2023. The FWD itself says review was instituted on July 17, 2023 (Paper 12). Treat July 17, 2023 as authoritative.
2. FWD date and substance: The prior section said the FWD date was "not immediately available" and estimated June–December 2024. It was issued July 15, 2024 (Paper 42), holding claims 26–28, 30–36, 65–68, and 70 unpatentable, but finding Petitioner did not prove claims 29 and 69 unpatentable. This is consistent with the prior section's general statement that claims 1–28, 30–68, and 70 were invalidated in the aggregate across the three IPRs, not by -328 alone. Note also a typo in the FWD text ("oral hearing held April 16, 2023"); the hearing actually occurred April 16, 2024.
3. Counsel caveat: The Aug. 28, 2023 "Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices" in -328 exists on the docket but its content could not be verified here; the Reg. Nos. and designations above come from the petition-stage and FWD-stage papers, which are the strongest available sources.

Bottom line: For IPR2023-00328, the Petitioner-side counsel of record are Michael D. Specht (lead), with Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Daniel E. Yonan, Ian Soule, Brian G. Burke, and John D. Higgins — all of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, Washington, D.C. — plus joined-petitioner Porsche's counsel Edgar H. Haug and Robert E. Colletti of Haug Partners LLP, New York.

I'll research the Patent Owner's (respondent/defendant) counsel of record in IPR2023-00328.

Let me get the Patent Owner's Power of Attorney and counsel details.

Defendant/Patent Owner representatives

Important framing note: Because this is an IPR (not a district-court infringement action), there is no "defendant" in the conventional sense. The party opposing Petitioner Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is the Patent Owner/Respondent, Yechezkal Evan Spero — the named inventor and owner of U.S. Patent No. 10,894,503. (Torchlight Technologies LLC is the exclusive licensee and a frequent co-litigant in the parallel district-court actions, but it is not a party to IPR2023-00328.) All Patent Owner-side counsel below are from a single firm, Brooks Kushman P.C., which has represented both Spero and Torchlight across this patent family.

Counsel of record for Patent Owner Yechezkal Evan Spero (Brooks Kushman P.C.)

Source of representation: The panel's caption and the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (as corrected by the Jan. 19, 2023 Erratum) list "PATENT OWNER: Brooks Kushman, 1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor, Southfield, MI 48075" (IPR2023-00328, Paper 4). Patent Owner's filings in IPR2023-00328 and the related '503 IPRs signature-block as Sangeeta G. Shah (Lead Counsel), David S. Bir (Back-up), Bernard P. Tomsa (Back-up) — see, e.g., the September 20, 2023 Notice of Deposition in IPR2023-00328 and the January 3, 2024 Updated Mandatory Notices, which updated the firm address to 150 W. Second St., Suite 400N, Royal Oak, MI 48067-3846 (IPR2023-00197 Updated Mandatory Notice). A Patent Owner Power of Attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) was filed in this proceeding on April 18, 2023 (Patent Owner Power of Attorney).

Appellate counsel (Spero's Federal Circuit appeal)

For the consolidated appeal that produced the May 14, 2026 nonprecedential dismissal (Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1146, encompassing IPR2023-00197/00328/00335/01231/01320/01321), the Spero-side team again was Brooks Kushman: Thomas A. Lewry argued, with Frank A. Angileri, Sangeeta G. Shah, and Andrew B. Turner also on the brief (Fed. Cir. opinion, Spero v. Volkswagen Group of America, No. 2025-1146). Note that Mr. Lewry and Mr. Angileri are not listed as counsel of record on the IPR2023-00328 docket itself — they appeared only at the appellate stage.

In-house counsel

No in-house counsel is identified for Patent Owner. Spero is an individual inventor holding the patent in his own name; he is represented exclusively by outside counsel at Brooks Kushman. No counsel has "failed to appear" — the docket reflects continuous representation from the April 2023 Power of Attorney through the 2026 appeal.

⚠️ Cross-reference flag (contradiction with the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section)

The earlier-generated Plaintiff representatives section identifies Volkswagen's IPR2023-00328 counsel as J. Michael Jakes, Aaron Clay, and Jacob S. Schroeder of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. That is not consistent with the PTAB docket for IPR2023-00328. The erratum and the proceeding record identify Petitioner Volkswagen's counsel as Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. — Michael Specht, Jason Fitzsimmons, Daniel Yonan, Brian Burke, and Ian Soule (IPR2023-00328, Paper 4 Erratum; independent case trackers likewise list "Petitioner Counsel: Specht, Michael et al"). Mr. Fitzsimmons authored Petitioner's objections in the sibling proceeding IPR2023-00335. The Finnegan attorneys may relate to a different Spero matter (e.g., a district-court or appellate engagement), but they do not appear to be Petitioner's PTAB counsel of record in IPR2023-00328. Recommend the Plaintiff-side section be corrected to Sterne Kessler. (The metadata in this prompt lists VWGoA as the sole petitioner; note that Porsche Cars North America, Inc. was joined as a party to IPR2023-00328 by virtue of its IPR2023-01320 petition, per the Final Written Decision footnote.)

Bottom line: For IPR2023-00328, the Patent Owner/Respondent (defendant-side) team is Sangeeta G. Shah (lead), David S. Bir, Bernard P. Tomsa, and Andrew B. Turner, all of Brooks Kushman P.C. (Royal Oak, MI), with Thomas A. Lewry and Frank A. Angileri added for the Federal Circuit appeal.