US 10998753

US Patent 10,998,753, titled "Systems and methods for charging electric vehicles," was issued on May 4, 2021, from an application filed on September 4, 2020. The patent is assigned to Charge Fusion Technologies LLC. The inventors are Jeffrey R. Ambroziak and Carson C. K. Fincham.

The abstract describes systems and methods for intelligently charging electric vehicles. This "intelligent charging" can involve receiving information about a vehicle's presence and identifier, determining a charging schedule based on this information, and then charging the vehicle according to that schedule. Another aspect involves "intelligent quantitative load balancing," where the system estimates the power needed for multiple vehicles, communicates this to a Power Supplying Entity (PSE), receives information about optimal times for purchasing power at the best available rates, and then charges the vehicles accordingly. "Intelligent qualitative load balancing" is also described, which involves identifying an electrical load, determining available power sources and their characteristics, selecting one or more sources based on these characteristics, and then activating switches to provide power from the selected sources to the load.

Here's a plain-language overview of the independent claims:

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for intelligent vehicle charging. It involves a device receiving information indicating a vehicle is present in a parking space (e.g., from a sensor). The device also receives information identifying the vehicle (e.g., from its communication device). Based on this vehicle identification, a charging schedule for that specific vehicle is determined. Finally, the vehicle is charged in accordance with this determined schedule.

• Independent Claim 12: This claim outlines a method for intelligent quantitative load balancing for vehicle charging. It includes determining the estimated power needed to charge multiple vehicles to their desired levels. This information about the required power is then sent to a Power Supplying Entity (PSE). In return, the system receives information from the PSE indicating the best available time to purchase that required power. Subsequently, the plurality of vehicles are charged at that indicated time using multiple vehicle charging devices.

• Independent Claim 18: This claim details a method for intelligent qualitative load balancing for electrical loads. The method involves determining an electrical load that needs power and identifying several available sources of electrical power. A characteristic for each of these available power sources is determined. Based on these characteristics, one or more of the available power sources are selected. Finally, at least one electrical switch is activated to supply electrical power from the chosen source(s) to the electrical load.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets for patent 10998753, no specific cases directly citing or involving US patent 10998753 were found in the provided search results for the CAFC in 2026. The search results did show other intellectual property and patent infringement cases filed in the Federal Circuit during 2026, but not for this specific patent number.

US Patent 10998753 is involved in the following litigation cases:

1. Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

   • Case Number: 6:21-cv-01078
   • Plaintiff(s): Charge Fusion Technologies LLC (implied as current assignee)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but implied to be related to the litigation data from Unified Patents.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

2. Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Case Number: 24-1584
   • Plaintiff(s): Charge Fusion Technologies LLC (implied as current assignee)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

3. Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

   • Case Number: 1:22-cv-01379
   • Plaintiff(s): Charge Fusion Technologies LLC (implied as current assignee)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

4. Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

   • Case Number: 1:22-cv-00488
   • Plaintiff(s): Charge Fusion Technologies LLC (implied as current assignee)
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active.

5. Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

   • Case Number: IPR2022-01217
   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not explicitly named in the provided text)
   • Defendant(s): Charge Fusion Technologies LLC (patent owner)
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision.

Proceedings overview

There is one PTAB proceeding on file for US Patent 10998753. This proceeding resulted in the claims being sustained, which gives the patent a hardened defensive posture.

IPR2022-01217 — Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022
• Status: No challenged claims found unpatentable by PTAB, affirmed by Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: Judge Chen (authored opinion), Judge Reyna (joined), Judge Dyk (dissented).
• Petition grounds: Tesla challenged the patent claims (not specified which ones) based on prior art reference "Kato" (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0243331).
• Institution decision: Instituted.
• Final Written Decision (issued: 2024-01-17): The PTAB ultimately held that Tesla failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the claims were unpatentable. Specifically, the PTAB found that the "Charging Control Limitation" of the patent claims excludes manual starting and stopping of charging, requiring the system to operate automatically. The prior art reference "Kato" did not teach this limitation.
• Settlement / termination: Not settled.
• Appeal: Yes, appealed to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1584). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision on February 26, 2026, agreeing with the PTAB's construction of the "Charging Control Limitation" and its finding that "Kato" does not teach this limitation. The opinion was a split decision.
• Defensive value: Patent owner Charge Fusion Technologies LLC successfully defended the patent, with the PTAB upholding the patentability of the challenged claims, and the Federal Circuit affirming that decision. This indicates that an IPR-based defense on the grounds raised by Tesla will be harder, and the patent claims (specifically those related to the "Charging Control Limitation" requiring automatic operation) are strengthened.

