Relink US v. Tesla: Energy Storage Patent Dispute Transferred After 581 Days

Introduction

A patent infringement dispute targeting one of the most recognizable consumer energy products on the market — Tesla’s Powerwall — concluded procedurally on April 16, 2025, when Case No. 1:23-cv-01093 was transferred after 581 days of litigation in the Western District of Texas. Relink US, LLC filed suit against Tesla, Inc. in September 2023, asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2 against Tesla’s home backup systems, inverters, Powerwall (formerly Powerwall 2), and Powerwall+ systems.

While the case closed without a merits-based verdict at this stage, its procedural arc — from a high-profile Texas venue filing to counsel withdrawals and ultimate transfer — offers instructive signals for patent practitioners, in-house IP counsel, and R&D professionals operating in the rapidly expanding home energy storage sector. For any team developing or deploying inverter-based battery storage systems, this energy storage patent infringement case warrants close attention.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

The asserted patent, **U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2** (Application No. 14/811,644), covers technology in the home energy storage and power conversion domain. In plain terms, the patent addresses architectures relevant to backup power systems that integrate inverter functionality — precisely the technical design employed in residential energy storage products like the Powerwall. The ‘755 patent represents a meaningful asset in the inverter and home backup power space, where incremental design distinctions carry substantial commercial weight.

• • US 9,793,755 B2 — Technology in home energy storage and power conversion domain

The Accused Products

Relink US targeted four product categories: **home backup systems, inverters, the Powerwall (formerly Powerwall 2), and Powerwall+ systems**. The Powerwall line is commercially significant — Tesla has shipped hundreds of thousands of units globally, making the royalty exposure in a successful infringement action potentially substantial.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Relink US was represented by attorneys B. Russell Horton, Benjamin Brownlow, Jerry D. Tice II, Marc Belloli, and Margaret Elizabeth Day, from firms **Bunsow De Mory LLP**, **George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton LLP**, and **Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP** — a coalition with established patent litigation experience.

Defendant Tesla retained **Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP** and **Nixon Peabody LLP**, fielding a defense team of eight attorneys including Michael J. Lyons, Brent A. Hawkins, Terry W. Ahearn, Susan Kendall Stradley, Nicholas A. Restauri, and others.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Filed: September 13, 2023
Closed: April 16, 2025
Duration: 581 days
Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Presiding Judge: Chief Judge David Alan Ezra

The Western District of Texas has remained a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs following the Supreme Court’s *TC Heartland* decision, particularly for cases involving defendants with substantial operations or registered agents in the state. Tesla’s Austin headquarters made venue in the Western District strategically logical for Relink US.

Chief Judge David Alan Ezra, a senior federal jurist with decades of federal bench experience, presided over the matter. A notable procedural development occurred when Tesla filed unopposed motions for withdrawal of counsel (Dkts. 72, 73, 74), resulting in the court-ordered withdrawal of Alex Hanna, Elizabeth M. Chiaviello, and James J. Kritsas from the defense team — a shift in legal strategy that preceded the case’s ultimate transfer. The case closed after 581 days at the first-instance district court level, with the basis of termination recorded as **case transferred**.

📌 Suggested Visual: Litigation timeline infographic spanning September 2023 through April 2025, highlighting filing date, counsel withdrawal order, and transfer/closure date.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

This case did not reach a merits-based verdict on infringement or validity. The matter was transferred before trial, and the docket closed on April 16, 2025. No damages award, royalty determination, or injunctive relief was issued by the Western District of Texas. The specific transferee court and reasons for transfer are not disclosed in the available record.

Procedural Analysis: The Counsel Withdrawal Signal

The most substantive docket activity reflected in the available record is Tesla’s filing of three separate unopposed motions for withdrawal of counsel (Dkts. 72, 73, 74), which the court granted. The departure of three attorneys — Hanna, Chiaviello, and Kritsas — from a defense team in the midst of active litigation is a notable strategic indicator.

