Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00172 (and companion cases IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00173) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained inconsistent claim construction positions between its IPR petitions and the parallel district court litigation without adequate justification. Specifically, Ford argued multiple claim terms were indefinite in district court while applying plain-and-ordinary-meaning in the petitions, and its conditional stipulation to withdraw indefiniteness arguments only if the IPR was instituted was deemed insufficient to cure the inconsistency under the precedential Revvo decision.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Director's strict application of the Revvo precedent: a petitioner's conditional stipulation to abandon inconsistent district court claim construction positions only upon IPR institution will not save a petition from § 314(a) discretionary denial, because such a stipulation does not meaningfully promote efficiency or prevent inconsistent outcomes. Practitioners must ensure claim construction positions in IPR petitions are either consistent with district court positions or accompanied by a full, unconditional explanation for any divergence before filing.
- Written description, enablement and indefiniteness (§ 112) →
- Claim construction →
- PTAB discretionary denial →
- PTAB Director Review →
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 7, 2026In re Gamble
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 2, 2026Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Satius Holding, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026Wang v. Viking Drill & Tool, Inc.