Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC, identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) involved in patent monetization, has sued Tesla, Inc., a leading electric vehicle manufacturer and pioneer in autonomous driving technology, for patent infringement. The lawsuit accuses Tesla of infringing patents related to its Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, encompassing its Advanced Driver-Assistance Systems (ADAS) domain. Specifically, Granite Vehicle Ventures asserted U.S. Patent No. 12,037,004, titled "Controlling driving modes of self-driving vehicles," which describes a computer-implemented method for assessing both the human driver's and the vehicle's competence using sensor data to control driving modes and determine corrective actions. Additionally, the initial complaint included U.S. Patent No. 11,738,765, also related to vehicle control and automation, and U.S. Patent No. 11,597,402, titled "Fault Remediation for Self-Driving Vehicles," which covers a system that monitors an SDV's operational state, detects faults, and implements corrective actions via a fault-remediation table.

The litigation commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-01007), a venue traditionally favored by patent plaintiffs. However, the case was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:26-cv-01457) on February 13, 2026, by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, and is now presided over by District Judge Trina L. Thompson. This venue transfer represents a significant procedural victory for Tesla, as the Northern District of California is generally considered more defendant-friendly, particularly for technology companies headquartered in the region. The NDCA bench is known for its willingness to entertain early dispositive motions and motions to stay pending inter partes review (IPR).

This case is notable for several reasons, including Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC's identity as an NPE, part of a family of entities that actively monetize patent portfolios, often through litigation against major industry players. The target, Tesla's FSD technology, is at the forefront of the autonomous vehicle market, making the outcome potentially impactful for the broader automotive and tech industries. Tesla frequently faces such patent assertions and commonly responds with petitions for IPRs at the USPTO. In this instance, Tesla's IPR petitions for the asserted patents were denied by the Director, citing the unlikelihood of a final written decision before the district court trial, which could lead to duplicated efforts and inconsistent outcomes. The successful transfer out of the Eastern District of Texas further highlights a continuing trend of rigorous venue scrutiny for NPE patent plaintiffs against large technology defendants.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

The patent infringement lawsuit, originally filed by Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC against Tesla, Inc., has seen several key procedural developments, including a transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California, where it remains active.

Chronological Legal Developments:

2024

• December 6, 2024: Initial Complaint Filed (E.D. Tex.)
  Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-01007. The complaint asserted infringement of three U.S. utility patents related to vehicle automation and advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS): U.S. Patent Nos. 12,037,004, 11,738,765, and 11,597,402. The accused products included Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) compatible vehicles, such as the Model 3, Model S, Model X, Model Y, and Cybertruck.

2025

• February 21, 2025: Tesla Files Motion to Transfer Venue
  Tesla, Inc. filed an opposed sealed motion to transfer the venue to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
• February 24, 2025: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (as moot)
  District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued an order denying as moot a previous motion to dismiss.
• February 27, 2025: Order Granting Venue Discovery and Extension of Time
  Judge Gilstrap granted Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC's joint motion for venue discovery and an extension of time to respond to Tesla's motion to transfer.

2026

• February 13, 2026: Case Transferred to N.D. California
  Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas ordered the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The E.D. Tex. case (2:24-cv-01007) was closed on this date, concluding 434 days of proceedings in that court without reaching a merits verdict.
• February 19, 2026: Case Docketed in N.D. California
  The transferred case was officially docketed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as Case No. 3:26-cv-01457. It was assigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson.
• May 19, 2026: Initial Case Management Conference Scheduled
  An Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for May 19, 2026, before Judge Trina L. Thompson, indicating the early stages of the litigation in the new venue.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

As of May 18, 2026, there are no publicly identifiable Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 12,037,004, 11,738,765, or 11,597,402 by Tesla, Inc. or any other party in the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) P-TACTS system.

Current Posture:

The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, with substantive issues, including initial pleadings and claim construction, yet to be fully addressed following its transfer.

I'll research the press coverage of this case across multiple angles.

I found substantial coverage. Let me dig deeper into the specific articles and additional angles.

