Untitled case

ChargeLogic LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 7:26-cv-00100. The plaintiff, ChargeLogic LLC, appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity, as is common with many plaintiffs filing patent infringement suits, particularly in certain jurisdictions. Tesla, Inc. is a well-known operating company that designs and manufactures electric vehicles, battery energy storage, solar panels, and related products and services. The lawsuit centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,508,996, titled "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING," which broadly describes technologies related to charging electric vehicles. While the specific accused products or services from Tesla are not detailed in the provided search snippets, it is highly probable that the claims involve Tesla's electric vehicle charging infrastructure, such as its Supercharger network or home charging solutions, given the patent's subject matter.

The case is being heard in the Western District of Texas, a venue that has become exceptionally popular for patent infringement litigation since 2018, largely due to the practices and procedures established by Judge Alan D. Albright. While patent cases filed in the Waco Division (where this case would typically fall based on the case number prefix "7:") historically had a high probability of being assigned to Judge Albright, recent changes implemented in July 2022 randomized judge assignments for patent cases in that division. Therefore, the specific judge assigned to 7:26-cv-00100 would need to be verified, as the assignment is no longer certain to be Judge Albright. The Western District of Texas is favored by plaintiffs due to its expeditious case schedules and a perceived patentee-friendly environment, making venue a critical strategic consideration in this and many other patent cases.

The notability of this case stems primarily from its venue in the Western District of Texas, which continues to be a hotbed for patent litigation. The district's procedural posture, including a history of reluctance to grant motions for transfer and a focus on moving cases quickly to trial, influences litigation strategy for both plaintiffs and defendants. The involvement of Tesla, a prominent technology company, also lends weight to the case, as outcomes in disputes involving major innovators can set precedents or influence industry practices regarding patent enforcement and licensing. There is no information in the provided search results to indicate any parallel PTAB IPRs related to US Patent No. 11,508,996 at this time.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for US Patent Infringement Litigation 7:26-cv-00100 (W.D. Tex.)

As of June 19, 2026, detailed docket information for case number 7:26-cv-00100 in the Texas Western District Court is not publicly available through general web searches, including specialized legal news outlets, without direct PACER access. While a case numbered 1:26-cv-00100, "Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. United Parcel Service, Inc.", was filed in the Western District of Texas on January 15, 2026, which is numerically similar, it is not definitively the same case as 7:26-cv-00100. Therefore, a comprehensive chronological account of specific legal developments for case 7:26-cv-00100, including filing details, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, and final disposition, cannot be provided at this time.

However, based on the general timeline for patent infringement cases, the following outline describes the typical stages and types of developments that would occur. Any information regarding parallel PTAB proceedings for the asserted patent, 11508996, will also be included.

Patent: US Patent 11508996

No publicly available information was found regarding Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings for US Patent 11508996 on the USPTO PTAB database through general web searches. PGR is typically available for patents with an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, and IPR can be filed any time after nine months from a patent's grant date. Without such proceedings, the district court litigation would likely proceed without any stays pending PTAB outcomes.

Typical Chronological Legal Developments in a US Patent Infringement Case (General Overview, not specific to 7:26-cv-00100):

