On November 8, 2024, Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,631,987 (“the ’987 patent”). Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2025-00153, Paper 1 (Nov. 8, 2024). The owner of the ’987 patent is Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC (“Charge Fusion”).
This IPR petition is one of several filed in response to Charge Fusion’s 2021 lawsuit against Tesla in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, initially alleging infringement of three of its patents. Charge Fusion Techs. LLC v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 25 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2021). Tesla challenged those three asserted patents in IPR, succeeding in one and appealing the loss of the other two. Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2023-00062, Paper 35 (PTAB April 16, 2024) (determining challenged claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,853,488 unpatentable); Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2022-01217, Paper 29 (PTAB Jan. 17, 2024) (determining no challenged claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,998,753 unpatentable); Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2022-01217, Paper 30 (March 19, 2024) (Tesla’s notice of appeal); Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2023-00063, Paper 29 (PTAB May 2, 2024) (determining no challenged claims in U.S. Patent No. 10,819,135 unpatentable); Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2023-00063, Paper 30 (June 25, 2024) (Tesla’s notice of appeal).
Shortly after PTAB issued its final written decisions on the first three IPRs, Charge Fusion sought leave to assert three additional patents against Tesla. Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. No. 79 at 2 (June 5, 2024) (proposing to additionally assert U.S. Patent Nos. 11,575,275 (“the ’275 patent”), 11,563,338 (“the ’338 patent”), and 11,990,788 (“the ’788 patent”)); but see id. at Exhibit A, 7 (listing, in proposed order, the ’338, ’788, and ’987 patents). In response, Tesla petitioned for IPR of the ’338, ’788, and ’987 patents. Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2025-00032, Paper 1 (Oct. 18, 2024) (petitioning for review of the ’338 patent); Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2025-00152, Paper 1 (Nov. 8, 2024) (petitioning for review of the ’788 patent); Tesla Inc. v. Charge Fusion Techs., LLC, IPR2025-00153, Paper 1 (Nov. 8, 2024) (petitioning for review of the ’987 patent).
The patents mentioned above all belong to the same family and thus, describe the same technology as the ’987 patent. The ’987 patent, titled “Systems and Methods for Charging Electric Vehicles,” describes systems and methods for charging electric vehicles using a dynamic charging schedule. The ’987 patent, Abstract. According to the ’987 patent, the charging schedule may depend on (1) user preferences, id. at Abstract, 10:29-50, (2) availability of electrical energy from power sources, id. at 6:55-60, 11:50-13:3, (3) scheduled electrical demands (i.e. when other vehicles are scheduled to charge), id. at 6:60-7:2, (4), unscheduled demands (i.e., presence of other vehicles at the charging lot), id. at 11:1-24, and (5) market rates of electrical energy, id. at 8:30-34, 10:51-67.
The ’987 patent also describes an exemplary interface 700 (shown below) that includes, among other items, various indicators related to charging 714-724. The ’987 patent, 14:53-15:38.
The ’987 patent at Fig. 7.
Claim 1 of the ’987 patent recites:
An electrical charging system, comprising:
a vehicle sensor;
a communication device;
a processor in communication with the vehicle sensor and the communication device; and
a memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
receive, from the vehicle sensor, information indicative of a presence of a vehicle in a parking space;
receive, from the communication device, information indicative of one or more charging preferences corresponding to a desired charging of the vehicle, wherein the one or more charging preferences are defined by an operator of the vehicle;
determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and at least one current value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider, a charging schedule for the vehicle; and
transmit a control signal to a parking space charge device that starts a charging, in accordance with the charging schedule, of the vehicle;
wherein at least one of the one or more charging preferences is defined by user input received via a graphical user interface adapted to display a unitary vehicle charge indicator element comprising:
(i) a first portion indicative of an amount of charge residing in a battery of the electric vehicle;
(ii) a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity of the battery of the electric vehicle; and
(iii) a third portion comprising a slider by which an amount of charge may be specified.
Charge Fusion’s complaint lists Tesla cars such as the Model 3, Model S, Model X, Model Y, and Roadster as exemplary infringing products. Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 32. Using the electrical charging system of Model 3 as an example, Charge Fusion points to the following allegedly infringing features.
First, an electrical charging system with vehicle sensors. Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 36-37.
Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 36 (citing Tesla Model 3 User’s Manual, P. 131).
Second, a communication device with voice command and touch screen capabilities. Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 38, 40.
Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 38 (citing Tesla Model 3 User’s Manual, P. 4).
And third, a processor and memory in communication with the communication device to detect the presence of a vehicle in a parking space, Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 40-41, receive user charging preferences, id. at ¶ 42, create a dynamic charging schedule for the vehicle, id. at ¶ 43, and cause charging in accordance with the charging schedule, id. at ¶ 44.
Charge Fusion v. Tesla, Case No. 1:22-cv-00488, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 43 (citing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSeC0F4tyFM at 2:32).