DCT
3:24-cv-01413
Zaptera USA Inc v. Aptera Motors Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Zaptera USA, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Aptera Motors Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Atabek & Co.; Morrow Ni LLP
- Case Identification: 3:24-cv-01413, S.D. Cal., 06/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of California because the majority of individual and corporate defendants reside there, and the events giving rise to the claims occurred within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electric vehicle infringes two design patents covering the vehicle’s unique aerodynamic shape, which Plaintiff claims to have acquired from Defendant’s predecessor company after its liquidation.
- Technical Context: The dispute is in the electric vehicle (EV) sector, where aerodynamic efficiency is a critical factor for maximizing battery range and overall performance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a complex corporate history where the original Aptera Motors, Inc. developed the technology and secured the patents-in-suit before liquidating in 2011. Plaintiff alleges it purchased all intellectual property, including these patents, in an asset sale in 2012. The original founders subsequently re-formed the company as Aptera Motors Corp. in 2019 and began developing the accused vehicle. Plaintiff alleges it sent a notice letter regarding infringement in July 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006 | Original Aptera Motors, Inc. founded |
| 2010-03-19 | Priority date for '821 and '487 Patents |
| 2011-03-08 | '821 Patent issued |
| 2011-04-05 | '487 Patent issued |
| 2011-12-05 | Original Aptera Motors, Inc. begins liquidation |
| 2012-04-05 | Plaintiff Zaptera USA, Inc. executes Asset Purchase Agreement for Aptera IP |
| 2019-03 | Defendant Aptera Motors Corp. is incorporated and relaunched |
| Late 2019 | Defendant begins taking reservations for the accused Aptera vehicle |
| 2022-07-28 | Plaintiff sends demand letter to Defendants alleging infringement |
| 2025-06-26 | Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. D633,821 - Aerodynamic Vehicle
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint alleges that the original Aptera Motors, Inc. sought to design a vehicle combining light body weight and reduced friction with a "unique aerodynamic body shape" to achieve high levels of efficiency and marketability (Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The ’821 Patent claims the ornamental design for a complete "aerodynamic vehicle" (D633,821 Patent, Claim). The design, depicted in the patent’s seven figures, features a futuristic, three-wheeled vehicle with a fluid, teardrop-shaped fuselage and two prominent front wheels housed in separate aerodynamic fairings (D633,821 Patent, FIG. 1, 4). The patent’s description clarifies that elements shown in dashed lines, such as the connection points between the wheel fairings and the body, are for illustrative purposes and do not form part of the claimed design (D633,821 Patent, Description).
- Technical Importance: The complaint asserts that the distinctive body shape was critical to the vehicle's identity and its ability to achieve then-unprecedented efficiency, which garnered significant media attention (Compl. ¶19-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the patent: "The ornamental design for an aerodynamic vehicle, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶76; D633,821 Patent, Claim).
- The elements of this claim are the collective visual features depicted in Figures 1-7 of the patent, including its overall shape, configuration, and surface contours.
U.S. Patent No. D635,487 - Aerodynamic Vehicle Body
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As with the ’821 Patent, the design addresses the need for a visually striking and aerodynamically efficient vehicle shape (Compl. ¶20).
- The Patented Solution: The ’487 Patent claims the ornamental design for an "aerodynamic vehicle body" specifically, without including the wheels or undercarriage as part of the claimed design (D635,487 Patent, Claim). The patent figures illustrate a smooth, continuously curved fuselage with a tapered, "boat-tail" rear, a rounded front, and a blended canopy, presenting the core aesthetic of the vehicle body in isolation (D635,487 Patent, FIG. 1-7).
- Technical Importance: The complaint positions this body design as the essential element of the vehicle's marketability and a key piece of the intellectual property Plaintiff acquired (Compl. ¶20, 37).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts the single claim of the patent: "The ornamental design for an aerodynamic vehicle body, as shown and described" (Compl. ¶84; D635,487 Patent, Claim).
- The claim's scope is defined by the visual appearance of the vehicle body as depicted in Figures 1-7 of the patent.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused product is the Aptera electric vehicle designed, marketed, offered for sale, and sold by Defendant Aptera Motors Corp (Compl. ¶78, 86).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is described as a "solar powered vehicle" engineered with a focus on "weight, aerodynamics, and overall efficiency" (Compl. ¶59).
- The complaint alleges that the accused vehicle’s design is intended to "resemble and build off of the original patented Aptera design" to leverage brand recognition from the late 2000s (Compl. ¶47).
- The complaint alleges significant commercial activity, including over 47,000 pre-order reservations representing $1.7 billion in potential revenue and over $100 million raised from investors (Compl. ¶55-56). The complaint provides a side-by-side visual comparison of figures from the ’821 Patent with photographs of the accused Aptera vehicle (Compl. ¶76).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The infringement allegations for both design patents are based on the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer would believe the accused design is the same as the patented design (Compl. ¶77, 85).
