Untitled case

This is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00220, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which has been instituted. The petitioner is Tesla, Inc., a prominent operating company known for its electric vehicles and energy products. The patent owner is Intellectual Ventures II LLC, widely recognized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) that focuses on acquiring and licensing intellectual property. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670, is titled "Accommodating Machine Type Communication (MTC) Devices in LTE Networks" and generally describes methods and systems for integrating low-bandwidth MTC devices into existing high-bandwidth Long Term Evolution (LTE) cellular networks, specifically by using spare bits within the Master Information Block (MIB) to signal the location of system information needed for MTC devices to connect. This IPR is part of a broader litigation campaign, as Intellectual Ventures II LLC has asserted patents against Tesla in an underlying district court case.

The procedural posture is significant due to recent shifts at the PTAB. The institution decision for this IPR, and all IPRs since October 2025, was made under the direct review of the USPTO Director, currently John Squires, in consultation with PTAB judges. This IPR is linked to a parallel district court infringement lawsuit filed in April 2024 in the Western District of Texas. Tesla successfully argued against discretionary denial of institution, emphasizing the nascent stage of the district court litigation, a trial date scheduled for May 14, 2026, which is well after the IPR's projected final written decision, and minimal investment by the parties in the district court case at the time of the IPR petition.

The case is notable for several reasons, including the involvement of a major operating company (Tesla) challenging a well-known NPE (Intellectual Ventures II LLC). It is one of several IPRs filed by Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II LLC patents, suggesting a broad assertion campaign by the NPE. The fact that this IPR was instituted is particularly noteworthy given the PTAB's increased use of discretionary denials, particularly under the "Fintiv" factors and the "settled expectations" doctrine. Tesla's use of a "Sotera Plus" stipulation, which broadly committed them not to pursue certain invalidity grounds in district court if the IPR was instituted, likely played a role in overcoming potential discretionary denial arguments.

Patent Litigation Update: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc. and Related IPR

This case involves patent 11206670, currently under an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), IPR2025-00220, as well as an underlying patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-884-ADA.

Key Legal Developments in Chronological Order:

2024

• April 12, 2024 – District Court Complaint Filed: Intellectual Ventures II LLC (Plaintiff) filed a patent infringement complaint against Tesla, Inc. (Defendant) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, initiating Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-884-ADA. The lawsuit asserted infringement of twelve patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• Prior to July 12, 2024 – Tesla's Answer and Counterclaims: Tesla, Inc. filed its Answer and Counterclaims in the district court case. Intellectual Ventures II LLC sought and was granted an extension of time to respond to these pleadings by July 12, 2024, indicating their filing occurred before this date.
• November 25, 2024 – IPR Petition Filed: Tesla, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00220) with the PTAB, challenging claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,206,670. This was one of several IPR petitions filed by Tesla against Intellectual Ventures II LLC concerning patents asserted in the district court litigation. The petition argued that the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious over prior art.

2025

• March 2025 – Joint Claim Construction Statement Filed: The parties in the district court case, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-884-ADA, filed a Joint Claim Construction Statement (ECF No. 37). This indicates the case was progressing through the claim construction phase.
• May 16, 2025 – Partial Dismissal in District Court: The district court dismissed with prejudice claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,898,395, another patent asserted in the lawsuit.
• May 27, 2025 – Tesla Files "Sotera+" Stipulation: Tesla, Inc. filed a "Sotera+" stipulation in the district court, agreeing that if the PTAB instituted an IPR for the challenged claims (including those of patent 11206670), Tesla would not pursue in the district court any grounds of invalidity or unpatentability that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the instituted IPR, or any ground based on a combination of system prior art and the references asserted in the IPR petition.
• June 13, 2025 – IPR Institution Decision for IPR2025-00220 (and others): Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart issued a decision in a group of Tesla IPRs, including IPR2025-00220, determining that discretionary denial of institution was not appropriate. The Acting Director found that despite a scheduled district court trial date preceding the projected Final Written Decision date and some investment in the parallel proceeding, Tesla's broad "Sotera+" stipulation, the strong merits of the petition, and the complex and diverse nature of the district court litigation (involving eleven patents across nine families) weighed against discretionary denial. This decision effectively allowed IPR2025-00220 to proceed to a trial on the merits, leading to its "Instituted" status.
• November 5, 2025 – De-institution of a Related IPR (IPR2025-00340): USPTO Director John Squires issued a Director Review order vacating an institution decision and denying institution in Tesla, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2025-00340. The reason was Tesla's failure to adequately explain inconsistent claim construction positions taken in the parallel district court case and the IPR for a specific claim term. This decision was designated as informative. This highlights the importance of consistent claim construction positions in parallel proceedings.
• No Motion to Stay in District Court: As of March 28, 2025, no motion to stay the district court litigation (1:24-cv-884-ADA) had been filed regarding the patents, including 11206670. The PTAB noted this lack of a motion to stay, along with other factors, in its decision not to discretionarily deny institution for related IPRs.

