Untitled case

The patent infringement litigation, Case No. 7:26-cv-00100, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, featuring ChargeLogic LLC as the plaintiff and Tesla, Inc. as the defendant. ChargeLogic LLC operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE), specializing in licensing patents related to Electric Vehicle (EV) charging technology. Their mission statement and publicly available information indicate a focus on obtaining licensing revenue from their patent portfolio. Tesla, Inc. is a major operating company known for its electric vehicles and energy products. The case has been assigned to District Judge David Counts, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland as the referred judge.

The patent at issue is US Patent 11258107. This patent describes a system and method for efficiently and safely supplying power to an electric vehicle (EV) charging station. The technology focuses on aspects of power management and infrastructure for EV charging. The accused products, services, or technology are Tesla's electric vehicle charging stations and related infrastructure, which allegedly infringe upon ChargeLogic's patent claims.

This case is notable due to its venue and the plaintiff's nature. The Western District of Texas has been a popular forum for patent litigation, particularly for NPEs, known for its fast-paced dockets and historically plaintiff-friendly practices. While recent procedural changes aim to randomly assign patent cases to judges within the district, the court remains a significant battleground for patent disputes. The assertion of an EV charging patent against a prominent player like Tesla highlights the increasing importance of intellectual property in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle market. There is no information available to indicate any related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings for US Patent 11258107 at this time.

Patent Infringement Litigation: ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

Case Number: 7:26-cv-00100
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Patents at Issue: US Patent 11258107
Status: Active, in early stages of litigation.

This report summarizes the key legal developments for the patent infringement lawsuit filed by ChargeLogic LLC against Tesla, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, focusing on events from the case filing to the present date, June 19, 2026.

Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: ChargeLogic LLC initiated the lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. on March 23, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge David Counts, with Magistrate Judge Derek Tod Gilliland referred.
• Service of Process: Tesla, Inc. was served with the summons on March 25, 2026, making their initial answer due by April 15, 2026.
• Appearance of Counsel: Jun Zheng appeared on behalf of Tesla, Inc. on April 8, 2026, followed by Terry W. Ahearn on the same day, and A. Louis Dorny on April 9, 2026. For ChargeLogic LLC, attorneys Mark D. Siegmund, Megan Elise Griffith, Benjamin Manne, Shawn Blackburn, Steven M. Seigel, and Shuya Yang are listed.
• Extension of Time to Answer: On April 8, 2026, Tesla, Inc. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. This motion was granted by Judge David Counts on April 9, 2026, extending Tesla's deadline to respond until June 1, 2026.
• Corporate Disclosure: On May 19, 2026, ChargeLogic LLC filed a Rule 7 Disclosure Statement, identifying Kidon IP Corporation as its corporate parent.
• Defendant's Responsive Pleading: As of the current date, June 19, 2026, a public record of Tesla's answer, motion to dismiss, or other responsive pleading filed on or after the June 1, 2026 deadline is not available through general web searches of court dockets.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
No substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR, have been publicly identified in the available search results beyond Tesla's initial unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer. Given the early stage of the litigation and the recent answer deadline, such motions would likely be among the next filings.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
The case is in its very early stages, and there is no indication that the claim construction (Markman) stage has been reached.

4. Discovery Milestones:
No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported or reached in the early months of this case.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
The case has not yet reached trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case remains active in the Western District of Texas. There has been no reported settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database for US Patent 11258107 did not identify any active or completed Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to this patent. IPRs and PGRs are administrative procedures that can challenge the validity of a patent, potentially impacting parallel district court litigation. If such a petition were to be filed, it would typically occur within specific timeframes relative to the patent's grant date or the filing of an infringement complaint.

The plaintiff in the case 7:26-cv-00100, ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc., is ChargeLogic LLC. The following attorneys represent ChargeLogic LLC:

• Mark D. Siegmund
  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC (Waco, Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Mark Siegmund is a founding partner of Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, a firm frequently involved in patent litigation in the Western District of Texas.
• Shuya Yang
  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC (Waco, Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Shuya Yang is an attorney at Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, a firm with a significant presence in patent cases in the Western District of Texas.
• Megan Elise Griffith
  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Megan Griffith is a partner at Susman Godfrey LLP, a firm known for its high-stakes litigation, including patent infringement cases.
• Benjamin Manne
  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston, Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Benjamin Manne is an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP, a prominent litigation firm with extensive experience in intellectual property disputes.
• Shawn Blackburn
  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston, Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Shawn Blackburn is an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP, which regularly handles complex patent litigation.
• Steven M. Seigel
  • Role: Likely lead counsel.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston, Texas office).
  • Experience Note: Steven Seigel is an attorney at Susman Godfrey LLP, a firm recognized for its work in significant patent cases.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant, Tesla, Inc., in case 7:26-cv-00100:

In-House Counsel

• A. Louis Dorny
  • Role: Associate General Counsel, IP Litigation
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc., Palo Alto, CA
  • Note on experience: Focuses on intellectual property and litigation for Tesla, Inc.

Lead Counsel

• Megan Elise Griffith
  • Role: Attorney, Partner
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX
  • Note on experience: Represents plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial litigation, including patent infringement claims related to wireless networks, securing a $166.3 million jury verdict.
• Benjamin Manne
  • Role: Attorney, Partner
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., likely Houston, TX (firm headquartered there)
  • Note on experience: Specializes in intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation, including patent litigation involving online video-based commerce systems and smart-home products.
• Shawn Blackburn
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX
  • Note on experience: Seasoned trial lawyer recognized as an "Intellectual Property Trailblazer," with significant patent litigation experience, including a case that resulted in a $900 million sale of a patent portfolio.
• Steven M. Seigel
  • Role: Trial Lawyer
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., likely Houston, TX (firm headquartered there)
  • Note on experience: Specializes in intellectual property and patent litigation, with experience in claim construction and successfully appealing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rulings.

Local Counsel

• Mark D. Siegmund
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, Waco, TX
  • Note on experience: Practices intellectual property law and clerked for U.S. Federal District Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas.
• Shuya Yang
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC, Waco, TX
  • Note on experience: Practices in the area of intellectual property.