DCT

3:25-cv-00974

Perrone Robotics Inc v. Tesla Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00974, E.D. Va., 11/24/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant Tesla maintains regular and established places of business, such as showrooms and stores, within the district and has directly sold the accused infringing vehicles there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Autopilot and Full Self-Driving (Supervised) vehicle features infringe five U.S. patents related to a general purpose robotics operating system for autonomous vehicles.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is a software operating system architecture designed to be a configurable, hardware-independent platform for controlling robotic and automated devices, particularly autonomous vehicles.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that in the fall of 2017, Plaintiff’s Chief Legal Officer sent a letter to Tesla’s General Counsel offering an opportunity to bid on an acquisition of the earliest patent-in-suit and its related applications. This alleged pre-suit notice is the basis for a claim of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the inefficiency and lack of scalability in the field of robotics, where manufacturers traditionally had to create bespoke hardware and software from scratch for each new automated device (Compl. ¶¶16, 20). This approach created barriers to mass production and interoperability (’251 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "general purpose robotics operating system" (GPROS) that provides a standardized, hardware-independent software platform (’251 Patent, col. 1:11-21). It uses a suite of configurable application services to manage vehicle functions, allowing the same core operating system to be deployed across different vehicles and hardware configurations by abstracting the underlying hardware specifics (Compl. ¶¶17, 21).
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach was designed to solve the long-standing problem of hardware heterogeneity in robotics, enabling greater scalability and faster deployment of autonomous systems (Compl. ¶24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A vehicle comprising a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle.
    • An operating system with a set of application services to manage an obstacle service, where the services are independent of an underlying hardware platform.
    • The set of application services is: (i) configurable using a configuration service, (ii) configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically, and (iii) configurable to access configuration data using a generic abstraction.
    • A graphical user interface.
    • The vehicle is adapted to receive configuration data over a network and is adapted to avoid obstacles.
  • The complaint explicitly asserts dependent claims 2-8, 10-21 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 11,782,442 - General Purpose Robotics Operating System with Unmanned and Autonomous Vehicle Extensions (Issued Oct. 10, 2023)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of coordinating the complex, real-time tasks required for autonomous vehicle operation, such as sensor processing, decision-making, and actuator control, across disparate hardware platforms (Compl. ¶¶24, 25). Prior art systems often relied on rigid, vertically-integrated control systems tied to specific hardware, which hindered development (’442 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an autonomous vehicle equipped with a GPROS that manages synchronous, asynchronous, and real-time application threads (’442 Patent, col. 7:46-51). The system separates the high-level application services from the hardware platform and uses distinct servomechanisms for steering, braking, and throttle, all controlled based on a central movement plan (Compl. ¶¶23, 27).
  • Technical Importance: The invention's architecture for managing application threads and controlling servomechanisms in a hardware-independent manner provides a technical solution for deploying complex autonomous features across a fleet of vehicles with potentially different hardware (Compl. ¶¶22, 29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Essential elements of claim 8 include:
    • An autonomous vehicle comprising a steering mechanism, a brake, and a throttle.
    • A general purpose robotics operating system (GPROS) with application services configured to manage synchronous, asynchronous, or real-time application threads, where the services are independent of an underlying hardware platform.
    • A steering servomechanism configured to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan.
    • A brake servomechanism configured to control the brake based on the movement plan.
    • A throttle servomechanism configured to control the throttle based on the movement plan.
  • The complaint explicitly asserts claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 15-20 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶60).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,314,251, issued April 26, 2022 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims an autonomous vehicle comprising a GPROS with a service to manage application threads and a set of servomechanisms connected to the vehicle. The invention focuses on the system's architecture, including its configurable nature and use of generic abstraction to access configuration data (Compl. ¶¶78, 80).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 2 (Compl. ¶80).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot, such as the Model Y, embody the claimed autonomous vehicle system (Compl. ¶81).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,833,901, issued Dec. 5, 2017 (Compl. ¶96).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method performed in a GPROS for managing vehicle autonomy. The method involves managing application threads and at least one autonomous vehicle or movement planning service, all within a hardware-independent and configurable framework (Compl. ¶¶99, 101).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶101).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Tesla infringes the method claims by testing and using its vehicles that include Tesla Autopilot (Compl. ¶102).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233, issued Nov. 24, 2015 (Compl. ¶115).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, the earliest in the asserted family, claims a non-transitory medium (e.g., a computer memory or storage device) that encodes the GPROS. The claimed GPROS comprises a set of application services for robotics and automation that are configurable, adaptable, and hardware-independent, and include services for managing peripherals, sensors, actuators, and application threads (Compl. ¶¶118, 120).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶120).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the non-transitory media within Tesla vehicles containing the Autopilot software (allegedly embodying the GPROS) infringe the patent (Compl. ¶¶121, 122).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Tesla's "Autopilot" and "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" software applications and the Tesla vehicles that incorporate them, such as the Model Y (Compl. ¶¶30, 40, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint identifies Autopilot as an Advanced Driver-Assistance System ("ADAS") that includes features such as automatic emergency braking, traffic-aware cruise control, and "Autosteer," which helps maintain the vehicle's position within a driving lane (Compl. ¶31). Full Self-Driving (Supervised) is described as a more advanced program for completing maneuvers such as route navigation, steering, and lane changes (Compl. ¶33).
  • The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that these systems rely on an in-house "GPROS," referred to as "Tesla OS," which serves as a configurable, hardware-independent platform used across different Tesla models (Compl. ¶¶29, 46). The system's functionality is allegedly updated via over-the-air software updates (Compl. ¶48). A promotional screenshot provided in the complaint shows the in-vehicle display for "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" (Compl. p. 11).
  • The complaint positions these features as central to Tesla's product offering, noting that Autopilot has been available in various forms since 2014 (Compl. ¶30).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

