Perrone Robotics Inc v. Tesla Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Perrone Robotics, Inc. and Perrone Robotics Innovations, LLC (Virginia)
  • Defendant: Tesla, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bunsow De Mory LLP; Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-02156, E.D. Va., 11/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant Tesla has regular and established places of business in the district, including showrooms in Arlington and Vienna, and directly sells its vehicles in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advanced driver-assistance systems, including Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised), infringe five patents related to a general purpose robotics operating system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns a hardware-independent software platform designed to simplify the development and deployment of applications for robots and autonomous vehicles, a key area of innovation in the modern automotive market.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s Chief Legal Officer sent a letter to Tesla’s General Counsel in the fall of 2017 regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 and its related applications, offering an opportunity to bid on a potential acquisition. This event is cited as the basis for Plaintiff's willful infringement allegations concerning that patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2005-01-01	Perrone Robotics enters the DARPA Grand Challenge.
2006-02-27	Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit.
2014-01-01	Tesla begins offering Autopilot in its vehicles.
2015-11-24	U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 (’233 Patent) issues.
2017-09-01	Plaintiff allegedly sends letter to Tesla regarding the '233 Patent family.
2017-12-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 (’901 Patent) issues.
2022-04-26	U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 (’251 Patent) issues.
2023-10-10	U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 (’442 Patent) issues.
2024-12-31	U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 (’877 Patent) issues.
2025-11-24	Complaint filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877 - “General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patents describe a problem in the robotics field where manufacturers had to create specific, custom hardware and software for each new automated device, an inefficient process that hindered interoperability and mass production (Compl. ¶¶16, 20).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a "general purpose robotics operating system" (GPROS) that provides a standardized, hardware-independent software platform with configurable application services, allowing for the rapid development and deployment of robotics applications across different devices (Compl. ¶17; ’251 Patent, col. 2:11-22). The GPROS is designed to bridge the gap between high-level application software and the underlying hardware like sensors and actuators (Compl. ¶27).
• Technical Importance: This architectural approach aimed to solve the "long-standing robotics challenge of hardware heterogeneity" by creating an abstraction layer, which was allegedly not conventional at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶¶21, 24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
• Claim 1 of the ’877 Patent recites the following primary elements for a vehicle:
  • A steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle.
  • An operating system with a set of application services for managing an obstacle service and using a movement plan.
  • The set of application services is "independent of an underlying hardware platform" and configurable for communication and operational tasks.
  • The application services are configurable via a configuration service, adaptable "statically and dynamically," and access configuration data via a "generic abstraction."
  • A graphical user interface.
  • The vehicle is adapted to receive configuration data over a network and to avoid obstacles.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous other claims, including dependent claims 2-8 and 10-21 (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 - “General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As with the related ’877 Patent, the ’442 Patent addresses the inefficiency of creating bespoke, vertically integrated control systems for each new robotic device, which limits scalability (Compl. ¶20).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a GPROS architecture that decouples software from hardware. This patent's claims focus on the system's management of different types of application threads (synchronous, asynchronous, real time) and its use of distinct servomechanisms to control the vehicle based on a movement plan (’442 Patent, Claim 8). This thread management system is presented as a solution for coordinating sensor processing, decision-making, and actuator control across different hardware platforms (Compl. ¶24).
• Technical Importance: The ability to manage real-time, synchronous, and asynchronous threads within a hardware-independent framework allegedly solves a concrete technical problem in robotics related to coordinating complex tasks with tight timing requirements (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶61).
• Claim 8 of the ’442 Patent recites the following primary elements for an autonomous vehicle:
  • A vehicle with a steering mechanism, brake, and throttle.
  • A GPROS with application services to manage "synchronous, asynchronous, or real time application threads."
  • The application services are "independent of an underlying hardware platform" and configurable for communication and operational tasks.
  • A "steering servomechanism" to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan.
  • A "brake servomechanism" to control the brake based on the movement plan.
  • A "throttle servomechanism" to control the throttle based on the movement plan.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous other claims, including dependent claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 15-20 (Compl. ¶60).

