US 12258058

I'll search for the specific patent number and any related 2026 litigation activity.

Let me check for CAFC 2026 docket activity and any PTAB proceedings specifically involving this patent family.

Let me check for any PTAB IPR or district court litigation specifically naming patent 12,258,058.

US Patent 12,258,058 — Summary and Docket Check

Important threshold finding on your ID

I searched for the literal number 12258058 / 12,258,058. Every authoritative hit resolves to Metrom Rail, LLC's patent titled "Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control." I found no CAFC 2026 docket and no pending USPTO proceeding that specifically names U.S. Patent No. 12,258,058. What 2026 litigation does exist in this family involves different Metrom patents — I flag those below precisely so you don't conflate them.

1. Docket / proceedings check (as of the search date)

CAFC 2026: The only 2026 Federal Circuit decision involving Metrom Rail is Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. , Nos. 2024‑2223, 2024‑2236, 2024‑2264 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (nonprecedential; Taranto, J., concurring-in-part/dissenting-in-part). Critically, that appeal concerns U.S. Patent Nos. 9,043,131 (the '131 patent) and 8,812,227 (the '227 patent) — not the '058 patent. The Board found all claims of the '227 patent and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent obvious; the panel affirmed that and reversed as to claims 17–20 of the '131 patent. A combined petition for panel rehearing/en banc rehearing was filed (June 2026). Sources: cafc.uscourts.gov opinion PDF (24-2223), Justia, CourtListener, fedcircuitblog.com.
→ No CAFC docket naming 12,258,058 was located.

PTAB: The petitions/petition exhibits I surfaced (e.g., an IPR referencing U.S. Patent 9,731,738, also "Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control," Metrom v. Siemens) likewise address other family members, not the '058 patent.

District court: Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA) asserted US 10,778,363; 8,812,227; 9,043,131; 10,737,709; 10,179,595, and a related S.D.N.Y. action asserted 9,731,738 / 10,778,363. Again, not 12,258,058.

Google Patents family note: the '058 record carries a "Family has litigation" flag with a Darts-IP link (family ID 52581772), meaning the family has been litigated — but the sources I reviewed do not identify the '058 patent itself as an asserted patent.

Caveat: I could not directly query the USPTO Patent Center / CAFC PACER docket systems in this session; the above is based on indexed web sources. If you need a definitive "no proceedings" confirmation, a PACER/PTAB (PTABE2E) and Patent Center assignment/reexam check would be required.

2. Bibliographic summary

Note on post-grant activity: the family flags litigation, and Google Patents shows a later continuation, US 12,397,832 B2 (granted Aug. 26, 2025), also titled the same and sharing the 2013‑09‑03 priority.

3. Abstract (as printed on the face of the patent)

"Systems and methods are provided for train operation control and enforcement. A train control system for controlling operations of a train may include a train-mounted control unit deployed in the train, and a plurality of fixed control nodes deployed on or in close proximity to a track traversed by the train. Each of the train-mounted control unit and fixed control nodes includes a corresponding communication subsystem that includes transponders and communication circuits, configured for communicating signals. The train-mounted control unit is configured to transmit signals to and receive signals from the plurality of fixed control nodes, with the signals including ultra-wideband (UWB) signals and with at least some of the signals carrying data pertinent to controlling operations of the train; and to determine control information relating to controlling operations of the train based on received UWB signals originating from one or more fixed control nodes."

4. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Uncertainty flag (read this first): The full text fetched from Google Patents for this document truncated in the middle of the written description (it cuts off at "…may also communicate with another VMCS on another v…") and does not include the numbered claims section. I therefore cannot give you verbatim claim numbers and exact transitional language with the confidence I would like. What follows is reconstructed from the patent's own "Summary/Certain embodiments" paragraphs — those paragraphs are the direct antecedent text for the independent claims. Please verify claim numbers against the granted claims on the USPTO Patent Center / the official PDF before relying on them for any clearance or invalidity work.

Based on that summary text, the '058 patent appears to contain four independent claims (each with dependent claims), as follows:

Independent claim A — "System for vehicle management" (UWB signal-control + braking interface).
Two cooperating subsystems: (1) a control signal interface subsystem with an ultra‑wideband (UWB) communications component, and (2) a vehicle‑mounted subsystem with its own UWB component. The vehicle‑mounted subsystem must (i) interface with the vehicle's braking system, (ii) communicate with the control‑signal‑interface subsystem over UWB, and (iii) compute the distance between the two subsystems from the time‑of‑flight (ToF) of at least one UWB communication. Dependent aspects add: generating an alert when the distance falls below a threshold; activating the brakes when the distance falls below a threshold; an RFID subsystem scanning external tags and using tag data to help determine the distance; continuously receiving vehicle speed and computing a changing distance from tag data + speed; and storing prior‑behavior data and exchanging it with an external access point.

Independent claim B — "System for vehicle management" (multi‑vehicle / train‑to‑train).
Same UWB architecture, but with three nodes: a control‑signal‑interface subsystem, a first vehicle‑mounted subsystem (braking‑interfaced), and a second vehicle‑mounted subsystem mounted on another vehicle. The first subsystem must compute two ToF-based distances — (1) to the control‑signal‑interface subsystem and (2) to the second vehicle‑mounted subsystem. Dependents add threshold‑based alerts and brake activation for each of the two distances, the RFID/software‑based distance‑determination feature, speed‑tracked changing distance, and the access‑point prior‑behavior logging feature.

Independent claim C — "Vehicle‑mounted system for interfacing with a brake loop."
A hardware‑centric claim: a switch whose first contact connects to one side of the vehicle's brake loop and whose second contact connects to the other side, plus at least one processor. The processor is configured to:

• automatically determine a braking event without receiving information about the status of an operator‑controlled actuator (i.e., it is not told by the operator whether/that the operator is braking);
• open the switch on occurrence of the braking event (electrically breaking the loop, which on a fail‑safe vehicle triggers brake application); and
• close the switch when the braking event expires, thereby re‑connecting the contacts.

Dependent subject matter includes: causing an alert upon the braking event, and determining expiration of the braking event based on a change in status of an operator‑controlled input (e.g., operator acknowledgment).

Independent claim D — "System for vehicle speed management" (rule compliance).
A control‑signal‑interface subsystem plus a vehicle‑mounted subsystem that is configured to:

• communicate with the control‑signal‑interface subsystem to receive information about the status of a control signal;
• determine a rule for the vehicle's behavior based on that signal status; and
• observe the vehicle's operation to evaluate compliance with the rule.

Dependent aspects specify that the rule corresponds to a signal being red, double red, yellow, or double yellow, and that the rule may specify a stop‑time duration, a speed for the vehicle, and/or a maximum speed after expiration of the stop‑time.

Correspondence with the reference example: the PTAB petition reproduced claim 1 of the related '738 patent ("A system for evaluating vehicle operation compliance…"), which is the conceptual sibling of independent claim D here.

5. What I could not confirm

• Exact granted claim numbers / independent‑claim count. The fetched text ends mid‑description; the numbered claims were not retrieved. The four independent claims above are inferred from the specification's summary paragraphs.
• Whether 12,258,058 has ever been asserted or challenged. The family carries a litigation flag, but I found no source naming the '058 patent in an asserted or challenged capacity. The 2026 CAFC activity is limited to the '131/'227 patents.
• Current ownership/assignment status beyond the recorded assignment to Metrom Rail, LLC (REEL/FRAME 036186/0589, effective 2014‑09‑03).

Sources cited: Google Patents US12258058B2 record; official patent PDF (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com); cafc.uscourts.gov Opinion 24-2223 (May 11, 2026); Justia/CourtListener 24-2223; fedcircuitblog.com (May 12, 2026); D. Del. 1:22‑cv‑00049 docket; PTAB petition materials (Metrom v. Siemens).

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 12258058.

Let me search more specifically for the assignee and litigation trackers.

Let me dig deeper into whether the '058 patent itself has been asserted.

Answer: Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 12,258,058

Bottom line: I found no litigation that specifically asserts or otherwise names U.S. Patent No. 12,258,058 ("the '058 patent") as an asserted patent. The patent issued only on March 25, 2025 (application 16/447,631, filed June 20, 2019, priority claimed to September 3, 2013), and its owner, Metrom Rail LLC, is a prolific but small litigant. Because the '058 patent is a member of the same Metrom Rail rail-collision-avoidance family that has been heavily litigated, I've listed that adjacent activity below — clearly labeled as not involving the '058 patent — so you can see the landscape and the risk that a '058 assertion exists but is not yet visible in public dockets.

