Nikola v. Tesla

The phrase "Nikola Tesla" used to bring to mind the famous inventor known for many things including his involvement in the "War of the Currents" and related intellectual property deals and disputes with Edison. Today, "Nikola v. Tesla" might become the more well-known phrase, again referring to a potential intellectual property and broader business war. But here, the battle is between two start-up heavy industry companies over heavy-duty electric truck technology.
Specifically, Nikola Industries filed suit alleging patent infringement by Tesla of its truck design in the US District Court for the District of Arizona. Tesla's complaint contains many shocking allegations regarding what appears to be unscrupulous business practices by Tesla, but what is most interesting from a patent strategy perspective is the design patent filings made by Nikola to protect their design. Specifcally, as discussed in previous posts (here, and here,,,), Nikola strategically claimed specific portions of their truck design to create a family of patents.
D811968 is illustrative of the approach, where Nikola claimed only the outline of the cab windshield.  Other patents claimed the outline of the cab, the fuselage, etc. The image below from the complaint compares the patented windshield design on the left to the Tesla design on the right. Note that the design is limited only to the outline of the windshield, as the remainder of the vehicle is dashed.

Nikola estimates damages to be in excess of $2 billion.
While it likely cost Nikola a few extra thousand dollars to file a portfolio of design patents, they obviously see major value in their design and have developed an advanced strategy that might give Telsa significant heartache. While it seems like a joke that the lawsuit caption looks like the same as the famous inventor, this dispute is definitely no laughing matter.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions closes prosecution on the merits of the appl
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to rethink th
Read more