DCT

5:25-cv-01533

Tesla Inc v. Matthews Intl Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:25-cv-01533, N.D. Cal., 03/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant's business contacts within the Northern District of California, including interactions with Tesla employees, supplying equipment to Tesla in the district, and directing communications to California.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks to correct the inventorship of two U.S. patents related to dry battery electrode manufacturing, alleging its employee was the true and sole inventor and was improperly omitted by Defendant, and further alleges breach of an oral contract to assign the related patent family.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for manufacturing dry battery electrodes (DBE), a process critical to reducing the cost and complexity of producing lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a history where Plaintiff's predecessor (Maxwell) collaborated with Defendant's predecessor (Saueressig) as a custom equipment vendor. Plaintiff alleges its employee, Dr. Porter Mitchell, conceived of the core technology and disclosed it to Defendant's engineers. Plaintiff's predecessor filed a provisional application naming Dr. Mitchell and Defendant's engineers as inventors. The complaint alleges that Defendant subsequently filed continuation applications that led to the patents-in-suit, but improperly omitted Dr. Mitchell as an inventor.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2018-10-23 Dr. Mitchell allegedly emails his inventive concept to Saueressig
2019-01-16 Earliest Priority Date ('333 Provisional Application)
2019-05-01 Tesla completes acquisition of Maxwell Technologies (approx. date)
2024-11-05 U.S. Patent No. 12,136,727 Issues
2025-02-25 U.S. Patent No. 12,237,494 Issues
2025-03-11 Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,136,727 - "SYSTEMS FOR MANUFACTURING A DRY ELECTRODE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,136,727, "SYSTEMS FOR MANUFACTURING A DRY ELECTRODE", issued November 5, 2024 (the "'727 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional manufacturing of dry electrode films can require high processing pressures, a large amount of equipment, and multiple distinct process steps (e.g., film formation, rewind/unwind, lamination), which increases factory footprint and operational costs (’727 Patent, col. 4:50-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that uses two horizontally aligned "multi roll calendars" to continuously process electrode powder into films and then laminate them simultaneously onto both sides of a current collector. The system is designed so that the film can be supported by the calendar rolls throughout the process, allowing for the creation of non-self-supporting films and integrating film formation and lamination into a single, more compact machine (’727 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:4-20; col. 8:1-14).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated approach to dry electrode manufacturing aims to provide a simplified, more cost-effective, and less space-intensive procedure for producing a key component of modern batteries (’727 Patent, col. 4:11-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first multi roll calendar with a first series of horizontally aligned rolls (first, second, third, and final roll).
    • A second multi roll calendar with a second series of horizontally aligned rolls.
    • Each calendar having a "first film creation nip" (between the first and second rolls) to compress powder into a film.
    • Each calendar having a "first calendaring nip" (between the second and third rolls) to further compress the film.
    • The calendars being horizontally aligned so the final rolls of each series form a "lamination nip" to simultaneously laminate the films onto a current collector.
    • A current collector unwind station and a rewind station.
  • The complaint alleges Dr. Mitchell is the inventor of all claims and notes claim 1 is the only independent claim (’727 Patent, col. 11:19-12:5; Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26).

U.S. Patent No. 12,237,494 - "SYSTEMS FOR MANUFACTURING A DRY ELECTRODE"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,237,494, "SYSTEMS FOR MANUFACTURING A DRY ELECTRODE", issued February 25, 2025 (the "'494 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’727 Patent, the ’494 Patent addresses the same technical problem of cost and complexity in traditional dry electrode manufacturing (’494 Patent, col. 4:50-61).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is substantively identical to that of the ’727 Patent: a system of multi-roll calendars to form and laminate dry electrode films in a continuous process. The specification of the ’494 patent is substantially the same as the ’727 Patent (’494 Patent, col. 1:7-15; Compl. ¶28).
  • Technical Importance: The technical importance is the same as described for the ’727 Patent.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first multi roll calendar with a series of horizontally aligned rolls (first, second, and third roll).
    • A second multi roll calendar with a series of horizontally aligned rolls.
    • Each calendar configured to compress powder into a film in a first nip (between the first and second rolls).
    • Each calendar configured to compress the film into a compressed film in a second nip (between the second and third rolls).
    • A lamination station to simultaneously laminate the first film and second film onto a current collector.
    • A current collector unwind station and a rewind station.
  • The complaint alleges Dr. Mitchell is the inventor of all claims and notes claim 1 is the only independent claim (’494 Patent, col. 11:21-12:1; Compl. ¶¶ 29, 32).

