Litigation

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

ongoing

1:22-cv-00488

Filed
2021-10-15

Patents at issue (1)

Defender signal. Patent 10819135 has had claims invalidated at PTAB. Those final written decisions are public record and a ready-made § 102 / § 103 ground in district court. See IPR estoppel for what carries over.

10819135PTAB: claims invalidated

Defendants (1)

Summary

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc., alleging infringement of three of its patents. The case is ongoing, with Charge Fusion seeking to assert additional patents after initial PTAB decisions.

Case overview & background

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

The patent infringement lawsuit, Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., centers on electric vehicle (EV) charging technology. The plaintiff, Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, appears to be a patent-holding entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), as indicated by its role in asserting patents against major automakers and news articles describing it as a "patent-holding entity". Its website states its mission is focused on "technology to get electric cars from here to there". The defendant, Tesla, Inc., is a well-known American multinational automotive and clean energy company that designs, manufactures, and sells battery electric vehicles (BEVs), energy storage devices, and solar products. The accused products are Tesla's electric vehicles, including models such as the Model 3, Model S, Model X, Model Y, and Roadster, and their associated charging systems, which are alleged to infringe Charge Fusion's patents related to EV charging.

The initial lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:22-cv-00488), originally alleged infringement of three patents. While the existing summary only listed U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135, initial filings also included U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 and U.S. Patent No. 9,853,488. U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135 generally relates to an electric charging system for intelligently charging battery-powered vehicles, describing embodiments that allow a user to maintain climate settings (like air conditioning for a pet) while the vehicle is charging. U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753, titled "Systems and Methods for Charging Electric Vehicles," broadly covers EV charging systems that compute a charging schedule and then increase battery charge according to that schedule, implying system-driven charging control rather than manual user initiation. U.S. Patent No. 9,853,488 also pertains to electric vehicle charging systems, with claims focused on dynamic attributes of an electric charge provider. After initial PTAB decisions, Charge Fusion sought leave to assert three additional patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,575,275, 11,563,338, and 11,990,788.

The case is ongoing in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. While the specific judge assigned to this case (1:22-cv-00488) is Judge David A. Ezra (DAE), the Western District of Texas, particularly its Waco Division, has been a notable venue for patent litigation due to its historical reputation as a plaintiff-friendly "rocket docket" under Judge Alan Albright, attracting a significant number of patent cases, many filed by non-practicing entities. This venue has been known for quick trials and a reluctance to transfer cases or address § 101 challenges early. The case is notable for the extensive inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated by Tesla against Charge Fusion's asserted patents. Tesla has challenged all three initial patents, succeeding in invalidating claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,853,488, but appeals are ongoing for the other two, U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 and U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135, which saw PTAB decisions largely upholding the patents. The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB's decision upholding U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 and partially reversed a PTAB decision on U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135, invalidating one claim related to climate control while affirming others. This litigation highlights the ongoing legal battles over intellectual property in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle charging industry, with implications for both established automakers and patent-holding entities.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which has seen significant activity, particularly in parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit. The case is currently ongoing.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

  • 2021-10-15 – Complaint Filing: Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC filed its complaint against Tesla, Inc., alleging infringement of three U.S. Patents: 9,853,488, 10,998,753, and 10,819,135.
  • ~2022-06-09 – Litigation Stay: The district court issued an order granting a stay of the litigation until further order, likely pending the outcome of the then-anticipated or initiated IPR proceedings.
  • 2023-01-17 – PTAB Final Written Decision (US 10,998,753): In IPR2022-01217, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that no challenged claims were unpatentable.
  • 2024-03-19 – Appeal to Federal Circuit (US 10,998,753): Tesla filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the PTAB's decision in IPR2022-01217.
  • 2024-04-16 – PTAB Final Written Decision (US 9,853,488): In IPR2023-00062, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,853,488, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, finding claims 1-15 unpatentable.
  • 2024-05-02 – PTAB Final Written Decision (US 10,819,135): In IPR2023-00063, challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision, determining that no challenged claims were unpatentable.
  • 2024-06-05 – Motion to Amend Complaint: Charge Fusion sought leave to amend its complaint in the district court to assert three additional patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,575,275, 11,563,338, and 11,990,788. It also proposed asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,631,987 (referred to as the '987 patent).
  • 2024-06-25 – Appeal to Federal Circuit (US 10,819,135): Tesla filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the PTAB's decision in IPR2023-00063.
  • 2024-10-XX – Tesla Files New IPRs: In response to Charge Fusion's attempt to assert new patents, Tesla petitioned for IPRs of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,338 (IPR2025-00032).
  • 2024-11-08 – Tesla Files New IPRs: Tesla further petitioned for IPRs against U.S. Patent No. 11,990,788 (IPR2025-00152) and U.S. Patent No. 11,631,987 (IPR2025-00153).
  • 2026-01-06 – Pending Motions: As of this date, two motions to dismiss remained pending before the district court.
  • 2026-02-25 – Federal Circuit Decision (US 10,998,753): The Federal Circuit, in Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC (Case No. 24-1584), affirmed the PTAB's decision, upholding the patentability of claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753. The court agreed with the PTAB's construction that the "Charging Control Limitation" requires a processor executing instructions, rather than manual user initiation.
  • 2026-03-31 – Federal Circuit Decision (US 10,819,135): The Federal Circuit, in Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC (Case No. 24-2015), affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the PTAB's decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135. The court reversed the PTAB's finding of non-obviousness for claim 1 due to an improper claim construction, vacated the judgment regarding its dependent claims, and affirmed the finding of non-obviousness for the remaining claims.

