Tesla Inc v. Charge Fusion Technologies LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00153
• Patent #: 11,631,987
• Filed: November 8, 2024
• Petitioner(s): Tesla, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Charge Fusion Technologies LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Electrical Charging System
• Brief Description: The ’987 patent is directed to an electrical system for charging electric vehicles. The system uses charging preferences, including a desired charge level entered by a user via a graphical user interface (GUI), to create a charging schedule and charge the vehicle's battery accordingly, while displaying the charging status.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness of Core System and GUI Claims - Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20-27, and 29-30 are obvious over Ferro in view of Oyobe, Donnelly, Letendre, and Seelig.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Ferro (Application # 2009/0313034), Oyobe (European Patent Application # 1920968), Donnelly (Patent 7,124,691), Letendre (a 2002 printed publication), and Seelig (Patent 5,654,621).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the prior art collectively discloses all limitations of the challenged claims. Ferro was asserted as the primary reference, teaching a dynamic energy transaction system for EV charging that uses a processor, memory, and communication device to generate a charging plan based on user preferences and fluctuating electricity prices. The additional references were argued to supply discrete, well-known features. Oyobe was cited for teaching a vehicle sensor to detect a vehicle's presence at a charging station. Seelig was used to explicitly teach transmitting a control signal to initiate charging. Donnelly was asserted to teach a touchscreen GUI for a vehicle that displays the battery's state of charge in a bar graph format (meeting the "first" and "second" portions of the claimed indicator). Finally, Letendre was cited for teaching a slider on a GUI for specifying a desired charge amount (meeting the "third" portion of the indicator).
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a POSITA would combine these references to achieve predictable results and improve user experience. A POSITA would incorporate Oyobe's sensor into Ferro's system to automate vehicle detection and add Seelig’s explicit start signal for convenience. It would have been obvious to replace Ferro’s basic input/output with Donnelly’s user-friendly touchscreen GUI, a standard feature at the time. A POSITA would further integrate Letendre’s slider into this GUI to provide a more intuitive method for setting charge levels than other input options. Combining these elements into a "unitary" display was argued to be motivated by the desire for aesthetic appeal, efficient use of screen space, and the convenience of providing all relevant information and controls in a single, glanceable interface.
  • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the combination involves applying known technologies (vehicle sensors, wireless signals, GUIs with bar graphs and sliders) to a known system (an EV charging manager) to perform their conventional and predictable functions.

Ground 2: Obviousness of Smartphone GUI Claims - Claims 5, 12, 19, and 28 are obvious over Ferro in view of Oyobe, Donnelly, Letendre, Seelig, and Knockeart.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: The five references from Ground 1, plus Knockeart (Patent 6,622,083).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination in Ground 1, which established an on-vehicle GUI for managing charging. The dependent claims challenged in this ground require the GUI to form part of a smartphone. Petitioner argued that Knockeart remedies this deficiency by explicitly teaching a system that uses a removable personal device, such as a cellular telephone or PDA (i.e., a smartphone), to provide the vehicle's GUI and communicate with the in-vehicle system.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Knockeart with the system from Ground 1 to provide the clear and desirable benefit of allowing a user to view, monitor, and input charging preferences while away from the vehicle.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have expected success in this integration, as smartphones inherently possess the necessary components (touchscreens, wireless communication) to display the GUI and communicate with Ferro's charging system, making the modification straightforward.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

• "dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider": Petitioner argued this term, which is not defined in the specification, should be construed as "a changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price) of electricity for purchase from an electric charge provider," based on the patent's disclosure of using time-of-day rates to create a cost-effective schedule.
• "unitary vehicle charge indicator element": Petitioner proposed this term be construed to mean a single, combined graphical element, such as a bar graph, that comprises the charged, uncharged, and slider portions together.
• Printed Matter Doctrine: Petitioner contended that the claim limitations reciting "(i) a first portion indicative of an amount of charge..." and "(ii) a second portion indicative of an uncharged capacity..." are directed to non-functional printed matter. It was argued these limitations merely claim the communicative content of information displayed on a substrate (the GUI) without imparting any functionality or interacting with other claim elements. Therefore, Petitioner argued these limitations should be given no patentable weight in the obviousness analysis.

5. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Discretion under §325(d): Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Advanced Bionics is unwarranted. It was asserted that the petition does not present the same or substantially the same art or arguments as those considered during prosecution. Specifically, five of the six asserted references (Oyobe, Donnelly, Letendre, Seelig, and Knockeart) were never considered by the Examiner. While Ferro was listed as a "Reference Cited," it was never applied in a rejection. Petitioner contended these new references teach the key limitations, such as the GUI slider, that were central to the claims' allowance, and thus the Examiner materially erred by not considering them.
• Discretion under §314(a): Petitioner argued against discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors. It was noted that while related litigation exists between the parties, the ’987 patent is not presently the subject of any concurrent infringement lawsuit. Furthermore, the related litigation is currently stayed. Therefore, Petitioner argued that the circumstances do not favor exercising discretion to deny institution.

6. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-30 of the ’987 patent as unpatentable.