Perceptive Automata, LLC v. Tesla, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Perceptive Automata, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00594-DC-DTG, is currently ongoing in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Midland-Odessa Division. The plaintiff, Perceptive Automata, LLC, describes itself as a specialized AI company focused on technology that enables autonomous vehicles to interpret human intentions and awareness. However, reports indicate the company has ceased operations due to a failure to secure Series B funding, with efforts to sell its intellectual property, strongly suggesting its current role as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The defendant, Tesla, Inc., is a prominent manufacturer of electric vehicles and developer of autonomous driving technology. Tesla is accused of infringing the asserted patent with its Full Self-Driving (FSD) hardware and software stack, which includes technology deployed in vehicles such as the Model Y and Cybertruck, as well as backend systems used for training its AI models.

The sole patent at issue in this specific Western District of Texas case is US Patent No. 10,614,344, titled "System and Method of Predicting Human Interaction with Vehicles." This patent broadly covers methods and systems that use trained machine learning models to predict a user's "state of mind" (e.g., intent, awareness) based on analyzed images, a critical capability for autonomous vehicles to safely navigate around pedestrians, cyclists, and other road users. The case is assigned to Judge David Counts and referred to Judge Derek T. Gilliland. The Western District of Texas has been a popular venue for patent litigation, though recent procedural changes have aimed to distribute patent cases more broadly across its divisions and judges, moving away from the concentration previously seen in the Waco division.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It involves a PAE asserting patents critical to the advanced AI capabilities of autonomous vehicles, a high-stakes area within the automotive industry. A parallel lawsuit between the same parties, Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00742, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas asserting several patents, including US 10,614,344, but was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Perceptive Automata on January 5, 2026. Tesla has a known strategy of challenging patent validity, evidenced by its filing of Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against related Perceptive Automata patents, which signals an aggressive defense against such assertions. The re-assertion of patent 10,614,344 in a new district, after a "without prejudice" dismissal in a different Texas venue, highlights Perceptive Automata's determined patent monetization strategy against a major player in the autonomous vehicle market.

This is an ongoing patent infringement case, Perceptive Automata, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00594-DC-DTG, in the Western District of Texas.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Related Case Filing & Voluntary Dismissal (Eastern District of Texas):

• 2025-07-23: Perceptive Automata, LLC initially filed a lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:25-cv-00742. This complaint asserted five patents, including US Patent No. 10,614,344.
• 2025-10-14: Tesla filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(b)(6), along with a motion to stay the case.
• 2026-01-05: Perceptive Automata voluntarily dismissed the Eastern District of Texas case without prejudice. This dismissal meant that Perceptive Automata retained the right to refile the claims in the future. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded in that case.

2. Western District of Texas Case Filing and Initial Pleadings:

• The present case, 7:25-cv-00594-DC-DTG, was filed in the Western District of Texas, asserting only US Patent No. 10,614,344. The exact filing date for this specific case in the Western District of Texas is not readily available in the provided search results, but it is listed as an "ongoing litigation" with a 2025 case number.

3. Pre-trial Motions - Motion to Stay Pending IPR:

• 2025-12-29: Perceptive Automata LLC filed a Joint Motion to Stay Case in the Western District of Texas. This motion was referred to Judge Derek T. Gilliland.
• 2026-03-12: A text order was issued, granting a motion for extension of time to answer.
• Tesla also filed an Opposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority in Support of its Motion to Stay, which was referred to Judge Derek T. Gilliland. This suggests that Tesla is also seeking a stay in the Western District of Texas case, potentially pending an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or ex parte reexamination (EPR) of the patent at issue, a common strategy for Tesla in patent litigation.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• While specific IPR filings directly against US Patent 10,614,344 for the current Western District of Texas case were not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, the broader context of the prior Eastern District of Texas case indicates Tesla's strategy of challenging patent validity through IPRs. In a separate, but potentially related, case involving Tesla and another plaintiff (Relink US LLC), Tesla had previously requested an ex parte reexamination (EPR) for a patent after an IPR petition was denied. This suggests Tesla frequently uses post-grant proceedings at the USPTO to challenge patents. The ongoing joint motion to stay in the current Western District of Texas case further supports the likelihood of pending or anticipated PTAB proceedings.

5. Current Posture:

• The case is currently ongoing in the Western District of Texas. The motions related to staying the case are still pending or have recently been addressed, as indicated by the March 2026 order granting an extension of time to answer and the pending motions to stay. No claim construction, summary judgment, or trial events have been reported for this specific Western District of Texas case in the provided information.

The news coverage specifically mentioning Perceptive Automata, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00594-DC-DTG, is limited. However, several legal news outlets have discussed the broader context of patent litigation against Tesla concerning its autonomous driving technology, occasionally referencing the Perceptive Automata case as part of a larger trend.

An article from Intellect-Partners on December 15, 2025, mentioned Perceptive Automata vs Tesla (referring to the Eastern District of Texas case, 2:25-cv-00742) as part of "a growing list of legal battles for Tesla" in 2025, stating that Perceptive Automata, an AI startup, claimed Tesla "stole its 'human intuition' AI models" that assist cars in predicting pedestrian and cyclist behavior. The report noted that a judge denied part of Tesla's motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed at that time. Similarly, Teslarati and TipRanks.com reported on November 25 and 26, 2025, respectively, about a new patent lawsuit against Tesla by Perrone Robotics, explicitly stating that this was "far from the first suit Tesla has been involved in, including one from his year with Perceptive Automata LLC, which accused Tesla of infringing on AI models to interpret pedestrian/cyclist intent via cameras without licensing." These articles highlighted Tesla's common defense strategy of using Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) to challenge patent validity, noting that Tesla has successfully defended about 70% of autonomous vehicle lawsuits since 2020, though settlements are frequent to avoid discovery costs.

