Untitled case

This case, Bulletproof Property Management LLC v. Tesla, Inc. et al, case number 1:25-cv-00665, is an active patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. The plaintiff, Bulletproof Property Management LLC, is described in court documents as the owner of the asserted patents and its sole owner and principal is Bennet Langlotz. While one source broadly labels it an "Operating Company," its role in this litigation, focused on asserting patent rights against a major manufacturer, aligns with the characteristics of a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendant is Tesla, Inc., a prominent electric vehicle and clean energy company with its headquarters in Austin, Texas. The complaint also names "John Does Nos. 1-20," representing unknown individuals or entities involved in the alleged infringement.

The core of the dispute centers on Tesla's "Auto Shift" feature found in its vehicles, which is accused of infringing the asserted patents. Specifically, the case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,932,230, titled "Vehicle Gear Selection Control," and U.S. Patent No. 12,221,104. The '230 patent broadly relates to a controller that selects a drive direction based on steering angle movements without explicit operator indication. The '104 patent further describes a drive system that changes direction in response to an operator's approval after an initial direction change offer. The plaintiff alleges that Tesla's "stalkless design that requires swipe-to-shift for unparking" and the "Auto Shift" feature infringe these patents.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It is being heard in the Western District of Texas, a venue that has become a national hub for patent cases, largely due to Judge Alan D. Albright's active patent docket and streamlined litigation procedures. While initial filings in the Waco Division historically guaranteed assignment to Judge Albright, subsequent changes in 2022 introduced randomized assignments in that division; however, this specific case is filed in the Austin Division. The involvement of Tesla, a high-profile company, and technology related to automotive innovation, such as automatic drive direction selection, draws significant attention within the industry. Furthermore, docket entries indicate that Bulletproof Property Management LLC has filed notices of parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, suggesting that the validity of the asserted patents is also being challenged before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Bulletproof Property Management LLC v. Tesla, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Bulletproof Property Management LLC v. Tesla, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00665, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case, presided over by Judge Alan D Albright, centers on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,458, among others. The litigation is currently active.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint: Bulletproof Property Management LLC (Plaintiff) initiated the lawsuit on May 5, 2025. An Amended Complaint was filed, asserting patent infringement against Tesla, Inc. (Defendant) and "John Does Nos. 1-20" for alleged willful infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,230 (the "'230 Patent") and several "Follow-On Patents," including U.S. Patent No. 12,240,458. The plaintiff claims Tesla's "Auto Shift" feature, introduced in May 2024, incorporates the patented technology. Bulletproof Property Management LLC asserts ownership of all rights to these patents and that Tesla was aware of the '230 Patent and its alleged infringement since March 2024.
• Answer & Counterclaims: Tesla, Inc. filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint, which included a Jury Demand and Counterclaim against Bulletproof Property Management LLC, on September 30, 2025. The specific details of Tesla's counterclaims are not available from the provided search results but typically involve non-infringement and/or patent invalidity.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

As of May 29, 2026, the available information does not detail any significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR. Given the Western District of Texas's reputation as a busy patent docket, motions to transfer venue are common in patent litigation in this court.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

There is no information available yet regarding any Markman hearing or claim construction outcomes in this case.

Discovery Milestones

No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported for this active case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case is still active and has not reached the trial stage. Therefore, there are no verdicts or post-trial motions to report.

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.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for PTAB IPRs related to patent 12240458 (and the related 11932230 patent mentioned in the complaint) did not yield any currently identifiable parallel proceedings. Given the early stage of the litigation (filed May 2025), IPRs may not have been filed or become public yet.

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, Bulletproof Property Management LLC, is represented by attorneys from Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC.

Based on the Amended Complaint, the following attorneys are counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Christopher J. Joe

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by firm name and filing attorney)
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Christopher J. Joe is a founding partner of Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, a firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

• Christopher M. Buether

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by firm name and filing attorney)
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Christopher M. Buether is a founding partner of Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, with significant experience in patent litigation.

Further details regarding specific roles (e.g., "of counsel," "local counsel," "in-house") or a more extensive list of attorneys would typically require direct access to the court's docket for appearance filings (e.g., Notice of Appearance). Without such direct access, the lead counsel role is inferred from the firm's name and its submission of the Amended Complaint on behalf of the plaintiff. No information suggests the presence of in-house or local counsel from other firms based on the initial search.The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, Bulletproof Property Management LLC, is represented by attorneys from Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC.

Based on the Amended Complaint, the following attorneys from Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC are counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Christopher J. Joe

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Christopher J. Joe is a founding partner of Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, a firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

• Christopher M. Buether

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, Dallas, Texas
  • Experience Note: Christopher M. Buether is a founding partner of Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC, with significant experience in patent litigation.

The roles of "Lead Counsel" are inferred from their positions as named partners in the firm filing the Amended Complaint. No information indicating the involvement of "of counsel," "local counsel," or "in-house" attorneys from other firms was found in the available search results.

Tesla, Inc. is the named defendant in BULLETPROOF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC v. TESLA, INC. et al, case number 1:25-cv-00665, in the Texas Western District Court.

As of the current date, specific counsel of record representing Tesla, Inc. in this case have not been explicitly identified through the initial search of publicly available information, such as PacerMonitor and USPTO filings which only reveal the defendant's identity but not their specific legal representation in the docket entries reviewed. Further detailed docket review would be necessary to identify appearances by specific attorneys. Therefore, at this time, counsel for the defendant has not been identified.