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
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.
Google LLC et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.
Microsoft CorporationvsEyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that discretionary denial doctrines do not apply.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsKAIFI LLC
KAIFI filed a preliminary response asserting that the IPR against its 7,689,001 patent should be denied, citing a pending settlement and flaws in the petition’s base challenge.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al.vsZodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology petitions the PTAB to cancel all five claims of Zodiac Pool Systems' autonomous pool‑cleaner patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and lack of written description for key limitations.
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.