12,181,877 Patent Infringement Allegations

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... Tesla Autopilot includes an operating system (allegedly "Tesla OS") with application services such as automatic emergency braking, which detects and brakes for obstacles. ¶44 '251 Patent, col. 1:11-21
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform... Tesla Autopilot is alleged to be independent of the underlying platform because it can be used across different Tesla models, such as the Model Y. ¶46 '251 Patent, col. 4:30-34
is configurable using a configuration service...is configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically, and is configurable to access configuration data using a generic abstraction... Tesla Autopilot allegedly allows ADAS settings to be configured via a generic abstraction. Calibration and settings can allegedly be adjusted statically (at startup) and dynamically (while moving). ¶47 '251 Patent, col. 2:25-39
a graphical user interface... A screenshot in the complaint depicts the in-vehicle graphical user interface for the "Full Self-Driving (Supervised)" system. ¶47; p. 11 '251 Patent, col. 15:5-10
wherein the vehicle is adapted to receive the configuration data over a network... Tesla Autopilot receives over-the-air software updates, which the complaint alleges constitutes receiving configuration data over a network. ¶48 '251 Patent, col. 4:48-57
wherein the vehicle is adapted to avoid obstacles. A promotional image shows the vehicle avoiding other cars, and the complaint alleges the automatic emergency braking feature detects and brakes for obstacles. ¶49; p. 11 '251 Patent, col. 10:48-50

11,782,442 Patent Infringement Allegations

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 vehicles use an in-house GPROS ("Tesla OS") with a service to manage and prioritize information from multiple sensor threads to enable ADAS functions. ¶¶65-66 '442 Patent, col. 7:46-51
wherein the set of application services is independent of an underlying hardware platform... The Autopilot system is alleged to be independent of the underlying platform as it is used across different Tesla vehicle models. ¶67 '442 Patent, col. 4:1-3
a steering servomechanism configured to control the steering mechanism based on a movement plan... Tesla's Autosteer feature relies on a steering mechanism to keep the vehicle centered in a lane, which allegedly operates based on a movement plan. ¶68 '442 Patent, col. 17:18-24
a brake servomechanism configured to control the brake based on the movement plan; and a throttle servomechanism configured to control the throttle based on the movement plan. Tesla's traffic-aware cruise control relies on brake and throttle servomechanisms to adjust speed, allegedly based on a movement plan. ¶68 '442 Patent, col. 17:18-24