Press coverage

The dominant press storyline in this case is no longer the infringement merits but Tesla's effort to get the Supreme Court to review the USPTO's discretionary IPR denials. IPWatchdog reported on 2026-08-31 that an amicus brief was filed the previous Friday (Aug. 28) on behalf of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the High Tech Inventors Alliance, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation and the National Retail Foundation, urging certiorari and framing the case as a vehicle for addressing "patent trolls." According to IPWatchdog, the amici attack the USPTO's authority to compress the statutory one-year § 315(b) window to "as little as four months" via time-to-trial discretion, note that PTAB memoranda issued in March 2025 removed the dispositive weight of Sotera stipulations, and assert that more than 800 IPR/PGR petitions — each costing over $100,000 to prepare — have been denied, with the AIA institution rate falling from 67% to 25%. IPWatchdog added that Unified Patents filed a separate amicus brief the same day. A week earlier, IPWatchdog's "Other Barks & Bites" (2026-08-28) previewed the same filing in a single item ("CCIA Urges SCOTUS Grant Cert to Tesla's 'Patent Troll' Case"), confirming the amicus was jointly filed on Friday, August 28. Note the two IPWatchdog pieces differ slightly in how they characterize the amicus line-up and timing; the Aug. 31 article is the substantive account.

Bloomberg Law's IP Law Daily carried the most detailed pre-amicus reporting of the cert petition. IP Law Daily (Jul. 31, 2026) reported that Tesla's cert petition is Tesla, Inc. v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC, No. 26-136 (U.S., filed Jul. 27, 2026), that Granite sued in December 2024 over autonomous-driving patents, that Tesla filed five IPR petitions and submitted a Sotera stipulation, and that the Office nonetheless denied institution because "it is unlikely that a final written decision in this proceeding will issue before the district court trial occurs." Critically for the case chronology, IP Law Daily reported Tesla's assertion that district court proceedings have run far longer than the USPTO predicted, with trial now scheduled for June 2028 — a fact consistent with the PTAB record (in IPR2025-01034, Granite's brief described a trial set for August 2026 in E.D. Tex.). IP Law Daily also documented the Federal Circuit's mandamus denial and noted the Supremes' companion petitions, Google LLC v. VirtaMove, Corp., No. 25-1230 and Intel Corp. v. Squires, No. 26-73.

Patently-O (2026-09-21) placed the Tesla/Granite petition in the broader Long Conference preview, reporting that Google's § 314(d) challenge in VirtaMove is the marquee petition, that the Solicitor General opposes certiorari on the ground that the AIA does not compel institution, and that thirteen patent cert petitions are docketed with most awaiting government responses. Caveat on sourcing: I could not open the patentlyo.com URL directly in search results; the substance above was verified through a syndicated summary of that article at IPVerse/GreyB (Sept. 21, 2026), which links back to the Patently-O original. I did not verify a distinct Patently-O passage discussing Tesla or Granite beyond the roundup context.

Merits- and venue-stage coverage

Earlier coverage focused on the Texas case. Texas Lawyer (Feb. 19, 2025) reported that Tesla moved to partially dismiss and moved (under seal) to transfer to the Northern District of California; that Granite is based in Baltimore; that Tesla argued Granite "has not pleaded any facts whatsoever" for two of the three asserted patents; and that Granite accused Tesla's FSD (Supervised) program across the Model 3, S, X, Y and Cybertruck "since 2016." That article contains the only pleading-stage numbers I found in the press: roughly 2.5 million Tesla vehicles on the road, about 400,000 FSD (Supervised) users as of April 2024, and FSD priced at $99/month or an $8,000 one-time purchase. Texas Lawyer also tied the suit to Tesla's announced Austin robotaxi launch (citing Musk's Jan. 29, 2025 earnings-call statements) — market/executive context that goes beyond the court record. It further reported the FSD (Supervised) subscription pricing, and named Andrea Leigh Fair "of Miller Fair Henry" and Blaine Andrew Larson of Heim, Payne & Chorush as Granite's counsel, with Paul Margulies, Ashraf Fawzy and Allison Huebert handling the matter in-house for Tesla. No damages figure appears in any coverage I found; the complaint sought "an amount subject to proof at trial" plus willfulness/enhanced damages, not a stated sum.