U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251 - “General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions”

Technology Synopsis

The ’251 Patent is part of the same family and describes the GPROS architecture for autonomous vehicles. The technology aims to solve the problem of hardware heterogeneity in robotics by providing a hardware-independent abstraction layer that manages various services and controls vehicle servomechanisms based on a movement plan (Compl. ¶¶78, 24).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 2 is asserted (Compl. ¶80).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Tesla's Autopilot system, including its underlying "Tesla OS," infringes by practicing a GPROS that manages application threads, is hardware-independent, and uses servomechanisms for steering, braking, and throttle control based on a movement plan (Compl. ¶¶82-88).

U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901 - “General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions”

Technology Synopsis

The ’901 Patent claims a method performed within a GPROS. The method involves using application services to manage application threads and an autonomous vehicle service, where the services are configurable, adaptable both statically and dynamically, and independent of the underlying hardware (Compl. ¶101).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (a method claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶101).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that Tesla infringes by performing the claimed method when it tests and uses its vehicles equipped with Autopilot. The accused steps include managing threads from sensors, managing autonomous movement planning services like Autosteer, and using a set of application services that are allegedly configurable and hardware-independent (Compl. ¶¶102-107).

U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 - “General Purpose Robotics Operating System”

Technology Synopsis

The ’233 Patent, the earliest issued in the suit, claims a non-transitory medium encoding the GPROS. The claimed GPROS comprises a set of application services that are configurable, adaptable, hardware-independent, and include services for peripherals, sensors, actuators, and thread management (Compl. ¶120).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 (a non-transitory medium claim) is asserted (Compl. ¶120).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the non-transitory media in Tesla vehicles (e.g., ROM) infringe by encoding the "Tesla OS," which is alleged to be a GPROS. The accused features of this encoded OS include automation application services like cruise control and Autosteer, and services for managing sensors, actuators, and application threads (Compl. ¶¶122-127).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Tesla vehicles equipped with the "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" advanced driver-assistance systems ("ADAS") (Compl. ¶¶30, 32, 40, 60). The underlying operating system is identified on information and belief as "Tesla OS" (Compl. ¶¶29, 44, 65).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused systems provide features including automatic emergency braking, traffic-aware cruise control, and Autosteer, which applies corrective steering (Compl. ¶31). The Full Self-Driving (Supervised) application is promoted as a system that "intelligently and accurately completes driving maneuvers," including route navigation and lane changes (Compl. ¶33). A screenshot from Tesla's website shows a video promoting the "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" feature with a vehicle navigating a road while the driver's hands are off the wheel (Compl. p. 11). The complaint alleges Tesla has offered Autopilot since 2014 to "enhance safety and convenience" (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 12,181,877

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one obstacle service of the vehicle, the vehicle configured to use a movement plan	Vehicles with Autopilot allegedly use an in-house GPROS ("Tesla OS") that includes application services like automatic emergency braking (an obstacle service) and Autosteer (which uses a movement plan).	¶¶44-45	col. 40:40-50
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform	The Autopilot software is allegedly independent of the underlying platform because it can be used across different Tesla models, such as the Model Y.	¶46	col. 4:1-11
is configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically	ADAS settings can allegedly be adjusted by a driver both statically (at startup) and dynamically (while moving). Sensor calibration is also alleged to occur both statically and dynamically.	¶47	col. 5:45-51
wherein the vehicle is adapted to receive the configuration data over a network	Tesla Autopilot allegedly receives configuration data via over-the-air software updates.	¶48	col. 4:45-55
wherein the vehicle is adapted to avoid obstacles	Vehicles with Autopilot include automatic emergency braking, which "detects cars or obstacles that the vehicle may impact and applies the brakes."	¶49	col. 15:1-5

U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a general purpose robotics operating system comprising a set of application services configured to manage at least one of synchronous, asynchronous, or real time application threads	On information and belief, Tesla's vehicles use an in-house GPROS ("Tesla OS") that has a service to manage multiple threads providing information from sensors.	¶¶65-66	col. 9:48-53
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform and is configurable to perform at least one of communication tasks and operational tasks	Tesla Autopilot is alleged to be independent of the underlying platform because it is used across different Tesla models. It performs operational tasks (cruise control) and communication tasks (over-the-air updates).	¶67	col. 4:1-11
a steering servomechanism configured to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan	The Autosteer feature allegedly relies on a steering mechanism to keep the vehicle centered in the lane based on a movement plan.	¶68	col. 45:1-10
a brake servomechanism configured to control the brake based on the movement plan	Traffic-aware cruise control allegedly relies on a brake servomechanism to increase or decrease speed based on a movement plan.	¶68	col. 44:16-22
a throttle servomechanism configured to control the throttle based on the movement plan	Traffic-aware cruise control allegedly relies on a throttle servomechanism to increase or decrease speed based on a movement plan.	¶68	col. 43:65-44:6

