Litigation

Untitled case

Litigation

2:25-cv-00742

Patents at issue (1)

10614344PTAB challenge active

Summary

An ongoing patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas, case 2:25-cv-00742, asserts US patent 10614344, though specific parties are not detailed.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement lawsuit, 2:25-cv-00742, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and involved Perceptive Automata LLC as the plaintiff, asserting infringement against Tesla, Inc.. Perceptive Automata LLC is a patent holder specializing in AI perception technologies, and its actions in this case suggest it may operate as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), focused on licensing or enforcing its patent portfolio in the autonomous vehicle sector. Tesla, Inc. is a prominent operating company and major automotive manufacturer. The core dispute centered on allegations that Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, including its hardware and software suite found in vehicles like the Model Y and Cybertruck, along with the datacenter systems used for FSD training, infringed Perceptive Automata's patents.

The litigation asserted five U.S. patents covering artificial intelligence and human state perception technologies critical for autonomous vehicle navigation: US11126889B2, US10614344B2, US11753046B2, US11467579B2, and US11520346B2. These patents broadly relate to machine learning methods for interpreting and predicting human behavioral states, moving beyond simple motion-vector prediction to understand the "state of mind" of pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. For instance, US Patent 11,467,579 describes a "Probabilistic Neural Network for Predicting Hidden Context of Traffic Entities for Autonomous Vehicles".

The case was filed on July 23, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue frequently chosen by patent plaintiffs due to its specialized patent docket, established procedural history, and predictable scheduling orders. The matter was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, known for overseeing a high volume of patent cases. The litigation concluded relatively quickly, lasting only 166 days, with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice filed by the plaintiff on January 5, 2026, before reaching key stages such as claim construction or trial. This outcome is notable as it preserves Perceptive Automata's legal right to refile the claims in the future and underscores the ongoing assertability of human-state prediction patents against commercial FSD platforms, suggesting active licensing pressure within the autonomous vehicle AI industry.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc.: Patent Infringement Litigation Concludes with Voluntary Dismissal

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00742
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: US10614344, among others.
Parties: Perceptive Automata LLC (Plaintiff) v. Tesla, Inc. (Defendant)
Status: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2026.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

The patent infringement lawsuit, Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00742) saw a swift resolution, concluding with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice by the plaintiff, Perceptive Automata LLC, on January 5, 2026, just 166 days after its filing. The case was presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Perceptive Automata LLC initiated the lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. on July 23, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of five patents, including US Patent No. 10,614,344, which cover artificial intelligence and human state perception technologies allegedly used in Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems, including the Model Y and Cybertruck.
  • Amended Complaint: A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 14, 2025, reiterating allegations of venue in the Eastern District of Texas and referencing the priority date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,614,344.
  • While an explicit "answer and counterclaims" filing by Tesla is not detailed in the provided search results, the short duration of the case suggests it likely did not progress to a full responsive pleading cycle or extensive discovery.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Tesla reportedly attempted to have the case dismissed, but a judge denied part of that motion, allowing the case to move forward at an earlier stage. However, the specific date or nature of this motion and denial are not fully detailed, and it occurred before the eventual voluntary dismissal. The case did not reach claim construction or summary judgment.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case was dismissed before reaching the claim construction (Markman) stage.

Discovery Milestones:

  • The 166-day duration of the litigation suggests that it likely did not progress past early motion practice and initial discovery exchanges. No specific significant discovery milestones were reached or detailed before the dismissal.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice: The case concluded on January 5, 2026, when the Court accepted Perceptive Automata LLC's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (Dkt. No. 64). This means that Perceptive Automata retains the legal right to refile these claims in the future. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted. The reasons for the dismissal were not publicly detailed but could include confidential settlement negotiations, a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff, or a plan to refile in a different venue or against different products.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • There is no information in the provided search results indicating any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings for US Patent 10614344 that had an effect on this specific litigation. IPRs and PGRs are designed as alternatives to district court litigation for challenging patent validity.## Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc.: Patent Infringement Litigation Concludes with Voluntary Dismissal

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00742
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: US10614344, among others.
Parties: Perceptive Automata LLC (Plaintiff) v. Tesla, Inc. (Defendant)
Status: Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2026.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

The patent infringement lawsuit, Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00742) saw a swift resolution, concluding with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice by the plaintiff, Perceptive Automata LLC, on January 5, 2026, just 166 days after its filing. The case was presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Perceptive Automata LLC initiated the lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. on July 23, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of five patents, including US Patent No. 10,614,344, which cover artificial intelligence and human state perception technologies allegedly used in Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) systems, including the Model Y and Cybertruck.
  • Amended Complaint: A First Amended Complaint was filed on November 14, 2025, reiterating allegations of venue in the Eastern District of Texas and referencing the priority date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,614,344.
  • While an explicit "answer and counterclaims" filing by Tesla is not detailed in the provided search results, the short duration of the case suggests it likely did not progress to a full responsive pleading cycle or extensive discovery.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Tesla reportedly attempted to have the case dismissed, but a judge denied part of that motion, allowing the case to move forward at an earlier stage. However, the specific date or full nature of this motion and denial are not detailed in the available information. The case was dismissed before reaching claim construction or summary judgment.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case was dismissed before reaching the claim construction (Markman) stage.