The district court case remains active, with the outcomes of the IPRs and Federal Circuit appeals influencing the scope of asserted patents and potential future proceedings. Tesla continues to challenge Charge Fusion's expanded patent portfolio through additional IPRs.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

News and analysis coverage of Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC v. Tesla, Inc. has primarily focused on the outcomes of Tesla's appeals to the Federal Circuit regarding the patentability of Charge Fusion's electric vehicle (EV) charging technology patents. These reports emphasize the significance of the decisions for patent law and the evolving EV charging industry.

Regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) decision, upholding the patent's claims as patentable. This ruling was considered a "loss" for Tesla in its effort to invalidate the patent. The core of this decision hinged on the interpretation of the "Charging Control Limitation," with the Federal Circuit agreeing with the PTAB that the patent claims require an automated, processor-executed charging control system, rather than a system where a user manually initiates charging. This distinction, between software that plans a charging itinerary and software that actively controls the charging process, was highlighted by publications like [lawjournalnewsletters.com] as a critical factor. The decision also underscored the Federal Circuit's deference to the PTAB's factual findings regarding prior art and the strategic burden on petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. [IP Watchdog] noted that the decision was split, with a dissenting opinion from Judge Dyk.

For U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135, the Federal Circuit issued a mixed decision, resulting in a "partial win" for Tesla. The court reversed the PTAB's finding of non-obviousness for claim 1 due to an improper claim construction, subsequently vacating the judgment for its dependent claims. This specific claim related to maintaining climate control for pets in a parked vehicle while charging. However, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding of non-obviousness for other claims within the same patent. [Teslahubs] explained that while the primary climate-control claim was struck down, other claims involving more complex calculations related to battery capacity and charging time remained intact and would be revisited.

The broader significance highlighted by the press is the ongoing legal battle over intellectual property in the rapidly evolving electric vehicle charging industry. Publications like [AnalystIP] and [IIPLA] emphasize that technical definitions within patent filings can determine the success or failure of multi-million dollar infrastructure projects, and that the legal boundaries of these technologies are under increasing scrutiny as the industry moves towards universal charging standards. There was no reporting on damages sought or awarded, or any settlement terms, as the Federal Circuit appeals focused solely on patent validity. News articles also noted Tesla's continued strategy of challenging Charge Fusion's expanded patent portfolio through additional IPRs.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record through docket and firm sources.

Let me dig into the specific plaintiff-side attorneys and firms.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC

Important framing note before the roster: the case number in the metadata (1:22-cv-00488) does not match the number on Charge Fusion's original complaint. Charge Fusion filed this suit on October 15, 2021 as No. 6:21-cv-01078-ADA in the Waco Division before Judge Alan Albright, and the matter was later renumbered in the Austin Division as 1:22-cv-00488 (PTAB papers cite it both as 1:22-cv-00488-LY and 1:22-cv-00488-DAE). The "filed 2021-10-15" date in the metadata is therefore correct as to the original filing, but the 22-cv-00488 number reflects the later renumbering. This matters for counsel research because the appearance entries that establish the plaintiff's team are docketed under the 6:21-cv-01078 number.