Strategic summary

The sole PTAB proceeding concerning US10998753, IPR2022-01217, was initiated by Tesla Inc. against Charge Fusion Technologies LLC. Tesla challenged unspecified claims of the patent based on prior art reference "Kato." The PTAB instituted the review but ultimately issued a Final Written Decision on January 17, 2024, finding that Tesla had not proven the challenged claims unpatentable. The key to this decision was the PTAB's construction of the "Charging Control Limitation," which was determined to require an automatic charging system, a feature not found in the "Kato" prior art reference.

Tesla appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1584). On February 26, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's ruling in a split decision, upholding the patentability of the claims based on the same claim construction. This outcome indicates a strong defensive posture for the patent, as its claims have withstood a direct challenge through both IPR and Federal Circuit appeal. All claims that were challenged in IPR2022-01217 and reviewed by the PTAB were sustained.

Regarding estoppel, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Tesla (and its privies) are estopped from asserting in a civil action that the claims challenged in IPR2022-01217 are invalid on any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised during that IPR. This significantly limits future invalidity arguments for Tesla specifically, particularly concerning the "Charging Control Limitation" and the "Kato" prior art reference. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds not raised or reasonably raisable by Tesla in this IPR remain available. The fact that Unified Patents is involved in other litigation regarding other Charge Fusion Technologies patents, but not directly as a petitioner in this specific IPR on US10998753, suggests a focused attack by Tesla rather than a broader campaign by a defensive aggregator.

Recommended next steps

The claims of US10998753 that were challenged in IPR2022-01217 have been found patentable by the PTAB and affirmed by the Federal Circuit. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should be aware of the Federal Circuit's decision in Tesla v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, Case No. 24-1584, which affirmed the PTAB's findings regarding the patentability of the challenged claims. The key takeaway from the Federal Circuit's decision is their agreement with the PTAB's construction of the "Charging Control Limitation," which "excludes 'the user manually starting and stopping the charging....'" This means that any infringement theory relying on manual charging control would likely not succeed against this patent.

The Final Written Decision from IPR2022-01217 (Paper 29, dated January 17, 2024) and the Federal Circuit's affirming opinion (February 26, 2026) are crucial documents. Potential defendants should review these decisions thoroughly, especially the claim construction analysis for the "Charging Control Limitation" and the "Charging Schedule Limitation".

Given the patent owner's success in defending these claims, future invalidity challenges against the claims previously reviewed in IPR2022-01217 would need to present substantially different prior art or invalidity theories to avoid estoppel and overcome the precedent set by the PTAB and Federal Circuit decisions.

Inventors

Jeffrey R. Ambroziak and Carson C. K. Fincham. The patent does not explicitly state their employer at the time of filing. However, it is customary for inventors to assign their patent rights to their employer, especially when the invention is created as part of their job. In this case, the original assignee is Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, suggesting they were likely employed by or affiliated with this entity.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Charge Fusion Technologies LLC.

Charge Fusion Technologies LLC states their mission is to invent technology to get electric cars from here to there, focusing on intelligently controlling the timing of the charging process for electric vehicles to create cost-effective charging schedules. They claim to be a technology company that creates brand new electric cars, specifically mentioning "the '67 by Charge Cars" as one of their products, which is an electric version of an iconic muscle car. They describe their cars as benefiting from advanced automotive technology, working in collaboration with EV technology partners.

Charge Fusion Technologies LLC is currently operating and actively asserting its patents. They have been involved in litigation against major EV manufacturers like Tesla and Polestar concerning their electric vehicle charging patents.

Assignment timeline

There is one assignment recorded for US patent 10998753.

• 2020-12-01 (executed) / recorded 2020-12-01 — Reel 056461/0816
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest (See Document for Details)
  • Assignor: AMBROZIAK, Jeffrey R., FINCHAM, CARSON C.K.
  • Assignee: CHARGE FUSION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
  • Correspondent: BRENT N. ARMSTRONG, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP, 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800, St. Louis, MO, 63105-1847.
  • Context: Transfer of inventors' rights to the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10998753
    2008 : Priority date
    2020 : Filed by Charge Fusion Tech LLC
    2020 : Inventors assigned to Charge Fusion
    2021 : Issued to Charge Fusion
    2021 : Litigation filed in TX-W
    2022 : Litigation filed in DE
    2022 : PTAB IPR2022-01217 filed
    2024 : PTAB upholds patentability
    2025 : Polestar settlement
    2026 : CAFC affirms PTAB decision