1. Litigation directly naming US 12,258,058

None found. Searches of litigation-oriented sources (CourtListener/RECAP dockets, Justia federal dockets, Unified Patents portal, PTAB/PTACTS records, RPX Insight, Fed. Cir. opinions) returned no complaint, counterclaim, or PTAB proceeding identifying U.S. Pat. No. 12,258,058.

One caveat worth flagging: the Google Patents record for US 12,258,058 carries a family-level "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed" badge keyed to Darts-ip family 52581772 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US12258058/en). That badge is a family-level indicator, not a statement that the '058 patent itself is at issue. I could not tie any case in the family to the '058 patent specifically.

2. Related Metrom Rail patent litigation (⚠️ these assert OTHER patents, not the '058 patent)

Patents actually asserted in the above: the '738 patent (Metrom's key asserted patent in the MBTA/Piper case); the '131 patent (U.S. 9,043,131) and '227 patent (U.S. 8,812,227) in the Siemens/Thales/Humatics/Piper cases; plus U.S. 10,778,363; 10,737,709; and 10,179,595 in the Delaware action. None of these is the '058 patent.

3. PTAB / appellate proceedings touching the same family (not the '058 patent)

• IPRs on U.S. 9,043,131 ('131) and U.S. 8,812,227 ('227) — jointly petitioned by Siemens Mobility, Inc., Hitachi Rail GTS USA Inc., Humatics Corp., and Piper Networks, Inc. (e.g., IPR2024-00947, Siemens Mobility, Inc. v. Metrom Rail, LLC). The Board found all claims of the '227 patent and claims 1–16 of the '131 patent unpatentable as obvious; claims 17–20 of the '131 patent initially survived.
• Appeal: Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223, -2236, -2264 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) (nonprecedential). The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16, and reversed on the cross-appeal, holding '131 claims 17–20 also obvious based on construction of "data representing the separation distance." Judge Taranto concurred in part and dissented in part on the cross-appeal.
• Family note: U.S. 12,397,832 (from application 18/111,253) appears in the '058 patent's Google Patents "related" records, confirming an active continuation family that could later yield additional asserted patents.

4. Important caveats and confidence level

1. Confidence that there is no '058-specific suit: moderate-to-high, not certain. Free docket aggregators lag PACER, and a very recent complaint naming the '058 patent could be filed but not yet indexed. If you need a definitive answer, a PACER/lexmachina or Darts-ip search on the exact string "12,258,058" is advised.
2. Two different case numbers appear for the Metrom v. MBTA matter (D. Mass. 25-cv-11446-ADB and S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417-DLC) in the sources I reviewed. I report both as they appeared rather than reconciling them.
3. The '738 patent's full number was not confirmed in the records retrieved; sources refer to it only as "Metrom's '738 Patent." Do not assume it is the '058 patent — the sources distinguish them (the '131 patent was dismissed as moot while the '738 claim survived, which would be impossible if they were the same patent).
4. Date inconsistency: the sources retrieved contain events dated through June 2026 (e.g., the 6/4/2026 stay order), which post-date the "April 26, 2026" current date you specified. I have reported the most recent information available rather than discarding it.
5. No auto-correction applied: all patent and case numbers are reproduced exactly as they appeared in the sources.

5. Key sources

• Google Patents, US 12,258,058 B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/US12258058/en (family litigation badge; issue date 2025-03-25)
• Fed. Cir. opinion, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 24-2223 (May 11, 2026) — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/24-2223/24-2223-2026-05-11.html
• Fed. Cir. Blog, Opinions & Orders (May 12, 2026) — https://fedcircuitblog.com/2026/05/12/opinions-orders-may-12-2026/
• CourtListener docket 72043751, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417) — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72043751/metrom-rail-llc-v-massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority/
• Opinion & Order, ECF 113 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2026) — https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2025cv10417/[654853/113](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=654853-0113)/
• Finnegan, "D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: December 2025" — https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/d-mass-patent-litigation-update-december-2025.html
• D. Del. docket 1:22-cv-00049-RGA, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. (complaint filed 01/13/2022; patents listed 10,778,363; 8,812,227; 9,043,131; 10,737,709; 10,179,595)
• PTAB exhibit reproducing Metrom's S.D.N.Y. Second Amended Complaint in Metrom v. Siemens, Case No. 23-3057, and the stay order (IPR2024-00947 record)
• IP Law Daily, "Fed. Cir.: PTAB's invalidation of railroad collision-avoidance patent claims affirmed" (May 12, 2026) — https://www.vitallaw.com/news/ipm0139724f39c7384235bd25d80517150a21

Recommendation: if you are clearing the '058 patent for freedom-to-operate or preparing an invalidity opinion, do not rely on the absence of a '058-specific suit. Treat the patent as a newly issued member of a hotly contested family whose owner has shown a willingness to sue transit agencies, system integrators, and OEMs (Siemens, Thales/GTS, Hitachi, Humatics, Piper) in multiple districts, and verify current assertion status via PACER/lexmachina.

I'll verify the structured "no PTAB proceedings" finding against public sources, and pull the family-level proceeding details.

Let me verify whether any proceeding names the '058 patent itself, and pin down the sibling IPR docket numbers.

Let me identify the remaining sibling IPRs and confirm nothing targets the '058's own application.

PTAB / AIA Trial Proceedings — US 12,258,058 B2

"Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control" · Metrom Rail, LLC · App. 16/447,631 · Issued 2025-03-25

Proceedings overview

Zero. As of 2026-09-29, no AIA trial proceeding — no IPR, no PGR, and no CBM — has ever been filed against US 12,258,058. The structured USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt returns an empty proceedings set, and independent web verification produced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or termination naming this patent. There is therefore nothing on file for '058 under any of the five status buckets (active / claims invalidated / claims sustained / settled / institution denied).

Bottom-line defensive posture: you are facing a freshly issued, PTAB-untested continuation patent whose claim set is a re-run of claim language that the Board and the Federal Circuit have already held obvious in its sibling patents. That is a materially weaker posture for the patent owner than the "survived two IPRs" headline suggests, and a materially stronger one for you than the "no PTAB activity, so it must be solid" reading. Critically, the parties best positioned to run an IPR on '058 — Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, Humatics, and Piper Networks — are not estopped as to '058, because estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) attaches claim-by-claim to claims that reached an FWD, and no '058 claim ever did.

Scope note, per your instruction not to fabricate: there are no proceedings to profile for 12,258,058, so the per-proceeding template that follows would be empty. To make the section useful, I profile the adjacent family proceedings — explicitly labeled as involving other patents — because those FWDs, estoppel positions, and prior-art findings are the actual evidence base for how '058 will fare if challenged.

§ 1 — Proceedings naming US 12,258,058

None. No IPR, PGR, or CBM has been filed or instituted. No claim of '058 has been canceled, confirmed, or construed by the Board. No appeal of any '058 decision exists, because there is none.

Note that the '058 patent's PGR window closed on 2025-12-25 (9 months from the 2025-03-25 issuance). Post-grant review under § 321 — which would have allowed § 112 written-description/enablement and § 101 grounds — is no longer available for this patent. Any AIA challenge filed now must be an IPR limited to § 102 and § 103 on patents and printed publications (§ 311(b)). That is a permanent narrowing of the challenger's toolkit.

§ 2 — Related proceedings in the same Metrom Rail family (⚠️ these are NOT '058)

Read this table as threat intelligence, not as '058 outcomes. Every patent below shares the '058 specification lineage or is a sibling in Metrom's rail-collision-avoidance portfolio; none of them is US 12,258,058.

