Tesla, Inc. v. Perceptive Automata, LLC

Tesla, Inc. (Tesla) initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Perceptive Automata, LLC (Perceptive Automata) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of US Patent 10614344. Tesla, a multinational automotive and clean energy company headquartered in Austin, Texas, is a prominent operating company known for its electric vehicles and Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology. Perceptive Automata, initially founded by Harvard and MIT researchers, specialized in AI-based human perception and prediction software for autonomous vehicles. However, the company reportedly shut down in 2022 after failing to secure further funding, with its intellectual property being offered for sale, indicating it is now likely operating as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE).

This IPR stems from an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00742, filed in the Eastern District of Texas on July 23, 2025. In that suit, Perceptive Automata accused Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology, including its hardware, software suite, and associated datacenter training systems like Dojo and Cortex, of infringing five patents, including US Patent 10614344. US Patent 10614344 generally describes a computer-implemented method involving a supervised learning model trained on human-observed data to predict human behavior and intent in road scenarios for autonomous vehicle navigation. The district court case, presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Perceptive Automata on January 5, 2026, a procedural move that preserves the patent holder's right to refile the claims.

The IPR is currently pending before the PTAB, with institution having been granted, signifying the Board's finding of a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the patent is unpatentable. This case is notable as it underscores the growing trend of patent disputes in the autonomous vehicle industry, particularly concerning AI perception technology that enables self-driving systems to interpret and anticipate human actions. Tesla frequently employs IPRs as part of its defense strategy against patent assertions, particularly from NPEs, to challenge the validity of asserted patents, and the ongoing IPR could critically impact any future infringement claims by Perceptive Automata.

Tesla, Inc. and Perceptive Automata, LLC have been involved in both district court patent infringement litigation and a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 10,614,344.

District Court Patent Infringement Litigation

Caption: Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc.
Case Number: 2:25-cv-00742
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Judge: Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (July 23, 2025): Perceptive Automata LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Tesla, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleged that Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) hardware and software suite, including its Model Y and Cybertruck vehicles, infringed on five patents related to artificial intelligence and human state perception technologies. U.S. Patent No. 10,614,344 was one of the five patents asserted in this litigation.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (October 15, 2025): Tesla, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(3) and 12(B)(6). This motion was partially denied by the court.
• Final Disposition (January 5, 2026): Perceptive Automata LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The court accepted the dismissal, and all claims against Tesla were dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal occurred before the case reached significant milestones such as claim construction (Markman), summary judgment, or trial. No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted. The "without prejudice" designation means Perceptive Automata retains the right to refile these claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and other legal constraints.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Caption: Tesla, Inc. v. Perceptive Automata, LLC
Case Number: IPR2025-01573
Court: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Status: Pending - Instituted
Patent at issue: 10,614,344

• Filing of Petition: Tesla, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Perceptive Automata, LLC challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,614,344. While the exact filing date of IPR2025-01573 is not explicitly stated in the provided search results, the case number suggests it was filed in late 2025. It is a common defensive strategy for defendants in patent infringement lawsuits to file IPR petitions against the asserted patents. The presence of a related IPR, IPR2025-01574, which also references the district court case 2:25-cv-00742 and patent 10,614,344, further supports this.
• Institution (Date Not Specified): The PTAB instituted the IPR proceeding. The prompt indicates the status as "Pending - Instituted." The specific date of the institution decision for IPR2025-01573 was not found in the search results. Following institution, the PTAB conducts a trial on the patentability of the challenged claims.
• Effect on Litigation: The district court litigation (2:25-cv-00742) was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Perceptive Automata on January 5, 2026. This dismissal occurred after Tesla had filed its IPR petitions and, presumably, after IPR2025-01573 had been instituted. The voluntary dismissal of the district court case without prejudice suggests a strategic move by Perceptive Automata, potentially to avoid an adverse ruling in the district court or to reassess its litigation strategy in light of the ongoing IPR proceedings, though the specific reasons are not publicly disclosed. The IPR proceeding at the PTAB is continuing as "Pending - Instituted."

