Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp v. Railware Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00133
• Patent #: 9,517,782
• Filed: November 19, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Railware, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-8

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Railway Control System Using Release Code Verification
• Brief Description: The ’782 patent discloses a system and method for enhancing railway worker safety. The system uses a centralized traffic control (CTC) apparatus to place a block on a track section for maintenance, generates a "release code" transmitted to a worker's terminal, and only removes the block upon receiving the same code back from the worker.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over FRA-Report and Kruijswijk - Claims 1-8 are obvious over FRA-Report in view of Kruijswijk.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report (a 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation report) and Kruijswijk (WO 2007/107554).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that FRA-Report, a comprehensive two-volume study on improving railway worker safety with wireless handheld computers, disclosed all elements of the challenged claims except for the specific "release code" generation and verification steps. FRA-Report taught a CTC system where a worker could use a PDA to request a track block, and the dispatcher's control apparatus would grant it, preventing trains from entering the section. The worker could later use the PDA to send a "Cancel/Fulfill" command to unblock the track. Kruijswijk was argued to supply the missing "release code" element, as it taught a railway safety system that generated a personal "secret code" (e.g., a random number) at a server, transmitted it to a railway technician, and required the technician to return the code to the server for verification after completing work.
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine these references to enhance the safety and reliability of the system in FRA-Report. Petitioner contended that FRA-Report itself recognized the need for improved verification to prevent human error and to "positively identify the person communicating with the PDA." Adding Kruijswijk's secret code verification would be a predictable solution to implement a "handshake" protocol, ensuring the dispatcher does not erroneously revoke a block and that the unblocking command originates from the authorized worker.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both CTC systems and secret-code-based verification for safety were well-known technologies. FRA-Report described its system as "highly configurable," making the integration of a known verification module, as taught by Kruijswijk, a straightforward and predictable improvement.

Ground 2: Obviousness over FRA-Report, Kruijswijk, and Macey - Claims 1-8 are obvious over the combination of FRA-Report, Kruijswijk, and Macey.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report (a 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation report), Kruijswijk (WO 2007/107554), and Macey (WO 2010/012040).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground relied on the same base combination of FRA-Report and Kruijswijk as Ground 1. Macey was introduced to further support the implementation of unblocking a track based solely on a worker transmitting a secret code to a central system. Macey described a railway safety system where a worker must enter a "specific code," known only to the user, which is transmitted to a central system to change a signal from red (blocked) to green (unblocked), allowing a train to proceed.
  • Motivation to Combine: The motivation was similar to Ground 1, with Macey providing an additional, explicit example of using a secret code specifically to unblock a railway track. A POSITA seeking to improve the FRA-Report system would have looked to analogous systems like Macey, which confirmed that using a worker-transmitted code to control track access was a known and effective safety measure in the field.
  • Expectation of Success: The expectation of success was high for the same reasons as Ground 1, further reinforced by Macey demonstrating the successful application of secret code verification directly for track unblocking operations.

Ground 3: Obviousness over FRA-Report and Schmitz - Claims 1-8 are obvious over FRA-Report in view of Schmitz.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: FRA-Report (a 2004 U.S. Department of Transportation report) and Schmitz (Patent 6,078,908).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Similar to the other grounds, FRA-Report provided the foundational CTC system. Schmitz was presented as an alternative to Kruijswijk for teaching the claimed "release code." Schmitz disclosed a general data transmission system for identity verification and access control, where an authentication server generated a "transaction authorization number (TAN) or the comparable password" (e.g., via a random number generator) and transmitted it to a user. This one-time code was then used by the person to gain access, with the server verifying the returned code.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to combine FRA-Report with Schmitz to implement a secure, low-cost verification system for controlling access to track sections. The known problems of protecting workers from improper track block removal would have led a POSITA to apply well-known access control methods, like those in Schmitz, to the specific context of the FRA-Report's railway safety system.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would have been expected because secret-code systems for access control were well-established. Schmitz described its system as simple to implement, and a POSITA would have found it predictable to apply this known security technique to the "highly configurable" system described in FRA-Report.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge (Ground 4) based on the combination of FRA-Report, Byford (Patent 6,581,161), and Macey, relying on a similar theory that Byford taught a "cipher lock code" for controlling access to a secure location, which a POSITA would have been motivated to apply to the FRA-Report system.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "release code" (claims 1-8): Petitioner argued that no express construction was necessary. However, responding to Patent Owner's proposed construction in related litigation ("A code that is not readily available to the terminal user (i.e., the dispatcher)"), Petitioner contended that the secret, one-time, and randomly generated codes taught by Kruijswijk, Schmitz, and Byford met this construction because they were intended to be known only by the authorized worker.
• "user terminal" (claims 1, 2, 4, 5): Petitioner noted that Patent Owner asserted in related litigation that this term meant the dispatcher's terminal in claim 5 but the worker's terminal in claim 1. Petitioner argued its prior art combinations rendered the claims obvious under either interpretation.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued there is no basis for discretionary denial under §325(d) because the petition included new grounds and presented secondary references (Kruijswijk, Schmitz, Macey, Byford) that were never considered by the USPTO during prosecution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8 of the ’782 patent as unpatentable.