IPR2023-00468 & IPR2023-00470 — Siemens Mobility, Inc., Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc., Humatics Corp., and Piper Networks, Inc. v. Metrom Rail, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (two parallel proceedings, same panel, same real parties in interest)
• Filed: 2023-01-13
• Status: Final Written Decision — appealed; now fully resolved against the patent owner (Fed. Cir. 2026-05-11)
• Judge panel: NEIL T. POWELL, STACEY G. WHITE, and IFTIKHAR AHMED (Ahmed authored both FWDs). Some aggregators also list Hyun J. Jung and James T. Calve, which likely reflects an expanded-panel configuration at some stage — treat the FWD caption as authoritative and the Jung/Calve listing as unconfirmed.
• Real parties in interest (petitioners): Siemens Mobility, Inc.; Ground Transportation Systems USA Inc.; Humatics Corp.; Piper Networks, Inc.; Thales USA, Inc.
• Petition grounds: § 103, built on combinations of Grisham (U.S. Pat. No. 6,759,948), Nixon (WO 03/009254 A1, published 2003-01-30), Richardson, P., "An Outdoor UWB Tracking System…," 1 Int. J. Ultra-Wideband Commc'ns & Sys. 3:209–221 (2010), Douglas (U.S. Pat. No. 8,874,359), and McDaniel.
• Institution: Instituted on all challenged claims of both patents (2023-06-23).
• Final Written Decision (2024-06-18):
  • '227 patent: "Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–28 are unpatentable." — every claim canceled.
  • '131 patent: "Petitioner has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 1–16 are unpatentable but Petitioner has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 17–20 are unpatentable."
  • The Board also rejected Metrom's secondary-considerations case, finding no presumption of nexus because the AURA CAS product contained unclaimed "important features or components," including "key machine function monitoring and remote data reporting," that were "not insignificant." That finding survived appeal.
• Settlement: None. Litigated to FWD.
• Appeal: Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223, 2024-2236, 2024-2264 (Fed. Cir.), nonprecedential opinion 2026-05-11. The court affirmed the unpatentability of all '227 claims and '131 claims 1–16, and reversed as to '131 claims 17–20 — holding the Board misconstrued element 17C, "data representing the separation distance." The court held the term covers the data used in the time-of-flight calculation, not only a computed distance value, and that Grisham discloses transmitting such data over the air. Judge Taranto concurred in part and dissented in part, objecting that the majority decided the cross-appeal on a claim-construction theory Siemens never presented. A combined petition for panel and en banc rehearing was filed in June 2026.
• Defensive value: The '131 and '227 patents are effectively dead at the claims level. More importantly, the reasoning is portable: a Federal Circuit opinion holding that Grisham + Nixon + Douglas renders rail UWB time-of-flight separation systems obvious is directly usable as the § 103 backbone against '058's system claims, and the 17C construction is directly usable to defeat any attempt to distinguish '058's UWB-data limitations.

IPR2024-00947 — Siemens Mobility, Inc., Ground Transportation Systems USA, Inc., and Piper Networks, Inc. v. Metrom Rail, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-05-22
• Patent challenged: US 9,731,738 — same title, "Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control," i.e., the closest sibling to '058 in the family
• Status: Institution denied — § 325(d) discretionary denial, affirmed on Director Review
• Judge panel: NEIL T. POWELL, STACEY G. WHITE, and BRENT M. DOUGAL (White authored the denial)
• Petition grounds: § 103 over U.S. Pat. No. 6,957,131 ("Kane") as primary reference, combined with U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0151672 ("Heddebaut"), against claims 1–18.
• Institution decision (2024-11-19): Denied. The panel exercised discretion under § 325(d), finding that Kane and Heddebaut were substantially the same as Knott (U.S. Pub., "Train Control Method and System," published 2010-03-11) and Soderi, the references the examiner had applied during prosecution of then-pending claim 16 (issued as claim 1). The panel noted the examiner had used Kane's patent number as a search term in the search history.
• Director Review: Requested 2024-12-19. The Acting Director delegated review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel to decide two questions: (1) whether a reference appearing only in an examiner's search history is "previously presented art" under § 325(d); and (2) whether Kane is substantially the same as Knott. The DRP decision issued 2025-04-04 held that an examiner does not make a reference "of record" merely by including it in a search query — but then concluded that Kane is substantially the same as Knott and that the same or substantially the same obviousness arguments had previously been presented, so the denial of institution stands.
• Final Written Decision: None issued. No claim of the '738 patent has been construed or adjudicated on the merits by the Board.
• Settlement / termination: Not a settlement — terminated by discretionary denial of institution. Petitioners sought a $22,500 post-institution fee refund (request dated 2025-11-17).
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal (an institution denial is not appealable under § 314(d) in these circumstances). The DRP decision is not the subject of a reported appeal.
• Defensive value: Do not over-read this as a win for the patent owner's merits position. The Board never reached the merits. The strategic takeaways for a would-be '058 petitioner are the two DRP holdings: (a) art appearing only in the examiner's search history is fair game — a genuine loosening of the § 325(d) trap; and (b) art that appears on a PTO-892 or an initialed IDS is not fair game. Any '058 petition must be built on art that is not on the '058 record.

§ 3 — Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. For US 12,258,058 specifically: nothing is canceled, nothing is sustained, and everything is untested. No claim of '058 has ever been before the Board. That is the single most important fact in this report. What has been adjudicated is the surrounding portfolio: all claims 1–28 of US 8,812,227 and all claims 1–20 of US 9,043,131 are now unpatentable — the '227 claims by FWD affirmed on appeal, and the '131 claims by FWD plus the Federal Circuit's 2026-05-11 reversal on the cross-appeal. By contrast, US 9,731,738's claims 1–18 are untested on the merits, having exited the PTAB through a discretionary denial of institution, not an adjudication. The '058 patent is in the same posture as '738 but with even less scrutiny: it has attracted no petition at all.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel is claim-specific and patent-specific — it bars a petitioner, RPI, or privy from asserting in a civil action that the claim that reached an FWD is invalid on any ground raised or reasonably raisable in the IPR. Applying that:

• Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, Humatics, Piper Networks, and Thales USA are estopped as to '227 claims 1–28 and '131 claims 1–20 (all of which are now unpatentable anyway, so the estoppel is largely academic there). They are not estopped as to any claim of '058, because no '058 claim ever reached an FWD. There is also no § 315(a) bar against them, since they filed no civil action challenging the validity of '058.
• A defendant never party to the family IPRs is estopped by nothing. The entire Grisham / Nixon / Richardson / Douglas / McDaniel ground set remains available — and now comes with a Federal Circuit opinion blessing the combination against materially identical UWB/time-of-flight rail claims.
• § 325(d) is the real gate, not § 315. Before drafting, screen every proposed reference against the '058 file history. The DRP's 2025-04-04 decision gives you a clean argument for any reference that appears only in the examiner's search history, but references on a PTO-892 or an initialed IDS will draw an Advanced Bionics discretionary denial.

Pattern signals. Yes, patterns are strong, and they cut in your favor: (1) This is a serial-petitioner family. The same coalition — Siemens Mobility, Ground Transportation Systems USA, Humatics, and Piper Networks, with Thales USA named as an RPI — filed at least five IPRs in January 2023 (IPR2023-00439, -00452, -00460, -00468, -00470) plus IPR2024-00947 in May 2024. They have demonstrated they will file against new Metrom continuations. (2) The patent owner litigates the PTAB aggressively — Metrom drove the § 325(d) denial of IPR2024-00947, defeated the Director Review, and then, after losing the merits on '227/'131, filed a combined panel and en banc rehearing petition in June 2026 in a nonprecedential case. (3) No defensive aggregator is in the chain. Unified Patents' portal appears only as a reporter of Metrom data; there is no RPX/AST/Unified ownership interest or Unified-filed IPR on this family. The challenges here are commercial-competitor challenges, which means they are well funded, technically deep, and repeatable.

§ 4 — Recommended next steps

1. Treat the absence of PTAB activity as a timing artifact, not a validity signal. The '058 patent issued 2025-03-25. The IPR prohibition of § 315(b) — one year from service of a complaint alleging infringement — has not been triggered by any '058-specific complaint that I could locate. Verify the § 315(b) clock yourself immediately: pull the current docket for Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 23-cv-03057), the MBTA/Piper matter (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-10417), and any 2026 Metrom filing, and confirm by exact-number search whether '058 has been added to any pleading. If a complaint naming '058 has been served, your petition deadline is one year from that service date and is statutory and non-extendable.

2. Build the petition on the already-blessed record. The most efficient path is to import the FWD ground set that the Board and the Federal Circuit have already validated: Grisham (U.S. Pat. No. 6,759,948) as primary, plus Nixon (WO 03/009254 A1), Richardson (2010), Douglas (U.S. Pat. No. 8,874,359), and McDaniel, as needed for the dependent limitations. Cite Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 2024-2223 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026) for the obviousness and claim-construction law — the opinion is on the Federal Circuit's site and on CourtListener (opinion ID 10856969). Note the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership question I flagged in the prior-art section if any Metrom-owned document is used.

3. Run the § 325(d) screen before you draft a single claim chart. Pull the complete '058 file history — application 16/447,631 — from USPTO PatentCenter, including the PTO-892/1449 forms, the examiner's search history, and the (56) list on the printed front page (the granted PDF's front page is at patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d6/74/1c/ff9d77fb70ace8/US12258058.pdf). Discard any reference that made the record; keep any reference that appears only in search strings, citing the DRP's 2025-04-04 holding that "a reference appearing only on a search report is not enough."

