Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Tesla Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wepay Global Payments LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Tesla, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: OhanianIP; Wawrzyn LLC
• Case Identification: Wepay Global Payments LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 6:22-cv-00224, W.D. Tex., 05/23/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant's regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, as well as alleged acts of infringement occurring in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that the graphical user interface (GUI) in Defendant’s vehicles, specifically with version 11 software, infringes a design patent for an animated GUI.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the ornamental design of animated graphical user interfaces used for in-vehicle infotainment and transaction systems, a key feature in modern automotive technology.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on May 23, 2022. Subsequent to the filing, the patent-in-suit was the subject of two Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These proceedings resulted in a certificate, issued May 1, 2023, cancelling the patent's only claim. Separately, the Plaintiff filed a disclaimer on September 20, 2022, disclaiming the remaining term of the patent. These post-filing events are dispositive of the patent's enforceability.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2020-09-03	’702 Patent Priority Date (Application Filing Date)
2021-09-14	’702 Patent Issue Date
2022-05-23	Amended Complaint Filing Date
2022-09-20	Disclaimer of '702 Patent filed by patent owner
2023-05-01	Post-Grant Review Certificate issued cancelling the claim of the '702 Patent

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

U.S. Design Patent No. D930,702 - Display screen portion with animated graphical user interface

• Issued: September 14, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As is common for design patents, the ’702 Patent does not articulate a specific technical problem. It presents a new, original, and ornamental design for an animated graphical user interface, which is the subject of the patent's protection (D930,702 Patent, Claim).
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims the ornamental design of an animated GUI, shown in two embodiments. The complaint asserts the second embodiment, which depicts a three-stage animation (D930,702 Patent, FIGs. 3-5; Compl. ¶12). The design elements protected by the patent are shown in solid lines, while contextual elements and environment are shown in broken lines (D930,702 Patent, Description). In the asserted embodiment, only the first frame (FIG. 3) contains solid-line features—three small squares in the corners of a larger box. The subsequent frames of the animation (FIGs. 4 and 5) are depicted entirely in broken lines, indicating they are for context and not part of the claimed design (D930,702 Patent, FIGs. 3-5).
• Technical Importance: The design pertains to animated user interfaces for display screens, a field in which novel visual presentations are used to enhance user experience and brand identity.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The patent contains a single claim for "The ornamental design for a display screen portion with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described" (D930,702 Patent, Claim).
• The essential visual elements of the asserted second embodiment are:
  • An initial screen view containing a box with three solid-line square icons, one in the top-left, top-right, and bottom-left corners (D930,702 Patent, FIG. 3).
  • A transitional view and a final view that are part of the described animation but contain no solid-line features claimed as part of the ornamental design (D930,702 Patent, FIGs. 4-5, Description).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "Tesla motor vehicle GUI head-unit in the Model S, 3, X, Y, Roadster, Cybertruck and other developing vehicle products" that use "version 11 software" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused GUI embodies the patented design (Compl. ¶12). It further alleges that Tesla began to infringe when it released its version 11 software (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific operation or visual layout of the accused GUI.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a side-by-side claim chart in "Exhibit B" to detail its infringement allegations; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint document (Compl. ¶10). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint asserts that Tesla directly infringes the ’702 Patent by making, using, selling, and offering for sale vehicle products with the version 11 software (Compl. ¶12, ¶14). The infringement allegation is based on the "second embodiment" of the patented design and is to be evaluated under the standard of "substantial similarity" (Compl. ¶12; Prayer for Relief (a)). This is the "ordinary observer" test, which asks whether an ordinary observer, familiar with the prior art, would be deceived into purchasing the accused product believing it to be the patented design.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question for the infringement analysis is the scope of the claimed "design." The patent figures for the asserted embodiment only show solid-line (i.e., claimed) features in the first of three animation frames. This raises the question of whether the legally protected design is limited to the static arrangement of the three squares in Figure 3, or if it extends to the overall impression of the entire animated sequence, even though the subsequent frames contain no claimed elements.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement case would depend on a visual comparison between the accused Tesla GUI and the design claimed in the patent. The critical question would be whether the overall visual appearance of the Tesla GUI creates an impression that is substantially similar to the patented design, as properly construed by the court.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

In a design patent case, the figures constitute the claim. However, terms from the title and description can inform the scope of the claimed design.

• The Term: "animated graphical user interface"
• Context and Importance: This phrase from the patent's title is central to the dispute, as the complaint alleges infringement of an animated design. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation—whether it implies protection for the transitional process itself or merely for the appearance of the static images in the sequence—will heavily influence the scope of the patent and the subsequent infringement analysis.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description states that "the appearance of the transitional image sequentially transitions between the images shown in FIGS. 3 through 5" (D930,702 Patent, Description). A party could argue this language implies that the animation as a whole contributes to the overall ornamental impression, even if not all visual elements are claimed in every frame.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent drawings themselves, where only Figure 3 contains claimed solid-line elements, provide strong evidence that the design is limited to those specific static features (D930,702 Patent, FIG. 3). Further, the description states, "The process or period in which one image transitions to another image forms no part of the claimed design," which may be used to argue that the animation itself is disclaimed, leaving only the ornamental appearance of the individual images (D930,702 Patent, Description).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief includes a request for a judgment of indirect infringement (Prayer for Relief (a)). However, the body of the complaint focuses on direct infringement and does not plead specific facts to support the elements of knowledge and intent required for induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶12, 14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege willful infringement or provide facts to support a claim of pre- or post-suit willfulness.

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

While the case was initiated by the complaint, subsequent events have rendered the patent unenforceable. Had the case proceeded, it would have likely centered on the following questions:

• The Threshold Validity Question: The most critical issue is the patent's status. Given that the sole claim of the '702 patent has been cancelled by the USPTO in post-grant proceedings and separately disclaimed by the patentee, the primary question is whether any valid cause of action remains.
• Definitional Scope: A core issue would have been one of design scope: is the claimed "ornamental design" limited to the static appearance of the three square icons in the first frame of the animation, or does it encompass the overall visual impression of the entire multi-frame sequence, despite most of it being rendered in unclaimed broken lines?
• Substantial Similarity: The ultimate infringement question would have been one of visual comparison: would an ordinary observer, after the scope of the design is determined, be deceived into believing the accused Tesla GUI is the same as the patented design? The answer would depend heavily on the narrowness or breadth of the design's construction.