Discovery Milestones:

  • The 166-day duration of the litigation suggests that it likely did not progress past early motion practice and initial discovery exchanges. No specific significant discovery milestones were detailed before the dismissal.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice: The case concluded on January 5, 2026, when the Court accepted Perceptive Automata LLC's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (Dkt. No. 64). This type of dismissal allows the plaintiff to refile the claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any strategic or procedural constraints. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted. The reasons for the voluntary dismissal were not publicly detailed, but commonly include confidential settlement negotiations, strategic reassessment of the case after initial discovery, or a plan to reassert the patents in a different venue or against different products.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • There is no information in the provided search results indicating any parallel PTAB IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings specifically targeting US Patent 10614344 that had a direct effect on this litigation. IPRs and PGRs are administrative proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that offer alternatives to district court litigation for challenging patent validity.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Perceptive Automata LLC, the plaintiff in the now-dismissed patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00742 against Tesla, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, was represented by two law firms: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and Miller Fair Henry PLLC. While the case was voluntarily dismissed on January 5, 2026, the following attorneys were identified as counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
(Fort Worth, TX; Dallas, TX; Burr Ridge, IL)

  • Patrick J. Conroy

    • Role: Principal (likely lead counsel)
    • Firm & Office Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas, TX
    • Experience Note: Concentrates practice on patent infringement, trade secret, and complex commercial litigation, with extensive trial experience as lead counsel in federal courts and the International Trade Commission. Recognized as a Texas Super Lawyer since 2014 and named one of the World's Leading IP Strategists by IAM for 2024 and 2025.

  • Timothy E. Grochocinski

    • Role: Principal (likely lead counsel)
    • Firm & Office Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Burr Ridge, IL
    • Experience Note: Focuses on patent infringement and complex commercial litigation, with extensive trial experience against large companies. He is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas and has been recognized as a Super Lawyer Rising Star multiple consecutive years.

  • Jonathan Hart Rastegar

    • Role: Principal (likely lead counsel)
    • Firm & Office Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Dallas, TX
    • Experience Note: Concentrates on patent infringement and complex commercial litigation, with significant experience monetizing intellectual property in various technology fields including telecommunications, wireless networking, and video compression.

  • John Murphy

    • Role: Partner (likely lead or supporting counsel)
    • Firm & Office Location: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, Fort Worth, TX
    • Experience Note: Practices all aspects of intellectual property law, with an emphasis on patent litigation, licensing, and prosecution across diverse technologies. He is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC
(Longview, TX)

  • Miller Fair Henry PLLC is a Texas-based firm with a strong focus on intellectual property and patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The firm often collaborates with lead counsel to provide local knowledge and trial skills, and has achieved significant patent verdicts for plaintiffs. While specific attorneys from Miller Fair Henry PLLC were not individually named in connection with the Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc. case in the initial general mention of counsel, their firm was identified as representing the plaintiff. The firm's attorneys, such as Andrea L. Fair and Claire Abernathy Henry, are known for their patent litigation work in the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas does not have a strict local counsel requirement, but local representation is often utilized to navigate the court's procedures and fast-paced "Rocket Docket."

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The defendant in Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., case number 2:25-cv-00742 in the Eastern District of Texas, is Tesla, Inc.. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2026.

The counsel of record identified as representing Tesla, Inc. in this case includes attorneys from Baker Botts LLP and Tesla's in-house legal team:

  • Roger Joseph Fulghum

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Houston office
    • Experience: Mr. Fulghum is recognized as a leading patent litigator, representing clients in complex intellectual property disputes. His firm, Baker Botts LLP, is noted as a "preeminent IP litigation firm."

  • Paul Isaac Margulies

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Identified as counsel for Tesla, Inc. and also specifically mentioned in connection with Baker Botts LLP's representation of Tesla.
    • Experience: Mr. Margulies is associated with Baker Botts LLP, a firm known for its significant IP litigation practice.

  • Brianna Potter

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Baker Botts LLP, Palo Alto office
    • Experience: Ms. Potter is part of Baker Botts LLP's team, a firm with a strong reputation in intellectual property litigation.

  • Mark Speegle

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.
    • Experience: Mr. Speegle is part of the Baker Botts LLP team that handles patent litigation for defendants like Tesla.

  • Ashraf Ahmed Fawzy

    • Role: In-house Counsel
    • Firm: Tesla, Inc.
    • Experience: As in-house counsel for Tesla, Mr. Fawzy is involved in managing the company's intellectual property litigation matters.

  • Helen Yiea Trac

    • Role: In-house Counsel
    • Firm: Tesla, Inc.
    • Experience: As in-house counsel for Tesla, Ms. Trac is involved in managing the company's intellectual property litigation matters.