III. Analysis of Inventorship Allegations

The complaint's primary counts concern correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256. The central allegation is that Tesla’s Dr. Mitchell conceived of every element of the asserted claims and that the named inventors on the patents made no inventive contribution. The complaint bases this on a drawing Dr. Mitchell allegedly emailed to Defendant's engineers on October 23, 2018 (Compl. ¶15). The complaint includes a schematic drawing allegedly created by Dr. Mitchell illustrating two sets of four calendering rolls, an IR heater, and a path for a current collector to be laminated on both sides simultaneously (Compl. ¶15).

'727 Patent Inventorship Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Conception by Dr. Mitchell Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first multi roll calendar comprising a first series of horizontally aligned rolls that include a first roll, a second roll, a third roll, and a final roll A system with two sets of four horizontally aligned rolls, as evidenced by the October 23, 2018 drawing. ¶24 col. 7:3-9
a second multi roll calendar comprising a second series of horizontally aligned rolls that include a first roll, a second roll, a third roll, and a final roll A system with two sets of four horizontally aligned rolls, as evidenced by the October 23, 2018 drawing. ¶24 col. 7:3-9
wherein the first and second rolls of the first series of rolls form a first film creation nip configured to receive first powder and compress the first powder into a first film The October 23, 2018 email and drawing allegedly set forth the concept of nips to receive powder and compress it into a film, as indicated by triangles above the nips in the drawing. ¶25 col. 7:13-16
wherein the second and third rolls of the series of rolls form a first calendaring nip configured to receive the first film and compress the first film into a compressed first film The October 23, 2018 email and drawing allegedly illustrate the concept of a calendering nip to receive and compress a film. ¶25 col. 7:17-20
wherein the first multi roll calendar and the second multi roll calendar are horizontally aligned such that the final roll of the first series of rolls and the final roll of the second series of rolls forms a lamination nip configured to simultaneously laminate the first film and the second film onto a current collector The October 23, 2018 email allegedly illustrates the concept of lamination and discusses the need for it, with the drawing showing a path for the films to be laminated onto a current collector. ¶25 col. 8:1-6
a rewind station that winds the laminated current collector from the lamination nip onto a roll The October 23, 2018 email and drawing allegedly demonstrate this contribution by depicting the winding of the laminated collector. ¶25 col. 8:7-9

'494 Patent Inventorship Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Conception by Dr. Mitchell Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first multi roll calendar comprising a first series of horizontally aligned rolls that include a first roll, a second roll, and a third roll The October 23, 2018 drawing allegedly illustrates a system with two multi-roll calenders, each comprising horizontally aligned rolls. ¶29 col. 7:3-9
a second multi roll calendar comprising a second series of horizontally aligned rolls The October 23, 2018 drawing allegedly illustrates a system with two multi-roll calenders. ¶29 col. 7:3-9
the first multi roll calendar being configured to compress powder into a first film in a first nip formed by the first roll and the second roll...and compress the first film into a first compressed film in a second nip formed by the second roll and the third roll The October 23, 2018 email and drawing allegedly set forth the concept of compressing powder into film at a first nip and further compressing the film at a second nip, as shown by triangles above the nips in the drawing. ¶30 col. 7:13-20
a lamination station configured to simultaneously laminate the first film onto a first side of a current collector and the second film onto a second side of the current collector The October 23, 2018 email and drawing allegedly illustrate and discuss the concept and need for simultaneous lamination onto a current collector. ¶31 col. 8:1-6
a current collector unwind station ... and a rewind station that receives the laminated current collector The October 23, 2018 email allegedly illustrates this concept by depicting the current collector being unwound from one roll and wound onto another after lamination. ¶31 col. 8:7-9

Identified Points of Contention

  • Conception vs. Reduction to Practice: The central dispute is whether Dr. Mitchell's 2018 disclosure constitutes a complete conception of the claimed invention. A key question will be whether the drawing and email are sufficiently detailed to show a "definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention," or if they merely represent a general goal, leaving the operative details to be worked out by the named inventors.
  • Corroboration: Inventorship claims require corroboration of the alleged conception. The complaint alleges that an engineer at Saueressig (Matthews's predecessor) responded "recognizing the novelty of the design" (Compl. ¶16). The existence, content, and legal sufficiency of this corroborating evidence will be a critical factual issue for the court.
  • Joint Inventorship: Defendant may argue that even if Dr. Mitchell contributed to the invention, its own engineers also made a material contribution to the conception of at least one claim element, which would make them joint inventors. The court will have to assess whether the named inventors' work constituted conception or merely reduction to practice of Dr. Mitchell's alleged ideas.