Plaintiff's counsel

Lead counsel

Bradley D. Liddle — Lead counsel

  • Firm/location: Currently Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, TX. He has changed firms twice during this litigation, which complicates any "as of" statement:
    • At the time of the 2021 filings he was a patent litigation partner at Carter Arnett PLLC (Dallas);
    • He joined Cozen O'Connor's Dallas office in July 2024 (announced July 30, 2024), and the November 2024 PTAB mandatory notices in the Tesla IPRs list him as lead counsel at Cozen O'Connor, 1717 Main Street, Suite 3100, Dallas, TX 75201;
    • In August 2026 he moved to Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas, per the firm's August 24, 2026 announcement.
  • Experience note: Registered patent litigator (J.D., Texas A&M 2010; former Boeing aerospace engineer); IAM Strategy 300 honoree; handles patent litigation through IPR and has both private-practice and patent-licensing-company experience — a profile consistent with NPE-side enforcement work.
  • Sources: Cozen O'Connor press release, 7/30/2024; Justia docket, 6:21-cv-01078; PTAB Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, 11/26/2024; Skiermont Derby announcement, 8/24/2026

PTAB lead counsel / pro hac vice

Frederick A. Tecce (also spelled "Teece" in PTAB papers; Reg. No. 32,065) — Appellate/PTAB lead counsel; pro hac vice in the district court

  • Firm/location: Altima Advisors/Attorneys, LLC, One Liberty Place – 55th Floor, 1650 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. He is the plaintiff's designated lead counsel in every Tesla IPR against Charge Fusion and appears as Charge Fusion's counsel of record on the Federal Circuit appeals (VitalLaw lists "Frederick A. Tecce (Altima Advisors/Attorneys, LLC) for Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC").
  • Experience note: Long-time PTAB/appellate strategist for Charge Fusion; his firm also appears in Charge Fusion's separate, now-stayed litigation against Polestar.
  • Note the spelling inconsistency: the W.D. Tex. docket and Federal Circuit reporting use "Tecce"; PTAB mandatory notices use "Teece." I found no single authoritative spelling; treat this as a records discrepancy rather than two people.
  • Sources: Justia docket (pro hac vice order, 10/22/2021); PTAB Mandatory Notices; VitalLaw representation listing

Additional counsel of record (district court and PTAB)

Michael C. Pomeroy — Counsel / PTAB back-up counsel

  • Firm/location: Carter Arnett PLLC, Dallas (listed as back-up counsel in the Nov. 2024 PTAB notices) → Cozen O'Connor, Dallas (joined February 26, 2025) → Skiermont Derby LLP, Dallas (August 2026).
  • Experience note: Registered patent attorney (S.M.U. Dedman, 2017); recognized among the top 100 PTAB attorneys nationally and top-10 for patent owners in 2024; he handled Charge Fusion's PTAB depositions (e.g., the Scott Andrews deposition in IPR2025-00152).
  • Sources: Cozen O'Connor, 2/26/2025; IPR2025-00152 deposition transcript; Skiermont Derby announcement

Scott W. Breedlove — Counsel (district court)

  • Firm/location: Carter Arnett PLLC, Dallas, TX. Entered his appearance for Charge Fusion on December 3, 2021 (Dkt. 13 in 6:21-cv-01078).
  • Experience note: Registered patent attorney (electrical engineering background); 20+ years at Vinson & Elkins before Carter Arnett; ranked #1 for patent owners in the Patexia PTAB 2024 Intelligence Report; secured a $9.2M W.D. Tex. (Austin) jury verdict in a semiconductor case.
  • Source: Justia docket; Carter Arnett bio

Theresa M. Dawson — Counsel (district court / PTAB)

Douglas W. Link (Reg. No. 68,949) — PTAB back-up counsel

Uncertain — needs PACER confirmation

Nathan I. Cox — Counsel (per Justia only)

  • Justia's party page for 6:21-cv-01078 lists "Nathan I. Cox" among the attorneys "Represented By" for Charge Fusion. I could not independently corroborate his firm or role in this case. A Law360 attorney profile shows a Nathan I. Cox at Bell Nunnally (Dallas) with a patent case (Katana Silicon v. Micron) and Texas cases, but I cannot confirm that is the same person or that he remains of record in this matter. Treat as unverified.
  • Source: Justia docket; Law360 profile (unconfirmed match)