4. Attack the claims that the family precedent does not yet cover — but know which ones those are. The '058 claim set includes the brake-loop switch subject matter (independent claim C per the earlier summary; also claimed in US 11,814,088). No reference retrieved from the family record squarely addresses the switch-across-a-brake-loop implementation, so that is the one family of claims where you will need fresh art and cannot simply import Grisham/Nixon. Conversely, the rule-compliance claims that mirror '738 claim 1 (red / double red / yellow / double yellow; stop-time duration; max speed after stop-time expiry) map cleanly onto the Grisham/Nixon/Douglas combination — but be aware that the '738's own challenge foundered at the § 325(d) threshold because Knott and Soderi were on the record. Use Kane/Heddebaut-style art that is not on the '058 record, and cite the DRP's search-history holding.

5. Sequence your defenses. Because the '131 and '227 FWDs are now final and affirmed, the invalidity record for those patents is frozen and judicially endorsed. For any district-court case on '058, lead with the Federal Circuit's obviousness affirmance as a Graham framework roadmap, then layer the '058-specific grounds. If you are a defendant who receives a demand letter citing '058, respond with the family's PTAB and CAFC record — the '131 and '227 patents' complete invalidation, the '738 institution denial, and the June 2026 rehearing petition — rather than treating '058 as an untested novelty.

6. If a petition is filed by anyone, these are the milestones to calendar (statutory and regulatory, not yet triggered): Patent Owner Preliminary Response due within 3 months of the Notice of Filing Date; institution decision due within 6 months of the petition's filing date (§ 314(b)); if instituted, Final Written Decision due within 12 months of the institution date (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable for good cause by up to 6 months.

Verification links for the cited opinions and proceedings:

• Fed. Cir. opinion, Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 2024-2223 (2026-05-11): https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-2223.OPINION.5-11-2026_2691571.pdf
• Same opinion, CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10856969/metrom-rail-llc-v-siemens-mobility-inc/
• IPR2023-00468 FWD (2024-06-18) and IPR2023-00470 FWD (2024-06-18): PTAB E2E / PTACTS — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• IPR2024-00947 institution denial (2024-11-19): https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ipr2024_00947_paper_16_.pdf (DRP decision) and https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/IPR_2024_00947_Director_Review_Decision.pdf (delegation order)
• USPTO PatentCenter, application 16/447,631 (the '058 application): https://patentcenter.uspto.gov

Caveats, stated plainly. (i) I could not query PTAB E2E, PACER, or PatentCenter directly in this session; the "no proceedings on '058" conclusion rests on the structured USPTO ODP block in your prompt plus negative results across indexed sources. A direct PTAB E2E "patent number 12258058" search should be run to lock it down. (ii) The patents challenged in IPR2023-00439 and IPR2023-00452 were not verified, and the suggestion that IPR2023-00452 terminated via statutory disclaimer is inferred from the docket's exhibit list, not confirmed by a Board order I retrieved. (iii) I did not obtain the '058 patent's own (56) references cited list; the prior-art mapping in the earlier section of this analysis remains family-level, not '058-specific.

I'll start by pulling the assignment and litigation records from multiple sources.

Ownership Analysis — US 12,258,058 B2

"Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control"
Filed 2019-06-20 (App. 16/447,631) · Issued 2025-03-25 · Assignee of record: Metrom Rail, LLC (Lakemoor, IL)

Sourcing caveat up front. I was able to reach the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent and the litigation/PTAB record via public search, but I could not retrieve the raw reel/frame entries or the recorded correspondents from assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov with the tools available for this task. Where a reel/frame number would normally appear below, I say so rather than inventing one. Everything asserted here is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events entry, the printed front page of the patent, and the Delaware/Massachusetts court and PTAB record.

Inventors

Pattern notes:

• This is a stable, cohesive in-house team, not a departing-inventor pattern. Gunther's own résumé exhibit filed in IPR2023-00468/470 states "Metrom Rail, LLC, Lakemoor, IL 2011–present," and his Nov. 15, 2023 PTAB deposition testimony confirms he was still Director of Engineering at Metrom Rail over a decade after the 2011–2013 priority filings. He also testified about affiliated entities under the same ownership (Wayclear; MRT Holdings).
• The same three inventors (Carlson / Gunther / Cygnus) appear together on Metrom's earliest filings back to US 8,752,797 (filed 2011-12-02), i.e. the inventorship group is unchanged across ~8 years. Sibling Metrom patents add Sara Jo Woitel, Peter Strezev, and John Albert Plutt, Jr., but none of those three is a named inventor on the '058 patent.
• No evidence of any inventor assignment back out of, or departure from, the original assignee.

Original assignee

Metrom Rail, LLC — printed on the face of the patent as both Applicant (Crystal Lake, IL) and Assignee (Lakemoor, IL).

• Line of business: railway safety, train control, and signaling hardware — ultra-wideband (UWB) collision avoidance, worker protection, train localization, and signal/speed-limit enforcement. Registered Illinois LLC #03355314 (registration date 2010-11-16; status ACTIVE on the Illinois register), principal office 27992 W. IL Route 120, Suite 120, Lakemoor, IL 60051. Manager: James (Jim) Marchi, who is also the CEO quoted in Metrom's litigation press releases; Marchi is the registered agent on the Illinois entity.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes — this is affirmatively established in the record, not inferred. Metrom's AURA CAS (and the AURA train control / CERTIS localization product lines) is a commercial UWB-based product. In the Federal Circuit appeal (Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223/2264, Fed. Cir.), Metrom argued that its AURA CAS product is coextensive with the patented invention and relied on testimony from Metrom's CEO about that product. The FCC experimental license filing 0479-EX-CN-2017 describes the AURA System as a Metrom Rail development product and describes trackside RFID + trainborne reader trials. The company's trademark (Reg. #4463831) is live and was renewed in 2024, with first use in commerce Sept. 2012.
• Related entities under common ownership: MRT Holdings LLC ("an auxiliary company that works alongside Metrom Rail") and Wayclear — both identified by Marchi/Gunther testimony. These are operating-side affiliates, not licensing shells.
• Current status: Operating (privately held; no acquisition, dissolution, or bankruptcy proceeding surfaced). The Illinois LLC remains active. A Massachusetts foreign registration (#001256929, registered 2017-01-19) is also on file, with Marchi as manager.
• Patent portfolio: press materials state "8 issued U.S. patents, with additional patents pending"; third-party databases count ~53 family members/documents.

Assignment timeline

Recorded assignments found: one (1) — the original inventor→company assignment.

• Executed: not determinable from available sources (on or about filing) / recorded 2019-06-20 — Reel not retrievable from available sources / Frame not retrievable from available sources
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (see document for details)
  • Assignor: CARLSON, RICHARD C.; CYGNUS, MARC W.; GUNTHER, KURT A. (joint inventors)
  • Assignee: METROM RAIL, LLC (Lakemoor, IL)
  • Correspondent: not retrievable from available sources. Related but distinct data point: the prosecution firm of record across this family is McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (500 W. Madison St., Chicago) — the same firm that prosecuted the family (its name appears as the transmitting firm on the PTAB petition/patent copies) and that represents Metrom on its METROM RAIL trademark (attorney Jonathan R. Sick). I flag this as a firm-of-record observation only, not as a repeat-correspondent NPE signal — see signal 3 below.
  • Context: Ordinary initial assignment of inventor rights to the operating company that employed them — the standard first link, filed contemporaneously with the application on 2019-06-20.

No other recorded assignment, security interest, name change, merger, or release appears in the Google Patents legal-events record for this patent. The only "reassignment" event is the 2019-06-20 entry above. There is no post-issuance transfer of US 12,258,058 to any third party.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12258058
    2013 : Priority date in Metrom family
    2019 : Application filed Jun 20
         : Inventors assign to Metrom Rail LLC
    2022 : Metrom sues Siemens and others
    2025 : Patent issued Mar 25
         : Metrom sues Piper Networks

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no transfer at all out of the original assignee. The assignee is Metrom Rail, LLC, an Illinois LLC in active standing with a single manager (Marchi), a physical operating address (27992 W. Route 120, Lakemoor IL — the same address on the patent face and on the entity filing), and an ongoing manufacturing/deployment business. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" successor appears.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT.
Neither Metrom Rail, LLC, MRT Holdings LLC, nor Wayclear appears on any public NPE/asserter list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Erich Spangenberg entities, or Unified Patents/RPX high-frequency-plaintiff lists). Metrom Rail is the plaintiff here and is the operating company that made the product.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT (unverifiable).
With only one recorded assignment in the chain, the recurrence test cannot be satisfied. I could not retrieve assignment-coversheet correspondents. The prosecution/trademark firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. is a large general-practice IP firm doing conventional operating-company work; a single-client, single-appearance relationship is explicitly not a finding under the stated rule.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT.
No chain of consecutive assignments through related LLCs; one assignment, in 2019, recorded at filing.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT.
There is no assignment within 6 months before the first suit. The first infringement action (Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., et al., No. 1:22-cv-00049-RGA, D. Del.) was filed 2022-01-13, i.e., ~2.5 years after the 2019-06-20 assignment, and Metrom's original complaint pleads pre-suit notice as early as a June 24, 2019 letter identifying three of the asserted patents. Plaintiff was Metrom Rail, LLC — the original assignee — so no standing-cleaning transfer was needed or made.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT.
No Chapter 7/11 filing or sale-of-portfolio proceeding surfaced for Metrom Rail, LLC. The Illinois entity is ACTIVE and its trademark registration was renewed in 2024.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT.
This is the inverse of privateering: the operating company asserts its own patents in its own name against larger competitors, with no NPE interposed to shield it.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Unified Patents' portal merely reports data on Metrom's patents; that is a defensive-monitoring reference, not an ownership interest.)

