Ford Motor Co v. AutoConnect Holdings LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2026-00173
• Patent #: 9,173,100
• Filed: December 8, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Ford Motor Company
• Patent Owner(s): AutoConnect Holdings, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-24

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Vehicular Network Security System and Method
• Brief Description: The ’100 patent discloses systems and methods for securing in-vehicle networks. The technology centers on establishing a "perimeter network" around computational components and utilizing a microprocessor-executable controller to detect security breaches and isolate affected components from unaffected ones.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-24 are obvious over Amirtahmasebi and Bosch

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Amirtahmasebi (a 2010 thesis on vehicular network security) and Bosch (a 2004 automotive engineering handbook).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Amirtahmasebi, a thesis focused on vehicular network security, discloses all the core security concepts of the challenged claims. This includes using gateways, firewalls, and Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) to create a logical "perimeter network" that protects a vehicle's internal Electronic Control Units (ECUs) from external threats. Amirtahmasebi was argued to teach detecting security breaches (e.g., malware, unauthorized access) and isolating a compromised ECU by blocking its communications or deactivating it. Petitioner contended that Bosch, a standard automotive handbook, provides the well-known hardware context, describing ECUs as containing the necessary microprocessors and memory to execute the security logic taught by Amirtahmasebi.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Amirtahmasebi's security architecture with Bosch's foundational ECU hardware because they address complementary aspects of automotive control systems. Implementing Amirtahmasebi's security functions on the standard ECU architecture described by Bosch would have been a routine and predictable integration of a known security method onto a standard hardware platform.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination was asserted to be predictable, as it involves implementing security software logic on the very type of standard, microprocessor-based hardware for which it was designed.

Ground 2: Claims 1, 9, and 17 are obvious over Spaur and Peirce

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Spaur (Patent 7,366,892) and Peirce (Patent 8,788,731).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Spaur discloses a telematics system with a centralized security controller and vehicle gateway that perform security authentication, manage access to vehicle buses, and can terminate secure channels to isolate components, thereby forming a "perimeter network." Petitioner argued that Peirce enhances this system by teaching a message filtering system with transmit and receive filters that are physically or logically isolated from the ECUs. These filters in Peirce operate under a "filter policy" to validate message authenticity and block corrupt or unauthorized messages from propagating on the vehicle bus, thus providing a specific mechanism for detecting breaches and isolating compromised components.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Peirce's ECU-independent filtering system with Spaur's centralized security architecture to improve overall system security and robustness. Integrating Peirce's known and predictable filtering technique would add an effective layer of isolation to Spaur's system, enhancing its ability to handle compromised ECUs without affecting other components.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination would yield the predictable result of improved detection, filtering, and isolation of improper messages. Since both references address securing in-vehicle communications and Spaur expressly invites modifications, a POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "and/or": For the purpose of this inter partes review (IPR), Petitioner adopted the Patent Owner's proposed construction from related litigation, interpreting "and/or" to mean "or." Petitioner noted that it has separately argued in district court that the use of this term renders certain claims indefinite, an issue that cannot be raised in an IPR.

5. Key Technical Contentions (Beyond Claim Construction)

• Priority Date Challenge: A central contention is that the ’100 patent is not entitled to its earliest claimed priority date of 2011. Petitioner argued that the key claim limitations of a "perimeter network" and specific "isolation" mechanisms were new matter introduced in a later continuation-in-part (CIP) application filed in March 2013, or at the earliest, in a provisional application filed in October 2012. This later effective filing date is critical because it establishes Peirce, filed in July 2012, as intervening prior art under §102(e) for Ground 2.

6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial would be inappropriate. It contended that the parallel district court litigation is in its very early stages, with a trial scheduled for October 2027, well after a Final Written Decision (FWD) in this IPR would be due. Furthermore, Petitioner asserted that key prior art, specifically the Amirtahmasebi thesis, was not considered by the USPTO during the original prosecution, weighing against denial under §325(d).

7. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-24 as unpatentable.