Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director granted Director Review, vacated the notices granting institution, and denied institution in three related IPRs (IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, IPR2025-01524) involving automotive connectivity patents owned by AutoConnect Holdings LLC. The Director held that Ford Motor Company's inconsistent claim construction positions—asserting 'plain and ordinary meaning' in its IPR petitions while simultaneously advancing indefiniteness contentions covering seven claim terms in co-pending district court litigation—warranted denial of institution under the framework established in Revvo and Tesla and consistent with the same-day Terumo BCT decision. Ford's post-hoc offer to stipulate withdrawal of its district court indefiniteness arguments was rejected as insufficient because it came only after the inconsistency was flagged by Patent Owner and after institution had already been granted.
Why It Matters
Petitioners must ensure their claim construction positions in IPR petitions are consistent with positions taken in parallel district court proceedings at the time of filing—not just at institution—because post-institution indefiniteness contentions served in litigation can trigger Director Review and vacatur of an already-granted institution. A conditional stipulation to cure the inconsistency offered only after being caught will not save the petition.
- 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.