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the individual inventors to Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, which is also the original assignee and appears to be an operating company developing EV charging technology and electric cars.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Charge Fusion Technologies LLC is the current owner and is actively engaged in patent assertion, but it is not listed as a known NPE on public databases from Unified Patents or RPX. Unified Patents has challenged this patent in an IPR, indicating they view Charge Fusion Technologies as an asserting entity, but not necessarily a "known asserter" in the general sense of being a high-frequency plaintiff on their public lists.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Brent N. Armstrong of Armstrong Teasdale LLP is the correspondent for the single assignment. Without additional assignment records for this patent or other patents assigned to Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, it is not possible to determine if this correspondent recurs.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Only one assignment is recorded for this patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The assignment from the inventors to Charge Fusion Technologies LLC was recorded in December 2020. The earliest identified litigation related to this patent was filed in the Western District of Texas in October 2021, and in the District of Delaware in October 2022. This timeline does not suggest a transfer specifically structured to precede litigation within 6 months.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that the patent transferred due to bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no publicly available information in the patent record or search results to suggest privateering activity.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The current assignee is Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, which is actively asserting the patent, rather than a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion. Charge Fusion Technologies LLC, the original and current assignee, describes itself as a technology company that creates electric vehicles and actively asserts patents related to EV charging systems against other automotive manufacturers like Tesla and Polestar. The patent transfer from inventors to Charge Fusion Technologies LLC is a standard initial assignment, not a shell-entity transfer. The ongoing litigation, where Charge Fusion Technologies LLC has successfully defended the validity of this patent against challenges from Tesla, further supports its role as an operating company protecting its intellectual property.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number US10998753).

The patent US10998753, titled "Systems and methods for charging electric vehicles," has an earliest effective filing date (priority date) of July 11, 2008. To identify potentially anticipatory prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we primarily look for documents that were publicly available or filed before this critical date. Given the numerous citations, particularly a large family of "Electric vehicle energy management" patents with the same July 11, 2008 filing date, those from the same patent family or commonly assigned would generally not anticipate under traditional § 102(a) grounds but could be relevant for obviousness or double patenting.

For anticipation under § 102, we focus on earlier-filed applications by potentially different entities or documents published before July 11, 2008. The following five patents were selected for detailed analysis as they have filing dates preceding the priority date of US10998753 and appear thematically relevant to electric vehicle charging and grid management.

The core inventive concepts of US10998753, as derived from its definitions and described embodiments, include:

• Intelligent Vehicle Charging: Receiving vehicle presence/identifier, determining and executing a charging schedule (Method 800, Claims 1, 10, 19).
• Intelligent Quantitative Load Balancing: Determining total power needed for multiple vehicles, communicating with a Power Supplying Entity (PSE) for optimal rates/times, and coordinating charging (Method 900, Claims 2, 11, 20).
• Intelligent Qualitative Load Balancing: Identifying electrical loads, determining available power sources and their characteristics (e.g., cost, "greenness", distance), selecting sources, and directing power (Method 1000, Claims 3, 12, 21).
• Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Functionality: Vehicles providing power back to the grid.
• Wireless Charging: Transmission of electrical power without physical connection.
• User Preferences and Alerts: Setting charging parameters via interfaces, and receiving notifications.

Below are the details for the most relevant prior art citations that predate the priority date of US10998753:

1. US7672754B2

• Full Citation: US7672754B2, Method and system for managing electric vehicles on a power grid. Inventors: Robert M. Pilawa-Podgurski, et al. Assignee: The Regents of the University of California.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: March 2, 2010. Filing: June 5, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for managing electric vehicles (EVs) on a power grid. It involves communicating with EVs to determine their charging requirements and availability, and then optimizing charging/discharging schedules based on grid conditions, electricity prices, and user preferences. The system aims to stabilize the grid, integrate renewable energy sources, and reduce costs. It explicitly mentions "vehicle-to-grid" (V2G) technology.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent potentially anticipates aspects of US10998753 related to intelligent vehicle charging, quantitative load balancing, and V2G functionality. Specifically, its disclosure of managing EV charging schedules based on grid conditions and cost, and using EVs for grid support (V2G), appears to cover elements of Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 19, 20, and 21 of US10998753. The ability to determine charging requirements and implement schedules to reduce cost (as described in US10998753's Method 900) is a strong overlap. The notion of balancing load and making use of available capacity is also present.

