DCT
1:25-cv-00665
Bulletproof Property Management LLC v. Tesla Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Bulletproof Property Management LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Tesla, Inc. (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Buether Joe & Counselors, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00665, W.D. Tex., 08/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Tesla, Inc.'s headquarters are located in Austin, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Auto Shift" feature, available in its Model S, 3, X, and Y vehicles, infringes seven patents related to automatically selecting a vehicle's drive direction based on steering movements during low-speed maneuvers.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses safety and convenience issues in modern vehicles, particularly those lacking traditional gear stalks, by automating the common but distracting task of shifting from reverse to drive when exiting a parking space.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff notified Tesla of the foundational patent in this family ('230 Patent) in March 2024. Subsequently, Tesla allegedly launched the accused "Auto Shift" feature in May 2024, prompting Plaintiff to send a cease-and-desist letter. This amended complaint follows an original complaint filed on May 5, 2025, and adds allegations regarding six related patents that issued in early 2025.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2023-06-05 | Earliest Patent Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2024-03-19 | U.S. Patent No. 11,932,230 Issues |
| 2024-03-XX | Plaintiff allegedly informs Tesla of the '230 Patent |
| 2024-05-02 | Tesla's counsel allegedly replies to Plaintiff's notice letter |
| 2024-05-XX | Tesla allegedly launches the accused "Auto Shift" feature |
| 2024-05-15 | Plaintiff allegedly sends cease and desist letter to Tesla |
| 2025-02-11 | U.S. Patent No. 12,221,104 Issues |
| 2025-02-18 | U.S. Patent No. 12,227,184 Issues |
| 2025-02-25 | U.S. Patent No. 12,233,871 Issues |
| 2025-03-04 | U.S. Patent Nos. 12,240,456, 12,240,457, and 12,240,458 Issue |
| 2025-05-05 | Plaintiff files original complaint |
| 2025-08-11 | Plaintiff files Amended Complaint |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,932,230 - "Vehicle Gear Selection Control"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inconvenience and potential distraction of modern vehicle interfaces that require a driver to perform a "screen swipe" to shift gears, particularly during common "unparking" maneuvers. This action may require visual observation of a small area on a screen and can be non-intuitive for some users, creating a distraction when a driver's attention should be outside the vehicle. (’230 Patent, col. 2:54-66, via incorporation from '458 Patent).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a vehicle controller that automatically selects a change in drive direction (e.g., from reverse to drive) by recognizing a "pattern of steering angle movements" characteristic of an unparking event, without the driver needing to provide a specific directional input. ('230 Patent, Abstract). The specification describes a typical unparking sequence involving backing up, turning the steering wheel, stopping, and then turning the steering wheel in the opposite direction to proceed forward, which the system can recognize to trigger an automated shift. (’230 Patent, col. 3:13-44, via incorporation from '458 Patent). A diagram in the complaint, sourced from the patent, illustrates this sequence of vehicle positions and steering inputs over time (Compl. ¶24).
- Technical Importance: This approach aims to reduce driver distraction and improve safety during frequent, low-speed maneuvers by automating a repetitive control input. (Compl. ¶23).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 18. (Compl. ¶44).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A motor vehicle comprising a frame, wheels, a motor, a steering control, and a controller.
- The controller is operable to drive the wheels in forward and reverse modes.
- The controller is operable to select a direction for driving the wheels in response to a pattern of steering angle movements, without operator indication of a direction. (Compl. ¶46).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 12,221,104 - "Vehicle Gear Selection Control"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '230 Patent, this patent addresses distractions associated with touchscreen-based gear selection during parking maneuvers. (’104 Patent, col. 2:63-66).
- The Patented Solution: This invention focuses on a "drive system" that, based on steering input, first offers the driver a change in drive direction. The system then executes the direction change only after receiving an "approval indication" from the driver. (’104 Patent, claim 1). The specification suggests this approval can be a non-directional input, such as a "brake tap sequence," distinguishing it from a conventional gear selection action. (’104 Patent, col. 4:38-42).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a "human-in-the-loop" confirmation step for an automated action, potentially enhancing safety by ensuring driver agreement before the vehicle changes direction.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 11. (Compl. ¶71).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A motor vehicle with a frame, wheels, motor, steering control, and a drive system.
- The drive system is operable to drive the vehicle in forward and rear directions.
- The drive system is operable, based on steering input, to offer the driver a change in drive direction.