Caveats and cross-checks

  1. Docket currency. The public docket I could retrieve for 6:21-cv-01078 was last refreshed December 3, 2021. The team above is solidly established for the filing/early phase, but the 1:22-cv-00488 Austin docket — including any substitution of counsel tied to the Cozen O'Connor and Skiermont Derby moves — requires a PACER pull to confirm who is currently of record. I did not find a minute entry ordering withdrawal/substitution; the firm moves shown above are documented in firm press releases, not in a docket entry I could verify.
  2. No in-house counsel for plaintiff identified. Charge Fusion is a small Connecticut LLC (54 Danbury Road, Suite 302, Ridgefield, CT); I found no record of in-house counsel appearing. Its principals of record as inventors are Jeffrey Ambroziak and Carson Fincham, who are not counsel.
  3. ⚠ Contradiction with the earlier-generated "Defendant representatives" section. That section names Tesla's counsel as Kirkland & Ellis (R. Jason Harp et al.), Gillam & Smith, Fish & Richardson and Cravey IP. The actual record I retrieved shows Tesla's PTAB petitioner counsel at Erise IP (Jennifer C. Bailey, Adam M. Sandwell, Virginia A. Brown, Callie A. Pendergrass, Justin Grimes, Lydia Raw), Arnold & Porter (David A. Caine; Michael Sebba) on the Federal Circuit/district side, and Tesla in-house attorney Ashraf Fawzy (afawzy@tesla.com). I found no corroboration for the Kirkland/Gillam & Smith/Fish lineup. That section should be treated as unreliable and re-verified against PACER.
  4. Service/co-counsel note: PTAB service certificates in the Tesla IPRs identify Erise IP for petitioner and Cozen O'Connor/Carter Arnett for patent owner, corroborating the plaintiff-side roster above at the PTAB level.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research Tesla's counsel of record across the district court docket, PTAB proceedings, and Federal Circuit appeals.

Now let me pin down Tesla's district-court counsel and verify the firms named in the earlier (contradicted) section.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Tesla, Inc.

Record-source note up front: the reliable Tesla-side roster I could verify comes from (a) the PTAB mandatory-notice service lists in the six Tesla IPRs, (b) PTAB oral-hearing and deposition transcripts, and (c) the Federal Circuit opinions in Nos. 24-1584 and 24-2015. I could not retrieve a current W.D. Tex. docket sheet for 1:22-cv-00488 (the free Justia/aggregator copy of this case is stale — the same problem flagged in the plaintiff-side section), so the district-court appearance roster below is only partially verified. I say so explicitly rather than guess.

Tesla litigates this case with a three-layer team: Arnold & Porter (appellate / IPR lead), Erise IP (IPR petitioner-side lead), and Tesla in-house. There is no verified Texas local-counsel entry in the record I could reach.

1. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP — lead trial/appellate counsel for Tesla

David A. Caine — Lead counsel; Federal Circuit counsel of record

Michael J. Sebba — Counsel; argument counsel (LEAP practitioner)

  • Firm/office: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
  • Note: PTAB granted Tesla's LEAP requests allowing Sebba to argue the oral hearings in IPR2022-01217 (’753 patent, hearing 11/1/2023) and IPR2023-00062 (’488 patent, hearing 2/13/2024); he stated his appearance on the record as "Michael Sebba on behalf of Arnold & Porter on behalf of Tesla and the witness" at a 2023 deposition.
  • Sources: LEAP verification, IPR2023-00062; deposition transcript, IPR2023-00062

Jessica Kaiser — Counsel (PTAB)

  • Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.
  • Note: Named for petitioner in the PTAB Panel Change Order for IPR2022-01217 / IPR2023-00062.
  • Source: PTAB Panel Change Order

Firm-level note: Arnold & Porter is the firm named in the Federal Circuit press coverage of the ’753 win and is one of the three firms flagged in the IIPLA case summary.

2. Erise IP, P.C. — Tesla's PTAB petitioner team

These are the attorneys Tesla identifies in its § 42.8 mandatory notices and who appear on the record in the newer IPRs (2025-00032, 2025-00152, 2025-00153, and the Scott Andrews deposition in IPR2025-00152).

Attorney Role Office Note
Jennifer C. Bailey (Reg. 52,583) Lead/back-up petitioner counsel Erise IP, 7015 College Blvd., 10th Fl., Overland Park, KS 66211 Named first in Tesla's PTAB service list for the ’338/’788/’987 IPRs
Adam M. Sandwell (Reg. 72,484) Petitioner counsel Erise IP, Overland Park, KS PTAB service list
Virginia A. Brown (Reg. 80,538) Petitioner counsel Erise IP, Overland Park, KS PTAB service list
Callie A. Pendergrass (Reg. 63,949) Petitioner counsel Erise IP, Overland Park, KS PTAB service list
Justin Grimes (Reg. 81,059) Petitioner counsel Erise IP, Overland Park, KS PTAB service list
Lydia Raw Petitioner counsel; took the deposition Erise IP, Overland Park, KS Appeared on the record: "Lydia Raw for the Petitioner, Tesla, Inc., and Erise"