Additional non-signal observations worth recording: the patent carries Google Patents' "Family has litigation" flag, and Metrom Rail is an active, serial enforcer — D. Del. (2022, against Siemens Mobility, Thales Transport & Security, Thales USA, Humatics, and Piper Networks) and D. Mass. No. 1:25-cv-11446 (filed 2025-05-21, against Piper Networks re the MBTA Green Line Train Protection System). That is operating-company assertion behavior, but it is commercial-competitor litigation, not NPE monetization.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The chain consists of exactly one recorded conveyance — the 2019-06-20 assignment of inventors Carlson, Cygnus, and Gunther to Metrom Rail, LLC, recorded contemporaneously with the 2019-06-20 filing — and no subsequent transfer, so the original operating assignee still owns the patent. Metrom Rail ships the AURA CAS product that it openly argues embodies these claims (its own CEO testified to that effect in the IPRs, and the Federal Circuit opinion in Nos. 2024-2223/2264 recounts that product and that testimony), and it is asserting this family in its own name against actual competitors — Siemens Mobility, Thales, Humatics, and Piper Networks — in D. Del. 1:22-cv-00049 and D. Mass. 1:25-cv-11446. Because there are no post-issuance assignments in the record, none of the NPE signals (shell transfer, chained LLCs, pre-litigation transfer, fire-sale, privateering) can be present.

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 12258058; the legacy interface is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US12258058/en. I was unable to read the reel/frame and correspondent fields myself; a direct Assignment Center lookup should be run to confirm the reel/frame of the single 2019-06-20 entry and to rule out a later, unindexed recording.

I'll search for the patent's cited prior art references.

Let me pull the authoritative citation lists from multiple patent databases.

I found the front-page reference list beginning. Let me retrieve the full citation list.

I hit the search-step ceiling before I could retrieve the complete face-of-patent reference list, so I've stopped tool use and written up what I verified. Below is the § 102 prior-art analysis for US 12,258,058 B2 only — no similar-number results are substituted.

Prior Art Analysis — US 12,258,058 B2

"Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control" · App. 16/447,631 · Filed 2019‑06‑20 · Priority 2013‑09‑03 · Issued 2025‑03‑25 · Metrom Rail, LLC

0. Two housekeeping flags before the substance

(a) Date conflict (unresolved, carried forward). This task states "Current Date: April 26, 2026." My operating clock says 2026‑09‑29. The previously generated "Litigation summary" and "PTAB challenges" sections in this same analysis already flagged this and reported events dated through June 2026, which post-date April 26, 2026. I have not reconciled these. Nothing in this prior-art section turns on the date, but do not treat "current as of" language here as settled.

(b) Contradiction with the previously generated "Patent summary." That section quotes an abstract reading "a train‑mounted control unit deployed in the train, and a plurality of fixed control nodes deployed on or in close proximity to a track… transponders and communication circuits…" That language does not match the specification content for the '058 in the authoritative Google Patents fetch I was given, which describes a vehicle‑mounted subsystem / control signal interface subsystem pair with UWB components, an RFID reader, a brake‑loop switch, and rule‑compliance logic. The two are not reconcilable from what I can see; the abstract quoted earlier may belong to a sibling continuation (e.g., US 12,397,832, same title and priority). Resolve against the granted PDF before relying on either. This matters for prior‑art mapping, because a "train‑mounted control unit + fixed control nodes" claim is a different claim than the UWB‑pair claims.

1. Scope of the search, and the ID‑hygiene findings you should know about

I searched the literal string 12258058. Four prominent false positives surfaced. None of the following is prior art or a proceeding for US 12,258,058 — do not cite any of them as such:

Also relevant to § 102 practice: I confirmed no AIA proceeding names 12,258,058 — consistent with the prior "PTAB challenges" section's finding of zero proceedings. The only '058‑family petition I hit by number is petitions/1556106, which also targets U.S. 9,731,738 (the '738 sibling), not the '058.

Practical consequence for § 102: because no claim of the '058 has been construed or canceled, no reference below has been adjudicated against these claims. Every "anticipates" statement that follows is my own mapping, not a tribunal's.

2. Legal frame — which § 102 applies

The '058's earliest priority (provisional 61/959,729, 2013‑09‑03) and its parent's filing (14/476,338, 2014‑09‑03) are both after March 16, 2013. The AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 therefore governs. Consequences:

• US patents/publications qualify as prior art under § 102(a)(2) (effectively filed before the '058's effective filing date), not pre‑AIA § 102(e).
• Everything printed publicly before 2013‑09‑03 qualifies under § 102(a)(1).
• Because the '058 is a continuation, it is entitled to the 2013‑09‑03 date only for subject matter supported in the provisional/parent. Any claim language that first appears in the 2019 application (and is not supported earlier) has an effective filing date of 2019‑06‑20, which widens the § 102 window considerably. This is the single most exploitable § 102 issue on this patent and should be charted limitation-by-limitation.

3. What the face of the '058 actually cites

I retrieved two verified segments of the '058's own reference list. I could not retrieve the complete front page (it appears to run well over 100 U.S. entries, plus foreign documents and "other publications" sections). What I verified:

Verified directly from the granted PDF front page (patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US12258058.pdf), "U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS," in printed order:

Verified from the Justia citation table for the '058 (patents.justia.com/patent/12258058), "U.S. Patent Application Publications," in printed order:

2006/0015224 (1/19/2006, Hilleary) · 2006/0151672 (7/13/2006, Heddebaut et al.) · 2006/0199146 (9/7/2006, Mandelkern et al.) · 2007/0241888 (10/18/2007, MantoVani et al.) · 2007/0255498 (11/1/2007, McDaniel et al.) · 2007/0281745 (12/6/2007, Parkulo et al.) · 2007/0293153 (12/20/2007, Molisch et al.) · 2008/0040023 (2/14/2008, Breed et al.) · 2008/0111688 (5/15/2008, Nikitin et al.) · 2008/0114519 (5/15/2008, Defaux) · 2008/0150786 (6/26/2008, Breed) · 2008/0170533 (7/17/2008, Cyzs et al.) · 2009/0212168 (8/27/2009, Kumar) · 2009/0243397 (10/1/2009, Cook et al.) · 2009/0253439 (10/8/2009, Gantner et al.) · 2009/0255329 (10/15/2009, Connell et al.) · 2009/0326746 (12/31/2009, Mian) · 2010/0006365 (1/14/2010, Hasegawa et al.) · 2010/0039978 (2/18/2010, Rangan) · 2010/0052945 (3/4/2010, Breed) · 2010/0063656 (3/11/2010, Knott et al.) · 2010/0102954 (4/29/2010, Radivojevic et al.) · 2010/0124898 (5/20/2010, Qu et al.) · 2010/0225527 (9/9/2010, Talty) · 2010/0235460 (9/16/2010, Mochizuki et al.) · 2010/0268466 (10/21/2010, Amutham) · 2010/0327125 (12/30/2010, Braband et al.) · 2011/0006912 (1/13/2011, Sheardown et al.) · 2011/0046845 (2/24/2011, Kozlay) · 2011/0075641 (3/31/2011, Siriwongpairat) · 2011/0084854 (4/14/2011, Johnson) · 2011/0152971 (…, truncated)

Two caveats you must carry:

1. Some of these publication entries appear on a sibling's Justia page as well (US 12,473,002), because the family shares an IDS. The '058 page's table independently begins at 6,631,322 (Arthur), which matches the PDF — so I treat the publication list above as belonging to the '058, but I did not verify every line against the '058 PDF itself.
2. Google Patents marks examiner-cited references with an asterisk. I could not retrieve which of the above carry that mark. That distinction matters: an examiner‑cited reference is far more probative of § 102 exposure than a bare IDS citation. Check the PDF/Patent Center before you weight any of these.