2. US8024075B2

• Full Citation: US8024075B2, Systems and methods for managing grid storage. Inventors: Chad R. St. Clair, et al. Assignee: NUVVE Corp.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: September 20, 2011. Filing: July 6, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent focuses on managing energy storage within an electrical grid, particularly utilizing plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) as distributed energy storage resources. It describes systems and methods for aggregating and controlling these PEVs to provide services to the grid, such as load leveling, ancillary services, and demand response. The system communicates with vehicles to manage their charging and discharging based on grid needs and financial incentives.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent potentially anticipates claims of US10998753 related to quantitative load balancing and V2G. The management of grid storage by coordinating charging/discharging of multiple vehicles based on grid parameters (similar to how US10998753 interacts with a PSE for optimal rates and managing power) overlaps with Claims 2, 11, and 20. It also touches upon the concept of vehicles participating in grid management, which supports the qualitative load balancing aspect of selecting power sources (e.g., from vehicles) based on their characteristics.

3. US8086337B2

• Full Citation: US8086337B2, Systems and methods for managing the power grid with vehicle-to-grid technology. Inventors: Chad R. St. Clair, et al. Assignee: NUVVE Corp.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: December 27, 2011. Filing: July 9, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent details systems and methods for integrating vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology with the power grid. It describes how electric vehicles can not only draw power from the grid but also supply power back to it, acting as distributed energy resources. The system manages the bidirectional flow of energy, considering factors like grid stability, energy demand, and economic incentives, to optimize the use of EV batteries for grid support.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Given its explicit focus on "vehicle-to-grid technology" and managing power flow between vehicles and the grid, this patent directly addresses a significant aspect of US10998753's V2G capabilities. It potentially anticipates elements of US10998753 related to intelligent quantitative load balancing (Method 900) and intelligent qualitative load balancing (Method 1000) where vehicles are a source of power. This is relevant to Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, and 21, especially where US10998753 discusses vehicles providing energy to satisfy other charging demands or selling back to the PSE.

4. US7945355B2

• Full Citation: US7945355B2, System and method for managing distributed energy resources in an electric utility grid. Inventors: Frank M. Bradley, et al. Assignee: Energetics, Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: May 17, 2011. Filing: July 16, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for managing various distributed energy resources (DERs), including electric vehicles, within an electric utility grid. It focuses on aggregating these DERs and coordinating their operation (generation, consumption, storage) to optimize grid performance, reliability, and economic efficiency. The system interacts with DERs to control their energy transactions based on real-time grid conditions and market signals.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent's broader scope of managing distributed energy resources, which includes electric vehicles, directly addresses the intelligent qualitative load balancing aspects of US10998753 (Method 1000). The concept of determining available sources and their characteristics to select the most appropriate one for an electrical load is clearly present. This potentially anticipates Claims 3, 12, and 21, particularly the aspects related to selecting power sources based on characteristics like cost or generation type, and integrating them into a managed grid.

5. US7460925B2

• Full Citation: US7460925B2, Electric vehicle energy management system and method. Inventors: Jeffrey R. Ambroziak, et al. Assignee: Energetics, Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Publication: December 2, 2008. Filing: July 27, 2007.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for managing energy for electric vehicles, which includes controlling the charging and discharging of vehicle batteries. It considers factors such as electricity prices, grid conditions, user preferences (e.g., desired state of charge by a specific time), and vehicle capabilities to create an optimal energy management plan. The system can interact with the grid to participate in demand response or supply stored energy.
• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent, notably by one of the inventors of US10998753 (Jeffrey R. Ambroziak), and with an earlier filing date, is highly relevant. It directly covers "electric vehicle energy management" considering user preferences, desired charge levels, and time-of-day pricing to create charging schedules. This strongly overlaps with the "intelligent vehicle charging" (Method 800) and "intelligent quantitative load balancing" (Method 900) concepts of US10998753. Therefore, it potentially anticipates elements across Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 of US10998753, especially regarding the determination of charging schedules based on vehicle identifiers, preferences, and economic factors.

As a patent analyst, I am unable to perform a comprehensive obviousness analysis of US patent 10998753 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the provided information for two primary reasons:

1. Absence of Claims: The full patent text provided does not include the claims of US10998753. An obviousness analysis requires reviewing the specific language of each claim to compare its elements to the prior art.
2. Lack of Specific Prior Art References: The "Prior Art" section, as presented in the provided patent information, only lists "Prior art keywords" (charging, charge, electric vehicle, vehicle, battery) and a "Prior art date" (2008-07-11). It does not identify or provide specific prior art documents (e.g., other patents, publications) that would be necessary to identify combinations and explain motivations for combining them.

Without the actual claims of US10998753 and specific prior art references to compare against those claims, it is impossible to identify combinations of prior art that would render the claims obvious or to explain the motivation for such combinations.