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: A patent infringement lawsuit begins with the plaintiff filing a complaint alleging infringement of the asserted patent(s). The defendant is then served and typically has a limited period to file an answer, which may include counterclaims such as non-infringement, invalidity of the patent, and unenforceability.
• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:
  • Motions to Dismiss: Defendants may file motions to dismiss the complaint for various reasons, such as failure to state a claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • Motions to Transfer Venue: Given the Western District of Texas's patent litigation landscape, motions to transfer the case to another federal district are common.
  • Motions to Stay Pending IPR/PGR: If parallel PTAB proceedings were initiated for the asserted patent, a party might move to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPR or PGR.
  • Summary Judgment Motions: Later in the case, parties often file motions for summary judgment on issues such as non-infringement, infringement, validity, or damages, aiming to resolve issues before trial.
• Claim Construction (Markman): A crucial stage in patent litigation is the "Markman" hearing, where the court construes the meaning of disputed terms in the patent claims. The outcome of claim construction can significantly influence the rest of the case, often leading to settlement or informing further motions.
• Discovery Milestones: This phase involves the exchange of information and evidence between parties, including written discovery (interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission) and depositions. Key milestones might involve expert discovery deadlines and significant disputes over the scope of discovery.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: If the case proceeds to trial, a jury or judge would hear evidence and arguments. If there's a jury verdict, post-trial motions such as a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a motion for a new trial may follow.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: Cases can conclude at various stages through settlement, voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff, or a court-ordered judgment. Final judgments can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: As mentioned, no such proceedings for US patent 11508996 were found. If they were to occur, PTAB trials like IPR and PGR offer administrative alternatives to challenge patent validity. An IPR petition typically challenges validity based on patents and printed publications, while PGR has broader grounds. The institution decision for an IPR/PGR is usually issued within six months of the petition filing, and a final written decision follows within 12 to 18 months. The outcome of these proceedings can have a significant impact on district court litigation, including potential estoppel effects.

Without access to the specific docket for 7:26-cv-00100, the current status of these typical developments for this particular case remains unknown.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, ChargeLogic LLC, in case 7:26-cv-00100:

Plaintiff: ChargeLogic LLC

• Mark D. Siegmund

  • Role: Likely lead or local counsel. (Role not explicitly stated, but as a partner in a firm with a Texas focus, often serves in this capacity).
  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC
  • Office Location: Waco, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mark Siegmund has significant experience in patent litigation in the Western District of Texas. His firm, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, is frequently involved in intellectual property matters in the region.

• Shuya Yang

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC
  • Office Location: Waco, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Shuya Yang is an attorney at a firm known for its intellectual property litigation practice in the Western District of Texas.

• Megan Elise Griffith

  • Role: Likely lead counsel. (Role not explicitly stated, but as a partner at Susman Godfrey, often serves in a lead capacity).
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Megan Griffith is a partner at Susman Godfrey, a prominent litigation firm. Her practice includes high-stakes intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Benjamin Manne

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Benjamin Manne is an attorney at Susman Godfrey, a firm with a strong record in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

• Shawn Blackburn

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Shawn Blackburn is an attorney at Susman Godfrey, a firm recognized for its work in various litigation areas, including patent disputes.

• Steven M. Seigel

  • Role: Attorney.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Steven Seigel is an attorney with Susman Godfrey, a firm frequently involved in significant patent infringement cases.

Counsel of record representing Tesla, Inc. in ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc. (7:26-cv-00100) are:

Outside Counsel:

• A. Louis Dorny (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: [Firm information not explicitly provided in search results, but associated with the appearance on behalf of Tesla].
  • Note: Mr. Dorny filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Tesla, Inc. on March 23, 2026.

• Megan Elise Griffith (Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Note: Susman Godfrey is a prominent litigation firm known for its work in complex commercial and intellectual property disputes.

• Benjamin Manne (Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Shawn Blackburn (Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Steven M. Seigel (Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Mark D. Siegmund (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Shuya Yang (Counsel)

  • Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.

In-House Counsel:

• Seth Fortenbery (Senior Litigation Counsel)
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (in-house)
  • Note: Seth Fortenbery is a Senior Litigation Counsel at Tesla and manages high-value IP cases, including supervising outside counsel and directly litigating. Before joining Tesla, he was at Quinn Emanuel, where he defended internet service companies and a social media platform against copyright lawsuits. Quinn Emanuel has also previously represented Tesla in patent infringement actions.

The docket entries show that several attorneys from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, as well as A. Louis Dorny, have appeared on behalf of Tesla, Inc. The case has been assigned to Judge David Counts, and referred to Judge Derek Tod Gilliland.