PTAB challenges

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,290,153. This proceeding, IPR2025-01383, was denied institution, meaning no claims were challenged on their merits at the PTAB. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture from the perspective of prior art-based challenges at the PTAB, as the patent claims remain untested and intact through this specific challenge.

IPR2025-01383 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-14
• Status: Institution Denied. This means the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer B. Myers, Joni Y. Chang, and Carl M. DeFranco.
• Petition grounds: Ford Motor Company challenged claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,290,153 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0281666 (Karaoguz) and US 8,630,601 (Bell).
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-02-14. The panel found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that Ford failed to sufficiently demonstrate how the proposed combinations of prior art, particularly Karaoguz and Bell, would have rendered the claimed invention obvious, particularly regarding the specific mechanism of the vehicle's processor determining proximity based on the first wireless link's signal strength to then establish a second different wireless protocol.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Ford Motor Company's attempt to invalidate claims 1-17 of US 9,290,153 at the PTAB was unsuccessful, and institution was denied. This means the patent claims have not been found unpatentable in this proceeding, and the patent owner (AutoConnect Holdings LLC) prevailed at the institution stage. Any defendant facing assertion of this patent will need to develop new arguments or prior art to challenge its validity at the PTAB, as the specific arguments raised by Ford were rejected by the Board.

Strategic summary

The single PTAB proceeding for US 9,290,153, IPR2025-01383, resulted in a denial of institution. This means that all claims (1-17) challenged by Ford Motor Company remain UNTESTED on their merits at the PTAB and are presumed valid from the perspective of this specific AIA trial. No claims were canceled or sustained through a full PTAB review. This outcome suggests that the specific obviousness arguments presented by Ford, relying on prior art such as Karaoguz and Bell, were not deemed sufficiently persuasive by the PTAB to meet the "reasonable likelihood of prevailing" standard for institution.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Ford Motor Company (and any parties in privity with them) would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from challenging claims 1-17 in future PTAB proceedings on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01383. However, other defendants not in privity with Ford are not estopped and can still bring their own challenges using the same or different prior art, or different combinations thereof. The denial of institution does not provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the claims, only that Ford's specific arguments did not meet the institution threshold. There is no pattern of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner, and no indication of the patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals aggressively since there was no final decision to appeal.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 9,290,153, you should review the Institution Decision for IPR2025-01383 (available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal) to understand the Board's reasoning for denying institution. This will provide insight into which prior art combinations and arguments were found insufficient. This denial indicates that the Board considered the specific combination of Karaoguz and Bell, among others, and found it did not present a "reasonable likelihood" of invalidating claims 1-17. Therefore, any new PTAB petition would likely need to present stronger prior art or more compelling arguments for obviousness, or focus on different statutory grounds.## Proceedings overview
There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 9,290,153. This proceeding, IPR2025-01383, was denied institution on the merits, meaning no claims were challenged on their merits at the PTAB. This gives a defendant a strong defensive posture from the perspective of prior art-based challenges at the PTAB, as the patent claims remain untested and intact through this specific challenge.

IPR2025-01383 — Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-08-14
• Status: Institution Denied. This means the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the patentability of the challenged claims. The decision issue date was 2026-05-12.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jennifer B. Myers, Joni Y. Chang, and Carl M. DeFranco.
• Petition grounds: Ford Motor Company challenged claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,290,153 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) over various combinations of prior art, including US 2007/0281666 (Karaoguz) and US 8,630,601 (Bell).
• Institution decision: Institution was denied on 2026-05-12. While earlier reports indicated that IPR2025-01383 was initially referred for merits review as of December 2025, the final outcome was a denial of institution on the merits. The panel found that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that Ford failed to sufficiently demonstrate how the proposed combinations of prior art, particularly Karaoguz and Bell, would have rendered the claimed invention obvious, particularly regarding the specific mechanism of the vehicle's processor determining proximity based on the first wireless link's signal strength to then establish a second different wireless protocol.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied. However, it's worth noting that the Director of the USPTO has recently been issuing notices relating to discretionary denials and consistency of arguments between district court and PTAB proceedings, which might have played a role in the PTAB's decision-making process for institution denials around this time.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Ford Motor Company's attempt to invalidate claims 1-17 of US 9,290,153 at the PTAB was unsuccessful, and institution was denied on the merits. This means the patent claims have not been found unpatentable in this proceeding, and the patent owner (AutoConnect Holdings LLC) prevailed at the institution stage. Any defendant facing assertion of this patent will need to develop new arguments or prior art to challenge its validity at the PTAB, as the specific obviousness arguments raised by Ford were rejected by the Board.

Strategic summary

The single PTAB proceeding for US 9,290,153, IPR2025-01383, resulted in a denial of institution on 2026-05-12. This means that all claims (1-17) challenged by Ford Motor Company remain UNTESTED on their merits at the PTAB and are presumed valid from the perspective of this specific AIA trial. No claims were canceled or sustained through a full PTAB review. This outcome suggests that the specific obviousness arguments presented by Ford, relying on prior art such as Karaoguz and Bell, were not deemed sufficiently persuasive by the PTAB to meet the "reasonable likelihood of prevailing" standard for institution.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Ford Motor Company (and any parties in privity with them) would be barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from challenging claims 1-17 in future PTAB proceedings on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01383. However, other defendants not in privity with Ford are not estopped and can still bring their own challenges using the same or different prior art, or different combinations thereof. The denial of institution does not provide a definitive ruling on the patentability of the claims, only that Ford's specific arguments did not meet the institution threshold. There is no pattern of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner, and no indication of the patent owner pursuing PTAB appeals aggressively since there was no final decision to appeal. It is noteworthy that the period around late 2025 and early 2026 saw a significant shift in PTAB institution rates, with many petitions being denied on discretionary grounds or on the merits, indicating a stricter scrutiny by the Director of the USPTO.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 9,290,153, you should review the Institution Decision for IPR2025-01383 (available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal) to understand the Board's reasoning for denying institution. This will provide insight into which prior art combinations and arguments were found insufficient. This denial indicates that the Board considered the specific combination of Karaoguz and Bell, among others, and found it did not present a "reasonable likelihood" of invalidating claims 1-17. Therefore, any new PTAB petition would likely need to present stronger prior art or more compelling arguments for obviousness, or focus on different statutory grounds.