Untitled case

Intellectual Ventures Sues Tesla Over Wireless Network Power Control in Texas Patent Litigation

Austin, TX – Patent assertion entity Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against electric vehicle giant Tesla, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case, originally filed under number 6:24-cv-00188, asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500, which generally describes inventions related to "power control in a wireless network." This patent is part of a broader "sweeping 12-patent infringement action" initially brought by Intellectual Ventures against Tesla, encompassing technologies such as wireless communication protocols, camera systems, memory management, and power control technologies. Tesla's vehicle and software systems, specifically their wireless connectivity features, are the alleged infringing products.

The litigation, originally filed on April 12, 2024, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, has since been strategically transferred to the Austin Division on August 6, 2024. Notably, Judge Alan D. Albright, a prominent figure in patent litigation, retained jurisdiction over the case despite the transfer. The original Waco docket was closed, and the case continues under a new Austin Division case number, identified as 1:24-cv-00884. The Western District of Texas has been a significant venue for patent cases, particularly under Judge Albright, who actively sought to attract such litigation. While recent randomization orders in 2022 aimed to disperse patent case assignments, Judge Albright continues to handle a substantial volume, and the retention of jurisdiction in this transfer highlights the parties' apparent preference for his courtroom.

This case is notable due to the involvement of Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC, recognized as one of the world's largest non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs), known for accumulating and licensing extensive technology patent portfolios. Their assertion against Tesla, a leading operating company in electric vehicles and autonomous driving, reflects a broad enforcement strategy against companies with diverse technology stacks. The ongoing litigation, now in the Austin Division under Judge Albright's continued oversight, underscores the dynamic and often strategic nature of venue selection and judicial preferences in high-stakes patent disputes. The case also involves multiple ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of some of the asserted patents, including IPR2025-00219 related to Patent 9,706,500.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for 6:24-cv-00188 / 1:24-cv-00884

This section details the key legal developments and current posture of the patent infringement litigation between Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC and Tesla, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500 and eleven other patents. The case has seen significant activity, particularly regarding venue and parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2024-04-12): Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Tesla, Inc. in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, case number 6:24-cv-00188. The complaint asserted 12 patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,706,500, covering a diverse range of technologies such as wireless communication protocols, camera systems, memory management, and power control.
• Notice of Related Case (2024-04-12): Intellectual Ventures filed a notice indicating that two of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,292,138 and 10,952,153) were also at issue in an earlier case against Volvo and others in the Waco Division, suggesting a strategic move to ensure assignment to Judge Alan D. Albright.
• Letters to Tesla (2024-04-11): Intellectual Ventures sent Tesla a letter concerning all twelve patents the day before filing suit. For one patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,336,805), a willfulness argument in the complaint pointed to an earlier letter from August 7, 2020.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Joint Motion to Transfer Venue Granted (2024-08-06): Just 116 days after filing, the Court granted a joint motion from both parties to transfer the case to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. Judge Alan D. Albright retained jurisdiction, and the original Waco docket (6:24-cv-00188) was closed. The case continues under a new Austin Division case number, 1:24-cv-00884. This transfer, despite the relatively short duration in Waco, highlights a mutual strategic interest in retaining Judge Albright's expertise while moving to a different forum, possibly due to Tesla's local corporate presence in Austin. No substantive rulings, such as Rule 12 motions, Markman hearings, or summary judgment decisions, were entered before the transfer, leaving all merits issues open.
• Scheduling Order Issued (2024-09-17): A scheduling order was filed in the Austin Division, setting a roadmap for the litigation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of the current date (June 1, 2026), no Markman hearing or claim construction rulings have been issued in this specific case (1:24-cv-00884).

