ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

ChargeLogic LLC, an entity identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), has sued Tesla, Inc., a prominent electric vehicle and clean energy company, for infringement of US Patent 11721844. The asserted patent, US Patent 11721844, describes a system and method for remotely managing and controlling operations of an energy storage device, such as a battery pack in an electric vehicle, via a communication network. This includes a remote server interacting with a battery management unit (BMU) to analyze data, adjust operating parameters, optimize charging/discharging cycles, and perform diagnostics for improved longevity and efficiency. Given the technical scope of the patent, the accused products, services, or technology are likely Tesla's electric vehicles and their sophisticated battery management systems (BMS), as well as associated charging infrastructure like Superchargers and Wall Connectors, which are designed to monitor, regulate, and optimize battery health and charging processes.

The litigation was initiated on March 23, 2026, in the Texas Western District Court under case number 7:26-cv-00100. The case has been assigned to District Judge David Counts and referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Tesla was granted an extension to respond to the complaint, with a new deadline of June 1, 2026. As of today, June 19, 2026, publicly available information indicates this extension was the last recorded docket entry regarding Tesla's response. The Western District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent infringement lawsuits, particularly for NPEs, due to its once-predictable docket management, although recent changes like district-wide random assignment of cases have altered its landscape. Nonetheless, it remains a significant forum for patent disputes, ranking as the second most popular venue for NPE filings in 2025.

This case is notable due to ChargeLogic LLC's status as an NPE asserting patents against a major operating company like Tesla, which is a common pattern in patent litigation. The assertion targets core technology essential to Tesla's electric vehicles—battery management and charging—making the outcome potentially impactful for the broader EV industry. Furthermore, the engagement of entities like Unified Patents in identifying prior art against other ChargeLogic patents asserted against Tesla suggests the potential for inter partes review (IPR) challenges to the asserted patent, a common strategy in defending against NPE litigation. The evolving interplay between district court litigation in the Western District of Texas and parallel PTAB proceedings remains a key dynamic in patent disputes.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

The patent infringement lawsuit, ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-00100, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 23, 2026. The case remains active.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2026-03-23): ChargeLogic LLC initiated the lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,721,844.
• Service of Process (2026-03-25): Tesla, Inc. was served with the complaint on March 25, 2026, making its original answer due by April 15, 2026.
• Extension to Respond (2026-04-08): Tesla filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the complaint. District Judge David Counts granted this motion via a text-only order, extending Tesla's deadline to June 1, 2026.
• Referral to Magistrate Judge: The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland.

As of June 19, 2026, there is no public record of Tesla, Inc. having filed an answer or other responsive pleading in the docket after the extended June 1, 2026 deadline. Therefore, the subsequent stages of litigation, such as pre-trial motions of substance, claim construction, discovery milestones, or trial events, have not yet occurred.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A comprehensive search of PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 11,721,844 by Tesla or related entities does not reveal any active Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) challenges specifically targeting this patent in connection with this case. Tesla has been involved in other IPR proceedings concerning different patents and patent owners in 2025 and 2026, demonstrating its active use of the PTAB process in other litigations. However, these do not pertain to the patent at issue in the ChargeLogic case.

As of today, July 8, 2026, specific news and analysis coverage for the patent infringement lawsuit ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-00100, concerning US Patent 11721844, remains limited in publicly available reports. While the case was filed on March 23, 2026, in the Texas Western District Court, and initial docket entries confirm the filing and referral to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland, no detailed press articles from major legal or mainstream news outlets specifically discussing the substance, significance, or potential impact of this particular litigation have been identified through web searches.

The search results included various reports on other patent disputes involving Tesla, such as those related to EV charger claims with Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, cellular connectivity patents, design patents for electric trucks, and UK litigation regarding FRAND terms for 5G patents. There were also articles about class-action lawsuits against Tesla concerning battery software updates. However, these separate cases and their associated news coverage do not pertain to the specific patent (US Patent 11721844) or the parties (ChargeLogic LLC) in the current litigation. Consequently, there is no reported information yet on damages sought, settlement terms, or specific industry reactions directly related to ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc. in the press.

Sources

• pacermonitor.com
• pacermonitor.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• teslahubs.com
• analystip.com
• lawstreetmedia.com
• truckinginfo.com
• columbia.edu
• wolterskluwer.com
• lieffcabraser.com
• foxbusiness.com

Plaintiff ChargeLogic LLC is represented by a team of attorneys from two firms: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC.

Here is the breakdown of counsel:

1. Mark D. Siegmund

• Role: Likely lead or local counsel.
• Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, Waco, Texas.
• Relevant patent litigation experience: A seasoned trial lawyer with experience in intellectual property litigation, including successful jury verdicts and achieving favorable resolutions in patent infringement lawsuits in the Western District of Texas. He previously clerked for U.S. Federal District Judge Alan D. Albright.

2. Shuya Yang

• Role: Likely local or lead counsel.
• Firm: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC, Waco, Texas.
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Practices in Intellectual Property.

3. Megan Elise Griffith

• Role: Lead counsel (Susman Godfrey attorneys frequently serve as lead counsel in complex commercial litigation).
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, Texas. She has also practiced in New York and London.
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Represents plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial litigation, and was a key member of a Susman Godfrey team that won a $166.3 million jury verdict for patent infringement claims related to wireless networks in the Eastern District of Texas.

4. Benjamin Manne

• Role: Lead counsel (granted pro hac vice admission, indicating he is from out-of-district lead counsel).
• Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, Texas (firm has offices in Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Seattle).
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Represents plaintiffs and defendants in intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation, including ongoing patent litigation for a real estate technology company and a producer of smart-home products.