Also note: the '058's foreign‑document and "other publications" sections, and the ~60+ U.S. entries between 6,666,411 and the 2006 publications, were not retrieved. If you need the complete list, pull the PDF directly.

4. Most relevant prior art ON the face of the '058 — ranked, with § 102 mapping

Claim references use the labels from the previously generated summary (A = UWB control‑signal‑interface + vehicle‑mounted subsystem with brake interface; B = same plus a second vehicle‑mounted subsystem, two ToF distances; C = brake‑loop switch / processor; D = rule‑compliance system). These labels are inferred from the specification's summary paragraphs, not from verified granted claim numbers — the numbered claims were not in the authoritative fetch. Verify before filing anything.

Tier 1 — highest § 102 exposure

1. US 2006/0151672 A1 — Heddebaut, et al. — published 2006‑07‑13
Description: Ultra‑wideband / radio communication and localization between a fixed wayside installation and a moving rail vehicle. This is the family's single most dangerous on‑face reference: it hits the architectural core of claims A and B (fixed interface node with a UWB/radio component ↔ vehicle‑mounted node with a UWB/radio component, range derived from the radio link). It was also deployed by Petitioners as the § 103 secondary reference in IPR2024‑00947 against sibling US 9,731,738, where the Board denied institution only on § 325(d) discretion — not on the merits. Confidence in this description: high (the reference is well known in the rail‑UWB literature and appeared in the family's IPR record).
§ 102 mapping: § 102(a)(1) candidate against claim A (and, with a modest obviousness overlay, claim B) for the UWB components, the vehicle↔wayside communication, and the distance‑derivation limitations. Not a standalone § 102 reference for C (brake‑loop switch) or the full rule set of D.

2. US 6,133,576 A — Fullerton, et al. — issued 2000‑10‑17
Description: Impulse‑radio / ultra‑wideband position determination using time‑of‑flight ranging (Time Domain Corporation lineage). Fullerton is foundational UWB art and sits directly on the "determine a distance… based on a time‑of‑flight" limitation. Confidence: high on the ToF/impulse‑radio subject matter and the Fullerton attribution; I did not re‑verify the exact title string in this session.
§ 102 mapping: § 102(a)(1) candidate for the UWB + ToF‑distance limitations of claims A and B — but it discloses no rail brake interface and no control‑signal interface, so it is realistically a § 103 primary reference for A/B, not a standalone anticipation.

3. US 2004/0240565 A1 — Santhoff, et al. — published 2004‑12‑02
Description: Ultra‑wideband communication system (Pulse‑Link lineage). Bears on the bare "UWB communications component" recitations.
§ 102 mapping: § 102 candidate as to the UWB‑component limitation only of A, B, and the UWB sub‑limitations of D's independent claim. Expect it to be used in § 103 combinations, not alone.

4. US 2010/0039978 A1 — Rangan — published 2010‑02‑18
Description: Rail‑oriented monitoring/location art. This reference is not on the '058's asserted‑grounds list by accident: "Rangan" appears in the Petitioner's § 103 ground set in IPR2023‑00460 (against the '709 sibling). It therefore has a documented track record as rail prior art in this family.
§ 102 mapping: § 102(a)(1) candidate for claim D (vehicle behavior monitoring / compliance) and a § 103 component for A/B.

5. US 2007/0293153 A1 — Molisch, et al. — published 2007‑12‑20
Description: UWB ranging/propagation and positioning. Bears on ToF distance measurement and multipath robustness.
§ 102 mapping: § 103 component for claims A and B (ToF distance determination); not a standalone § 102 reference for any independent claim.

Tier 2 — meaningful, claim‑specific

Tier 3 — cited but low § 102 value to these claims

The pre‑1975 entries (Williams 1940, Seinfeld 1940, Halstead 1949, Jepson 1956, Rashid 1975) and the mid‑century block‑signalling/track‑circuit entries (McElhenny 1981, Rush 1982, Inoue 1984, Sibley 1985, Brearey 1985, Gerum 1989, MacDougall 1991) are background/analog rail‑signalling art. They are relevant only as § 103 support for the proposition that wayside‑to‑train signalling and automatic braking were long known — useful for motivation‑to‑combine, useless for anticipation of the UWB limitations.

Claims that the on‑face art does not plausibly anticipate

• Independent claim C (brake‑loop switch with first/second contacts and a processor that opens/closes the loop and determines the braking event without operator‑actuator status). I found no reference on the retrieved face of the '058 that discloses interrupting a vehicle brake loop via a series switch under processor control as a non‑invasive overlay to a fail‑safe brake circuit. Expect this claim to be the hardest to attack on the cited art alone.
• The "access point + stored prior‑behavior data" dependent claims and the "changing distance computed from RFID tag data + continuously received speed" dependents — nothing in the retrieved face art squarely addresses these.

5. Prior art not on the face of the '058 that is far more probative — and fully un‑estopped

This is where the real § 102/§ 103 value sits. Per the prior "PTAB challenges" section, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to any claim of the '058, so the entire Petitioner art set from the sibling IPRs is freely available against this patent:

§ 102 caveat that applies to all of § 5: none of these alone is a clean, single‑reference anticipation of the '058's independent claims as I understand them from the specification summary. Grisham comes closest for A/B. Realistically these are § 103 references, and the honest framing is that the '058's on‑face references are the § 102 exposure, while the off‑face Grisham/Douglas/Nixon/Kane set is the § 103 exposure.

6. Honest confidence ledger

Verified (directly retrieved, this session): every U.S. patent number/date/inventor in the § 3 PDF table; the publication list order and dates from the Justia '058 table; the four false positives; the fact that the ptacts petition 1461147 is for 8,023,580 and 1556106 for 9,731,738; the AIA‑governs conclusion.

Reconstructed / not verified in this session (flagged in‑line): the technological descriptions of US 6,133,576 (Fullerton), US 2004/0240565 (Santhoff), US 2006/0151672 (Heddebaut), US 2010/0039978 (Rangan) and the Tier‑2 table entries — I mapped these from family/IPR context and general knowledge rather than from re‑reading each reference. Treat every "Description" cell as a lead to verify, not as a finding.

Not retrieved at all: the complete '058 front page (~60+ U.S. entries omitted between 6,666,411 and the 2006 publications), the foreign‑patent‑document section, the "other publications" section, the examiner‑citation asterisks, and the granted claim numbers and text.

Open contradiction to resolve: the abstract quoted in the previously generated summary versus the specification text in the authoritative fetch (§ 0(b) above).

7. What I would do next, in order

1. Pull the granted PDF and extract the full "References Cited" block verbatim, preserving the examiner‑citation asterisks — that is the difference between a § 102 threat and a § 103 component. Source: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d6/74/1c/ff9d77fb70ace8/US12258058.pdf.
2. Chart the '058's independent claims against the 2013‑09‑03 provisional support to find any limitation first introduced in the 2019 application — that shifts its effective filing date to 2019‑06‑20 and materially widens § 102.
3. Re‑run the Grisham‑centric § 103 combination against the '058's ToF limitations, armed with the CAFC's claim‑construction holding in 24‑2223 on "data representing the separation distance."
4. Check § 315(b) timing for any party served on the '058 — no estoppel exists yet, but the window is one year from service.
5. Verify item (2) in § 0 — the abstract discrepancy — because if the '058's claims are actually drawn to "train‑mounted control unit + a plurality of fixed control nodes," the Tier‑1 mapping above must be rebuilt around multi‑node fixed‑infrastructure art instead.

I'll run targeted searches to firm up the two references the Prior Art section flagged as unverified (Grisham and McDaniel), since the obviousness combinations depend on them.

Good — I've now verified that Grisham = US 6,759,948 and McDaniel = US 2007/0255498 A1. Let me pull the two wayside-communication references from the '738 petition (Kane, Heddebaut) and Cross, since Claims A and D require a fixed trackside "control signal interface subsystem" that Grisham's train-to-train system lacks.

One critical new find: Exhibit 1019 in IPR2024-00947 reproduces Metrom's S.D.N.Y. complaint, which quotes the verbatim "system for vehicle management" paragraphs of the '058 specification. That means the '058 independent claims are drafted on the same disclosure the Kane/Heddebaut/Das/Ackerman/Hungate petition was aimed at. Let me resolve the Grisham number conflict and check Cross.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 12,258,058 B2

Rail Vehicle Signal Enforcement and Separation Control (Metrom Rail, LLC) · 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date flag (unresolved, as required). The task header says "Current Date: April 26, 2026." The system date is 2026-09-29, and the previously generated sections in this file report events dated May–June 2026 (Fed. Cir. opinion 2026-05-11; Metrom's combined rehearing petition June 2026; S.D.N.Y. stay order 2026-06-04). I have analyzed against the most recent record rather than discarding it, and I flag the inconsistency rather than resolving it.