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question may be whether Tesla's proprietary operating system, developed for its own hardware ecosystem, meets the patents' requirement of being "independent of an underlying hardware platform." The complaint alleges this limitation is met because the software runs on different Tesla models (Compl. ¶46), raising the question of whether "hardware platform independence" requires interoperability with third-party hardware or is satisfied by portability across a single manufacturer's product line. Similarly, whether Tesla’s system constitutes a "general purpose robotics operating system" as recited in the preambles and claims, versus a special-purpose system, will likely be a point of contention.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations rely heavily on "information and belief" regarding the internal architecture of Tesla's software (Compl. ¶¶29, 44, 65). A key technical question will be whether discovery reveals that Tesla's "Tesla OS" actually implements the specific structures recited in the claims, such as a "configuration service" that uses a "generic abstraction" and allows for both "static" and "dynamic" adaptation as those terms are understood in the context of the patent specifications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "independent of an underlying hardware platform"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patents' claimed novelty of creating a reusable, scalable software architecture. Its construction will be critical to determining whether Tesla's proprietary, single-ecosystem software infringes claims that describe a system designed to overcome hardware-specific limitations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement theory rests on applying it to software used across different models from a single manufacturer.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the invention solves the problem where "application software was tied to specific hardware configurations" and developers had to write "custom, hardware-specific code for every new sensor, actuator, or mobility platform" (Compl. ¶20; '251 Patent, col. 1:40-54). Plaintiff may argue this supports a construction where "independent" means portable across any differing hardware, including different vehicle models from the same company.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Language describing a "completely extensible platform enabling plug-and-play of extensions" from various sources could suggest an intent for interoperability beyond a single company's products (’251 Patent, col. 4:30-34). Defendant may argue that its integrated system, designed only for Tesla hardware, does not meet this level of independence.

  • The Term: "configurable to be adapted both statically and dynamically"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a core functional capability of the claimed GPROS. The dispute will center on whether the types of configuration changes possible in Tesla's system—such as user settings adjustments and over-the-air updates—meet the specific technical meaning of "statically and dynamically" adaptable as disclosed in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines static adaptation as occurring "at application startup" and dynamic adaptation as occurring "as the application is running" (’251 Patent, col. 2:30-34). The complaint alleges this covers both a driver adjusting ADAS settings and the vehicle receiving over-the-air updates while in operation (Compl. ¶¶47, 48).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "dynamic reconfiguration capability" that enables "rapid deployment of new algorithms, updated sensor parameters, [and] modified planning logic" (Compl. ¶26). Defendant may argue this requires a more fundamental, runtime architectural adaptability than merely changing user-facing settings or applying a monolithic software update, suggesting the term implies a modular, on-the-fly component swapping capability.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is that Tesla knowingly encourages its customers to use the accused Autopilot and Full Self-Driving features through its instructional, marketing, and sales materials (Compl. ¶¶51, 70, 90, 109, 130).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for U.S. Patent No. 9,195,233 based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from an alleged letter and presentation sent to Tesla's General Counsel in the fall of 2017, which offered Tesla an opportunity to acquire the patent family (Compl. ¶129). For all five patents, the complaint alleges willful infringement continuing at least from the date of the complaint's filing, which serves as formal notice (Compl. ¶¶51, 53, 70, 72).

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

  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patents’ claims to a "general purpose robotics operating system" that is "independent of an underlying hardware platform" be construed to cover a proprietary operating system developed by a single manufacturer for use exclusively across its own family of vehicle models? The outcome may depend on whether "independence" requires interoperability with third-party products or is satisfied by portability within a single, vertically integrated ecosystem.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of architectural correspondence: does Tesla’s Autopilot software, upon technical inspection, actually implement the specific, multi-part service architecture required by the claims—such as a "configuration service" that provides "generic abstraction" and allows for both "static" and "dynamic" adaptation—or is there a fundamental mismatch in the system’s operational design?
  • Regarding damages, a critical question for at least the '233 Patent will be willfulness: what was Tesla’s conduct following receipt of the alleged Fall 2017 notice letter from Perrone, and does that history support a finding of deliberate infringement that could lead to enhanced damages?