Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director denied institution of IPR2026-00173 (and companion cases IPR2026-00171 and IPR2026-00172) under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) because Ford Motor Company maintained claim construction positions in parallel district court litigation that were inconsistent with those presented in its IPR petitions, and Ford's conditional stipulation to withdraw the inconsistent indefiniteness arguments only if the PTAB instituted trial was deemed inadequate to cure the inconsistency. Applying the precedential Revvo decision, the Director found that such a conditional stipulation does not promote efficiency or minimize the risk of inconsistent outcomes, and at best merely substitutes one litigation argument for another.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the Director's strict application of the Revvo framework: a petitioner's conditional offer to drop inconsistent district court claim construction or indefiniteness positions only upon institution will not save a petition from discretionary denial under § 314(a), and practitioners must either align IPR and litigation claim construction positions from the outset or provide a full, unconditional explanation for any divergence.
- Written description, enablement and indefiniteness (§ 112) →
- Anticipation and prior art (§ 102) →
- Obviousness (§ 103) →
- 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.