IV. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While this is not a traditional infringement case, the meaning of certain claim terms is central to determining whether Dr. Mitchell's alleged 2018 disclosure constitutes a full conception of the claimed invention.

  • The Term: "multi roll calendar"

  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble and body of the independent claims of both patents. The dispute will turn on whether the apparatus depicted in Dr. Mitchell's drawing (Compl. ¶15) meets the definition of a "multi roll calendar" as that term is used in the patents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the heart of the invention is the specific arrangement and function of these calendars.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system in general terms as comprising rolls that form nips to calender a film, which may support an interpretation that any arrangement of multiple rolls performing this function qualifies (’727 Patent, col. 7:3-9).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves recite a specific number of rolls ("first," "second," "third," "final") performing distinct functions (film creation, calendering, lamination). This may support a narrower construction requiring the specific architecture and sequence laid out in the claims, raising the question of whether Dr. Mitchell's drawing is detailed enough to disclose this specific structure.

  • The Term: "lamination nip configured to simultaneously laminate"

  • Context and Importance: This functional language is critical to the claims, as it describes the integration of the film-making and lamination steps. The inventorship analysis will question whether Dr. Mitchell's 2018 disclosure conceived of not just lamination in general, but the specific configuration required to achieve it simultaneously for two films on a central collector.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to cover any nip that brings two films and a collector together at the same time. The complaint alleges Dr. Mitchell's drawing and email illustrate this concept (Compl. ¶25, ¶31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures (e.g., '727 Patent, Fig. 6) and description detail a specific geometric arrangement where the final rolls of two horizontally-aligned calendars form the nip (’727 Patent, col. 8:1-6). The court may need to decide if Dr. Mitchell's more schematic drawing (Compl. ¶15) provided a complete mental picture of this specific operative configuration.

V. Other Allegations

  • Correction of Inventorship (35 U.S.C. § 256): The complaint alleges that Dr. Mitchell is the sole inventor of claim 1 of both the ’727 and ’494 patents, and at least a joint inventor of all claims (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 55). It alleges Matthews omitted Dr. Mitchell without authority and seeks a court order directing the USPTO to add Dr. Mitchell as an inventor and remove the currently named inventors (Compl. ¶¶ 50-52, 57-59).
  • Breach of Contract: The complaint alleges the existence of an oral "Maxwell Agreement" from 2019, under which Matthews agreed to assign the entire patent family stemming from the '333 provisional application to Maxwell (and its successor, Tesla) (Compl. ¶38). The alleged consideration for this agreement was the ongoing business relationship and payments for equipment orders (Compl. ¶38). Tesla alleges Matthews breached this agreement in November 2024 by refusing to honor it (Compl. ¶40, ¶63).
  • Promissory Estoppel and Quasi-Contract/Restitution: In the alternative to the contract claim, Tesla alleges it relied on Matthews's promises to assign the patent rights by continuing the business relationship and making substantial payments (Compl. ¶¶ 67-68). Tesla further alleges that Matthews has been unjustly enriched by obtaining and asserting ownership over patents for inventions created by Tesla's employee (Compl. ¶73). Tesla seeks remedies including specific performance of the assignment or the imposition of a constructive trust over the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 74).

VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case presents a complex dispute over intellectual property ownership rooted in the collaborative history of the parties. The outcome will likely depend on the court’s resolution of several key questions of fact and law.

  • A central question of fact will be one of conception and corroboration: does the evidence, particularly Dr. Mitchell's October 2018 email and drawing, establish a complete and operative conception of the patented invention prior to any inventive contribution by the named inventors, and can this conception be sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence?
  • A key legal and factual issue will be the enforceability of the alleged oral agreement: did the parties form a binding oral contract for the assignment of patent rights, which typically must be in writing, and can Tesla produce sufficient evidence to prove the existence and terms of such an agreement?
  • Should the contract claim fail, the court may face a question of equity: was Matthews unjustly enriched by obtaining patents on technology allegedly conceived by Tesla's employee during a vendor relationship, and does Tesla's alleged detrimental reliance on Matthews's promises to assign the intellectual property warrant an equitable remedy such as the imposition of a constructive trust?