While GE goes after Pratt/United Technologies over jets, Toyota has US 20150246720
 The present disclosure pertains to a vehicle that can be flown as a fixed wing aircraft and driven as a land vehicle. More specifically, the present disclosure is directed to stackable wing architectures therefor.
 Flying has always been a dream central to the history of humanity. Aerocars or roadable aircraft are defined as vehicles that may be driven on roads as well as take off, fly, and land as aircraft. Vehicles that demonstrate such capability provide operators with freedom, comfort, and the ability to arrive quickly to a destination as mobility becomes three-dimensional yet remains private and personal. Such vehicles, however, may require various trade offs to facilities operations in the flight mode and the roadable mode.
 Typically, a body of a land vehicle is relatively short to facilitate parking and road maneuverability, whereas a body of an aircraft is relatively long to facilitate flight stability and control authority. In one conventional roadable aircraft, each wing folds upward at a root and downward a mid-span location to stow against the fuselage in the land mode. Although effective, the more numerous the fold locations, the greater the weight and complexity that necessarily influences operability in each mode. Further, such wing stowage may limit operator aft and side views conducive to effective operations in the road mode.
The first claim:
A wing comprising: an upper surface that forms a generally fixed shape; and a lower surface adjacent to said upper surface, wherein said lower surface is morphable between a stowed shape and a deployed shape, wherein said wing has a compact shape of reduced thickness when said lower surface has said stowed shape, wherein said wing has an airfoil shape when said lower surface has said deployed shape, wherein said wing is one of a multiple of wings stackably located atop a body of an aerocar in a roadable mode and selectively extendable away from said body in a flight mode, wherein said wing has said compact shape in said roadable mode, and wherein said wing has said deployed shape in said flight mode.
A method of morphing a wing comprising: morphing a lower surface of the wing between a stowed shape and a deployed shape, wherein the lower surface curves toward an upper surface of the wing in the stowed shape and curves away from the upper surface in the deployed shape, and wherein morphing includes selectively heating a bistable composite within the lower surface to elevate the temperature of the bistable composite and effect movement of the lower surface between the stowed shape and the deployed shape.
The second listed inventor is Robert Roe of Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Of GE and Pratt:
At the end of a story at Bloomberg titled GE Wins Shot at Voiding Pratt Patent in Jet-Engine Clash one finds text about IPR challenges by GE against United Technologies:
GE submitted additional petitions challenging more Pratt patents in April, and even more on June 28. Those cases are pending an initial review by the agency.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where the petitions were filed, has become known as a “death squad” for patents because of the high rate of rejection. It’s easier to invalidate a patent at the agency than in district court because different standards are used. The Supreme Court on June 20 upheld the review process used by the agency.
Obviously, these challenges are not about dubious software patents.
Also, IAM Media wrote in January 2016
But to what extent is the system truly working as it should to provide an efficient and cost effective way of challenging patent validity? It seems unlikely that any of the authors of the America Invents Act (AIA) foresaw those companies with the deepest pockets filing challenge after challenge against patent owners.
Although IAM noted there was some "justice" in NPEs getting attacked by multiple IPR filings, one recalls productive companies can be victims of IPRs filed by NPEs.
In August 2015, IPBiz wrote of the denial of the Kyle Bass petition against Acorda's MS symptom drug Ampyra in the post
The IPR petitions of Kyle Bass on Acorda/Ampyra denied by PTAB . That related to IPR2015-00720 and IPR2015-00817. But Kyle Bass won the next time around in IPR2015-01850. The first time around Bass failed to convince PTAB that a certain poster session was prior art.
The second time around Bass succeeded in convincing PTAB that Acorda's S-1 statement of 26 Sept. 2003 was prior art.