D633,821 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (Key Ornamental Feature) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for an aerodynamic vehicle, including its three-wheeled configuration and teardrop-shaped fuselage. | The accused Aptera vehicle, which employs a three-wheeled configuration with a teardrop-shaped body. | ¶76, 77 | D633,821 Patent, FIG. 1, 6 |
| Two front wheels housed in separate, prominent aerodynamic fairings detached from the main body. | The accused vehicle features two front wheels housed in separate aerodynamic fairings that are detached from the main body. | ¶76 (p. 21) | D633,821 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| A smooth, curved canopy that flows continuously into the rear of the vehicle body. | The accused vehicle incorporates a smooth, curved canopy that blends into the rear of the vehicle. | ¶76 (p. 20) | D633,821 Patent, FIG. 3 |
| A tapered rear terminating in a distinct trailing edge, creating a "boat-tail" appearance. | The accused vehicle has a tapered rear section that gives it a "boat-tail" appearance. | ¶76 (p. 21) | D633,821 Patent, FIG. 5 |
D635,487 Infringement Allegations
The complaint includes a side-by-side comparison for the ’487 Patent, juxtaposing patent figures of the vehicle body with photos of the accused product (Compl. ¶84).
| Claim Element (Key Ornamental Feature) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| The overall ornamental design for an aerodynamic vehicle body, characterized by a fluid, continuously curved shape. | The body of the accused Aptera vehicle, which is alleged to have substantially the same overall fluid and curved shape. | ¶84, 85 | D635,487 Patent, FIG. 1, 2 |
| The profile view of the body, featuring an unbroken arc from the low front end to the high point of the canopy and down to the tapered rear. | The profile of the accused vehicle's body, which is alleged to follow a similar unbroken arc. | ¶84 (p. 24) | D635,487 Patent, FIG. 3 |
| The front view of the body, with a rounded nose and a wide, curved windshield element. | The front of the accused vehicle's body, which is alleged to present the same visual impression of a rounded nose and wide windshield. | ¶84 (p. 25) | D635,487 Patent, FIG. 4 |
| The rear view of the body, showing a split lower section and a distinctly tapered upper section. | The rear of the accused vehicle's body, which features a split lower section and tapered upper section. | ¶84 (p. 25) | D635,487 Patent, FIG. 5 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The central question will be whether the visual differences between the accused vehicle and the patented designs are significant enough to prevent an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, from being deceived. The complaint characterizes these as "minor changes," a point the defense may contest (Compl. ¶47).
- Technical Questions: While design patent analysis is primarily visual, a question may arise as to which specific features of the design are ornamental versus purely functional. The defense may argue that similarities are dictated by aerodynamic function rather than ornamental choice.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
In design patent litigation, claim construction focuses on the overall visual impression of the claimed design as shown in the drawings, rather than on interpreting textual terms. The dispute will center on the scope of the design as a whole.
- The Term: The scope of the claimed "ornamental design for an aerodynamic vehicle" and "ornamental design for an aerodynamic vehicle body."
- Context and Importance: The entire infringement analysis depends on the visual scope of the patents. The court’s interpretation of what constitutes the core, novel aesthetic of the designs will determine whether the accused product is "substantially the same." Practitioners may focus on this because the outcome of the ordinary observer test hinges on which design features are emphasized and which are discounted as minor variations.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patents claim the overall visual impression of the vehicle and its body. Plaintiff may argue that this impression is defined by the unique combination of a three-wheel layout, teardrop fuselage, and separate wheel fairings, and that minor variations in curvature or proportion do not alter this fundamental aesthetic.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim is limited to the specific ornamental appearance "as shown and described" (D633,821 Patent, Claim). Defendant may argue that any deviation in surface contour, proportion, or specific feature (e.g., headlight shape, panel lines) creates a different overall visual impression, thereby avoiding infringement. The explicit disclaimer of dashed-line elements in the ’821 Patent also strictly defines the boundaries of what is claimed (D633,821 Patent, Description).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement by the defendants for making, using, and offering the accused vehicle for sale (Compl. ¶78, 86).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges a strong basis for willfulness. It asserts pre-suit knowledge based on the fact that several individual defendants are named inventors on the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶32). Furthermore, it alleges that the new Aptera entity disclosed the patents-in-suit to the USPTO in an Information Disclosure Statement while prosecuting one of its own patents, which may serve as an admission of knowledge (Compl. ¶52). The complaint also alleges that Defendants' decision to use the IP was based on the mistaken belief that the individual who could enforce the patents was deceased (Compl. ¶45). Finally, infringement is alleged to have continued after Plaintiff sent a notice letter in July 2022 (Compl. ¶69).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of visual identity: From the perspective of an ordinary observer, are the visual differences between the accused Aptera vehicle and the designs claimed in the ’821 and ’487 patents significant enough to create a distinct aesthetic, or has the Defendant appropriated the novel ornamental features of the patents-in-suit, resulting in a design that is substantially the same?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of chain of title: Does the plaintiff possess clear and enforceable ownership of the patents-in-suit through the 2012 asset purchase agreement, or are there potential defects in the assignment from the predecessor company's liquidation that could challenge the plaintiff's standing to sue?
- Given the shared history of the parties and patents, a critical question for damages will be culpability: Do the facts alleged—that key defendants are inventors on the patents they now allegedly infringe and that they were aware of the patents' existence—support a finding of willful infringement, which could lead to enhanced damages and attorney's fees?