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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc. patent litigation news", "Granite Vehicle Ventures Tesla patent lawsuit", "Tesla 12037004 patent infringement news", "Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC Tesla settlement", "Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC Tesla verdict"]))
thought
The user is asking for news and analysis coverage of the patent litigation between Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC and Tesla, Inc. I need to use web search to find published articles from various news outlets and legal publications.

My strategy will be to use different search queries to maximize the chances of finding relevant articles, including the case caption, party names, and the primary patent number mentioned.

After finding the articles, I will summarize what the press has reported, highlighting the significance of the case, any reported numbers (damages, settlements), and any differing accounts or analyses that go beyond the court record. I must attribute every claim to its outlet with a markdown link to the article and clearly state if little or no press coverage is found.

Given the case was filed in late 2024 and transferred in early 2026, and the current date is July 2026, it's possible there might be some reporting, especially around the initial filing or the transfer.

Let's execute the search and then summarize the findings.News and Analysis Coverage of Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

News and legal analysis outlets have reported on the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC against Tesla, Inc., highlighting its focus on Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology and the significant procedural development of a venue transfer. The case, initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas, garnered attention for its targeting of a prominent electric vehicle manufacturer and its advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS).

RPX Insight reported in December 2024 that Granite Vehicle Ventures, part of a "Slingshot and Stones" team known for patent monetization, accused Tesla of infringing three patents generally related to "controlling a driving mode of a self-driving vehicle," specifically targeting vehicles compatible with Tesla's FSD (Supervised) program. Teslarati, in February 2025, detailed Tesla's motion to dismiss most of the case, arguing that Granite Vehicle Ventures failed to adequately detail infringement for two of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,738,765 and 12,037,004) and that allegations related to one patent (11,597,402) should not substitute for claims related to the others. Teslarati also noted Tesla's sealed request to transfer the lawsuit to California, citing potential harm to Tesla or third parties if the information were public.

A significant development covered by PatSnap Eureka and Longbridge was the case's transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California on February 13, 2026, by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. PatSnap Eureka described this as a "procedurally significant development" for autonomous vehicle patent litigation, noting the Eastern District of Texas as a historically plaintiff-friendly venue. Longbridge characterized this as a "win" for Tesla, influenced by the addition of nine new witnesses in California. Both outlets confirmed that the case did not reach a merits verdict, and no damages or injunctive relief were awarded in the Eastern District of Texas.

Furthermore, Tesla sought to challenge the patents' validity through inter partes review (IPR) at the USPTO. However, these IPR petitions were denied because the USPTO deemed them "too late," coming too close to the projected district court trial date. This led Tesla to petition the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the USPTO acted without authority by considering extra-statutory, non-substantive factors like the time-to-trial when denying institution. The Federal Circuit denied Tesla's mandamus petition in February 2026, leading Tesla to seek a 60-day extension, until July 27, 2026, to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to challenge this decision. As of July 2026, the case in the Northern District of California is active, with a hearing on opposed sealed motions to compel discovery responses set for July 7, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson, and a motion to stay scheduled for August 4, 2026, before Judge Trina L. Thompson.News and legal analysis outlets have reported on the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC against Tesla, Inc., highlighting its focus on Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology and the significant procedural development of a venue transfer. The case, initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas, garnered attention for its targeting of a prominent electric vehicle manufacturer and its advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS).

RPX Insight reported in December 2024 that Granite Vehicle Ventures, identified as part of a "Slingshot and Stones" team known for patent monetization, accused Tesla of infringing three patents generally related to "controlling a driving mode of a self-driving vehicle," specifically targeting vehicles compatible with Tesla's FSD (Supervised) program. Teslarati, in February 2025, detailed Tesla's motion to dismiss most of the case, arguing that Granite Vehicle Ventures failed to adequately detail infringement for two of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,738,765 and 12,037,004) and that allegations related to one patent (11,597,402) should not substitute for claims related to the others. Teslarati also noted Tesla's sealed request to transfer the lawsuit to California, citing potential harm to Tesla or third parties if the information were public.

A significant development covered by PatSnap Eureka and Longbridge was the case's transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California on February 13, 2026, by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. PatSnap Eureka described this as a "procedurally significant development" for autonomous vehicle patent litigation, noting the Eastern District of Texas as a historically plaintiff-friendly venue. Longbridge characterized this as a "win" for Tesla, influenced by the addition of nine new witnesses in California. Both outlets confirmed that the case did not reach a merits verdict, and no damages or injunctive relief were awarded in the Eastern District of Texas.

Furthermore, Tesla sought to challenge the patents' validity through inter partes review (IPR) at the USPTO. However, these IPR petitions were denied because the USPTO deemed them "too late," coming too close to the projected district court trial date. This led Tesla to petition the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the USPTO acted without authority by considering extra-statutory, non-substantive factors like the time-to-trial when denying institution. The Federal Circuit denied Tesla's mandamus petition in February 2026, leading Tesla to seek a 60-day extension, until July 27, 2026, to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to challenge this decision. As of July 2026, the case in the Northern District of California is active, with a hearing on opposed sealed motions to compel discovery responses set for July 7, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson, and a motion to stay scheduled for August 4, 2026, before Judge Trina L. Thompson.

Sources

• rpxcorp.com
• patsnap.com
• teslarati.com
• longbridge.com
• supremecourt.gov
• fedcircuitblog.com
• uscourts.gov
• uscourts.gov

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.