Two non-U.S. trade outlets picked up the dispute early, largely relaying Bloomberg Law: a Chinese-language report via IT之家/SSIPMC (attributing its facts to Bloomberg Law) and a Korean report in The Guru. Both describe Granite as seeking compensation in an amount not yet disclosed, and The Guru notes the suit was filed roughly two weeks after Tesla announced its FSD v13.2 upgrade — an inference about motive, not a court finding. Separately, Unified Patents ran a crowdsourced prior-art contest against the '004 patent, announcing in a Unified Patents post (Mar. 13, 2025) that two contributors split a $2,000 PATROLL prize for prior art on U.S. 12,037,004, describing Granite as an "NPE." That is third-party industry activity rather than litigation reporting, but it is the clearest public evidence of defensive-industry engagement with this patent.

Gaps, and where this conflicts with the existing case file

I did not find coverage of this case in Reuters, Bloomberg Law's main news wire, Ars Technica, The Verge, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra. Law360 maintains a case-tracking page with at least one article dated Feb. 12, 2026 (headline not visible to me), and its counsel pages confirm the N.D. Cal. docketing date of Feb. 19, 2026; I could not verify the content of the Feb. 12 piece and am not characterizing it. No outlet reported a verdict, settlement, damages award, or claim-construction ruling.

Two contradictions with the previously generated sections should be flagged: (1) the prior "Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings" section stated that as of May 18, 2026 there were "no publicly identifiable" IPR/PGR proceedings against these patents — that is wrong. PTAB records show Tesla IPRs at least at IPR2025-00943, -00944, -01034 and -01035, and the Federal Circuit's nonprecedential In re Tesla, Inc., No. 26-116 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2026) expressly addressed the Director's denials of those petitions, with the Supreme Court petition now docketed as No. 26-136. (2) The prior plaintiff-counsel section lists Andrea Leigh Fair at Ward, Smith & Hill, whereas Texas Lawyer (Feb. 2025) reported her as being with Miller Fair Henry; one of the two is likely a firm-name change or an error, and I could not resolve it. Also consistent with the metadata but worth noting: the case metadata lists only U.S. 12,037,004 as "patents at issue," while the complaint and the 2025 press coverage describe three asserted patents ('004, '765, '402) — Tesla's partial motion to dismiss, and the transfer, likely explain the narrowing, but I found no press report confirming which counts remain live. Finally, the substantive district court activity I could verify is procedural rather than merits-based: a N.D. Cal. discovery order dated June 3, 2026 (Judge Trina L. Thompson; referral to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson) noting pending motions to compel at ECF Nos. 104/107/118 and 121/124/125 and directing a discovery status report by June 17, 2026 — which the press has not covered.

Sources

• (Defendant,ThirdParty Plaintiff,Counter Claimant,ThirdParty Plaintiff,Counter Claimant) Karim Z Oussayef representing Internatio...
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• 99. Upon information and belief, Tesla intends to cause, and has taken affirmative steps to induce, infringement by importers, o...
• In Re TESLA, INC. – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• PATENT NEWS: Tesla asks Supreme Court for directions to detour around USPTO review policies
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
• Computer, Automotive and Retail Industries Support Tesla’s Cert Petition Against USPTO’s Discretionary IPR Denials - Computer, Automotive and Retail Industries Support Tesla’s Cert Petition Against USPTO’s Discretionary IPR Denials
• Cases
• Nancy C. Abernathy, Capshaw DeRieux
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• News & Views — Unified Patents
• Ex. 1007 | IPR2025-01034 | Tesla Inc v. Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC | Ex Parte

Counsel of record representing plaintiff Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC in Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc. include attorneys from Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP, Kobre & Kim LLP, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, and Capshaw Derieux, LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Alden Harris

  • Role: Likely lead or trial counsel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Alden Harris is a partner at Heim, Payne & Chorush, a firm well-known for its plaintiff-side patent litigation work, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas and other patent-heavy venues.

• Kyle Ruvolo / Kyle Stephen Ruvolo

  • Role: Likely lead or trial counsel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Kyle Ruvolo is a partner at Heim, Payne & Chorush, focusing on patent and intellectual property litigation.