Scope flag. The granted claim set of the '058 patent was not retrievable (the fetched text truncated mid-description). This analysis is therefore keyed to the four independent-claim families (A–D) established in the earlier sections of this file, which were reconstructed from the patent's own "Certain embodiments" paragraphs. Verify claim numbering and transitional language against the official PDF before filing anything.

1. Bottom line

There is no anticipation case in the record — every ground ever run against this specification family was a § 103 combination ground. But the obviousness case is strong, and unusually well-developed, for three reasons:

1. The '058 disclosure is the same disclosure the Board and the Federal Circuit already treated. A single petition exhibit in IPR2024-00947 — Exhibit 1019, which is Metrom's own Second Amended Complaint in Metrom v. Siemens, No. 23-3057 — quotes the '058 specification's "system for vehicle management" and "system for vehicle speed management" paragraphs nearly verbatim. The claim families in this patent are the sibling claim families of U.S. 9,731,738 and 9,043,131, and the '738 petition contains a complete element-by-element § 103 mapping under Kane + Heddebaut (plus Das, Ackerman, Hungate) against that exact language.
2. The Federal Circuit has now resolved the one claim-construction defense Metrom was winning on. In Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., Nos. 2024-2223/2236/2264 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2026), the panel held the Board's construction of "data representing the separation distance" was "incorrect," reversed, and held '131 claims 17–20 obvious. That construction victory is portable to any '058 limitation reciting ToF-derived distance over UWB.
3. Metrom has already lost the objective-indicia argument on this architecture. The Board rejected Metrom's AURA CAS evidence for lack of nexus — "no presumption of nexus" and "important features or components" unclaimed.

Weakest claim family for this attack: Claim C (the brake-loop switch). No reference in the retrieved record squarely discloses a processor-controlled switch across a brake loop, and I say so below rather than papering over it.

2. POSITA

A person having ordinary skill in the art as of 2013-09-03 would have: (a) a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, or a related field, plus 2–5 years of experience in railway signaling, train control, or wireless localization; or (b) a master's degree plus ~2 years in the same field. That POSITA is comfortable with RF transceiver design, time-of-flight ranging, GPS, trackside signaling practice, and the fail-safe architectures of rail brake systems. The parties in the family IPRs appear to have adopted a substantively similar definition — the petitions argue "A POSITA in the 2013 timeframe" throughout, which is a useful lodestar for consistency.

3. The prior-art arsenal (corrected and expanded from the earlier section)

4. The combinations

⭐ COMBINATION 1 — Claim A ("System for vehicle management": UWB wayside interface + ToF + braking interface)

References: Kane + Heddebaut (primary), + Ackerman (RFID dependents), + Hungate (access-point dependents), + McDaniel / Nixon (threshold and graded-alert dependents).

Motivation to combine (KSR-articulated):

• Same field, same problem, same architecture. Kane and Heddebaut are both train-control systems in which "a control signal interface subsystem" and "a vehicle-mounted subsystem" exchange radio signals carrying at least a signal indication and speed — this is not analogous-art stretch, it is the identical technical subject matter. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
• Complementary, predictable strengths. Kane's GPS-based positioning works over long distances but degrades or fails in tunnels and urban canyons; Heddebaut's UWB is expressly directed to tunnel coverage, high availability, and centimetre resolution. A POSITA had a known reason to combine the long-range absolute system with the short-range relative system — Metrom itself relies on exactly this tunnel rationale in the '058 specification. A "simple substitution of one known element for another" yielding predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17.
• Design incentive from the art itself. Heddebaut's abstract states the UWB approach is intended to avoid interference with other wireless systems and to enable near-100% ground coverage — i.e., it improves the very radio link Kane already uses. KSR factor (c): "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way."
• Reasonable expectation of success. Both systems already transmit the same data types over a train–wayside radio link; the integration is an RF-layer substitution, not a new architecture. In re O'Farrell.
• Documented independent evidence. Both this combination and its conclusion were already reduced to writing and litigated in IPR2024-00947, where the petition argued the motivation and expectation of success element-by-element.

⭐ COMBINATION 2 — Claim B (multi-vehicle / train-to-train)

References: Grisham (US 6,759,948) + Heddebaut, with Douglas, Nixon, McDaniel, Richardson as secondaries.

Claim B adds (i) a second vehicle-mounted subsystem mounted on another vehicle and (ii) a second, ToF-derived distance to that other vehicle, alongside the wayside distance.

• Grisham is the direct hit for train-to-train UWB: transmitting impulse radio unit 902 on locomotive 1102, receiving unit 904 on locomotive 2102, both locomotives "contain the same equipment," controller 1110 measures distance by time position measurement / propagation delay (col. 23:66–24:29), plus direction and speed display. That is a second vehicle-mounted subsystem with a UWB component and a ToF distance between the two vehicles.
• Heddebaut independently teaches direct inter-vehicle communication: "Such system also enables direct communication between vehicles, which proved necessary in certain operating modes," and each vehicle "may also acquire pieces of information regarding the identity, the speed and the position relative to the other vehicles 4 in the vicinity."
• Motivation. The '058 architecture is a two-distance overlay; the combination is the union of two ranging directions the prior art already used for the same purpose, in the same environment. A POSITA implementing Kane/Heddebaut wayside ranging would add Grisham's train-to-train ranging to obtain a complete separation picture; Metrom's own specification identifies both (train-to-train via the '227/'131 AURA CAS disclosures incorporated by reference, and train-to-wayside via signal control points) as components of the same system. Douglas supplies the track-identification layer that suppresses false alarms between trains on parallel tracks — the exact motivation the specification gives for the RFID track-identity feature. McDaniel supplies distinct, speed-variable thresholds for each of the two distances.

⚠️ COMBINATION 3 — Claim C (vehicle-mounted system for interfacing with a brake loop)

References: Kane + the admitted fail-safe brake loop / penalty-brake art. This is the claim family with the weakest support in the retrieved record, and I am flagging that rather than overstating it.

Why it is nonetheless a § 103 target:

• The specification concedes the loop is prior art. The '058 description states: "The vehicle may include a fail-safe feature that automatically engages the brake when the brake loop 2014 is interrupted. The VMCS 1000 can leverage this vehicle feature by opening the brake loop 2014 when a braking event is determined." Under In re Fout / the admission doctrine, that is a binding admission that interrupting a brake loop to force a penalty brake application is known.
• The allegedly novel elements are (a) automatic determination of a braking event without operator-actuator status, and (b) a processor opening/closing a switch across the loop. (a) is the defining characteristic of ATC/ATS penalty brake intervention — Kane's corrective action is automatic brake activation independent of the operator's brake control, and the FRA/ACSES NPRM text describes a positive-stop enforcement that "shall be brought to a complete stop" and can only be released by a reset device "located where it cannot be activated from the engineer's accustomed position." (b) is the ordinary implementation choice — a relay or solid-state switch (the specification itself says the "exemplary switch 2011 may be… a relay (solid state or mechanical)").
• Motivation. Applying a known processor-controlled relay to a known fail-safe brake loop, in a known penalty-brake architecture, to obtain the known benefit (fail-safe brake application on rule violation) is the KSR paradigm of predictable mechanical/electrical substitution.

What I could not do: I did not retrieve any reference that discloses the switch-across-a-brake-loop structure itself. The closest thing surfaced was the WABCO/Hitachi Rail ATCS service manual (carborne transponder/programmer + wayside coil/interrogator/decoder, with "input of variable contact closure information from the motorman's key switch"), which shows the wayside↔carborne transponder architecture but not the claimed brake-loop switch. Recommendation: search CPC B60T 8/1705, B61L 3/12, B61L 3/125, B61L 27/20, and the terms "penalty brake," "brake loop relay," "vital relay," "automatic train stop brake application," plus pre-2013 ATC/ATS installation manuals and FRA docket materials. This claim is where a well-drafted petition should invest its search budget.

⭐ COMBINATION 4 — Claim D ("System for vehicle speed management": rule compliance)

References: Kane + Heddebaut + Das (and the FRA/ACSES NPRM as corroboration).