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Trial Date Set (June 2026): A jury selection date for the trial has been set for June 25, 2026, with the trial itself scheduled to begin on June 29, 2026. This date has been postponed twice previously, from an initial February 2026, then May 2026, reflecting the court's busy docket and potential discovery delays.
• Invalidity Contentions Filed (prior to 2025-04-07): Tesla, as the petitioner in parallel IPR proceedings, submitted its invalidity contentions in the district court litigation.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect on the Litigation

Tesla initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings challenging six of Intellectual Ventures' patents asserted in the district court litigation, including IPR2025-00219 related to Patent 9,706,500. Several key decisions have emerged from these PTAB proceedings:

• Denial of Discretionary Denial Requests (2025-06-13, 2025-07-02): Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart denied Intellectual Ventures' requests for discretionary denial of institution for multiple IPRs, including IPR2025-00219 for Patent 9,706,500. While the scheduled district court trial date preceded the projected final written decision from the PTAB, and there was meaningful investment in the parallel proceedings, several factors weighed against discretionary denial. These included Tesla's "broad stipulation" (a "Sotera+" stipulation, agreeing to waive certain prior art grounds in district court if the IPR instituted), strong merits of the unpatentability challenge (based on previous Board findings for related patents), and the complex and diverse nature of the 12-patent district court litigation, which the Board found it better suited to review.
• Director Review Reverses Institution due to Inconsistent Claim Construction (2025-11-05): In a separate IPR (IPR2025-00340, concerning a different patent in the litigation), Director Squires issued an informative director review order reversing an initial decision granting institution. The Director found that Tesla took inconsistent claim construction positions in the IPR and the parallel district court litigation without sufficient explanation. In the district court, Tesla argued a claim term was indefinite, but in the IPR, it contended no express construction was needed, applying plain and ordinary meaning. The Director stated that while rules don't prohibit inconsistent positions, petitioners must explain why they are warranted. Tesla's explanation that indefiniteness challenges are statutorily prohibited in IPRs was deemed insufficient. This decision was designated as "informative."
• Settled Expectations as a Factor in Discretionary Denials: While not specifically applied to the IPR for Patent 9,706,500, the concept of "settled expectations" has been a significant factor in other discretionary denial decisions by the USPTO Director. In some cases, a petitioner's decade-long business relationship with a patent's original owner, or a patent owner's failure to pay maintenance fees, has influenced decisions against discretionary denial. Conversely, "strong settled expectations" for a patent owner based on a patent being in force for many years has led to discretionary denials.

Current Posture

The district court litigation (1:24-cv-00884) is ongoing in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, with a trial date set for June 29, 2026. The PTAB proceedings continue for many of the patents, with decisions on institution having been rendered, including for Patent 9,706,500. The inconsistent claim construction decision in IPR2025-00340 highlights a critical strategic consideration for parties navigating parallel district court and PTAB proceedings.

Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC is represented by attorneys from Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP

• Jonathan K. Waldrop (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Mr. Waldrop is known for his work on high-stakes patent infringement cases, often representing plaintiffs in complex technology disputes and achieving significant results in intellectual property litigation. He has been actively involved in this case, including filing motions for extensions of time.
• Marcus A. Barber (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
• Darcy L. Jones (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
• John W. Downing (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
• Heather S. Kim (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
• Jeceaca An (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
• ThucMinh Nguyen (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.

Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC

• Mark D. Siegmund (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC.

Tesla, Inc. is represented by both in-house counsel and outside counsel from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for Tesla:

In-House Counsel:

• Alex Hanna - Role unspecified, Tesla, Inc.
• Paul Margulies - Role unspecified (appears to be in-house counsel, based on provided contact information), Tesla, Inc. (Washington, D.C. office)

Outside Counsel:

• Daniel R. Gopenko - Role unspecified (likely lead counsel), Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Note: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm.
• Matthew A. Colvin - Role unspecified, Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Aamir A. Kazi - Role unspecified, Fish & Richardson P.C.
• David M. Hoffman - Role unspecified, Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Michael R. Ellis - Role unspecified, Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Kathryn A. Quisenberry - Role unspecified, Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Timothy J. Bechen - Role unspecified, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (Redwood Shores, California office)
  • Note: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP has represented Tesla in other intellectual property matters.
• Jonathan K. Waldrop - Role unspecified, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (Redwood Shores, California office)
• Jeceaca An - Role unspecified, Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP (New York, NY office)
• Mark D. Siegmund - Role unspecified, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Waco, Texas office)
  • Note: This firm likely serves as local counsel in the Western District of Texas.
• William Ellerman - Role unspecified, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC (Dallas, Texas office)
  • Note: This firm also likely serves as local counsel.

It's worth noting that the case was initially filed in the Waco Division and then transferred to the Austin Division, with Judge Alan D. Albright retaining jurisdiction. This suggests the involvement of local counsel familiar with the Western District of Texas.