- After the offer, the drive system is operable to change the drive direction in response to an approval indication from the driver. (Compl. ¶73).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 12,227,184 (the "’184 Patent")
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of operating a motor vehicle. The method involves a drive system monitoring the steering control while driving in a first direction and then changing the drive mode (e.g., from reverse to drive) based on the steering control. (Compl. ¶101).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13 are asserted. (Compl. ¶99).
- Accused Features: The "Auto Shift" feature is alleged to perform the claimed method of monitoring and changing drive modes based on steering. (Compl. ¶¶102, 107).
U.S. Patent No. 12,233,871 (the "’871 Patent")
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a motor vehicle system that includes a brake control. The drive system is operable to change drive modes in response to a sequence of detected steering and brake inputs, without requiring a separate operator indication of direction. (Compl. ¶126).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 12 are asserted. (Compl. ¶124).
- Accused Features: The "Auto Shift" feature is alleged to respond to a combination of steering and brake inputs to automatically shift gears. (Compl. ¶135).
U.S. Patent No. 12,240,456 (the "’456 Patent")
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a motor vehicle with a drive system operable to select a driving direction in response to a "pattern of steering angle movements," without operator indication of a direction. The claim language is substantively similar to that of the '230 Patent. (Compl. ¶154).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶152).
- Accused Features: The "Auto Shift" feature is alleged to select a new drive direction based on steering patterns. (Compl. ¶162).
U.S. Patent No. 12,240,457 (the "’457 Patent")
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of operating a motor vehicle where a drive system monitors steering, offers a change in drive mode based on that steering, and then changes the mode in response to an approval from the driver. The claims are method-based counterparts to the system claims of the '104 Patent. (Compl. ¶181).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 are asserted. (Compl. ¶179).
- Accused Features: The "Auto Shift" feature is alleged to perform the claimed method of offering and executing a gear change upon driver approval. (Compl. ¶¶187-188).
U.S. Patent No. 12,240,458 (the "’458 Patent")
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a motor vehicle with a drive system operable to select a driving direction in response to "steering angle movements," without the phrase "pattern of" that appears in related patents. (Compl. ¶207).
- Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 are asserted. (Compl. ¶205).
- Accused Features: The "Auto Shift" feature is alleged to select a new drive direction based on steering movements. (Compl. ¶215).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused products are Tesla's newer Model S, Model 3, Model X, and Model Y vehicles that include the "Auto Shift" or "Auto Shift (Beta)" feature (collectively, the "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶¶35, 38).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the "Auto Shift" feature allows the Accused Products to automatically shift between Drive and Reverse, or out of Park, "without using the touchscreen based on your surroundings." (Compl. ¶54). This functionality is promoted for use in maneuvers such as multi-point turns, reversing out of a parking spot, and parallel parking. (Compl. ¶54). A screenshot from a Tesla promotional video shows the feature activating during a turn, with the on-screen text "To activate reverse." (Compl. ¶54). Plaintiff alleges this feature was introduced via a software update in mid-May 2024 to hundreds of thousands of vehicles. (Compl. ¶31).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'230 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A motor vehicle comprising: a frame having wheels; a motor connected to the frame; a steering control...; a controller... | The Accused Products are motor vehicles containing the specified fundamental components. | ¶¶48-52 | '458 Patent, col. 2:5-7 |
| the controller operable to selectably drive the wheels in a forward direction in a drive mode and in a rearward direction in a reverse mode | The controller in the Accused Products allows drivers to select Drive for forward movement or Reverse for rearward movement, for example by swiping on the touchscreen's drive mode strip. | ¶53 | '458 Patent, col. 2:9-11 |
| the controller operable to select a direction for driving the wheels in response to a pattern of steering angle movements, without operator indication of a direction | The "Auto Shift" feature automatically selects a new drive direction (e.g., Drive to Reverse) during maneuvers like 3-point turns or leaving a parking spot, allegedly based on steering movements, without a driver swipe. | ¶54 | '458 Patent, col. 2:11-14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the selection is "in response to a pattern of steering angle movements," while Tesla's own description states the feature works "based on your surroundings." (Compl. ¶54). A central question will be whether the accused feature's reliance on environmental sensor data places its operation outside the scope of a claim focused on "steering angle movements," or if the patent's specification provides support for a broader interpretation that includes other sensor inputs.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide specific details on the software algorithm of the "Auto Shift" feature. A key evidentiary question will be what technical "pattern" of steering movements the accused system actually detects and relies upon, and whether that corresponds to the pattern described and claimed in the patent. The complaint shows a diagram of the vehicle's computer, described as the controller, from a service manual. (Compl. ¶52).