Unopposed withdrawals of this nature can reflect case strategy realignment, consolidation of defense resources, or preparation for transfer to a new venue where different counsel will take primary responsibility. For practitioners, monitoring counsel composition shifts mid-litigation often provides early intelligence about a case’s procedural trajectory.

Legal Significance of the Transfer

Patent cases transferred at the district court level — particularly out of the Western District of Texas — can reflect successful venue challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), evolving docket conditions, or negotiated case management agreements between parties. The transfer designation as the basis of termination means the litigation over U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2 is likely ongoing in another jurisdiction. Practitioners should monitor for continuation of this dispute, as the underlying infringement claims remain unresolved.

The ‘755 patent’s claims, if construed broadly by a subsequent court, could implicate a wide range of home energy storage system architectures beyond Tesla’s specific implementation.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders and Assertion Entities:
– Venue selection in the Western District of Texas remains viable for patent plaintiffs but anticipate transfer motions, particularly post-*In re: Apple* Federal Circuit guidance pressuring WDTX docket management.
– Multi-firm plaintiff coalitions (as deployed here) provide litigation bandwidth but require coordination to avoid inconsistent claim positions.

For Accused Infringers:
– Early and aggressive venue transfer motions under § 1404(a) remain among the most effective procedural defenses in Texas patent litigation.
– Streamlining defense counsel mid-case, as Tesla did here, can signal efficient resource allocation aligned with a forthcoming venue change.

For R&D and Product Teams:
– U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2 remains an active enforcement asset. Engineering teams developing residential battery storage or inverter-integrated backup systems should include this patent in Freedom to Operate (FTO) analyses.
– Design-around analysis should focus on the specific inverter control and home backup power claim elements of the ‘755 patent.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The home energy storage market is experiencing unprecedented growth, driven by residential solar adoption, grid resilience concerns, and EV integration. Tesla’s Powerwall occupies a dominant commercial position in this space, making it a recurring target for patent assertion activity.

This case reflects a broader pattern: as energy storage technology matures, the patent thicket surrounding inverter design, battery management, and home backup architectures is densifying. Patent assertion entities are increasingly active in this sector, with the ‘755 patent representing one node in a growing web of energy storage IP.

For competitors and new entrants in the residential storage market — including companies developing competing inverter systems or integrated solar-plus-storage platforms — the continued assertion of patents like the ‘755 patent underscores the importance of proactive IP portfolio development, defensive publication strategies, and robust FTO clearance workflows.

Licensing dynamics in this space are also evolving. The absence of a public settlement amount and the case’s transfer (rather than resolution) suggests the parties have not yet reached commercial agreement, leaving royalty exposure open.

📌 Suggested Visual: Patent diagram from U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2 (Figure 1 or system architecture figure) to illustrate the claimed invention in context.

FAQ

What patent was asserted in Relink US v. Tesla?

Relink US asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2 (Application No. 14/811,644), covering technology applicable to home backup power systems and inverter architectures.

Why was the case closed without a verdict?

The case was terminated due to a court transfer, meaning the Western District of Texas no longer retains jurisdiction. The underlying patent dispute may be continuing in another forum.

How does this case affect energy storage patent litigation?

It signals active enforcement of home backup and inverter patents against major commercial products, reinforcing the need for robust FTO analyses by companies in the residential energy storage sector.

Explore related energy storage patent litigation cases or search U.S. Patent No. 9,793,755 B2 on the USPTO Patent Center. Track case developments via PACER (Case No. 1:23-cv-01093).

Stay ahead of patent litigation trends in energy storage and power electronics. Subscribe to our IP litigation intelligence briefings or contact our team for a tailored case analysis and Freedom to Operate assessment for your product portfolio.

• → Explore related cases in energy storage and inverter patent litigation
• → Contact our IP team for strategic case analysis
• → Subscribe for weekly patent litigation updates