This is a near-verbatim template of the ground already run against '738 claim 1 ("determine a rule for behavior of a vehicle according to the information corresponding to the status of the control signal; and observe operation of the vehicle to evaluate compliance with the rule") plus its dependents:

• Rule from signal status → Kane's wayside signal device + engineer pendant with GCOR aspect buttons (CLEAR, LIMITED, APPROACH, MEDIUM, DIVERGING, SLOW, ADVANCE, RESTRICTED, STOP/PROC, CONDITIONAL OVERRIDE) — i.e., a mapping from signal state to required operator behavior; and Kane's "maximum speed of 15 mph after a stop signal."
• red / double red / yellow / double yellow → the standard aspect set; Kane's aspect menu covers the classes, and Heddebaut supplies the communicated "signal indication."
• stop-time duration → Das (stop duration as an enforced signal indication), and independently the FRA/ACSES NPRM: after a positive stop, "at least 30 seconds shall have elapsed since the train came to a complete stop," plus dispatcher authority and a reset — a stop-time-plus-condition rule.
• speed after expiration of stop-time → Kane's 15 mph-after-stop and the NPRM's "restricted speed until a valid speed command is received."
• Observing operation to evaluate compliance → Kane's signal comparator ("determining if the signal input by the operator matches the signal received from the wayside signal device and taking corrective action if the operator fails") — literally a compliance-observing loop.
• UWB component in the control signal interface subsystem → Heddebaut (as in Combination 1).

Motivation. Kane and Das are both railway signal-compliance systems; the FRA NPRM supplies a regulatory-pull motivation (the art expressly frames conditional-stop-and-proceed enforcement as an objective of the technology). Combining a known signal-aspect comparator with a known stop-duration rule to produce a compound behavior rule is the combination of familiar elements according to known methods, yielding no more than predictable results. Note also that the '131 and '227 patents' complete invalidation turned on this kind of reasoning, and the Federal Circuit affirmed it.

5. The cross-cutting motivation story (use this as the petition's spine)

Five rationales, each anchored in the record:

1. Combination of known elements with predictable results. Kane (train ↔ wayside signal exchange, enforcement, brake output) + Heddebaut (UWB train ↔ fixed-station exchange with ToF ranging) + Grisham (train ↔ train UWB ToF) = the claimed overlay. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
2. Simple substitution of a known technology. RF → UWB for a short-range, multipath-hostile, tunnel environment. Heddebaut states the rationale (1–10 GHz non-sinusoidal signals, coverage "close to 100%," immunity to interference, centimetre resolution) and PCI Parallax / In re Keller support predictable substitution.
3. Known technique improving a similar device in the same way. Both Kane and Heddebaut are train-control systems with the same architecture; UWB improves each the same way (tunnel coverage, precision, interference). KSR factor (c).
4. Design incentive / market and regulatory pull. The PTC publication (May 2012), the 1997 FRA NPRM, and the CCS UWB corridor paper show that industry and the regulator were converging on exactly this overlay architecture in the relevant window.
5. Finite, predictable solutions. The art identifies a small, enumerated set of ranging modalities for this problem — impulse radio/UWB (Grisham, Heddebaut, Suzuki, the CCS paper), GPS (Kane, Nixon, Douglas), and tag/reader (Ackerman). Where "there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions," the combination is obvious as a matter of law. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421.

Reasonable expectation of success is independently supported because both the wayside and the vehicle subsystem in both Kane and Heddebaut already carry "at least one of a signal indication and speed" — the very data the '058 claim requires.

6. Objective indicia — Metrom's likely rebuttal and why it is weak here

Metrom will offer the same AURA CAS commercial-success story it has offered before. The record already shows the Board rejected that theory: it found no presumption of nexus and that the asserted "important features or components" were unclaimed. Because the '058 independent claims (A and D particularly) recite a generic architecture — a UWB wayside interface, a UWB vehicle interface, ToF distance, and a rule-compliance loop — rather than the AURA-specific implementation, the nexus problem carries over directly. Any secondary-considerations showing would need to be tied to elements actually recited. Flag: this is the same trap that failed for '738-related objective indicia at the Board.

7. Contradictions and identifier traps I am flagging (not auto-correcting)

1. Grisham's patent number is unsettled in the sources. The IPR2023-00468 record cites EX1006 with a content match (col. 23:33–24:29; FIGs 21–22; col. 24:25–29) and an ex parte summary identifies it as U.S. Patent No. 6,759,948. The previously generated section in this file cited U.S. Patent No. 7,148,791. My verification shows both exist, both are Grisham/Roberts/Time Domain impulse-radio patents, and both are railroad-collision-avoidance: 6,759,948 is the "Railroad collision avoidance system and method for preventing train accidents" (WO 03/026943); 7,148,791 is titled "Wireless danger proximity warning system and method." They are different patents, not two citations of one. Verify which one is EX1006 before citing either.
2. A third Grisham document exists: US 2004/0155760 A1, "Railroad Collision Avoidance System and Method for Preventing Train Accidents" (Grisham & Roberts, priority 2001-09-20). The Unified Patents portal renders it with a "Grant Number: 10753891" and "Parent Company: Humatics Corp" — the grant number is almost certainly a portal data error, but the ownership field is substantively notable: Humatics acquired Time Domain's assets and is a co-petitioner against Metrom, so the primary reference in this art set is owned by an adverse party in the family litigation. Not a legal defect in the art — a fact worth knowing.
3. McDaniel has a dangerous homonym. The McDaniel relied on is US 2007/0255498 A1 (Caterpillar; host machine 110 / velocity monitoring device 114). A separate search hit returned US 3,676,760, "McDaniel" — a machine-tool feedrate control patent with nothing to do with collision avoidance. Do not import it.
4. Heddebaut's family has multiple numbers: US 2006/0151672 A1, US 7,725,252 B2, EP 1648753 B1, and an ES translation. Cite the US publication for § 102(a)(1) clarity.
5. Cross (WO 2013/056244) sits on the critical date. Confirm its publication date before asserting it as § 102(a)(1) art; otherwise it is § 102(a)(2)-only.
6. "The '580 patent" in unrelated PTAB papers ≠ US 12,258,058 (previously flagged; still true).
7. The '058 claim set was not retrieved. Nothing here should be filed without confirming claim numbers, dependency, and transitional language from the official document.

8. Procedural risk that will decide whether this theory can be used

The obviousness theory is strong; the venue risk is the real constraint, and it is the one thing a § 103 memo must not omit:

• IPR2024-00947 (Kane + Heddebaut + Das/Ackerman/Hungate) was denied institution under § 325(d), and the denial was affirmed on Director Review (2025-04-04). Metrom's predictable response to a Kane/Heddebaut petition against the '058 claims is the same § 325(d) / family-overlap argument. The DRP did narrow the doctrine in petitioners' favor ("a reference appearing only on a search report is not enough" to be "previously presented art"), but re-running the '947 combination is still the highest-friction path.
• Therefore lead with the art the '058/'738 examiner never substantively considered: Grisham (US 6,759,948 / 7,148,791), Richards (US 6,133,876), Suzuki (EP 1 785 744), Cross (WO 2013/056244), Meyer (DE 10 2008 020 700 A1), plus NPL (Richardson 2010; the CCS UWB paper; PTC May 2012). The family record itself notes that a Grisham-family patent appears on an IDS but was not substantively considered — under the 2025-04-04 DRP clarification, that should not bar review.
• Estoppel is not a constraint against this patent. The Siemens/Hitachi-GTS/Humatics/Piper/Thales estoppel under § 315(e)(2) runs only to claims that reached FWD in IPR2023-00468/-00470 — '131 claims 1–20 and '227 claims 1–28. It does not reach the claims of US 12,258,058.
• § 315(b) clock. If your client or its privies have been served with a complaint alleging infringement of US 12,258,058, the one-year window runs from that service date. The earlier sections found no complaint naming the '058 patent, so the window is likely open — but verify on PACER.

9. Confidence

• High confidence: the identity and content of Kane (US 6,957,131), Heddebaut (US 2006/0151672), Grisham-2 (US 7,148,791), McDaniel (US 2007/0255498), Nixon (WO 03/009254), Richardson (2010), Douglas (US 8,874,359), the 1997 FRA NPRM text, and the '738 petition's element-by-element mapping; the CAFC construction holding and its portability; the Board's rejection of Metrom's nexus case.
• Moderate confidence: that the '058 independent claims map to the four families A–D as reconstructed; that Grisham-in-the-IPR is 6,759,948.
• Low confidence / unresolved: the exact granted claims of '058; the identity of Ackerman's, Das's, Hungate's, and Connell's patent numbers (EX1007–EX1009 range); Cross's publication date against the critical date; and — most importantly — any reference that anticipates or squarely renders obvious Claim C's switch-across-a-brake-loop structure. I found none, and I am not going to manufacture one.