More recently, a World IP Review article dated July 1, 2026, carried the headline "Tesla settles Proception dispute as robotics tensions rise," which appears to be a typographical error, likely referring to the Perceptive Automata dispute. This indicates a potential recent settlement in a related case, although specific details regarding the Western District of Texas case (7:25-cv-00594-DC-DTG) were not explicitly provided in the available search results, nor were the terms of any such settlement. The broader press coverage often groups various patent and product liability cases against Tesla, particularly those related to its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (FSD) technologies, underscoring the legal challenges Tesla faces in the rapidly evolving autonomous vehicle landscape.

Sources

• intellect-partners.com
• teslarati.com
• tipranks.com
• worldipreview.com

The plaintiff, Perceptive Automata, LLC, is represented by the following counsel:

• Elizabeth Day
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, CA.
  • Experience: Elizabeth Day is an experienced trial lawyer focusing on patent infringement litigation and other intellectual property disputes. She has served as lead counsel in numerous cases for both plaintiffs and defendants, handling trials, motions for summary judgment, and appeals. She has nearly 30 years of experience and has worked on complex cases involving technologies such as semiconductors, Wi-Fi, cellular communications, and smartphones. She also has experience in IP valuation and monetization.
• Janson Hall Westmoreland
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC.
  • Experience: Janson Hall Westmoreland was granted a motion to appear pro hac vice for Perceptive Automata LLC in this case on January 14, 2026.
• Timothy E. Grochocinski
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC.
• John Paul Murphy
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
• Jonathan H. Rastegar
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
• Charles Austin Ginnings
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC.
• Patrick J. Conroy
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC.
• Taryn N. Trusty
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC.

I'll research Tesla's counsel of record in this case using web search.

Let me dig deeper into each attorney's role and any pro hac vice appearances.

Tesla's Counsel of Record — Perceptive Automata, LLC v. Tesla, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00594-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex., Midland-Odessa Div.)

Bottom line: Tesla is represented in this case by a two-tier team — Baker Botts LLP (outside litigation counsel, with the Houston partner serving as designated lead attorney) and a small group of Tesla in-house attorneys from the company's Washington, D.C. and Palo Alto offices. The same Baker Botts/in-house team appeared for Tesla in the earlier, voluntarily dismissed E.D. Tex. action (No. 2:25-cv-00742-JRG) and is prosecuting the parallel IPRs. No separate "local counsel" firm outside Baker Botts has appeared — Baker Botts' Austin and Houston offices supply the Texas presence.

---

Outside counsel — Baker Botts LLP

In-house counsel — Tesla, Inc.

---

Attorneys involved only in the PTAB side (not confirmed as district-court counsel of record)

Tesla's IPR petitions against the Perceptive Automata patents list a broader Baker Botts (Austin) team that does not appear to have entered an appearance in 7:25-cv-00594:

• Ellyar Y. Barazesh — Baker Botts, Austin (USPTO Reg. No. 74,096)
• Matthew Williams — Baker Botts, Austin (USPTO Reg. No. 78,734)
• Lance J. Goodman — Baker Botts, Austin (USPTO Reg. No. 77,989)

These names appear in the § 42.8 mandatory notices and service lists for IPR2025-01574/-01575/-01576/-01577 (e.g., PTAB petition for U.S. Pat. 11,520,346); a service-list entry reading "William.gainers@bakerbott.com" appears alongside them and may be a filing typo for a Baylor/Baker Botts address — I could not verify that individual, so treat it as unconfirmed.

---

Sourcing notes and explicit caveats

1. Primary sources. Tesla's appearances are reflected in the docket entries at CourtListener docket 72086670 (notices of appearance by Fulghum, Speegle, Margulies, Trac, and Fawzy; "LEAD ATTORNEY" designation on Fulghum) and the party sheet. A PDF of Tesla's January 5, 2026 W.D. Tex. stay motion is signed "/s/ Roger Fulghum … Mark Speegle … Helen Trac — Counsel for Tesla, Inc." (PTAB filing copy).
2. Dates of appearance. CourtListener's entry-grouped docket text is partially truncated in the search index; I can confirm appearances for Fulghum, Speegle, Margulies, Trac, and Fawzy were docketed in the October 2025–January 2026 window, but I could not retrieve clean per-entry filing dates for every notice of appearance from the accessible sources. The Baker Botts team appeared for Tesla in the E.D. Tex. action beginning 08/14/2025 (Fulghum) and 08/15/2025 (Fawzy) per the E.D. Tex. docket for 2:25-cv-00742-JRG.
3. No sealed/unfiled gaps identified on the defense side. All five defense attorneys above are attorneys "to be noticed" on the public docket; I found no indication that Tesla's counsel list is sealed or that additional firms have entered an appearance. That said, my search index appears to run through roughly February–March 2026; any appearance filed after that would not be captured here.
4. Corrections to the earlier sections of this summary. The prior "Key legal developments" section states that Perceptive Automata filed the stay motion on 2025-12-29. The docket evidence instead shows an Opposed Motion to Stay Case filed by Tesla (Dkt. 9, ~January 2026) and a Plaintiff's Response in Opposition (Dkt. 12, January 12, 2026), plus Tesla's later Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority (Dkt. 29) and Plaintiff's opposition (Dkt. 31, February 20, 2026). Tesla also filed a Rule 12(b)(6)/8(a)(2) motion to dismiss in the W.D. Tex. case (Dkt. 30) — not only the E.D. Tex. case. These are party/attribution corrections, not name or case-number corrections.
5. Not found / not asserted: I found no evidence that Tesla has retained a separate, non-Baker Botts local counsel firm in the Midland-Odessa Division, and no evidence of any change in lead counsel since the case was filed.