3. Tesla, Inc. — in-house counsel

Ashraf Fawzy (Reg. No. 67,914) — In-house counsel

  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (email afawzy@tesla.com).
  • Note: Listed as registered patent counsel on the petitioner's side in the Nov. 26, 2024 PTAB mandatory-notice service list, making him the only verified Tesla employee attorney in this matter.
  • Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, 11/26/2024

4. Unverified / needs PACER — possible additional firms

Leach & Walker — Unverified.

  • A secondary aggregator (IIPLA) lists "Arnold & Porter, Cozen O'Connor, and Leach & Walker" as the law firms in the dispute. Cozen O'Connor is plaintiff-side, so the list is clearly an imprecise aggregation; I could not confirm what role, if any, Leach & Walker plays or on whose behalf. Treat as unconfirmed pending a docket pull. (IIPLA case summary)

⚠ Contradiction with the earlier-generated "Defendant representatives" section.
That section (per the flag already raised in the plaintiff-side section) names Tesla's counsel as Kirkland & Ellis (R. Jason Harp et al.), Gillam & Smith, Fish & Richardson, and Cravey IP. My searches point the other way:

  • Gillam & Smith (Harry Lee Gillam, Jr.; Melissa Richards Smith; James Travis Underwood) and Fish & Richardson names do appear in PTAB materials — but in IPE2025-01034 EX10064, an exhibit that reproduces an unrelated Tesla patent docket's attorney list. Nothing ties those firms to Charge Fusion. Source (unrelated IPR exhibit)
  • I found no corroboration for Kirkland & Ellis, Cravey IP, or R. Jason Harp on this docket.
  • Conclusion: treat the earlier "Kirkland/Gillam & Smith/Fish & Richardson/Cravey IP" lineup as likely misattributed (possibly from a different Tesla matter or a consolidated exhibit), and re-verify against PACER.

5. What I could not verify (state explicitly)

  1. District-court appearance entries. I could not pull a live W.D. Tex. docket for 1:22-cv-00488 (the case was originally filed as 6:21-cv-01078-ADA in Waco before Judge Albright and transferred/renumbered to Austin — PTAB exhibit materials include an "Order on Transfer, DN 39"; the current number appears as both 1:22-cv-00488-LY and -DAE in different papers). Tesla's district-court counsel of record — as opposed to its IPR and appellate counsel — therefore remains unconfirmed from the sources I could reach. A PACER pull of the Austin docket (and of the underlying 6:21-cv-01078 docket, last refreshed publicly on 12/3/2021) is required.
  2. Local counsel. W.D. Tex. practice generally requires a member of the bar of this court; I found no verified Texas local-counsel appearance for Tesla in this matter.
  3. Note on metadata: the case number/judge in the metadata (Judge David A. Ezra) is consistent with a later period of the case; the PTAB papers cite -LY (Judge Lee Yeakel, Austin). This is a separate records discrepancy from the one flagged in the plaintiff section and warrants the same PACER confirmation.
  4. Motion-to-dismiss counsel. Two motions to dismiss were pending as of ~Jan. 6, 2026 per the prior section; the briefing attorneys on those motions would reveal Tesla's current district-court team, but I could not retrieve those filings.

Summary roster (verified)

Attorney Role Firm Office
David A. Caine Lead/appellate counsel; Fed. Cir. of record Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Palo Alto, CA
Michael J. Sebba Argument counsel (LEAP) Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP Los Angeles, CA
Jessica Kaiser PTAB counsel Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP —
Jennifer C. Bailey PTAB petitioner counsel Erise IP, P.C. Overland Park, KS
Adam M. Sandwell PTAB petitioner counsel Erise IP, P.C. Overland Park, KS
Virginia A. Brown PTAB petitioner counsel Erise IP, P.C. Overland Park, KS
Callie A. Pendergrass PTAB petitioner counsel Erise IP, P.C. Overland Park, KS
Justin Grimes PTAB petitioner counsel Erise IP, P.C. Overland Park, KS
Lydia Raw PTAB petitioner counsel (deposition) Erise IP, P.C. Overland Park, KS
Ashraf Fawzy (Reg. 67,914) In-house counsel Tesla, Inc. —
Leach & Walker Unknown / unverified — —