Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc.: Autonomous Driving Patent Case Transferred to N.D. California
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc. |
| Case Number | 2:24-cv-01007 (E.D. Texas) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Transferred to N.D. California) |
| Duration | Dec 2024 – Feb 2026 434 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win – Venue Transfer |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Tesla’s FSD (Supervised) program and FSD-compatible vehicles (Model 3, S, X, Y, Cybertruck) |
Case Overview
In a procedurally significant development for autonomous vehicle patent litigation, a case targeting Tesla’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) technology was transferred out of the Eastern District of Texas — one of the nation’s most plaintiff-friendly patent venues — to the Northern District of California. Filed on December 6, 2024, *Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC v. Tesla, Inc.* (Case No. 2:24-cv-01007) centered on three utility patents covering vehicle automation and advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS), with accused products spanning Tesla’s entire FSD-compatible lineup, including the Model 3, Model S, Model X, Model Y, and Cybertruck.
The case closed on February 13, 2026, when Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered the transfer, ending 434 days of proceedings at the district court level. For patent attorneys navigating autonomous driving patent infringement litigation, IP professionals tracking NPE assertion strategies, and R&D teams managing freedom-to-operate risk, this case offers meaningful strategic and procedural intelligence.
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting patent rights in vehicle automation technology.
🛡️ Defendant
Leading electric vehicle manufacturer and pioneer in autonomous driving technology with its FSD (Supervised) program.
Patents at Issue
Three U.S. utility patents covering vehicle automation and advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) were asserted in this case:
- • US12037004B2 (Application No. US18/222774)
- • US11738765B2 (Application No. US17/374656)
- • US11597402B2 (Application No. US17/719541)
These patents, traceable through USPTO records, relate to vehicle control and automation technology within the ADAS domain — the core functional layer of Tesla’s FSD (Supervised) system.
Accused Products
Granite specifically accused Tesla’s FSD (Supervised) program and all Tesla vehicles compatible with it, including the Model 3, Model S, Model X, Model Y, and Cybertruck — effectively targeting Tesla’s entire consumer vehicle portfolio and one of its highest-value software features.
Developing ADAS features?
Check if your autonomous driving technology might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case was transferred to the Northern District of California on February 13, 2026, by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case did not reach a merits verdict at the Eastern District level. No damages were awarded and no injunctive relief was issued at this stage. The transfer constitutes a termination of proceedings in E.D. Texas, with litigation expected to continue in N.D. California under a new docket.
Legal Significance
This case reinforces a continuing pattern: E.D. Texas is not an unassailable venue for NPE patent plaintiffs targeting large technology or automotive defendants, particularly following *In re Google LLC* and *In re Apple* decisions tightening § 1404(a) analysis. The transfer also signals that autonomous vehicle patent claims — even when broadly asserted against an entire product lineup — will face rigorous venue scrutiny when the defendant’s principal place of business and key evidence are concentrated in another district.
The three patents-in-suit, covering vehicle automation functionality, remain live for adjudication in N.D. California, meaning the substantive infringement and validity questions — including potential challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness) and § 112 (enablement) — are yet to be resolved.
Drafting autonomous driving patents?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in autonomous driving technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related autonomous driving patents
- See which companies are most active in ADAS patents
- Understand venue transfer precedents
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
FSD & ADAS features in vehicles
3 Patents Asserted
In vehicle automation technology
Venue Transfer Precedent
Impacts NPE strategy
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Venue transfer from E.D. Texas remains a viable defense strategy for technology defendants in ADAS/FSD patent cases.
Search related case law →NPE assertions targeting entire vehicle product lines may provoke stronger, multifaceted defense responses.
Explore litigation strategies →For R&D Teams
FSD and ADAS features are high-assertion-risk technology zones; conduct FTO analysis with NPE portfolios in mind.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Monitor US12037004B2, US11738765B2, and US11597402B2 for N.D. California claim construction developments.
Track these patents →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.