While specific counsel of record for IPR2025-01573 was not explicitly identified in direct docket searches, Tesla, Inc. consistently employs a combination of in-house and external counsel for its Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Based on filings in other Tesla IPR cases (such as IPR2025-00217, IPR2025-00222, IPR2025-00340, and others where Tesla is the petitioner), the following attorneys and firms are highly likely to be representing Tesla, Inc. in IPR2025-01573.

Counsel of Record for Tesla, Inc. (Petitioner):

In-House Counsel:

• Ashraf Fawzy
  • Role: Managing Counsel - IP Litigation
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc., Austin, TX (with a noted location in Washington, United States)
  • Note: An experienced IP litigator, Fawzy previously spent nine years at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP and has served as co-head of the Legal Department at Unified Patents, LLC since 2017. He is active in the PTAB Bar Association. He is frequently listed in Powers of Attorney for Tesla's IPRs.
• Paul Margulies
  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Tesla, Inc., Austin, TX
  • Note: Margulies has appeared as in-house counsel for Tesla in IPR proceedings, such as IPR2025-00340.

Outside Counsel (Likely from Haynes and Boone, LLP):

Haynes and Boone, LLP is a firm that frequently represents Tesla in IPR proceedings.

• Jonathan R. Bowser
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in some Tesla IPRs)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX office
  • Note: Represents clients in complex patent litigation and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, consistently appearing for Tesla in IPRs.
• Scott Jarratt
  • Role: Counsel (listed as lead or backup counsel in various Tesla IPRs)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX office
  • Note: Actively involved in patent litigation and IPR proceedings for Tesla.
• David O'Brien
  • Role: Counsel (listed as backup counsel in some Tesla IPRs)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX office
  • Note: Involved in IPR proceedings on behalf of Tesla.
• Hong Shi
  • Role: Counsel (listed as backup counsel in some Tesla IPRs)
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP, Dallas, TX office
  • Note: Involved in IPR proceedings for Tesla.
• Eric Horsley
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (likely Dallas, TX office given the firm's other listed attorneys)
  • Note: Appears as counsel for Tesla in IPRs.
• Greg Webb
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (likely Dallas, TX office)
  • Note: Appears as counsel for Tesla in IPR proceedings, specifically noted in IPR2025-00340.
• Matthew Beck
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Haynes and Boone, LLP (likely Dallas, TX office)
  • Note: Appears as counsel for Tesla in IPR proceedings, specifically noted in IPR2025-00340.

Counsel Identified for Perceptive Automata, LLC in IPR2025-01573

Perceptive Automata, LLC, the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01573, is represented by attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.. The firm and its attorneys also appear to represent Perceptive Automata in a related district court case against Tesla, Inc..

The following attorneys have been identified as representing Perceptive Automata, LLC:

• Charles Austin Ginnings

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
  • Office Location: Burr Ridge, Illinois (745 McClintock Drive, Suite 340, Burr Ridge, Illinois 60527)
  • Note: Ginnings is explicitly named as Lead Counsel in Power of Attorney filings for Perceptive Automata in related IPR proceedings. He is also listed as counsel for Perceptive Automata in the district court litigation against Tesla.

• John P. Murphy (also referred to as John Paul Murphy)

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
  • Office Location: Fort Worth, Texas (also listed with a Dallas office in a related case)
  • Note: Murphy is listed as counsel in Power of Attorney filings for Perceptive Automata in related IPR proceedings and in the district court litigation against Tesla.

Other attorneys from Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. who appear for Perceptive Automata LLC in the related district court case (Perceptive Automata LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 2:25-cv-00742) and are likely involved in the IPR proceedings include:

• Jonathan Hart Rastegar
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. - Dallas
• Patrick Joseph Conroy
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
• Janson Westmoreland
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
• Timothy E Grochocinski
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.
• Taryn Trusty
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.

Andrea Leigh Fair of Miller Fair Henry PLLC is also listed as counsel for Perceptive Automata LLC in the related district court case. Her specific role in the IPR proceeding is not explicitly stated in the available IPR documents but she may serve as local counsel in district court.