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that Autopilot is "independent of an underlying hardware platform" because it is used across different Tesla models (Compl. ¶46). A central question may be whether use across different vehicle models from a single, vertically integrated manufacturer meets the claim limitation, which the patent specification frames in the context of solving interoperability problems between different manufacturers' robotic platforms (Compl. ¶¶16, 20).
• Technical Questions: The claims of the ’442 Patent recite distinct "steering servomechanism," "brake servomechanism," and "throttle servomechanism" elements (Compl. ¶61). A point of contention may be whether Tesla's integrated electronic control systems, which manage vehicle dynamics, correspond to these discretely claimed servomechanisms as described in the patent, or if there is a technical mismatch in how the systems are architected and operate. A screenshot from Tesla's website shows the system avoiding "bikes, motorcycles and other cars," which the complaint may use to argue for the presence of the claimed services (Compl. p. 11).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "independent of an underlying hardware platform" (’877 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the infringement theory hinges on the allegation that Tesla's Autopilot, which runs only on Tesla's proprietary hardware but across different vehicle models, meets this limitation. The case may turn on whether "hardware platform" means the specific vehicle model or refers more broadly to hardware from different manufacturers.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the GPROS enables deployment "across different robots and automated devices" and "disparate platforms" (Compl. ¶¶6, 24). This language, if read broadly, could support an argument that different vehicle models constitute different "devices" or "platforms," even if from the same manufacturer.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background explicitly identifies the problem being solved as the inefficiency of each manufacturer "start[ing] from scratch" to create "specific hardware and software for the specific robot" (Compl. ¶16). This context suggests the invention was aimed at cross-manufacturer interoperability, which could support a narrower definition requiring independence from a specific vendor's hardware ecosystem, not just different models within it.

• The Term: "servomechanism" (e.g., "steering servomechanism") (’442 Patent, Claim 8)

• Context and Importance: The ’442 Patent claims separate servomechanisms for steering, braking, and throttle. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Tesla's highly integrated drive-by-wire system, managed by electronic control units, can be mapped onto these distinct claimed elements.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide an explicit definition of "servomechanism." A party could argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, which might be broad enough to encompass any system that uses feedback to control a mechanical position, including modern electronic vehicle control systems.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses actuators such as a "DC motor" and "Servo motors" in the context of controlling the robot (’442 Patent, col. 31:21-34). A party could argue that the term "servomechanism," in the context of the patent, refers to discrete hardware modules for controlling specific mechanical components, rather than a function of a centralized, software-driven vehicle control system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Tesla actively induces infringement by providing "instructional, marketing, and sales materials" that instruct customers on how to use the accused Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features and "tout the advantages" of their use (Compl. ¶¶51, 70, 90, 109, 130).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness for the ’233 Patent is alleged to have begun in the fall of 2017, based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel to Tesla’s General Counsel (Compl. ¶129). For the remaining four patents, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents as of the filing date of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶53, 72, 92, 111).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "independent of an underlying hardware platform," which arose from the problem of creating bespoke systems for different manufacturers' robots, read on a proprietary software system designed by a single vehicle manufacturer for use only across its own range of vehicle models?
• A second central question will be one of architectural equivalence: does Tesla's integrated, software-centric vehicle control system embody the specific, modular GPROS architecture described in the patents—including distinct "application services" and "servomechanisms"—or is there a fundamental mismatch between the patented framework and the technical operation of the accused products?
• An evidentiary question for willfulness will be the impact of the alleged 2017 pre-suit notice regarding the '’233 Patent. The court will examine what knowledge and intent can be inferred from this communication, particularly as it relates to Tesla's conduct concerning the entire family of subsequently issued patents-in-suit.