'104 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a drive system operable based on the steering input to offer the driver a change in the drive direction | The complaint alleges that the "Auto Shift" feature offers a change in drive direction, citing Tesla's description that a "readiness indicator appears on the instrument cluster" when the vehicle assists with shifting and promotional videos showing the suggested shift. | ¶¶54, 81 | '104 Patent, col. 4:35-38 |
| after offering the driver the change in the drive direction, the drive system operable in response to an approval indication from the driver to change the drive direction | The complaint cites Tesla's Owner's Manual, which states that a driver can "override the selection" by pressing the brake pedal and using the touchscreen. This raises the question of whether inaction by the driver (i.e., not overriding) is construed as the claimed "approval indication." | ¶82 | '104 Patent, col. 4:38-42 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A critical dispute will likely involve the sequence of operations. The claim recites "offering" and then acting "in response to an approval." Tesla's system may be framed as acting automatically unless a driver provides an "override." (Compl. ¶82). The court will need to determine if an automatic action that can be cancelled is equivalent to an offered action that requires an affirmative approval.
- Technical Questions: What specific action, or inaction, on the part of the driver constitutes the "approval indication" in the accused system? Does the system wait for a specific input post-offer, or does it proceed automatically after a brief period if no override is detected?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "pattern of steering angle movements" (’230 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is the core technical limitation that allegedly triggers the automated gear shift. The scope of "pattern" will be determinative of infringement, as Tesla's system is also described as using environmental sensors. Practitioners may focus on whether this term is limited to a specific, predefined sequence of steering actions or can be interpreted more broadly.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple "unparking" scenarios, including perpendicular, angled, and parallel parking, each with its own "sequence of operations." (’230 Patent, col. 3:1-6, via incorporation from '458 Patent). This may support a construction where "pattern" is not limited to a single rigid sequence but covers various recognizable maneuvers.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description and Figure 2 illustrate a specific, detailed pattern: moving rearward, turning the wheel sharply one way, stopping, and turning it sharply in the opposite direction. (’230 Patent, col. 3:13-44; Fig. 2, via incorporation from '458 Patent). This detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to that particular sequence.
The Term: "approval indication from the driver" (’104 Patent, claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The presence or absence of an "approval" is a central point of contention for the '104 patent. The infringement analysis depends on whether the driver's interaction with Tesla's "Auto Shift" feature constitutes an "approval indication" as required by the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that approval can be indicated "in a wide range of ways," including a button click, voice command, or gesture, and is a "non-direction indicating signal." (’104 Patent, col. 4:38-42, 5:9-24). Plaintiff may argue that the driver's failure to provide an "override" signal is a form of implicit approval that falls within this broad description.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The examples of approval provided in the specification—such as a "brake tap sequence," "button click," or "head nod"—are all affirmative actions taken by the driver. (’104 Patent, col. 4:38-42, 5:9-24). This may support a narrower construction requiring a positive act from the driver, rather than mere acquiescence or failure to override.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all seven patents. It asserts that Tesla knowingly took active steps to encourage infringement by providing the "Auto Shift" feature to its customers and instructing them on its use through Owner's Manuals and promotional materials, with the intent that they use the feature in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶62-63, 90-91).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Plaintiff notified Tesla of the '230 Patent in March 2024, and that Tesla's counsel acknowledged receipt, prior to Tesla's launch of the accused "Auto Shift" feature in May 2024. The complaint also cites a cease-and-desist letter sent on May 15, 2024. (Compl. ¶¶29-32, 56). For the six "Follow-On Patents," knowledge is alleged to have occurred concurrently or, at the latest, by the filing date of the original complaint. (e.g., Compl. ¶68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does Tesla's "Auto Shift" feature, described as being based on the vehicle's "surroundings," operate by detecting the specific "pattern of steering angle movements" required by the claims, or does it employ a fundamentally different, vision-based algorithm that makes the role of steering inputs legally non-infringing?
- A second key issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "approval indication," which the patent specification exemplifies with affirmative acts like a brake tap, be construed to cover a scenario where a driver simply fails to "override" an automated action? The resolution of this claim construction dispute may be dispositive for several of the asserted patents.
- A final question will be one of patent differentiation: With seven patents asserted from the same family, many with similar claims, the case will require a detailed analysis of how the asserted claims differ from one another and whether the accused system's single "Auto Shift" feature can simultaneously infringe the distinct limitations of each patent.