Untitled case

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Perceptive Automata LLC business model", "Tesla Inc products", "US patent 11467579 abstract", "7:25-cv-00594 Western District of Texas judge", "Western District of Texas Waco Division patent litigation", "Perceptive Automata LLC vs Tesla Inc case significance"]))
thought
The user wants a case overview and background for the patent infringement litigation. I need to cover several key aspects:

• Parties: Identify Perceptive Automata LLC and Tesla, Inc., and describe their business models (e.g., operating company, NPE/PAE).
• Accused Product: Identify what specific Tesla product, service, or technology is alleged to infringe.
• Patents Asserted: State the asserted patent (11467579) and provide a one-line technical sketch based on its abstract.
• Procedural Posture: Mention the court (Western District of Texas), division (Waco), and judge (if known), and explain why this venue is relevant.
• Notability: Explain why the case is notable, considering industry impact, NPE assertion patterns, IPR linkage, or market context.

I have already identified the parties, the patent, and the court/division from previous sections and the prompt. I need to use web search to get more detail on:

• Perceptive Automata's business model (NPE/PAE or operating company).
• The specific accused Tesla product/technology.
• A technical sketch of US Patent 11467579.
• The judge assigned to the case.
• Why the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, is a significant venue for patent litigation.
• Why this particular case might be notable.This patent infringement litigation, Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00594, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The plaintiff, Perceptive Automata LLC, is a company that develops artificial intelligence technology aimed at enabling autonomous vehicles to understand and predict human behavior. While Perceptive Automata has previously raised venture capital, its current business model in the context of this litigation appears to be asserting its intellectual property. The defendant, Tesla, Inc., is a well-known operating company that designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage from home to grid-scale, solar panels and related products, and has significantly invested in autonomous driving technology.

The core of the dispute centers on Perceptive Automata's U.S. Patent No. 11,467,579, titled "Inferring the intention of a human". This patent generally relates to systems and methods for inferring the intention of a human, such as a pedestrian or another driver, for autonomous driving applications. The specific accused products or technologies from Tesla are alleged to be their advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) and autonomous driving features, which rely on predicting human behavior in real-world scenarios.

The case is being presided over by District Judge Alan D Albright, with Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland handling various pre-trial matters, including the recent order granting a stay. The Western District of Texas, particularly the Waco Division, is a prominent venue for patent infringement cases, known for its expeditious dockets and a significant volume of patent filings, making it an attractive forum for patent plaintiffs. The litigation is notable due to the ongoing parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Tesla against the asserted patent, which has led to a stay in the district court case pending the outcome of the IPR. This interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges is a common and critical aspect of modern patent disputes, especially when large operating companies like Tesla are involved against technology-focused entities like Perceptive Automata.

Perceptive Automata LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, under case number 7:25-cv-00594, concerning US patent 11467579. The case was filed on December 29, 2025.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-2026):

  • December 29, 2025: Perceptive Automata LLC filed its complaint against Tesla, Inc.
  • March 10, 2026: Tesla, Inc. filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer in response to an amended complaint. This indicates an amended complaint was filed by Perceptive Automata prior to this date.
  • March 12, 2026: The court granted Tesla's motion for an extension of time to answer.
  • April 1, 2026: Tesla, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 8(a)(2).
  • April 1, 2026: Perceptive Automata LLC filed a Joint Motion to Stay Case.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2026):

  • April 2, 2026: Judge Derek T. Gilliland entered a Text Order granting the joint request for a stay, effectively mooting a prior motion to stay. The current status of the motion to dismiss is likely pending resolution of the stay.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025-2026):

  • October 9, 2025: Tesla filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01576, challenging claims 1-20 of US Patent 11,467,579, which is one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation.
  • January 5, 2026: Tesla notified the court and Perceptive Automata that it was submitting a "Sotera Plus stipulation" in connection with IPR2025-01576 and other IPRs. This stipulation commits Tesla, if the PTAB institutes the IPR, not to assert or argue at trial that any claim of the patent is invalid based on the specific grounds raised in the instituted IPR, any other grounds that could have reasonably been raised before the PTAB under §§ 102 or 103 (based on prior art patents or printed publications), or any ground based on a combination of system prior art and the references asserted in the corresponding instituted IPR.

Outcome & Present Posture:

As of the last available information (April 2, 2026), the district court litigation is currently stayed pending further developments, likely related to the IPR proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The outcome of the IPR petition (IPR2025-01576) for patent 11467579, specifically the institution decision, will be a significant development influencing the future course of the district court case. No Markman order, discovery milestones beyond initial pleadings, trial events, or final judgment have been reported due to the early stage of the litigation and the imposed stay.

Perceptive Automata LLC is represented by attorneys from two firms: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC and Miller Fair Henry PLLC. These firms have established plaintiff-side patent litigation practices in Texas federal courts.

The following attorneys are listed as counsel of record for Perceptive Automata LLC in case 7:25-cv-00594:

Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC (Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas offices)

• Timothy E. Grochocinski
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead counsel given firm's role).
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.
• Patrick J. Conroy
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead counsel given firm's role).
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.
• Jonathan H. Rastegar
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.
• Janson Hall Westmoreland
  • Role: Counsel (Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice granted January 14, 2026)
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.
• Charles Austin Ginnings
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.
• John Paul Murphy
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. - Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.
• Taryn N. Trusty
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, with offices in Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

• Andrea L. Fair
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.
  • Experience: The firm has an established plaintiff-side patent litigation practice in Texas federal courts.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["7:25-cv-00594 tesla counsel of record", "tesla inc patent litigation counsel", "Dykema Gossett PLLC patent litigation experience", "Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP patent litigation experience", "Tesla in-house patent counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the defendant's counsel of record in the given patent infringement case. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their experience. I will use web search to look for this information on PACER, docket sheets, firm websites, and legal news sites.Defendant Representatives

Tesla, Inc. is represented by attorneys from two firms: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Dykema Gossett PLLC.

The following attorneys are listed as counsel of record for Tesla, Inc. in case 7:25-cv-00594:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Los Angeles, California; Houston, Texas; Washington, D.C. offices)

• Kevin Alexander Smith
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead counsel).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Los Angeles, California office).
  • Experience: Mr. Smith is a partner at Quinn Emanuel and focuses on patent litigation.
• Benjamin David Herbert
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Los Angeles, California office).
  • Experience: Mr. Herbert is a partner at Quinn Emanuel specializing in patent litigation.
• Eric Joseph Miller
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Houston, Texas office).
  • Experience: Mr. Miller is a partner at Quinn Emanuel with experience in intellectual property litigation.
• Patrick Andrew Bradford
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Washington, D.C. office).
  • Experience: Mr. Bradford is an associate at Quinn Emanuel practicing intellectual property litigation.
• Eamonn F. D. Chester
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Washington, D.C. office).
  • Experience: Mr. Chester is an associate at Quinn Emanuel.

Dykema Gossett PLLC (Dallas, Texas office)

• William D. Ellerman
  • Role: Counsel (likely local counsel).
  • Firm: Dykema Gossett PLLC (Dallas, Texas office).
  • Experience: Mr. Ellerman is a Member at Dykema and has experience in intellectual property litigation in Texas federal courts.
• Michael R. Bartoo
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Dykema Gossett PLLC (Dallas, Texas office).
  • Experience: Mr. Bartoo is a Senior Counsel at Dykema, focusing on intellectual property and commercial litigation.