Short Summary
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging the vehicle gear‑selection control patent owned by Bulletproof Property Management, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six §103 grounds covering all 20 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Detailed Summary
Tesla, Inc. petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 12,221,104, titled “Vehicle Gear Selection Control,” which is owned by Bulletproof Property Management, LLC. The petition asserts that the patent’s 20 claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because they are obvious in view of combinations of prior‑art references, including Joos, Bayer, Kischkat, Hoop, Allexi, and Bettger. Six distinct grounds (1A‑2C) are presented, each covering specific claim subsets. Tesla’s expert, Dr. Jason Janet, supports the obviousness arguments. The petition also notes related civil litigation in the Western District of Texas and concurrent IPR filings on related patents. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the proceeding remains at the petition stage.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tesla, Inc. vs Bulletproof Property Management, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla and patent‑assertion entity Intellectual Ventures II have jointly moved to dismiss the IPR and terminate the proceeding after resolving the dispute in a parallel district‑court case. The motion cites Board authority and the early, unbriefed status of the IPR as reasons for dismissal.
Microsoft Corporation et al.vsInterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFRACTUS, S.A.
The USPTO denied Geotab’s request for rehearing of its IPR challenge against Fractus’s telematics patent, upholding the earlier discretionary denial and institution refusal.
Geotab Inc. et al.vsFractus, S.A.
The USPTO Director denied Geotab’s request for review of the institution decisions in IPR2025‑01026 (and related IPR2025‑01027), leaving the institution of the patents intact.
Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge 19 claims of MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's LVAD patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution, adopting broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling.'
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.