Litigation

Untitled case

Litigation

7:25-cv-00594

Patents at issue (1)

11467579PTAB challenge active

Summary

This is a district court litigation case, 7:25-cv-00594, filed in the Texas Western District Court concerning US patent 11467579. The specific plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) are not explicitly stated, and the case is currently ongoing.

Case overview & background

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

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview.

Now let me dig deeper into the key developments, including a possible 2026 case termination and the patents' technical content.

Let me investigate the June 2026 docket entry and the IPR outcomes.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

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](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco), 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.

Plaintiff representatives

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

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.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Good — I have the core defendant counsel list. Let me verify each attorney's role, firm, and experience.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Tesla, Inc.

Bottom line: Tesla is represented by a hybrid team — Baker Botts L.L.P. as outside trial counsel (with Roger J. Fulghum designated LEAD ATTORNEY on the docket) plus a three-lawyer in-house Tesla, Inc. legal team led out of Tesla's Washington, D.C. office. All five appeared in January 2026, shortly after the original complaint.

# Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
1 Roger J. Fulghum Lead counsel (docket lists him as "LEAD ATTORNEY") Baker Botts L.L.P., One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana St., 37th Fl., Houston, TX 77002 Partner and Dept. Chair – IP (Austin); 30+ years of patent/trade-secret trials; Chambers USA leading Texas IP lawyer 2017–2025; registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 39,678); also lead counsel for Tesla in the parallel PTAB IPRs
2 Mark A. Speegle Counsel (outside trial team; damages-focused) Baker Botts L.L.P., Austin, TX (98 San Jacinto Blvd., Ste. 1500 / 401 S. 1st St., Ste. 1300) IP litigator admitted in TX & CA and before the USPTO; represented Textron (E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex. v. SZ DJI) and Dell; co-counsel on Tesla's IPR petitions
3 Paul Margulies In-house counsel (Tesla IP litigation) Tesla, Inc., 800 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006 Registered patent practitioner (Reg. No. 59,580); Tesla's longtime in-house IP litigator — appears for Tesla across district court cases (e.g., Monument Peak Ventures v. Tesla; Tesla v. Matthews Int'l) and signs Tesla's PTAB powers of attorney
4 Ashraf Fawzy In-house counsel Tesla, Inc., 800 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20006 DC Bar No. 989132; part of Tesla's in-house IP litigation group appearing alongside Margulies in Tesla's patent suits
5 Helen Y. Trac In-house counsel Tesla, Inc., 1501 Page Mill Rd., Bldg. 6, Palo Alto, CA 94304 Tesla in-house attorney appearing on the docket for this case

Appearance timing (docket)

  • Roger J. Fulghum — Notice of Attorney Appearance for Tesla entered Jan. 5, 2026 (the same attorney also filed Tesla's "NOTICE of Broadened Sotera Plus Stipulation" referenced in the earlier section on legal developments).
  • Mark A. Speegle, Paul Margulies, Helen Y. Trac, and Ashraf Fawzy — Notices of Attorney Appearance entered on or about Jan. 8, 2026 (Margulies's notice is timestamped Jan. 8, 2026; PacerMonitor/CourtListener show the remaining three appearing in the same window).

Observations and caveats

  1. No separate local-counsel firm. Unlike many patent cases in this district, Tesla did not retain a distinctly branded "local counsel" firm — Baker Botts (Houston and Austin) fills the Texas-counsel role, with lead counsel designated at the Houston office.
  2. Same Baker Botts team at the PTAB. The parallel IPRs (Tesla, Inc. v. Perceptive Automata LLC, IPR2025‑01573 (U.S. 10,614,344), IPR2025‑01575 (U.S. 11,753,046), and IPR2025‑01576 (U.S. 11,467,579)) list Baker Botts attorneys Roger Fulghum, Mark Speegle, Ellyar Y. Barazesh, William Gaines, and Lance J. Goodman as Petitioner's counsel. Barazesh, Gaines, and Goodman do not appear on the district court docket based on available records, so I would not list them as district-court counsel of record.
  3. Not verified: I could not confirm from the sources retrieved whether any of Tesla's in-house attorneys (Margulies, Fawzy, Trac) required or obtained pro hac vice admission in W.D. Tex., or whether additional Baker Botts attorneys have since entered an appearance. The docket may have been updated after the snapshots I could retrieve; a PACER pull would settle this.
  4. No sealed/unfiled-counsel issue detected. Unlike some cases where counsel is undisclosed at filing, Tesla's team is fully reflected in public docket entries.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with the earlier sections

The previously generated "Case overview" states the case is in the Waco Division before Judge Alan D. Albright. The underlying record contradicts this:

  • The complaint caption in the W.D. Tex. filing reads "MIDLAND‑ODESSA DIVISION" with case number 7:25‑cv‑00594‑DC‑DTG (the "7" prefix and "DC" judge code correspond to Judge David Counts, with the matter referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland).
  • The docket text itself states: "Case assigned to Judge David Counts pursuant to the Order Assigning Business of the Court as it Relates to Patent Cases filed 7/25/2022."

So the case appears to be a Midland‑Odessa Division case assigned to Judge David Counts (with MJ Gilliland handling pretrial), not a Waco/Albright case. I'd recommend correcting that in the overview section. (Note also that a separate Perceptive Automata v. Tesla action appears on an E.D. Tex. Marshall docket, 2:25‑cv‑00742‑JRG, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — worth confirming whether that is a companion/earlier-filed suit and whether Tesla's counsel there overlaps.)

Sources