• Lily Rebecca Glick

  • Role: Likely lead or trial counsel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Lily Glick is an attorney at Heim, Payne & Chorush, specializing in patent infringement disputes.

• Leslie V. Payne

  • Role: Likely lead or trial counsel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Leslie Payne is a founding partner of Heim, Payne & Chorush and has extensive experience in patent litigation.

• Blaine Andrew Larson

  • Role: Likely lead or trial counsel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Blaine Larson is an attorney with Heim, Payne & Chorush, concentrating on intellectual property litigation.

• Daniel Amon Zaheer

  • Role: Likely counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA or other Kobre & Kim offices
  • Note: Daniel Zaheer is a partner at Kobre & Kim, a firm known for its cross-border disputes and intellectual property litigation.

• Tammy Su

  • Role: Likely counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA or other Kobre & Kim offices
  • Note: Tammy Su is an attorney at Kobre & Kim, working on intellectual property and other complex disputes.

• Michael Kai Ng

  • Role: Likely counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA or other Kobre & Kim offices
  • Note: Michael Ng is an attorney at Kobre & Kim with experience in intellectual property litigation.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Likely local counsel due to the previous transfer to NDCA
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX (though NDCA would suggest a CA office for local counsel, her firm's primary office is Texas. This might indicate she appeared while the case was still in EDTX, or provides support from Texas)
  • Note: Andrea Fair is a partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, a firm with a strong presence in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Nancy Claire Abernathy

  • Role: Likely counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw Derieux, LLP, Longview, TX
  • Note: Nancy Abernathy is an attorney at Capshaw Derieux, a Texas-based firm involved in patent litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing Tesla, Inc. in Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc., case number 3:26-cv-01457:

In-House Counsel for Tesla, Inc.

• Krista Carter

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Details on specific experience are not readily available in public search results without further investigation, but her role at Tesla indicates involvement in the company's intellectual property matters.

• Paul Margulies

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Paul Margulies is associated with Tesla's legal team, handling intellectual property matters.

• Gina Cremona

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Gina Cremona is listed as counsel for Tesla, indicating her involvement in the company's legal affairs, including IP litigation.

• Terry Ahearn

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Terry Ahearn serves as in-house counsel for Tesla, involved in their legal proceedings.

• Jon Theodore Pearson

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Jon Theodore Pearson is identified as in-house counsel for Tesla, contributing to their litigation strategy.

• Allison Huebert

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Allison Huebert is part of Tesla's in-house legal team, involved in IP matters.

• Ashraf Ahmed Fawzy

  • Role: In-house counsel, likely IP litigation counsel.
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc. (Palo Alto, CA).
  • Note: Ashraf Ahmed Fawzy is listed as in-house counsel for Tesla, indicating involvement in their legal strategy.

Outside Counsel for Tesla, Inc.

• Nicholas Gallo

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (likely Redwood City, CA or other relevant office).
  • Note: Nicholas Gallo is a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C., specializing in patent litigation across various technologies, including electronics and software. He represents clients in district courts and before the PTAB.

• Ruffin B. Cordell

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington, D.C. office is prominent for his profile).
  • Note: Ruffin Cordell is a highly experienced trial lawyer and a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C., recognized for leading significant patent litigation cases, particularly in high-stakes technology disputes. He has been named among the top patent litigators in the country.

• Benjamin K Thompson

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Atlanta, GA).
  • Note: Benjamin Thompson is a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C., focusing on patent litigation across various technologies. His experience includes representing clients in federal district courts and appellate proceedings.

• Katherine D. Prescott

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (likely Redwood City, CA or other relevant office).
  • Note: Katherine Prescott is an attorney at Fish & Richardson P.C., specializing in patent litigation. Her practice involves representing technology companies in complex disputes.

• Elizabeth DeToro

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (likely Redwood City, CA or other relevant office).
  • Note: Elizabeth DeToro is an attorney at Fish & Richardson P.C., whose practice includes patent litigation, particularly for technology and life sciences companies.

• Aamir A Kazi

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Atlanta, GA).
  • Note: Aamir Kazi is an attorney at Fish & Richardson P.C. with experience in patent litigation, representing clients in diverse technological fields.