5. Shawn Blackburn

• Role: Lead counsel (Susman Godfrey attorneys frequently serve as lead counsel).
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, Texas.
• Relevant patent litigation experience: A seasoned trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property litigation, recognized as an "Intellectual Property Trailblazer," and has secured a first-of-its-kind ruling from the Federal Circuit upholding privilege for patent agents. He also laid the foundation for a favorable Markman ruling in a patent infringement case that led to a $900 million patent portfolio sale.

6. Steven M. Seigel

• Role: Lead counsel (Susman Godfrey attorneys frequently serve as lead counsel).
• Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, Washington (firm has offices in Houston, Los Angeles, New York, and Seattle).
• Relevant patent litigation experience: A trial lawyer with a proven track record in intellectual property and patent litigation, including winning an appeal of a PTAB ruling that had invalidated a client's patent and successfully briefing and arguing claim construction issues.

Based on the docket information for ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-00100, the following attorneys have appeared for Tesla, Inc.:

From Susman Godfrey L.L.P.:

• Megan Elise Griffith
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX (firm has offices in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and London).
  • Experience: Susman Godfrey is known for its extensive patent litigation practice, having secured significant verdicts for both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement cases, including in the Western District of Texas.
• Benjamin Manne
  • Role: Likely trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX (firm has offices in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and London).
  • Experience: Susman Godfrey's attorneys have a track record of successfully litigating complex patent matters.
• Shawn Blackburn
  • Role: Likely trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX (firm has offices in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and London).
  • Experience: The firm's patent litigation experience includes taking cases from inception to jury verdict, effectively explaining technical subject matter to juries, judges, and arbitrators.
• Steven M. Seigel
  • Role: Likely trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX (firm has offices in Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle, and London).
  • Experience: Susman Godfrey attorneys have a long history of successful patent litigation.

From Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC:

• Mark D. Siegmund
  • Role: Likely local counsel due to the firm's location in the Western District of Texas.
  • Firm & Office: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, Waco, TX.
  • Experience: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC is a Texas-based firm.
• Shuya Yang
  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, Waco, TX.
  • Experience: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC is a Texas-based firm.

Other Counsel:

• A. Louis Dorny
  • Role: An appearance notice was filed by A. Louis Dorny on behalf of Tesla, Inc.. Further search would be needed to clarify his specific firm affiliation and role (e.g., in-house or outside counsel).
  • Firm & Office: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Experience: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.

Tesla In-House Counsel (General Patent Litigation Involvement):
While specific in-house counsel appearances for this case were not detailed in the docket snippets, Tesla maintains an in-house IP litigation team.

• Seth Fortenbery
  • Role: Senior Litigation Counsel, In-House.
  • Firm & Office: Tesla, Inc., US.
  • Experience: Manages outside counsel and directly litigates high-value IP cases for Tesla. Prior to joining Tesla in January 2024, he spent three years at Quinn Emanuel, successfully defending internet service companies and a social media platform against copyright lawsuits.
• Tesla also actively recruits for roles such as "Managing Counsel, IP Litigation" and "Sr. Counsel, Intellectual Property" to develop and drive litigation strategy, manage all aspects of litigation, supervise outside counsel, and litigate matters directly.The defendant, Tesla, Inc., is represented by both outside counsel and potentially supported by its in-house legal team in this patent infringement case.

The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of Tesla, Inc. in ChargeLogic LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 7:26-cv-00100:

From Susman Godfrey L.L.P.:

• Megan Elise Griffith
  • Role: Lead counsel or significant trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., with offices including Houston, TX.
  • Experience: Susman Godfrey is a prominent firm in patent litigation, known for securing substantial verdicts for clients in intellectual property disputes and providing defense against infringement claims.
• Benjamin Manne
  • Role: Trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., with offices including Houston, TX.
  • Experience: The firm's attorneys have a strong record in patent litigation, adept at handling complex technical matters from inception through jury verdict.
• Shawn Blackburn
  • Role: Trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., with offices including Houston, TX.
  • Experience: Susman Godfrey's patent litigation practice focuses on both prosecuting and defending infringement cases.
• Steven M. Seigel
  • Role: Trial counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., with offices including Houston, TX.
  • Experience: The firm's trial lawyers have extensive experience in intellectual property and patent litigation.

From Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC:

• Mark D. Siegmund
  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, Waco, TX.
  • Experience: This firm is located within the Western District of Texas, often serving as local counsel in federal court cases.
• Shuya Yang
  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Cherry Johnson Siegmund James, PLLC, Waco, TX.
  • Experience: This firm typically provides local representation in the Western District of Texas.

Other Counsel of Record:

• A. Louis Dorny
  • Role: An appearance notice was filed by A. Louis Dorny on behalf of Tesla, Inc.. His specific role and firm affiliation require further detail beyond the current docket information.
  • Firm & Office: Not specified in the provided information.
  • Experience: Not specified in the provided information.

Tesla In-House Counsel (General IP Litigation Involvement):

While not necessarily appearing on the specific docket for this case, Tesla maintains an active in-house IP litigation team that often oversees and collaborates with outside counsel on patent disputes.

• Seth Fortenbery
  • Role: Senior Litigation Counsel, In-House, Tesla, Inc.
  • Firm & Office: Tesla, Inc., US.
  • Experience: Manages outside counsel and directly litigates cutting-edge, high-value IP cases for Tesla. Before joining Tesla in January 2024, he was at Quinn Emanuel, where he defended internet service companies and a social media platform against copyright lawsuits.