2026

• May 14, 2026 – Scheduled District Court Trial Date: The district court litigation, Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-884-ADA, had a trial date scheduled for May 14, 2026. Given the current date of June 27, 2026, this trial date has passed. However, information regarding a verdict, settlement, or other post-trial motions directly related to patent 11206670 in this specific litigation is not available in the provided sources.
• Current Status – IPR Pending - Instituted: IPR2025-00220 remains in a "Pending - Instituted" status at the PTAB. A Final Written Decision is typically issued within 12 to 18 months of institution. Given the institution decision around June 2025, a Final Written Decision would likely be due in late 2026 or early 2027. No Final Written Decision for IPR2025-00220 has been reported yet.

Overall Posture:

The district court litigation between Intellectual Ventures II LLC and Tesla, Inc. in the Western District of Texas involved multiple patents, including 11206670. Tesla proactively challenged the validity of patent 11206670, among others, through IPR proceedings at the PTAB. Despite some factors that could have led to discretionary denial, IPR2025-00220 was instituted, largely due to Tesla's "Sotera+" stipulation, the perceived strength of its invalidity arguments, and the complexity of the parallel district court case. As the scheduled trial date in the district court has passed, the outcome of that litigation, particularly concerning patent 11206670, is a key unknown. The IPR proceeding is still active and awaiting a Final Written Decision.

This case, IPR2025-00220, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case in a district court. In an IPR, the party defending the patent is the "Patent Owner." In this specific IPR, Intellectual Ventures II LLC is the Patent Owner, and Tesla, Inc. is the Petitioner challenging the patent.

To identify the counsel of record for Intellectual Ventures II LLC in IPR2025-00220, a direct search of the PTAB docket would typically be required. However, public search results at this time do not explicitly name the individual attorneys or their firms representing Intellectual Ventures II LLC in this particular IPR. Therefore, I cannot definitively provide the names, roles, firms, office locations, or specific litigation experience for the counsel representing Intellectual Ventures II LLC in IPR2025-00220 based on the current search results.

Filings are not necessarily sealed, but specific counsel information for this particular IPR is not readily available in the provided search snippets.

In IPR2025-00220, Tesla, Inc. is the Petitioner, challenging the patent held by Intellectual Ventures II LLC. The counsel of record for Tesla, Inc. in this inter partes review proceeding includes attorneys from Haynes and Boone, LLP, and Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP, as well as in-house counsel from Tesla, Inc..

The following attorneys are identified as representing Tesla, Inc.:

Haynes and Boone, LLP

• Scott Jarratt
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Haynes and Boone, LLP. While specific office locations for this case are not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Haynes and Boone has multiple offices, including in Texas (e.g., Dallas, Houston, Austin). Scott Jarratt is noted for his patent litigation and IPR practice.
  • Relevant Experience: Jarratt is active in patent litigation, particularly in inter partes review proceedings, as evidenced by his email address appearing on PTAB filings related to Tesla's IPRs against Intellectual Ventures II LLC.
• Jon Bowser
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Haynes and Boone, LLP. Jon Bowser's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and post-grant proceedings.
  • Relevant Experience: Bowser is involved in patent litigation and IPRs, indicated by his email address on PTAB documents for Tesla's IPRs.
• Eric Horsley
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Haynes and Boone, LLP.
  • Relevant Experience: Horsley is listed among counsel for Tesla in related IPR filings.
• Greg Webb
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Haynes and Boone, LLP.
  • Relevant Experience: Webb is listed among counsel for Tesla in related IPR filings, specifically in IPR2025-00340, a parallel case against Intellectual Ventures II LLC.
• Matthew Beck
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Haynes and Boone, LLP.
  • Relevant Experience: Beck is listed among counsel for Tesla in related IPR filings, specifically in IPR2025-00340.

Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP

• B. Theiss
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP. This firm specializes in intellectual property.
  • Relevant Experience: Theiss is listed as counsel for Tesla in IPR filings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC.
• D. Golub
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP.
  • Relevant Experience: Golub is listed as counsel for Tesla in IPR filings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC.
• R. O'Donnell
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP.
  • Relevant Experience: O'Donnell is listed as counsel for Tesla in IPR filings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC.
• R. Leonard
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP.
  • Relevant Experience: Leonard is listed as counsel for Tesla in IPR filings against Intellectual Ventures II LLC.

Tesla, Inc. (In-House Counsel)

• A. Fawzy
  • Role: In-house Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Tesla, Inc., Palo Alto, California.
  • Relevant Experience: Fawzy serves as in-house counsel for Tesla, involved in the company's intellectual property matters, including IPR proceedings.
• P. Margulies
  • Role: In-house Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Tesla, Inc., Palo Alto, California.
  • Relevant Experience: Margulies serves as in-house counsel for Tesla, involved in the company's intellectual property matters.

While William Ellerman of Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Dallas, Texas) is mentioned as counsel for Tesla in a document exhibited in IPR2025-00220, this appears to pertain more directly to parallel district court litigation. The attorneys from Haynes and Boone, LLP and Vaishnav & Kanumuri, LLP, along with Tesla's in-house counsel, are consistently listed with IPR-specific email addresses on PTAB filings related to IPR2025-00220 and other related IPRs challenging patents asserted by Intellectual Ventures II LLC. Filings are not sealed, but specific biographical details on each attorney's full litigation experience are not detailed in the provided search snippets.