Ford Motor Company v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC
Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Holding
The Director reversed the Board's institution decisions in IPR2025-01342, IPR2025-01383, and IPR2025-01524 (Ford Motor Co. v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC, covering automotive connectivity patents), vacating the notices granting institution and denying all three petitions. The Director found that Ford's use of 'plain and ordinary meaning' claim constructions in its IPR petitions while simultaneously advancing broad indefiniteness contentions against the same claim terms in co-pending district court litigation constituted impermissible inconsistent positions under the precedential Revvo and informative Tesla Director Review decisions, as further applied in the same-day Terumo BCT ruling. 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 before institution — advancing indefiniteness in litigation while relying on plain-and-ordinary-meaning in an IPR petition is a basis for denial even after institution has been granted, and a remedial stipulation offered only after the inconsistency is exposed 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.